Official Report: Monday 16 November 2020

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

Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the twenty-third meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in environment sectoral format, which was held in Armagh and by videoconference on Wednesday, 21 October 2020. The statement has been agreed with junior Minister Kearney.

Junior Minister Kearney and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive at the meeting. I chaired the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Eamon Ryan TD, Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, and Darragh O'Brien TD, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

The Council noted the work that is being carried out to prepare for the end of the transition period and the need for continued cooperation on environmental matters, including those of a cross-border nature. Ministers agreed to continue to cooperate on environmental issues in coming months. They recognise that it is in the common interest of both jurisdictions to work together to minimise disruption to trade and economic activity on the island.

Ministers welcomed the continuing cooperation on, and draw down for, the main sources of EU funding in the environment sector — INTERREG Va, LIFE and Horizon 2020 — including successful delivery of Northern Ireland and Ireland partnership projects and ongoing collaboration through joint meetings, training and information events. We noted that, under the INTERREG Va environment objective, nine cross-border projects were awarded funding totalling €89 million in the 2014-2020 programme period, and collaboration is ongoing to maximise draw down of the available EU moneys and to continue to implement the programmes as agreed.

Ministers noted the commitment to funding INTERREG Va after the UK withdraws from the EU, allowing the projects to be continued until their conclusion in 2023, and that, under Horizon 2020 societal challenge 5, two North/South collaborations on low temperature anaerobic digestion treatment of low-strength waste waters and photo-irradiation and absorption-based novel innovations for waste treatment were successful and contributed to the drawdown figures, with €2·5 million being shared by five organisations in Ireland and €0·55 million shared between two organisations in Northern Ireland.

The Council noted that benefits for joint environmental priorities from a small number of LIFE projects have been achieved through ongoing collaboration between Departments, agencies and partnerships operating in both jurisdictions. Ministers also noted the potential to build on the success of the INTERREG projects through access to the new PEACE PLUS programme 2021-27 and its environment policy objective of achieving a greener, low-carbon Europe.

Ministers noted the ongoing collaboration between officials in both jurisdictions and submission of joint position papers focusing on a range of holistic clean air, water catchment and nature based solutions to address future pressures from climate change, support sustainable economic recovery and protect the environment to inform emerging PEACE PLUS themes.

The NSMC noted that the work programme will be kept under review at future NSMC environment sector meetings, having regard to particular matters arising from the outcome of the UK referendum on EU membership. Ministers agreed that, within the work programme, consideration should continue to be given to opportunities for cooperation on wider environmental issues, such as sustainable development; encouraging cooperation and knowledge sharing in relation to the environmental impact of agricultural activities and related issues; cooperation and exchange of information on marine, bathing and shellfish waters; cooperation and collaboration on water and urban waste water services areas, including implementation of EU measures; the promotion of a circular economy; a joint programme of enforcement and collaboration on tackling environmental crime; and cooperation with a view to maximising draw down of EU funding. We also agreed the proposed updated work programme.

The NSMC noted that both Environment Ministers are continuing to work together to target resources into joint enforcement action against those involved in illegal waste activity, including the continued exchange of intelligence and information on problem areas and the continuation of coordinated joint inspections.

Ministers noted the efforts of both Administrations to increase the quantity and quality of recycling, including the publication, on 4 September 2020, of Ireland's national waste policy 2020-25, 'A Waste Action Plan for a Circular Economy', the publication of the new Northern Ireland waste prevention programme, 'Stopping Waste in its Tracks', and the associated actions and successes.

We also noted the ongoing work in Northern Ireland to tackle plastic pollution, the success of the extended producer responsibility schemes in Ireland and the opportunities for both Administrations to share examples of good practice in this area.

The NSMC welcomed the work being undertaken in both jurisdictions to further a clean air strategy and the collaboration between officials working together to identify cross-border research opportunities and develop proposals.

Ministers noted the publication of the second-cycle river basin management plan for Ireland in 2018 and welcomed the ongoing preparation of the third-cycle river basin management plans in Ireland and Northern Ireland. We noted that the public consultation on significant water management issues closed in Northern Ireland on 22 June 2020 and, in Ireland, on 7 August 2020. We acknowledged the continued support for the Rivers Trust in cross-border areas, and we welcomed the level of beach awards in both jurisdictions for 2020 and the continued coordination on the Clean Coasts and Coast Care schemes.

Ministers acknowledged the engagement of both Administrations in the work of the advisory group for Ireland’s marine protected areas, the final report of which is expected shortly, and noted the continuing engagement between the Department for Infrastructure, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Irish Water and Northern Ireland Water on exploring opportunities for cooperation, including applications to access funding under the EU’s new PEACE PLUS programme.

The Council agreed to hold the next environment meeting in early 2021. Ministers agreed the joint communiqué.

Mr Irwin: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the Republic of Ireland moves to repatriate illegal waste from the Republic of Ireland that has been dumped in Northern Ireland?

Mr Poots: Eamon Ryan was the Environment Minister back in 2009 when I was also Minister. An agreement was drawn up then whereby waste that was illegally tipped on 20 sites in Northern Ireland, emanating from the Republic of Ireland, would be repatriated. It is my understanding that around only half of those sites have been cleared. That leaves around 100,000 cubic tons of illegally tipped waste in Northern Ireland on sites that have not been secured. Consequently, I have raised the issue again and asked why it has not happened. The reason given is that they have capacity issues in taking the waste. However, I do not find that acceptable. I will continue to work to ensure that that work, which has been let go by the by in spite of an agreement, is taken up again and that the material on those waste sites is removed and taken back to the Republic of Ireland.

Mr McHugh: I note the Minister's commitment to cooperation on environmental matters. I am sure he is aware of the recent news of a major bog slippage in the Tyrone/Donegal border at the Meenbog wind farm. That has impacted on the Mourne Beg river — a major tributary to the Derg river, which is a renowned salmon watercourse. What work will the Minister do to ensure that we have the cooperation of the authorities on both sides of the border to minimise the impact of that bog slippage on fauna, flora and the fish stocks of the Mourne Beg river?

Mr Poots: The Loughs Agency, which is a cross-border body, has been engaging in investigations since that slippage occurred, as has the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). I watched a video of the slippage: it was astonishing to see the amount of material moving slowly but inexorably. Donegal County Council has organised a meeting for today. My officials will be in attendance, as it is an issue that has a material impact on both sides of the border. It is clear that the rivers have been affected by large amounts of peaty soils coming into them. At this stage, oxygen levels in the rivers are still high, which is good, but fish gills can become contaminated with high levels of peat, and they can die from that. Small levels of fish kill have been identified at this stage, but that does not mean that that will be the case. Given the amount of peat and so forth in the water and the high levels of water, it is not particularly easy to identify the issues, but all of those things will be investigated in due course. We will continue to work with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland on that matter.

Mr McGlone: In the Minister's statement, heavy emphasis is placed on the exchange of and cooperation on information on marine bathing waters, rivers and the like. What cooperation has there been on the strain of COVID that has been identified in mink in Denmark. As we know, mink inhabit our waterways and rivers. Has there been collaboration between both Departments?

Mr Poots: We suspect that the problem is less of an issue with wild mink because they do not come into contact with humans; in general, the problem is with farmed mink. There are three mink farms in the Irish Republic. There have not been any here since 2002 because the keeping of mink for fur was banned, but that practice has continued in Ireland. I believe that those three mink farms will be run down over the next year. It is a matter for the health authorities in the Republic of Ireland to keep a close eye on that circumstance.

I believe that there are 17 million mink in Denmark. The original plan was to have an immediate slaughter of them all, but I do not think that that is now the case. It is an issue of significant concern because a lot of effort and money has been expended on developing vaccines. We know that one is virtually ready to go and that another one will come very shortly afterwards. It would be of significant concern if a mutation of COVID happened through the mink and, consequently, those vaccines were not fit for purpose. Any country that has mink farms needs to act very responsibly in that regard at the moment. My preference is that mink farms would cease to exist.

Mrs Barton: Minister, thank you very much for your statement. What cooperation is there on cross-border fly-tipping, particularly from homes in border areas? Much waste from homes is dumped in Northern Ireland because there is an expense involved in having that waste collected from homes in the Republic.

Mr Poots: The Member puts her finger on a problem that emanates more from the Republic of Ireland than here. One of the benefits of our rating system is that people have their waste collected. The issue of fly-tipping arises but not to the same extent. It is for local authorities, in the first instance, to deal with fly-tipping. We have a level of cross-border cooperation on issues around waste in general, and we will press hard to ensure that as much information as possible flows to each side so that the people involved in the illegal tipping of waste are caught and prosecuted for their activities.

Mr Blair: I also thank the Minister for the statement and the detail therein, including the reassuring cooperation envisaged on marine waters, as well as the joint programme of enforcement and collaboration on environmental crime. In that regard, how will the proposed Office for Environmental Protection, which will have only one Northern Ireland representative, be able to play a part in intergovernmental arrangements that are already making progress here?

Mr Poots: The Office for Environmental Protection will deliver on the same standards that currently exist under the EU and are monitored by the European Commission. Therefore, the standards that exist in the Republic of Ireland will be the same standards as exist in the United Kingdom until the United Kingdom makes legislation that may produce different standards. Those standards could be higher or lower, but that is a matter to be debated by the UK Parliament or, indeed, the Assembly, should we wish to change them. At the moment, the standards will be the same, and the Office for Environmental Protection will have a role to ensure that the standards that have been set are implemented right across the United Kingdom after it leaves the European Union.

Mr Harvey: We are back to waste: what commitments have been made to ensure that greater enforcement measures are put in place to stop illegal waste practices?

Mr Poots: Clearly, there is a series of rules relating to waste, the tipping of waste and illegal management of waste. It is a matter for the courts to decide how they use the fine process that is available. There are substantial opportunities to fine individuals who are involved in the illegal management of waste. We all know that there is substantial money to be made in the illegal management of waste. Our Department has a "polluter pays" principle, so we will ensure that people who are caught dealing with illegal management of waste pay for all of the costs associated with disposing of it properly. There is a series of measures, but I accept that those measures may be made be stronger because people are still involved in this. So, whether it is through greater enforcement or whether it is through strengthening the fines that are imposed, we need to ensure that what is done is enough to put people off engaging in this activity.

Mr McGuigan: Given the recent discovery of two birds, a swan in Derry and a falcon in Limerick, with bird flu, what are the contingency plans in the Department here in the North in the event of an outbreak of bird flu? What is the level of cooperation across the island to monitor the situation?

Mr Poots: It is very concerning. There have been a couple of outbreaks in England. Obviously, there is the one in Limerick and the mute swan that was picked up in Lough Beg. That is a matter of significant concern to us, because the poultry industry in Northern Ireland is worth around £900 million. It employs directly 5,500 people, so it is an industry that is hugely important to us.

Every keeper of birds is supposed to register with DAERA — even if there are only two or three chickens scratching about in your back garden, they are supposed to be registered. DAERA has a website set up that identifies how best to manage biosecurity arrangements. DAERA has been escalating, through the veterinary section, its response. We are not at the point yet where birds should be closed up, but, nonetheless, we are pressing and impressing upon people the need to take all of the biosecurity steps that they should and we have been very clearly indicating what those biosecurity measures are. Fundamentally, the most important thing that a chicken farmer or any keeper of poultry can do at this minute is to manage their biosecurity particularly well. If we believe that we need to move to that next stage of closing up free range birds, we will recommend that step in the not-too-distant future, if that is required.

Mr M Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement. He referred to the implications of withdrawal from the EU and preparations for the end of the transition period, but what are the implications for Northern Ireland if there are no preparations ready to hit the ground running come the end of the transition period?

Mr Poots: I assure the Member that there has been a lot of preparation. Sometimes, it is a little difficult to prepare for something when you do not know what you are preparing for, so the conclusion of the negotiation is absolutely critical. I believe that the aim is that that will take place this week, but there are still outstanding issues, particularly on state aid and on fisheries. Those are the two issues that seem to preventing a trade deal at this stage.

For Northern Ireland, there are particular areas of concern that arise through the implementation of the protocol. First is seeds that are imported to Northern Ireland, mainly from Scotland. In fact, the issue is of seeds imported to all of Ireland, mainly from Scotland. That is around 90% of seed used. That importation is currently a problem as a result of the protocol.

There is another group called PMR. That relates to minced beef and processed meats and accounts for up to 30,000 tons of meat imported into Northern Ireland every year. As things stand, that would stop immediately on 1 January, so it is not even a matter of having an export health certificate — you just do not import it, full stop. So, for example, there would be no lasagnes in Iceland. In fact, many of the products that you get in our shops would no longer be available and the shelves would be empty. That is purely a matter for the European Union.

I will add further that the importation of red meat amounts to around one quarter of a billion pounds per year. Indeed, a considerable amount of chicken — white meat — is imported to Northern Ireland, processed in Northern Ireland and, in the main, goes back to GB. There are issues around that. Those issues really need to be sorted this week, and we need to get solutions.

It has to be stressed that it is not about damaging the single market or reducing the quality of things in the single market, but it will be hugely detrimental and have serious implications for Northern Ireland, both at a consumer and a business level, if we cannot get those issues resolved. The Executive are aware of the issues, and they have mandated me to write on their behalf to the European Union to impress the need to get those matters resolved to everybody's satisfaction.

Mr McAleer (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): In paragraph 9 of the Minister's statement, he refers to the importance of clean air. Will he update us on whether any progress has been made on developing a clean air strategy discussion document for here and, indeed, on a cross-border basis?

Mr Poots: We discussed clean air and where cooperation could take place. We intend to bring to the Assembly this year the clean air discussion document that we are working on. It will go out to the public so that we can have a consultation process on clean air, which is a very important matter, particularly for those who live in cities.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for his statement. It refers to greater cross-border work on increasing water quality. In that regard, such collaboration will be absolutely essential in investigating and mitigating the environmental damage caused by the peat landslide that the Minister referred to at Meenbog, which has caused contamination of the Mourne Beg river and the local waterways.

I visited yesterday with councillor Steven Edwards, and there is clear anxiety amongst my constituents in Killeter, Aghyaran, Castlederg and Ardstraw. Will the Minister outline what action his Department has taken to reassure the public in that area that his Department is doing everything possible to mitigate contamination of those waterways? Does he know the root cause of the slippage problem?

Mr Poots: On 13 November, at around 1.30 pm, NIEA was informed of a landslide at a peat bog adjacent to the Mourne Beg river in Donegal. NIEA contacted Northern Ireland Water and the Loughs Agency regarding the event. In response, Northern Ireland Water shut down its intake of raw water from the River Derg as a precaution. As the incident occurred on the southern side of the border, the investigation and initial response to the event was the responsibility of the Loughs Agency. It has been on site investigating the matter.

NIEA tasked a water quality inspector to assess the impact on the Mourne Beg and Derg rivers on Saturday morning. The initial assessment showed that the oxygen levels have not been suppressed but that the high levels of suspended solids were affecting aquatic life, including a fish farm business. Loughs Agency is working with the owners to mitigate the impact, including the deployment of aerators.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Minister for his statement. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some further detail on the LIFE projects referred to in paragraph 7.

Mr Poots: A number of the LIFE projects that we mentioned have taken place. They have been achieved through work done by Departments, agencies and their partnerships operating in both jurisdictions. The LIFE projects have environmental priorities. There are a small number of them. I will write to the Member to give him the detail of the projects so that he can get fully updated on them.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Minister for his statement. He will be well aware that ammonia emissions are a particular issue here not just in the North but across the island. There will be a debate on the issue later this afternoon. Work has been going on to inform an ammonia strategy. When can we expect publication of the draft strategy?

Mr Poots: It is at the latter stages of preparation and will be produced before the end of this year. Ammonia is an area of significant concern for us. We know that most ammonia is produced on farms. A course of actions therefore needs to be taken to reduce ammonia levels as we continue to increase our agricultural output. It is important that we support the industry to increase its output but that that be done in a way that is less harmful to the environment. One of the things that we want to do is to ensure that, over the next number of years, ammonia outputs on farms are reduced, and there are ways and means of doing that. One of those means is through low-emission spreading equipment. We recently launched a grant that will support a number of things, but the priorities are that people will get additional points for having such equipment, for covering tanks, for better separation of slurry and for slurry scraping. We are already working on a series of measures that will help reduce ammonia emissions. If I get more funding, there is the opportunity to make a much more significant reduction in ammonia emissions, so that is an area of work that we will continue to impress on the industry.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, can you provide an update on the joint programme of cross-border collaboration and enforcement to tackle environmental crime?

Mr Poots: At our meeting, Ministers agreed to continued cooperation in five key areas of mutual benefit and future development potential: environmental research and reporting; environmental protection and sustainable development; water and waste water management; waste management in a cross-border context; and EU funding. In all those areas, we are encouraging sustainable development; cooperation sharing; cooperation and exchange of information on marine issues; cooperation and collaboration on water and waste water service areas; the promotion of a circular economy; a joint programme of enforcement and collaboration on tackling environmental crime; and cooperation with a view to maximising drawdown of EU funding. Environmental crime is therefore very much a key area within those areas of cooperation.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, thank you for your statement. It contains an update on EU funding, including existing INTERREG funding and, looking ahead, Horizon 2020 funding. What it does not mention, however — it would be good to get your thoughts on this, Minister — is the European green deal, which is an enormous, multi-year plan of investment by the European Union to transition to a lower-carbon economy. Given that, for example, large parts of Northern Ireland's energy generation sector will remain in the EU emissions scheme and given some of the potential benefits from the protocol, notwithstanding the issues that he described earlier, can the Minister ask his officials to work with officials on the other side of the border on looking at potential benefits for Northern Ireland projects from what could be a £20 billion-plus Just Transition Fund (JTF) for green transition. That is something from which we might be able to benefit. I ask the Minister really to look at the European green deal and figure out how Northern Ireland could benefit from it.

Mr Poots: Some funding continues, despite the fact that the UK has left the European Union, and it will certainly go on until 2023, as set out in the statement.

The ETS is a scheme into which we pay very heavily, at close to £60 million a year. A new scheme will be set up for the UK, but, under that, only around 18% of our payments will go to the UK scheme, with 82% going to the EU. Over the years we have never drawn down any money from the ETS because of its three project per country rule. Given that the UK is quite a large country, ETS has not benefited Northern Ireland.

We are asking whether Northern Ireland will have the status of being a country in this instance because Northern Ireland remains part of the ETS outside of the UK. That would allow us to bid for three schemes per year, and that would be hugely progressive. However, thus far, we have not had the benefits from the emissions trading scheme that I would like to have seen. Northern Ireland has many wonderful opportunities in hydrogen and in how we can better manage and capture carbon and so forth. It would be good if the EU allowed Northern Ireland the status of being its own country and consequently we were able to draw money from the scheme.

Mr Lynch: I thank the Minister for his statement. What assurances can he offer to the many organisations who have contacted me and other MLAs regarding the replacement of lost EU funding as we come to the end of the transition period?

Mr Poots: There has been a rollover of funding by the UK Government. Therefore, the funding that is currently in place for the environmental sector continues to be in place as we go forward.

Ms Bailey: Thank you to the Minister for the statements and for bringing them forward in a timely manner. That was much appreciated.

Members have asked about enforcement, but I want to go further, Minister. What discussion has there been around how we deal post transition with trans-boundary environmental breaches under existing EU directives? Ammonia, for example, was brought up, but it is certainly not the only issue. We know that we are not meeting our EU directive targets for ammonia. That is not the farmers' fault; it is certainly not the chickens' fault. It is the result of polices. How will we meet those targets post transition across the island?

Mr Poots: There is a series of issues in and around the environment. The UK Government have set out their policy of being carbon-neutral by 2050. That sets significant challenges. You will not achieve carbon neutrality without significant investment, and that is just a reality. People need to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to the environment. One of the things that I will raise at Executive level is how all our Departments will pull together to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and what investment is required to achieve that. For example, agriculture, energy and transport account for around 70% of emissions. Consequently, we need significant investment in those areas. Energy has demonstrated that there has been significant reductions in its carbon. We are looking at about 40% to 45% of our energy coming from renewable sources now. However, some of that energy is not appropriately captured, so we need to ensure that we have the capacity to capture all the energy produced.

COVID-19 has demonstrated that people do not need to travel as much. Those of us who were on the roads this morning will have noticed the considerable reduction in the number of vehicles on the roads, and, driving past them, you will have noticed the substantial reduction in the number of vehicles in our government car parks. There are opportunities to do more work from home. We can also use electric cars, as well as cars that are more fuel-efficient. My only caveat with electric cars is how they and the materials involved in their production are used at the end of life, so that there is no other kind of environmental damage done as a consequence of that. However, there are opportunities in transport.

Agriculture is a huge issue, particularly for Northern Ireland, as it produces more than 10% of the food produced in the entire United Kingdom. How do we manage that in a way that reduces emissions? We spoke about ammonia. I want to look at issues around nitrogen and phosphates and how we can better manage the materials and nutrients excreted so that they can be used for something other than slurry that is applied to land. That will involve investment. There is a series of things.

I am happy to cooperate with people in similar areas to ourselves, be that in other parts of the United Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland, because, ultimately, all of us have similar problems, and so our responses will be similar. The research that will allow us to take the appropriate steps in environmental management is research that I am happy to support, and I am happy to cooperate with colleagues in the Republic of Ireland, Scotland, England or Wales to identify solutions that we can all apply in delivering a better environmental outcome.

Mr Allister: Can I take the Minister back to the INTERREG Va programme? Now that we have left the EU, would the Minister remind the House of the funding formula for INTERREG Va? Would he also remind the House of the match funding aspect, with an indication of what it will cost the public purse in Northern Ireland?

Mr Poots: I do not have the match funding figures required under INTERREG Va to hand. However, we have been able to fund about €89 million worth of projects over the past six years, and we will continue to be able to access EU money. Significant amounts of money have been spent directly into Northern Ireland, some on cross-border projects. We have been net receivers, as opposed to givers, of that income, and I regard that as positive. We will continue to work to secure as much of that funding as possible for the environmental benefit.

Mr Carroll: In relation to environmental protection, can I ask whether Ministers discussed measures to keep fossil fuels in the ground? My party colleague, Bríd Smith TD, brought a proposal to take such measures in the South, but it was guillotined by a previous Government. Was there any discussion about legislation or policies and proposals to ensure that fossil fuels are kept in the ground?

Mr Poots: No such discussion took place. Of course, keeping fossil fuels in the ground may be appropriate when you have fully identified alternatives to fossil fuels. Sometimes I wonder at people objecting to extracting fossil fuels closer to home when we import fossil fuels from regions that are deeply unstable and use the money that they gain from fossil fuels to engage in wars, whether they be cyberwars or wars involving traditional weapons.

Not utilising fossil fuels closer to home is not necessarily something that is good for the environment, but it can be very good for people who do not care about the environment and human rights, and that is something that is of concern to all of us.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment or two, please.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make another statement.

Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make a statement regarding the thirteenth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the aquaculture and marine sector. This was held on Wednesday 21 October. Due to the current COVID restrictions, the meeting was conducted via videoconference. The Executive were represented by Minister Nichola Mallon, as accompanying Minister, and me. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Eamon Ryan TD, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, who chaired the meeting. The statement has been agree with Minister Mallon, and I make it on behalf of us both.

Ministers welcomed the report on the activities of the Loughs Agency, including the ongoing conservation and protection efforts, and noted in particular the Loughs Agency's response to COVID-19; the Loughs Agency's strategic direction for a new decade 2020-2030; the collaborative work and delivery of a number of conversation, angling and marine tourism projects; and the success of the Foyle and Carlingford ambassador programme. The Council also welcomed the Loughs Agency's continued investment in a scientific fisheries monitoring programme.

The Council agreed that the Loughs Agency, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications will continue to work together to consider the impact of the UK's withdrawal from the EU. Ministers agreed that the matter will be kept under review at future NSMC meetings in the sector.

The Council approved the Loughs Agency's business plans and budget grants for 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020 and the Loughs Agency's corporate plans for 2017-19 and 2020-22, which have been completed in accordance with the agreed guidance issued by the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and agreed by sponsor Departments and Finance Ministers. The plans could not be formally improved in the previous absence of the NSMC.

The Council noted the Loughs Agency's annual reports and accounts for 2016, 2017 and 2018, which have been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Council approved the continuation for a period of one year with effect from 21 October 2020 of the framework designed to support the Loughs Agency in dealing with emergencies, such as a serious pollution incident. Ministers agreed to review the operation of the procedure, including its possible renewal based on a report from the Loughs Agency and the sponsor Departments before 20 October 2021.

The Council noted that the Loughs Agency, with the support of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, is undertaking a competitive recruitment process for the post of the chief executive of the agency. In that regard, the Council noted that the sponsor Departments are shortly to seek approval from their finance Departments for the recruitment process and the terms and conditions of the post. The Council also noted that the recruitment process will be managed by the South's Public Appointments Service, as agreed with the sponsor Departments. Finally, the Council agreed to hold its next aquaculture and marine meeting in 2021.

Mr McAleer (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for his statement. In his statement, the Minister referred to Lough Foyle and made references to the Loughs Agency. The Minister will be aware that the ongoing dispute over the ownership of Lough Foyle is impeding the full remit of the Loughs Agency's work. Does he have any update on how best to deal with that dispute?

Mr Poots: Issues arise about Lough Foyle that cause us problems. The long-running jurisdictional issue about Lough Foyle is a reserved matter and is not within the competence of my Department or the Assembly and can be resolved only through the agreement of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in London and the Department of Foreign Affairs in the Republic of Ireland. The lack of resolution of the jurisdictional issue has, however, created practical difficulties, as the Member indicated, in creating a system for the licensing of aquaculture in Lough Foyle, and, consequently, there is significant unregulated aquaculture activity. Currently, the Loughs Agency has no authority to intervene in its expansion.

I have raised my concerns about the unregulated activity with the Northern Ireland Secretary of State and asked for an update on progress made by both Governments to resolve the current difficulties. The Minister of State for Northern Ireland has advised me that the UK Government recognise the need to take action to address the illegal activity and that they remain committed to working closely with the Irish Government on improvements to the management of the loughs. The UK Government are optimistic that progress can be made by both Governments on a management agreement for Lough Foyle, which would enable authorities to exercise criminal and regulatory jurisdiction of the bed of the lough. I very much support the efforts of both Governments to progress an agreement that will enable a licensing regime for Lough Foyle until such time as the jurisdictional issue is resolved.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Minister. My question probably relates to the previous one. What steps are being taken to ensure that illegal oyster trestles are stopped in Lough Foyle, given the impact that that unregulated practice will have on the environment?

Mr Poots: The Loughs Agency estimates that there are 70,000 oyster trestles, which are particularly on the Donegal side of the lough. That unregulated oyster farming is inextricably linked to the jurisdictional issue that I have just dealt with and which is a reserved matter that is not within our competence. The unregulated activity, however, creates hazards and risks, including the potential threat of the introduction of non-native species and a threat to the environment generally. Currently, the Loughs Agency does not have the authority to intervene.

In our jurisdiction, a lot of the trestles had been set up on land owned by the Crown Estate, and we were able to have a large proportion of those trestles removed. Unfortunately, individuals have moved to the Donegal side and set up trestles, and there is a considerable issue at that side of the lough. There is a clear understanding that, in the area within Northern Ireland in which we have been able to take some degree of enforcement action, the robust approach prevented the spread of illegal aquaculture development on the Northern Ireland side. We encourage it very strongly that the authorities in the Republic of Ireland find a means of taking action against the individuals who are setting up the illegal trestles.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is very welcome. In towns such as Dundrum in South Down, we see native crayfish stocks that are among the finest in Ireland, but now they are becoming depleted. How does the North/South council intend to re-establish a cross-border technical aquaculture advisory service for the whole of the North and not just the cross-border loughs?

Mr Poots: The issue that the Member raises is one that is directly for us in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), and, therefore, we will be happy to deal with it. If the Member wants to write to me, we will certainly correspond with him on how best we can conserve the various species that are in Dundrum Bay, which is a very important and sensitive environmental area indeed.

Mrs Barton: How big a problem for the Loughs Agency is illegal fishing such as poaching, particularly in the Foyle area? How many people have been prosecuted for illegal fishing in that area?

Mr Poots: Salmon poaching is one of the big issues. Illegal fishing activity and water pollution remain a concern. The Loughs Agency has seized a significant quantity of illegal fishing material. Seizures by Loughs Agency staff have fallen, when compared with the 2019 figures. In 2019, there were 303 seizures of items such as boats, nets, rods and fish, compared with 165 seizures to date in 2020. The breakdown is as follows: two seizures of boats and cars in 2019 and seven in 2020; 31 seizures of nets in 2019 and 30 in 2020; eight seizures of other items in 2019 and four in 2020; 47 seizures of rods in 2019 and 54 in 2020; and 215 seizures of fish in 2019 and 70 in 2020. That gives a total of 303 seizures in 2019 and 165 up to 16 October 2020.

The agency has instigated a significant number of prosecution cases stemming from those enforcement actions. The agency has also collaborated with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, an Garda Síochána and other enforcement agencies to secure convictions.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for his statement. We are, more than ever, in a time when we need workable solutions to complex jurisdictional issues. I note that there are frameworks in place to deal with emergencies, and we have been reminded in recent days of the importance of that.

On a different theme, has there been a refreshed or renewed effort to promote the tourism product on this island by, for example, examining interchangeable or transferable angling licences to assist in the post-COVID recovery?

Mr Poots: We all recognise that angling has traditionally been a huge tourist draw to this jurisdiction, and we warmly welcome that. We will continue to cooperate with tourism authorities to promote that. We are also happy to cooperate with others on licensing to ensure that visitors who come to Ireland, North or South, have as good an opportunity as possible to enjoy the angling that is available and that there is as little bureaucracy — let us put it that way — as possible for the individuals who are doing it. That just makes sense.

Mr Irwin: The Minister stated:

Does the aquaculture and marine sector have any particular concerns about leaving the EU?

Mr Poots: The aquaculture sector is less concerned than perhaps the sea fishing sector. Most of its material will not have issues around the import of goods from GB, and, consequently, it will, whatever opportunities there are to sell its product, be able to sell that in both GB and, indeed, the single market. The issues, therefore, are of less concern to the aquaculture sector than, for example, the deep-sea fishing sector, for which there are still issues outstanding, because fish caught in UK waters outside the Northern Ireland zone would be regarded as imports to the European Union single market and would, consequently, have to go through a series of hoops. Those issues are still to be resolved in the negotiations, and one hopes that they are resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Mr McGuigan: Will the Minister give us an update on the readiness of ports in the North for the end of the Brexit transition period and what will happen if they are not fully ready by that date?

Mr Poots: I am not sure how it relates to the topic, but temporary facilities will be available from 15 December and will be in place. That is the action that has been taken. Permanent facilities will not be available until, probably, the middle of next year, but the procurement procedures have started, the companies have been awarded the contracts and certificates of lawful use or development (CLUDs) are now available for three of the four sites. Work will probably commence on those in the not-too-distant future, but temporary measures will be put in place to ensure that food enters Northern Ireland irrespective of the protocol.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Minister for his statement. What assurances can he give that the Loughs Agency will continue to receive EU funding post Brexit?

Mr Poots: Loughs Agency will continue to apply for funding from whatever sources, the key ones being us and the Irish Government. There will be opportunities to apply for EU funding for particular projects, and it is likely that we will continue to draw down that funding.

Loughs Agency has been involved in a series of projects. For example, under INTERREG Va, there was a sea monitor project that delivered €4·6 million. It is a unique marine research project, studying the seas around the island of Ireland and western Scotland, using innovative tracking technology to better understand and protect vulnerable marine life. The agency is also a project partner in other EU projects: the shared waters enhancement and loughs legacy (SWELL) project, which is a €35 million project, and Catchment Care, which is a €13·7 million project.

The agency is projected to bring in around £700,000 in INTERREG funding in 2020 out of its total budget of £5·475 million. We have been reassured by the assurances from the two Governments and the European Union of continued funding of INTERREG Va, allowing those projects to reach their conclusion in 2023, and the development of a new PEACE PLUS programme from 2021-27. They will focus on a range of nature-based solutions and other initiatives to support environmental protection, sustainable economic activity and climate action.

Mr McGlone: In relation to the expansions at points of entry, can the Minister advise whether there has been any consultation with the Loughs Agency around any potential impact, whether environmental or other?

Mr Poots: I am not sure; there may well have been. There should not be an impact because the goods that are being brought in are the goods that have been brought in for many years. The impact will be on the end-user, the consumer, with potential additional cost. That is something that we need to remove and something that the European Union needs to take account of, for example, when insisting on export health certificates for food that will end up on shelves in shops in Northern Ireland. Those goods will do no violence whatever to the single market, so why does the European Union want to produce additional costs, additional bureaucracy and an onerous burden on businesses that will inevitably be passed to consumers in Northern Ireland — some of the consumers with the lowest disposable income in the UK — as a consequence? It is important that we all continue to drive home the message to the European Union that, in the negotiations, it needs not to introduce things that will create additional burdens for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland, particularly things that will have zero impact on the credibility of the single market.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Minister for his statement. Does the decision to extend the Loughs Agency's framework for emergencies by one year only to allow for a review suggest that there are concerns that the current framework is not fit for purpose?

Mr Poots: I thank the Member for the question. Rather than say that it is not fit for purpose, we always need to review how we engage, and, where we can improve on the good practice that exists, we should carry out such improvements. The agency has responded quickly to, for example, the major pollution incident around Mourne Beg, which is critical. We need to get as good an outcome as possible to that, and the agency appears, thus far, to have responded well.

In all these things, it is always good to review what you have been doing and the practice, and, if you can improve, we always need to look at how we can do that.

Mr M Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement. Has there been a Loughs Agency response to salmon farming? Have discussions taken place to investigate possible pollution and disease through that activity and the impact that it may have on wild salmon during their migration to Northern Ireland rivers?

Mr Poots: Salmon farming is a concern for many jurisdictions. It is not as significant an activity here as in some other jurisdictions. Consequently, those concerns would not have come to the fore to the same extent.

Wild salmon is a wonderful resource that has been diminishing in Northern Ireland. We have never quite got to the bottom of the reason for that, so some of our high-quality salmon rivers do not have as many salmon as they once had. Therefore, it is important that we continue to identity how best we can ensure that that salmon stock is maintained and, ultimately, that we turn the tide and it increases.

Salmon draw tourists from far and wide. We have quality salmon fishing, so our focus needs to be on that source as opposed to salmon farms, which have a much more limited financial return and, environmentally, are much more challenging for us.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Minister for his statement. What is being done to ensure that fishermen from North and South will have access to all the island's waters post Brexit?

Mr Poots: Clearly, fishing rights and licensing are matters for both jurisdictions. Currently, licences are cheap in Northern Ireland, at around £20, so people who want to engage in the sport of fishing can do so for a relatively modest cost. We want to encourage people to get out into the countryside. Most fish are returned to the water by most anglers. They fish for the enjoyment of getting out to a river and into the open air and engaging in the activity that they enjoy.

Mr Boylan: I welcome the Minister's statement. Paragraph 3 mentions the Lough Agency's response to COVID-19. Can you detail the nature of that response and its impact?

Mr Poots: The agency is engaged in ongoing efforts, particularly to provide a safe environment for its employees and for stakeholders and members of the public, while continuing to deliver a valuable public service in difficult times. Fishery protection staff, who play an important role in protecting our shared natural resources, have returned to full operational duties since 18 May, and a full range of statutory scientific surveys have recommenced. The Loughs Agency's goal is to offer a hybrid model of working that facilitates a blend of home and office working, with ongoing monitoring and adherence to public health guidance. The Riverwatch visitor centre remains closed. The delivery of capital projects has recommenced where possible, with all projects being kept under constant review.

Mr O'Toole: Has the Loughs Agency had an increase in funding to deal with the consequences of Brexit? If so, will the Minister give us the quantum? Were there conversations about the fate of our eel fisheries, particularly in Lough Neagh, whose main market would be decimated if there were not a comprehensive deal with the EU? What are the latest conversations that he has had with that sector?

Mr Poots: The Lough Neagh eel fishery was not mentioned in this context because they are not part of the agency's remit. It lies solely within this jurisdiction. That sits with all the arguments that I have made to the European Union and the UK Government negotiators about the well-being of our people who sell product to GB and the European Union. I do not believe that additional funding has been awarded to the Loughs Agency for Brexit issues.

Ms Bailey: I want to focus on issues of transboundary breaches of existing environmental laws, specifically with regard to aquaculture and marine breaches. In the statistics for Northern Ireland, 78% of our shellfish water bodies now fail water quality standards for E. coli. There has also been a decline —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): May we have a question, please?

Ms Bailey: — in freshwater birds by up to 42%. Minister, are those statistics collated island-wide so that we can know the full extent across the island and come up with strategies to deal with such transboundary issues?

Mr Poots: I thank the Member for her question. At the meeting, the agency reported on the number of pollution incidents over the past five years. A total of 210 incidents have been dealt with in 2020 to date, compared with a total of 252 in 2019. That should give the Member a feel for the number of incidents. I am concerned about the number of serious pollution incidents in our rivers. I believe that the Loughs Agency has a responsibility to work closely with the local community here and in the Republic of Ireland to reduce pollution and the inevitable fish kills in the Foyle and Carlingford catchment areas.

Mr Allister: Minister, correct if I am wrong, but is it the case that the Loughs Agency has been without a chair for over two and a half years and without a chief executive for over three and a half years? I see no reference to any of that in the statement. More than that, is there a problem in the agency with absentee board members? I refer to the fact that the minutes of the Loughs Agency suggest that Mr Ian McCrea, formerly of this parish, who receives something like £6,000 a year to be a member of the Loughs Agency board, has not bothered to attend a board meeting since October 2018. What action is being taken to deal with absentee board members?

Mr Poots: I thank the Member for his question. Maybe he was not listening when I made the statement, which is not like him:

There is a recruitment process for a chief executive. Clearly, there have been issues with there being no NSMC cover for the appointment of either a chair or a chief executive, but that is now under way.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That concludes questions to the Minister on his statement. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Second Stage of the Bill has been moved. In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the Bill.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be back in the Chamber after taking advice from the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) on the required period of self-isolation after my negative test for COVID-19. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Members of the House who were in contact with their good wishes over the last week.

The Bill that I move today is designed to help tackle some of the key challenges faced by our criminal justice system. The measures in the Bill will help tackle delay in the most serious cases that are heard in the Crown Court and will improve the experiences of victims and witnesses on their journey through the criminal justice system. The Bill, whilst relatively short, deals with the complex area of criminal law. Some aspects are very technical in nature. The clauses have been developed in consultation with the relevant criminal justice organisations to ensure that they provide a sound footing on which to implement the necessary reforms.

It is important to say at the outset that the principles of committal reform are not new. Powers to directly commit or transfer an accused person from the Magistrates' Court to the Crown Court in certain circumstances are included in the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. I will refer to it as "the 2015 Act" from here on. Reforms to the committal process were considered in detail during its passage through the Assembly. There have also been external reports and reviews recommending committal reform, and I would like to touch on some of those shortly.

Before getting into the detail of the Bill, I want to briefly explain what we mean by "committal". Committal proceedings were originally used to collect and record evidence ensuring that an accused was not sent for trial on indictment in the Crown Court unless there was sufficient legal evidence to justify doing so. However, as committal proceedings have developed, they have become a means for the defence to test the prosecution case pre-trial, often at the cost of additional stress to victims and witnesses. Indeed, Sir John Gillen's recent report on his review of sexual offences said:

Mr Allister: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will, yes.

Mr Allister: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the figures that she supplied in answer to an Assembly question indicate that, in the last three years for which figures are available, 95·5% of all cases went on committal without the calling of evidence, without a preliminary investigation (PI) and without any delay in that respect. Why does she tell us that this causes excessive delays and that the defence are testing the prosecution case? Perish the thought. Why does she tell us that it costs money, when, if, at preliminary investigation, a matter does not proceed to trial, it saves the cost of what would have been the resulting trial?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for his question. I am happy to deal with the issues that he raises as best I can. First, on the time that it takes for a preliminary inquiry or for a mixed committal, where oral evidence is given, on average it takes six and seven court hearings respectively, as opposed to two for a direct committal or a written evidence case. The number of court hearings is much greater than the number of cases to which they apply. The number is multiplied on that basis. Furthermore, the Audit Office — I do not wish to suggest that Mr Allister would not want to be acutely aware of what happens when it comes to the Audit Office — has said that committal reform is an urgent necessity in terms of cutting delay in the justice system. As I have set out even in the brief part of my speech to date, this is not just about delay; it is about the additional stress that it places on vulnerable victims and witnesses in cases where the victim may be retraumatised by the experience — for example, in cases of rape and other serious sexual assault — or where they may be subject to intimidation due to a link to paramilitary cases. That has been demonstrated in a number of cases.

The Member makes a good point, if, indeed, this is so important in terms of testing the evidence at an early stage. First, the evidence can still be tested at an early stage. If the Member allows me to proceed with my speech, he will be reassured of that in due course. More than that, however, this is also being used by people who do not want to test the evidence at an early stage. Around a third of people who requested a preliminary inquiry or a mixed committal hearing, on the day of that hearing, reverted to written-only evidence. Victims included in that cadre had to spend time stressed and anxious, expecting to have to give evidence and be brought to court, only to be told, at the last possible minute, that they would not be called on. That goes further than simply wishing to test the case; it is about trying to test the mettle of victims and witnesses in such cases. It is not, frankly, an appropriate way for defence barristers to behave. It is not therefore simply about the evidence.

I will move on. Committal hearings can proceed in three ways, as I mentioned in response to the Member's question: via preliminary enquiry (PE), where written evidence only is provided; via preliminary investigation or "PI", where oral evidence is called for from victims and witnesses; or, finally, via mixed committal, where oral and written evidence is considered. However, despite the fact that the process is intended to act as a screen to ensure that only suitable cases proceed to the Crown Court, the vast majority of cases end up being committed for trial. The 2019 figures suggest that only 75 of the 1,765 defendants who went through the committal process did not proceed to the Crown Court. That means that only 4% of cases did not proceed to the Crown Court for trial. Given that the time to complete a Crown Court case is lengthy — a median of 565 days last year — it is important that we take all possible steps to reduce delay.

I mentioned that a range of external reviews have called for reform of the committal process. It is important to highlight some of those. As part of 'A Fresh Start', the Executive committed to implement:

The 2016 Fresh Start panel report made two recommendations in relation to committal. First, it called on my Department to:

Secondly, it recommended that we should:

Both of those recommendations were subsequently accepted by the Executive in their 2016 action plan. In its 2018 'Speeding Up Justice' report, the Audit Office noted:

That report recommended that my Department should establish an action plan and timetable for the eradication of the committal process. In the 2018 'Without Witness' report, the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice recommended:

That report concluded:

The report highlighted the following statistics in relation to cases in which the defendant was charged with only sexual offences:

The report stated:

Then, in 2019, in Sir John Gillen's 'Report into the law and procedures in serious sexual offences', to which I have already referred, he recommended that my Department:

Looking at committal proceedings in general, we can see that the vast majority of cases that proceed through the committal process end up being committed for trial to the Crown Court. Finally, at the beginning of this year, the 'New Decade, New Approach' deal stated:

It is clear that further reform of the committal process is needed and supported by all Executive parties and a range of justice partners.

As I have said, the principles and policies around reforming the committal process are not new, and we, as an Assembly, have already legislated for some reform. So, why the need for this short, tightly focused Bill? It is designed, in the main, to do three things.

First, the Bill seeks to get more cases, more quickly, to the Crown Court. The 2015 Act provided only for murder and manslaughter cases to be directly committed to the Crown Court in certain circumstances. This Bill proposes to expand that list so that all offences that, as an adult, are triable only on indictment will be directly committed. This definition is necessary to ensure that we capture in legislation an appropriate set of offences, and it ensures that the system works for adults and youths. The group of offences will include serious sexual offences like rape, helping to deliver the Gillen recommendations, and offences that are often, but not exclusively, linked to paramilitary activity and organised crime, such as firearms, explosives, GBH with intent and, of course, murder. This change will contribute to the delivery of commitments arising from the Fresh Start Agreement.

The Bill also includes provisions to add small numbers of additional offences by way of an order made by draft affirmative resolution procedure, should that need arise in the future. It is also important to note that my Department's long-term aim is to completely eradicate the traditional committal process, with all offences being directly committed to the Crown Court. That will take time and further legislation, but it is the right direction of travel and something that external scrutiny bodies say that we need to do.

The second key objective of the Bill relates to the area of oral evidence. The proposals to directly commit more cases will remove committal hearings and, with that, the option of oral evidence at that stage. However, for cases that are not yet directly committed, and until direct committal is operational, there will continue to be committal hearings. I have already outlined that oral evidence can be provided at that stage through a preliminary investigation or via mixed committal.

Through the Justice Bill in 2015, my Department previously sought to abolish the option to hear oral evidence from victims and witnesses at a committal hearing. The experience of giving sometimes traumatic oral evidence, particularly under cross-examination, both at committal and again at the Crown Court trial, can have a significant impact on victims and witnesses. However, this did not receive sufficient support at the time of the passage of the Bill, and instead an amendment was made that ensured oral evidence could be called only if the judge was satisfied that the interests of justice required it. However, as I said, in 2016 the three-person panel appointed by the Executive to report on a strategy for disbanding paramilitary groups recommended that the Department of Justice should bring forward draft legislation to further reform committal proceedings to remove the need for oral evidence before trial. This was accepted by the Executive in their action plan published in July 2016, and this Bill gives effect to that commitment.

There will no doubt be those who say that oral evidence at the committal hearing is an important part of the criminal justice system and should be retained. Mr Allister is one such Member, and he has made that clear already today. To that I say three things. First, it is not just me or my Department saying that we should remove oral evidence. We are delivering previously agreed Executive commitments flowing from the Fresh Start Agreement. Secondly and, I believe, most importantly, I want to do this for victims, who will face a committal hearing until the committal process is fully eradicated. I have heard all too often of the impact on vulnerable victims who have to give traumatic evidence not just once but twice as part of our criminal justice process. Last year, cases involving 109 out of 1,765 defendants proceeded with oral evidence at committal stage, either through a preliminary investigation or a mixed committal. On the one hand, that is only 6%, so Mr Allister was correct. However, this is not just about numbers and statistics; it is about people. Direct committal of the additional offences I have outlined will remove the need for oral evidence in many of those cases but, for the remainder, I want to ensure that victims and witnesses do not have to go through this process.

We also know that, as I alluded to earlier, in the cases of a further 53 defendants, a preliminary investigation or mixed committal proceeding had been planned, only to be changed at a late stage — often, on the day — to proceed with written evidence through a preliminary inquiry. As Sir John Gillen noted in his report:

Besides the obvious impact on victims and witnesses, the preparation and process for these committal hearings can add both delay and burden to an already stretched system. We know, for example, that the number of hearings for a preliminary investigation or mixed committal can average three to four times the number of those required for a preliminary inquiry that uses only written evidence.

The final key objective of the Bill is to make improvements to the smooth operation of the direct committal process. The 2015 Act provided for a new process in cases directly committed to the Crown Court. Called application to dismiss, it allows the defence to apply to the Crown Court for some or all of the charges to be dismissed on the basis that the evidence is insufficient for the accused to be properly convicted. The 2015 Act allows oral evidence in that process, but, to ensure consistency with the objective of victims and witnesses not giving evidence before trials, the Bill includes a provision to remove oral evidence in the application to dismiss process.

The Bill also seeks to introduce a new power for the Public Prosecution Service to discontinue proceedings between cases being committed to the Crown Court and the presentation of indictments that set out the charges for which the accused is to be prosecuted. That is seen as necessary for the operational outworkings of direct committal and is similar to powers that exist in England and Wales. It means that where there is a material change in the circumstances of the case, such as new evidence, that leads the prosecution to conclude that the test for prosecution has not been met, immediate action can be taken to discontinue the case without adding additional delays.

Following extensive engagement with relevant criminal justice organisations, the Bill also seeks to repeal section 10 of the 2015 Act. That provides that a Magistrates' Court will directly commit an accused to the Crown Court if they indicate, prior to a traditional committal hearing, an intention to plead guilty. I recognise the benefits to victims, witnesses and defendants of that approach; however, a number of significant operational complexities and risks have been identified by justice partners, including the risk of false release or false imprisonment. It is also an interim measure and once direct committal is fully rolled out it would become obsolete. Although it is not possible to quantify the numbers involved with any certainty, it potentially applies to a relatively small number of cases. On balance, therefore, my Department considers that focusing efforts on a more expansive roll-out provides a better and less-complex basis on which to implement the changes required and speed up the justice system.

I recognise the benefits to victims, witnesses and defendants of fast-tracking cases when accused parties wish to plead guilty. Therefore, the Bill also includes powers where an individual is charged with committing a relevant offence and expresses an indication to plead guilty to allow the Magistrates' Court to order the necessary reports in preparation for the Crown Court. That answers the third part of Mr Allister's question about the potential transfer of duties to the more expensive tier of the courts system.

Finally, the Bill will ensure that related offences can be transferred to the Crown Court —.

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Long: No, I will not. I have given the Member quite a bit of attention thus far.

The Bill will ensure that related offences can be transferred to the Crown Court together with relevant offences. I recognise that much of that is quite technical, but it is important so that the reformed processes can operate as effectively as possible.

In summary, the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill seeks to, first, expand the use of direct committal to a wider range of offences and bring more offences more quickly to the Crown Court. Secondly, it will remove the need for pre-trial oral evidence. Finally, it will smooth the operational outworkings of direct committal.

I want to pay tribute to everyone who has helped us in the Department to reach this stage, including our criminal justice partners, whom I know will continue to work together with us to implement the reforms. I look forward to Members' support in taking the Bill through the Assembly and in keeping it focused on its current provisions, with any material policy amendments being dealt with through a future legislative vehicle.

This is another piece of significant legislation from my Department. It is a relatively short Bill of six clauses only, but the changes that it proposes will deliver much-needed reform of the criminal justice process, reduce delay and improve the experience of victims and witnesses, which, in my view, is the most important thing. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Givan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I also welcome the Minister back in her place. We are thankful for her speedy recovery. I also thank — I know that she did not — her Executive colleague Edwin Poots, who kindly offered to take the Second Stage of the Bill through today and, indeed, the Consideration Stage of the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill last week.

I know that the Minister is able to do it today, but it is worth putting on record that there was a willingness to do that, and it is good to see Executive Ministers supporting each other in that way.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not normally discuss Executive correspondence in the Chamber, but I have thanked Minister Poots for that kind offer. It was very generous of him.

Mr Givan: OK. Thank you, Minister.

As Chairman of the Committee, I am pleased to be able to speak, on behalf of the Committee, during the debate on the Second Stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. A primary objective of the Bill, as the Minister said, is to improve the operation of the criminal justice system by reforming committal proceedings, which is the procedure that determines whether there is sufficient evidence to justify putting a person on trial in the Crown Court.

In oral evidence to the Committee on 5 November, Department of Justice officials outlined that the Bill will do three key things. It will remove the need for victims and witnesses to give oral evidence pre Crown Court trial, it will seek to get more cases to the Crown Court quicker by expanding the range of offences to which direct committal will apply, and it will make some technical amendments to smooth the committal process. In the longer term, the Department aims to abolish the committal process completely.

There have been many calls for reform or, indeed, the eradication of the committal process over recent years. In addition to the length of time it takes for cases to progress through the criminal justice system, one of the key concerns with the process is the impact that it has on victims and witnesses, who may be required to give oral evidence at the committal stage as well as at the trial itself. The experience of giving oral evidence can be traumatic, particularly under cross-examination, and has a significant impact. We need to address the fact that they have to do that twice for the same case so that we can improve the experiences of victims and witnesses.

Delay in the criminal justice system and the time it takes to progress cases through the system has been a recurring issue and concern for the Committee since the devolution of policing and justice powers in 2010. The Committee was recently advised that reducing delay is one of the biggest challenges facing the justice system and is a priority for the Department, its criminal justice partners and the Criminal Justice Board. Reforming the committal process is a key part of the plan to reduce avoidable delay.

In its report on speeding up justice, which was published in 2018, the Northern Ireland Audit Office suggested that the committal process added minimal value to the progression of cases whilst imposing demands on victims and witnesses. The report stated that the committal process could:

In its consideration of the implementation plan for the recommendations in the Gillen review of the law and procedures in serious sexual offences in Northern Ireland, the Committee learned that the time taken for sexual offence cases was 698 days in 2019-2020 compared with 470 days in 2015-16. I am sure that all Members will agree that that is much too long, and the impact that delays of that magnitude may have on a victim cannot be overstated. A key recommendation from the Gillen review is that steps should be taken to combat excessive delay in the judicial system, and the specific recommendation in that regard is that provision should be made for the direct transfer of serious sexual offences to the Crown Court.

Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) also pointed out in its report on the handling of sexual violence and abuse cases by the criminal justice system that, in each year from 2015 to 2017, at least 96% of cases where the defendant's offences are exclusively sexual offences were transferred to the Crown Court from the Magistrates' Court for preliminary enquiries and preliminary investigations. In CJINI's view, that demonstrates that there are limited risks in abolishing the committal proceedings in these types of cases as, in the vast majority of cases, they will be transferred. Direct committal will also reduce the anxiety for victims in such cases and should reduce delays in case progression.

The Minister outlined that the Fresh Start panel on the disbandment of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland recommended that the Department of Justice should bring forward legislation to further reform committal proceedings to remove the need for oral evidence before a trial. Indeed, the 'New Decade, New Approach' document noted that the Executive would deliver on committal reform.

The Committee for Justice considered committal reform as part of its Committee Stage scrutiny of the 2014 Justice Bill. Those who were on the Committee at that time will remember fondly that scrutiny, and the debate that took place in the Chamber. The provisions of that Bill, as introduced, aimed to abolish the use of preliminary investigations and the use of oral evidence at preliminary inquiries, provide for the direct committal to the Crown Court of certain indictable cases, where the defendant intends to plead guilty at arraignment, and provide for the direct committal to the Crown Court of certain specified offences. As Members will know, there was a divergence of views in the evidence that the Committee received at that time on those proposals. The Public Prosecution Service and Victim Support NI were supportive of the changes, but the Law Society believed the proposals to be flawed. Having previously undertaken an inquiry looking at the experiences of victims and witnesses of the criminal justice system, the Committee was fully aware of the trauma that is caused to victims by having to give evidence twice. It also believed that measures needed to be taken to address avoidable delay in the system. The Committee was, therefore, supportive of the Bill's provisions, but, as Members are aware, an amendment to the Bill retained the use of oral evidence where the court deemed it to be in the interests of justice.

When discussing the principles and provisions of this Bill with departmental officials on 5 November, Committee members raised a number of issues, including the likely volume of cases to which direct committal will apply under the legislation, the likely time reduction for such cases to be completed, the likely costs associated with the changes, any legal aid implications and operational complexities, and risks associated with the section 10 process provided for by the Justice Act 2015 and the reasons for its repeal in this Bill. Officials were also asked to address the argument that is sometimes put forward that having an oral hearing is useful in sorting out issues and that only so much can be conveyed through written papers, so it is better to have the opportunity to question in person. Officials responded by indicating that while there are arguments for and against direct committal, and while the number of cases that go through a preliminary investigation or mixed committal are small, it is a traumatic experience for those who are required to give oral evidence, pre-trial. The recommendations from a number of external organisations and sources indicate that direct committal should be implemented in full.

Officials also advised the Committee that it is difficult to specify how much time might be saved in progressing cases. Although there will be no committal hearing, which can, at times, be lengthy, at the Magistrates' Court, the proceedings in the Crown Court are likely to take slightly longer. In addition, it is difficult to predict cost savings, as it is more likely that there will be a change in the balance of costs between Magistrates' Courts and the Crown Court. However, there is no expectation that the new procedures will cost any more overall. The implications for legal aid are still being considered.

The Committee was also informed that there will be a phased approach to the roll-out of direct committal. The initial tranche will be for those cases that are triable on indictment only, which account for 30% of cases annually. The intention of the Department is that, eventually, direct committal will apply to all cases that go to the Crown Court.

In relation to the repeal of section 10 of the Justice Act 2015, officials indicated that, currently, if a defendant indicates an intention to plead guilty, regardless of the offence type, it will go straight to the Crown Court. However, if they change their mind, they will be returned to the Magistrates' Court. That is a complex matter, and it poses a number of operational and IT difficulties which produce risks, including the risk that the incorrect application of bail could result in the person being wrongly released or imprisoned. Given that section 10 applies only to a small number of cases, and will become redundant when the traditional committal hearing is removed, the Department has decided to repeal it and to include powers in the Bill to enable the Magistrates' Court to do a lot of the preparatory work for such cases for the Crown Court.

The Committee will wish to explore all of those issues, and others that no doubt will arise during the Bill's Committee Stage, assuming that it passes Second Stage today. The Committee is content to support the principles of the Bill. We look forward to dealing with it at Committee Stage. Members have already indicated some of the points that were rehearsed back in 2014.

I give the commitment that all of those issues will be given the detailed scrutiny that the Justice Committee has shown itself to be adept at carrying out. It is vital that the Department engages with the Committee during Committee Stage. As I said on the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill, when a Department introduces a Bill, it becomes an Assembly Bill. The Assembly takes the final decisions. I am sure that Members will propose amendments or other issues that could be deemed to be within the scope of the Bill, and it is vital that the Department engages at that stage rather than leaving it until the eleventh hour.

I encourage Members who want to propose amendments to do so early to allow the Committee to carry out its scrutiny work. Obviously, they retain the right to do that once the Committee has reported, but, if evidence is brought to the Committee during the scrutiny stage, it is a lot easier for members of that Committee to have a considered position on the amendments. The evidence would also go to the Department and others.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I now call Linda Dillon. I may need to interrupt because we are approaching Question Time, which starts at 2.00 pm.

Ms Dillon: I assure you, a LeasCheann Comhairle, that you will not have to interrupt me: I will be finished before Question Time.

I thank the Minister for moving the Bill. As the Chair has outlined, it will be scrutinised in much greater detail as it progresses through the legislative process. It has been a steep learning curve for me. I have just been through the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill, my first ever legislation. A number of pieces of legislation are coming through the Committee. That is a positive thing. It is what the House is for. We are here to try to make the best law that we can.

Committal proceedings are held to determine whether, in the case of more serious offences, there is sufficient evidence to require a defendant to stand trial. That can include the taking of oral evidence, as has already been referred to, from victims and witnesses, which means that they will have to give further oral evidence at a trial. There is a huge risk of retraumatisation. We have spoken on many occasions in the House about the need to support and look after victims and have a victim-centred approach to everything that we do. We should do whatever we can to reduce that trauma to victims, and I am hopeful that the committal Bill will go some way to dealing with that. The proposals to streamline —.

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Ms Dillon: Yes.

Mr Allister: I understand entirely the sentiment that the Member expresses. The debate has not lasted for long, but, already, every Member who has spoken has fallen in to the trap of talking not about "alleged victims" but about "victims", before you get anywhere near conviction. At the stage of committal and until a jury says, "Guilty", there is nothing but an alleged victim. We should not allow that to cloud our judgement in the manner in which it seems to be doing.

Ms Dillon: I accept what you say. That is why we will scrutinise the Bill as a Committee. We will speak to everybody during that process, not just to alleged victims but to those from a background such as yours, Mr Allister. I appreciate that you may have a different and more detailed understanding.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that part of the process of speeding up justice is for the alleged perpetrators and defendants in a case who are not guilty but will have that hanging over their head for a more protracted period if justice is not swift?

Ms Dillon: Absolutely. It hangs over the heads not just of the perpetrators but of their families. Even where someone is guilty of something, their family has done nothing wrong. A protracted process does not help anyone in relation to those issues.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I ask the Member to ensure that she speaks into a microphone so that her comments are picked up.

Ms Dillon: Apologies.

We, as a party, support the two main purposes of the Bill around removing the option of calling alleged victims and witnesses for oral evidence in advance of a trial and the issue around speeding up the time for progressing Crown Court cases. However, we will not take a final position without going through the scrutiny process.

It is vital that the wider justice system supports victims of crime at every stage of their journey through the system. The Bill is one piece of the puzzle of how we can do that by removing the need to give oral evidence more than once. That, along with shortening the time taken for that journey to be progressed are major cogs in the process of how we can properly support victims in the process. The Department, however, has a responsibility to ensure that victims are put at the front and centre of the Bill and any other measures that are designed to improve the system for them. I would like to think that, in developing the Bill, the Minister and her Department have engaged with victims and organisations that represent victims and that she has their support.

As a member of the Justice Committee, I am sure that I speak for other members of the Committee when I say that the best interests of victims and alleged victims will be our priority in scrutinising the legislation. I am certainly keen to engage with all, including those from a legal background and the Bar, who obviously have had some issues with previous Bills that have come before the House.

I am also keen to hear some figures from the Minister on the expected outcomes of the Bill. For example, we know that there is a major backlog of cases and that the time taken to deal with serious criminal cases is already far too high. We need to hear additional information on the figures. I accept that it is not all about the figures — it is very much about people — but we are a public body that uses public finances. We also have a real focus on shortening the time for cases going through court, so we need to see some of the figures.

The issue was, of course, raised in 2015 as part of the Justice Bill. The 2015 Act provided for more fundamental reforms to the committal process by allowing direct committal of an accused person from the Magistrates' Court to the Crown Court in certain circumstances without the need for the traditional committal hearing. It was considered throughout the 2015 Bill whether we should abolish the option to hear oral evidence from victims and witnesses at the traditional committal hearing in the Magistrates' Court. However, it did not receive sufficient support at that time. Since 2015, however, there has been a range of developments that have led to where we are today, and some of those have already been outlined. We had the Fresh Start panel report, the NI Audit Office report in 2018 on speeding up justice, the Gillen review, a number of CJINI reports and then NDNA. Therefore, although the issue was not resolved in 2015, it has become clear that the case for further reform of committal proceedings is strong. My party, therefore, at this stage welcomes the Department moving on the issue. The changes are regarded as key to improving the speed of the justice system and delivering on the Executive's priorities outlined in NDNA.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): As Question Time is scheduled for 2.00 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease for a few moments until then. This debate will continue after a further ministerial statement and a number of questions for urgent oral answer. When we resume the debate, the next Member scheduled to be called is Sinéad Bradley.

Mrs Foster (The First Minister): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 1, 7 and 11 together.

The Executive’s response to and recovery from COVID-19 continues to be focused on the health and well-being of our citizens, our economic well-being and revitalising the economy and our societal and community well-being. The Executive are also placing a particular emphasis on people and families, as we know how important that is to everyone. That means that any decisions on the Executive’s next steps will be informed by the impact that they will have on us as individuals, families and the wider communities in which we all live. In addition to the financial support mechanisms provided by the United Kingdom Government, the Executive have put in place a range of targeted local schemes aimed at supporting individuals, families, communities and businesses at this difficult time. Going forward, we are committed to ensuring that support packages meet the needs of those who are in need of help.

Looking into 2021, the Executive have approved a recovery framework that is aimed at progressing a cohesive approach across the whole of government and will deliver an economic, health and societal recovery that has the citizen at its centre. That work will also complement the longer-term Programme for Government that is currently being developed and which we are aiming to have in place by April 2021.

As our recent statement will advise, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all the member Administrations was central to the discussion at the British-Irish Council summit on 6 November. BIC members shared information on the measures that they have taken both to contain the virus and to mitigate its impacts on health and on their economies. We also recognised the importance of continuing communication as we all work towards economic recovery while living with and managing the continuing threat posed by the virus.

Ms Flynn: I thank the First Minister for her answer. Will she give a commitment that the promotion of positive mental health and the provision of support services for individuals and families who are struggling at the moment will be central to any COVID-19 recovery package?

Mrs Foster: The Member will have heard the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) just this morning talk about the fact that mental health was a continuing pressure for us in the Executive. We are very concerned at the impact that it is having immediately and in the medium to long term, so we will have to put in resources, as well as a determination from the Executive, to deal with that very real issue.

Over the weekend, I was contacted by a family friend of someone who, at 41 years of age, felt that she had lost all purpose in her life because she had lost her job and had attempted to take her own life on three occasions. That is a sobering thing to hear, and it is something that we all in the House should be very concerned about. The answer is that, absolutely, we will put in place mechanisms to deal with that. I think that I said last week that I was afraid that we were going to face a mental health tsunami, and that is a fear that I hold. I know that it is shared across the Executive, and it is something that we will have to deal with.

Ms Bailey: COVID did not create our mental health crisis: it is adding to it. Is there a long-term strategy or acceptance that we need to deal with our mental health problems in Northern Ireland not just now but in the longer term?

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for her question and observation, because it is something that we identified on coming back into the Executive as one of our priorities to deal with. It is why we set up the Executive subcommittee to deal with resilience, well-being and mental health provision, which all Ministers can and do attend. We recognised that before COVID-19 hit, and we now know that it has exacerbated the difficulties that we have. When we meet groups from across Northern Ireland, albeit virtually at present, we are always reminded of the simmering undercurrent of mental health issues that exist across Northern Ireland. It is absolutely something that we recognised as being there before COVID, but COVID has exacerbated the mental health crisis, and we very much need to deal with it.

Mr Buckley: The First Minister will be acutely aware of the devastating impact that COVID-19 has had on our care homes across Northern Ireland. On 12 October, there were 46 care homes with COVID-19 outbreaks, yet, on 12 November, that number had risen extraordinarily to 143, all at a time when hospitality and close-contact services were closed. While we know that testing is one of the best answers to combat the spread, can the First Minister outline what conversations she had with counterparts at the British-Irish Council about ways in which we can ramp up our test and trace capabilities?

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for his question. It is a cause for deep concern to us that the number of outbreaks continues to rise, despite the sterling work of our care home staff. I want to make that very clear.

There is a need for us to have a more robust testing system. The Member may be aware that, in Liverpool, a pilot is ongoing in which mass testing is taking place, and we have had some good feedback from that testing regime. The feedback encourages me that we can do something similar across Northern Ireland. We have a population of 1·8 million, so it is not something that should be beyond us. The Executive Office believes that test, trace and isolate and the capacity to do so in a meaningful way will very much be part of trying to deal with the transmission of the virus.

Mr McGrath: Nichola Mallon, on 3 November, got the powers to deliver a scheme for the taxi sector. That scheme opened on 13 November, 10 days later. Can the First Minister, as the leader of the Executive, explain why, after four and a half weeks, many in the business sector are still waiting for a scheme being opened that they can apply to in order to get much-needed finance to give them some form of income?

Mrs Foster: Although I welcome the fact that the taxi scheme is now open, it took a considerable time to get there. I say to Members who have been waiting for that funding that we are disappointed that it took such an amount of time to get there but we are pleased that it has got there now.

Like all the schemes that were put in place to deal with what was to be the four-week intervention, the taxi scheme had to be dealt with from scratch. As I understand it, from the date on which the Economy Minister was asked to put it in place, the scheme was up and running and working nine days later, one day less than the Member said. The money is now going out in different tranches. I understand that the Land and Property Services (LPS) scheme, which deals with most of the money that goes out into the community, is moving now as well.

We would always like just to flick the switch and get the money out immediately, but I am sure that Members would ask us questions about due process and public accountability for money if we did not do things properly, and, of course, they are very much entitled to do so. We will do what we can as quickly as we can, but we have to acknowledge that this is public money that we are dealing with.

Ms Armstrong: First Minister, I am delighted to hear that the BIC has been talking, but I am wondering whether there is any coordinated approach being taken to the Christmas holidays and the restrictions that there may be. When we think about young people's mental health and that of families, getting our young people back from universities across the UK is vital at Christmastime.

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for her question. It is something that we discussed with other devolved Administrations and Michael Gove last Wednesday, because we recognise that it is a huge issue not just for young people but for families across the United Kingdom and, indeed, in the Republic of Ireland. We will want to make sure that people can come together at Christmastime. That is an ongoing discussion. It would be wise to have the same restrictions, messaging and communications on that issue so that there is no room for misunderstanding about how people can travel home for Christmas. I know, for example, that some students who finish their course at the beginning of December will be tested and then allowed to go home, and they may have to self-isolate for a period. Those conversations continue. We very much want a coordinated approach across the United Kingdom.

Mr Allister: First Minister, today the Health Minister publicly said that he could unilaterally bring in restrictions. Do you agree that he could? What would be the consequences?

Mrs Foster: Well, it depends on whether you read the 1967 Act on its own or whether you read it alongside the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which clearly says that controversial, cross-cutting and financially significant issues will have to come to the Executive. Whilst he could, technically, make that decision, I think that he will be open to judicial review (JR). Let us just say that.

Mr Speaker: Before I move on to the next question I advise Members that I took a number of additional supplementaries on the basis that we had three grouped questions. That would not be the norm.

Mrs Foster: Our officials continue with preparatory work to legislate for the core elements of the rights, language and identity proposals contained in 'New Decade, New Approach'. This includes arrangements to progress a Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Amendment No. 1) Bill that provides for the establishment of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. We will progress the legislation during 2020-21 and establish the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression as quickly as possible thereafter. We will, of course, keep the Assembly updated on progress.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, First Minister, for your answer. Are you confident that the associated legislation will be on the statute book by the end of the Assembly term?

Mrs Foster: Yes, I am confident. It is part of the 'New Decade, New Approach' agreement. Therefore it is important that the basis on which we came back is followed through on, not just in respect of this issue but on a range of issues where our Government, the Irish Government and other people have made commitments. It is important that we follow through on those commitments.

Mr Speaker: Paula Bradshaw for a supplementary. Sorry, I need to keep up. Doug Beattie.

Mr Beattie: First Minister, you will know that I spent three torturous years on the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition and produced a report that is now with the Executive Office. Is that report likely to be made public, or is it acting purely as a reference document for the new identity office?

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for his question. I feel your pain in relation to that issue. The report was submitted to us on 17 July. It was my 50th birthday present, and I really want to say, "Thank you" for it. In concluding its work, the commission was very much aware of the content of 'New Decade, New Approach' that I have just referred to. On 20 October the junior Ministers met the joint chairs of the commission to discuss the report and its recommendations. We are considering the content of the report and the appropriate next steps, including a decision on the full publication of the report.

Ms Ennis: Will the Minister outline her understanding of the relationship between the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression and the offices of the Irish language commissioner and the commissioner to enhance the Ulster-Scots and Ulster-British identity.

Mrs Foster: The Bills provide for three separate appointments — the director into the office and two commissioners to lead the three bodies. The office and the commissioners are therefore independent of each other, but the office may provide support services to the Irish language commissioner and to the Ulster-British commissioner. It is important to recognise that they should all work together because, if we are serious about representing the plurality of cultures and identities in Northern Ireland, there should not be any difficulties with the three bodies working together.

Mr McGlone: Thanks very much, First Minister, for outlining that and your commitment to have the legislation in place within this Assembly term. Will that legislation of itself define the roles of the commissioners and the functions of the offices that they hold?

The commissioners will be defined in the various pieces of legislation to amend the Northern Ireland Act. As the Member will know, that is how we are taking this forward: the Northern Ireland Act will be amended so that those bodies and commissioners can be set up. It will be clear in the legislation what the two commissioners' roles will be, and, indeed, the role of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression.

Mrs Foster: This is a key time for victims and survivors, with preparations for the victims' payment scheme progressing, concerns with legacy issues, and looking ahead towards the next victims' strategy. It is important that we consider all matters fully and move forward in the right way. Therefore we have decided to appoint a new Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. We have instructed our officials to begin the work required to commence the appointment process, and, alongside that, we have asked officials to consider terms of reference for a review of the office of the commissioner.

Ms S Bradley: I thank the First Minister for that update. Can I ask the First Minister to give an update on the Victims' Forum and what, if any, appointments have been made to it? Is there an anticipated date for a conclusion?

Mrs Foster: The Victims' Commission continues in legal existence, even without the commissioner, and that will continue in the interim. It will work and interact with the forum. There were no fresh appointments to the forum, as I understand it, during the time when we were without devolution. That being the case, it may be time to look at the forum to see whether it is representative of the different strands of victims across Northern Ireland. That is something that we will be looking at alongside the review of the commissioner's office.

Mr Dunne: I thank the First Minister for her answers. We all appreciate the urgent need for the appointment of a Victims' and Survivors' Commissioner. Can the First Minister assure us that the needs of victims will continue to be met until a commissioner has been appointed?

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for his question. The body corporate of the Commission for Victims and Survivors continues, and its chief executive officer will now be responsible for its day-to-day business. It is important to say that it still exists as a reference point for victims. If victims have issues, they should bring them to the commission. Moreover, the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) will continue to deliver services to victims and survivors throughout Northern Ireland during this time.

Unfortunately, it will, because of the public appointments process, take probably up to six months to have the new commissioner in place. In the interim, however, we will want to work with the commission and with the Victims and Survivors Service to make sure that the voice of victims is heard.

Ms Dolan: I think that the First Minister might have just answered my question, but can I ask her to outline the timescale for the appointment of a commissioner?

Mrs Foster: As I indicated, this appointment, like so many appointments, is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. As such, the process must comply with the code of practice for ministerial public appointments. It is carried out in that way to make sure that there is transparency and support for the process, and it may take up to six months to complete. That will ensure that everyone can have confidence in the appointment process and that it will be open and transparent.

Mrs Foster: With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister Lyons will answer this question.

Mr Lyons (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): The Castlemara and Northland wards in Carrickfergus and the Antiville and Kilwaughter wards in Larne form one of the eight areas of focus for the communities in transition project. Four projects are in delivery in that area under a number of key themes: capacity building, community safety, health and well-being, and arts and culture. Furthermore, a regional project on restorative practice is being delivered in all eight areas.

Whilst COVID-19 had the potential to disrupt delivery, good progress has been made across all the projects, thanks to the commitment, creativity and enthusiasm shown by delivery partners and officials.

Mr Hilditch: I thank the junior Minister for his answers. Despite COVID-19, I know that those groups have gone well beyond their role, and I thank and congratulate them for their continuing work during the COVID-19 period.
Can the junior Minister provide further detail on the work being done and the number of people being impacted upon in the four projects in the Carrickfergus and Larne areas?

Mr Lyons: Yes. I have outlined the four areas. First, on community capacity — building an Intercomm Ireland is the delivery partner for this project — groups have been recruited, actions plans have been completed and training needs have been identified. A range of social action proposals are under consideration. The project's profile has been raised given additional requests from individuals from the community to be involved.

With regard to arts and culture — Intercomm Ireland is also delivering this project — 33 participants have been recruited, and a handbook has been developed to inform training and development modules on arts and culture skills. Planning is also under way for events in both areas at Christmas.

With regard to health and well-being — this project is being delivered by Extern Northern Ireland — development interventions and specialised support, with a number of referrals for mental health support, have already been received.

With regard to community safety — the delivery partner for this project is Intercomm Ireland — volunteers have been recruited and a community engagement forum has been established. The community safety forum is in the process of becoming a constituted group, and a community safety survey is currently with residents.

I confirm to the Member that all of the projects are taking place in each of the four areas that I have already listed. Additionally, a tender competition to deliver a pilot programme on raising aspirations for compulsory school-age children and young people in the area was published on 30 October. As the Member will be aware, raising aspiration is really important as we seek to move forward and to get our young people to move forward.

Mr Beggs: I support such a programme, which empowers the local community to represent their interests and enables them to deal with issues. However, does the Minister accept that a separated prison regime helps to perpetuate societal issues around paramilitaries and serves only to give them a warped credibility when they are in prison and when they leave prison and continue to try to exert influence?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for his question. The entire point of the Communities in Transition (CIT) programme is try to break that coercive control, and to move our communities forward. That is very much what this programme is focused on and we can see the results that have already been, and continue to be, delivered. I am glad that there has been political engagement over the last number of weeks. We had a very useful meeting on 10 November with political representatives in the area to see and hear about the things that have been taking place to end that coercive control and to limit the influence and reach of paramilitary activity. Of course, one programme on its own is not going to tackle this problem, which can be very deep-rooted in our society, and that is why it is incumbent on all of us to work together, in all of the ways that we can, and to speak with one voice against paramilitary activity and the coercive control that it can have in our communities.

Mr McGuigan: Can the Minister give an overview on the phase two preparations for the delivery of the Communities in Transition project?

Mr Lyons: The tackling paramilitary activity, criminality and organised crime programme is due to expire in March 2021. The Executive have discussed and agreed, in principle, to a further phase of the programme, which is to be delivered over a three-year period up to March 2024. The Communities in Transition project will be a significant part of the community-facing element in the next phase. Subject to the confirmation of a budget and an ongoing Government-wide budgeting exercise, it is hoped that the Communities in Transition project will have an indicative budget of £12 million.

The interventions that have been supported through the CIT project have been shaped and informed by communities in response to the very specific issues that manifest in each locality. The range of interventions continues to deliver much needed community responses at a time when positive community leadership has never been needed more. We recognise the commitment and innovation that has been shown across the CIT areas at this time, and we assure our community delivery partners of continued support for their good work. These projects must be given time to become embedded at a community level, but we are already seeing the impact of these interventions, and we must ensure that the necessary time is given to bring about the sustainable change and positive legacy that our communities want to see.

Mrs Foster: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 5 and 12 together.

Over recent weeks, the UK and EU have intensified their negotiations with the aim of securing an agreement. Discussions on the future relationship have continued since then. For an agreement to be in place for the end of the transition period, we understand that it must be negotiated by mid-November in order for the EU to complete internal processes. We welcome the commitment of both sides to continue discussions, however, we recognise that the talks could still result in a non-negotiated outcome. We are, therefore, continuing our operational readiness planning to include that possibility.

A key challenge for Departments in this planning process is the urgent clarity that is needed to implement both the protocol and any agreed deal with the European Union. Our officials have undertaken bilateral meetings with officials from other Departments in order to scrutinise readiness issues and to identify possible mitigations, including where interventions would be required from the UK Government, and assurances around continuity agreements or bilateral agreements. An Executive action plan to address high-priority readiness issues is in the final stages of development.

Mr O'Dowd: The Minister will be aware that, before COVID had its devastating economic impact, we were in recession. One of the reasons why we were in recession was the uncertainty around Brexit and the uncertainty faced by businesses and employees. Does the Minister agree that the worst-case outcome is that we have no deal at the end of the talks and that that will have a further devastating impact on our economy?

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for his question. Actually, before COVID hit, the Northern Ireland economy was performing well, and we were pleased to see that happening. Of course, we need to see an overall agreement being reached. We very much encourage the negotiators to find that way forward. We know that there are still some very significant sticking points, particularly around fisheries governance and the issue of a level playing field. We hope that solutions can be found to those issues in the coming days, because, if not, we will have a hugely significant task ahead of us, running up to the end of the year. The Executive are agreed that flexibility needs to be shown by others so that we do not reap the harvest of the protocol, which could cause us severe difficulties, particularly with foodstuff coming from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. We ask for flexibility, but we also hope that the negotiations reach a good outcome.

Mr O'Toole: There is an almost overwhelming amount of detail for the Assembly and our economy to process before the end of this year. It is, frankly, bewildering and scary. I ask the First Minister for an urgent update on the volume of primary and secondary legislation that the Assembly will be required to pass before the end of this year to give us a semblance of preparation. At the minute, we have not had really any update from the Executive Office about what the Assembly will have to achieve in the next few weeks. Frankly, that is not good enough.

Mrs Foster: I do not agree with the Member that he has not had any idea about what is expected of the Assembly and the Executive. We have been very clear that a number of statutory instruments will have to be brought forward. The different Committees are working their way through those statutory instruments. Nobody is pretending for a second that, if there is not a negotiated outcome, it is not going to be a very difficult period ahead; of course it is. It is very important that we all work together to make sure that we get through this period of great uncertainty, so that we can go into next year in a much more positive frame of mind.

Dr Aiken: The First Minister and the deputy First Minister wrote, on 5 November, to the European Commission and received a reply that was — for the Europeans — prompt but not very forthcoming. Will the First Minister update us on any further steps that the Executive Office is taking to ensure that we have security of our food supply?

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for his question, which he raised with me when I made my statement, last week, on the British-Irish Council. We felt that there was a need to write to the vice president of the Commission, Mr Šefcovic — if I have got his name right — on the issue of goods coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We are particularly concerned about the fact that the Joint Committee has not reached agreement on goods at risk.

We now face another challenge on pre-prepared meat products, with which the European Union says that there is a difficulty. The Member may recall the famous issue of lasagne going from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. Frankly, it is a nonsense. As far as I am concerned, lasagne comes over in a supermarket truck that goes to a destination in Northern Ireland and is sold in sterling to a consumer, so what is the difficulty? I hope that there is enough flexibility shown by the European Union to find a solution to the problem. I also hope that it is not using it as a way to get its own way in the main negotiations.

Mr Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We move on to topical questions.

Mrs Foster: I am disappointed to tell the Member that I have not read the document, but, if he would like to share it with me — he has clearly read it in great detail — I would be only too happy to come back to him about it.

Mr Nesbitt: I recommend the document to the First Minister. I also recommend the response from the Civil Service. Will she address the criticisms of the Women's Policy Group to that response, particularly the denial of the fact that there is a gender pay gap and the lack of reference to women, given that 82% of part-time workers are female and are therefore most affected by COVID-19?

Mrs Foster: Thank you for raising that issue, which is of great concern to me and, I believe, to other members of the Executive. We know that women are disproportionately hit by the COVID-19 restrictions, given that many of them are in part-time, low-paid jobs. The lady whom I referred to in my first answer was seeking to take her own life because she felt that there was no purpose left to her life. We should be very concerned about that. Absolutely, I am happy to follow up on that issue with the Member.

Mrs Foster: I very much want — I hope that the Member took this from my comments to Mr O'Dowd — to see a deal between the United Kingdom and the European Union, because it would be better not just for us in Northern Ireland but for all the countries and institutions involved if we reached an agreement.

Mr Newton: I thank the Minister for her reply. Unfortunately, I was not in the Chamber when Mr O'Dowd asked his question, so I apologise for that. Which part of the text from an emerging agreement would you be studying with particular reference to Northern Ireland's position?

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for that. Of course, if there is a free trade agreement, that will make the operation of the protocol, to which, he knows, we are opposed, easier on the people of Northern Ireland, and we will not have to deal with some of the issues that we have been talking about, such as goods at risk coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, which, of course, is a complete anathema, given that we are part of the same country. However, hopefully, if there is an overall agreement, we will not have to deal with those thorny issues.

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for her question. I am pleased to say that there has been proactive and meaningful engagement with local government, principally through the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) and the two junior Ministers. I am pleased to see the way in which there has been engagement, and I am pleased that it wants to play a role in dealing with COVID-19 by helping us to get COVID-secure businesses and helping with community champions and ambassadors, as well as assurance schemes to de-risk some of the issues out there. I am pleased to say that local government is working proactively.

Ms P Bradley: I thank the First Minister for her answer. Surely, to help in the battle against COVID, we need tougher enforcement to deter people from breaking the rules. Can you give us some views on that?

Mrs Foster: Yes, tougher enforcement, probably, and more resource. I think it is common cause across the Executive that, if we need to put further resource into dealing with the issue, we will try to do that.

Enforcement is an issue for a number of agencies. The junior Ministers have been leading on enforcement and compliance. It is important that we see people called out if they are simply rule-breaking and not listening to the messages on why is it important to be COVID-secure. We will want to look at that important issue continuously.

Mrs Foster: I have not heard Professor Scally's comments, and I am sure that he would not be surprised by that. It is important that we have plans in place to deal with the issues in front of us. I join the Member in paying tribute to our health and social care staff, all those who have put themselves in harm's way for the community. There was a huge outpouring of support during the first wave, and I think that many staff got through on adrenaline and a recognition that there was huge support. In this wave, I understand that a lot of them are tired. They have worked long, hard hours, and I want to tell them that their work has not gone unnoticed and that the House and the Executive deeply appreciate it.

Mr Givan: I thank the First Minister for that response. Are there additional support measures that the Executive Office can provide to the Minister of Health so that effective decisions on the internal running of his Department can be taken so that the front-line staff get the support that they need to provide the people of Northern Ireland with the best possible support?

Mrs Foster: We continuously speak with the Health Department from the Executive Office and, indeed, across the Executive, and, if specific issues have arisen in relation to surge planning, testing or the roll-out of a vaccination, we will very much want to assist the Health Minister to deal with those issues because we recognise that COVID is an issue for all of us. It is important to say that because we want to tackle it together. Whatever about what happened last week, we all recognise that there is a need to step up and to deal with all of the issues in front of us, because we are in a very difficult situation at present.

Mrs Foster: Given that we only came back on 11 January — much to the delight of the Member — and that we then faced a global pandemic and given that we are in a five-party coalition, we are dealing with the issues in front of us. As leaders in our community of all five parties, we want to see resolutions happen. Sometimes, it does not look too pretty — we accept that — but that does not take away the fact that we want to find solutions and a way forward because we recognise that the people of Northern Ireland have put their trust in us.

Mr Allister: Was last week's omnishambles not confirmation that, if a mandatory coalition cannot work even on what should be a unifying issue of public health, it will never work and it is a cruel deception on the people of Northern Ireland, who deserve better, to pretend that it will?

Mrs Foster: No. I do not accept that. The Member will not be surprised at that. As I have said, it was a very difficult week; it was a tortuous week. However, it is right that we try to take decisions that are balanced and proportionate and take into account the enormous pressure that our healthcare staff and hospitals are under but also recognise that people need to earn a living, otherwise they fall into poverty and fall into health outcomes that are very bad as well. So, look, I make no apology for trying to get to a balanced and proportionate place, and I think that that is where the people of Northern Ireland want us to get to as well.

Mrs Foster: Given our history in Northern Ireland, a number of protections are built into the operating of the Assembly and Executive. There is also an obligation in the ministerial code to try to seek consensus rather than to simply drive through controversial matters by a simple majority. That protection is written into the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to ensure that sufficient consensus is achieved. That safeguard can be triggered by any three Ministers of any parties when they are opposed to a course of action on any topic.

The determining factor subsequently becomes the fairly blunt tools — I accept that — of parallel consent or weighted majority. However, it is lawful that that is used, and any impression created that the sufficient consensus requirement applies only to so-called unionist or nationalist issues is entirely bogus and is, frankly, at odds with the Northern Ireland Act. People might like to revisit the Northern Ireland Act and have a look at it.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for her response. Was a change in that voting mechanism an issue in the three years of negotiations to restore the Executive?

Mrs Foster: Not that I am aware of. The only suggestion that I recall was from one of the smaller parties to reduce the threshold for such protections from three Ministers to two. We all know that there are those who want to apportion blame on the use of vetoes and all the rest of it. The truth is that we should never have got to that point, and I hope that, in our discussions in the coming days, which, again, will be difficult and controversial, we can get to a position without the need to invoke any of that.

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for her question. She has put her finger on the matter. I know that the Member has family in positions in ICU and will, therefore, be fully aware of the difficulties that our nursing staff face.

I say again that we absolutely support all those who put themselves in harm's way. We know how restrictive all this is not just when they are working but in their home lives, and we very much appreciate everything that they do.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the First Minister for her answer. It is important that we demonstrate our support for the incredible work that healthcare workers are doing in these challenging times.

Does the First Minister believe that the Executive can find a balanced and proportionate way forward over the winter months in dealing with COVID-19?

Mrs Foster: I think that we have found a balanced and proportionate way forward. We need to continue to find that balanced and proportionate way forward. When we have the testing regime to a higher level of capacity where we can test staff in healthcare, social care and care home settings more frequently, that will help. It will also give them a sense of worth that we are concerned about their well-being and want to know what is happening in those settings. The testing regime is very much part of what we need to do. As I said in reply to an earlier question, it is important that we take the learnings from the Liverpool experience and use them in Northern Ireland so that we can be more focused on using testing as a mechanism to cut transmission of the virus.

Mrs Foster: We really regret the fact that our businesses were left in the position they were left in last week. A lot of them have been challenged in terms of stocking up and the amount of money they have spent in dealing with COVID-19 restrictions. We want to be as clear as possible, so we will continue to engage with the retail sector, the hospitality sector and, indeed, with our faith sectors, as we do, to get as many messages out as possible and to hear from them about what they can do to help us in this terrible time.

Mr Speaker: Time is almost up. William Irwin, your supplementary.

Mr Irwin: I thank the First Minister for her response. I impress on her the urgency of the situation in which many businesses find themselves. They are at their wits' end; I know that she is aware of that. It is important for them to get clarity.

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for that.

Mr Speaker: Time is up. Members may take their ease for a moment or two.

Ms Mallon (The Minister for Infrastructure): I have recently approved the award of a £16·5 million contract to build a new test centre and enforcement depot at Hydebank in Belfast, which are scheduled to open in autumn 2022. The new test centre will include facilities to deliver safely fully compliant emissions testing, and its design will be used as a template for further proposed test centres, subject to further consideration and funding.

The Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) currently conducts fully compliant diesel emissions tests on all heavy goods vehicles, buses and vans over 3,500 kg and a partial diesel emissions test for cars and light goods vehicles. The partial test includes a visual inspection of the vehicle’s emissions and a check of the engine malfunction indicator lamp (MIL), which indicates a defect in the vehicle emission control systems.

Reintroducing full emissions testing will require the modernisation of the test centre network to create safe, sustainable environments for DVA staff and customers. That is a longer-term programme of work that will require substantial capital investment. I will examine the issue further in the coming weeks and months to ensure that we can safely deliver a fully compliant diesel emissions test for cars and light goods vehicles.

Ms Bailey: I thank the Minister for her answer. This has been going on for years and years, and we keep hearing that there are plans to deal with it. Will the Minister give the House a time frame so that we know that diesel private and light goods vehicles will be checked, just as every other vehicle in Northern Ireland is checked?

Ms Mallon: I agree with the Member that the issue has been going on for a long time. I inherited the current network of vehicle test centres, which is over 40 years old and cannot support the introduction of a fully compliant diesel emissions test without significant capital investment. The DVA introduced a diesel emissions test for cars, light and heavy goods vehicles and buses in 2006, in compliance with the roadworthiness directive. However, for health and safety reasons related to the build-up of fumes in the test halls and in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland, the emission test for cars and light goods vehicles was suspended in June 2006. I assure the Member that, on taking up this post, I wanted to address the issue, which is why I have allocated the capital funding. We are looking to autumn 2022 when we will see the new depot at Hydebank that will include this facility, and I would be keen to see this rolled out across further depots in the coming years.

Mr Dunne: Can the Minister give an update on an increase in capacity for MOTs for vehicles moving forward? What is being done to try to accommodate the public in waiting inside the building in a safe and hygienic manner? At present, as I understand it, the public are left to wait in the rain, which is totally unacceptable.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. We have been aware of the issue of customers having to wait outside the test centres. We are conducting a number of risk assessments, and we are providing local arrangements at each of the MOT centres to facilitate customers. We will be providing masks and are asking them to be mindful of social distancing and the use of hand gel to help address that.

The current capacity for vehicle testing at our MOT centres is approximately at 30% in comparison with the levels prior to the pandemic and the lift issues. To meet increasing demand, the DVA is in the process of recruiting additional examiners. It will also use overtime to provide additional capacity and cover for vehicle tests, if, due to a variety of unforeseen reasons such as sick absence or the requirement to self-isolate, examiners are unable to attend work. I am conscious of the disruption being caused to those who are trying to access public-facing services, but the COVID-19 restrictions mean that the DVA has had to adapt its services to ensure that they can be provided safely. We ask customers for their patience at this difficult time. Vehicle testing capacity will increase as restrictions ease. Risk assessments are continually updated until such times as normal service delivery can resume.

Mr Beggs: Last week, the Westminster Government decided to bring forward the ban on new fossil fuel vehicles to 2030. That will bring a considerable reduction in emissions. What consideration has been given to the creation of a hydrogen hub in Northern Ireland? The emission from a hydrogen vehicle is water, which is much preferable to what is used at present.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. He is right that in early February the United Kingdom Government announced that they were bringing forwards their plans to ban the sales of diesel and petrol vehicles in the UK from 2040 to at least 2035. The ban will also include hybrid vehicles for the first time. My Department is liaising with the Office for Low Emission Vehicles to consider what we need to do to meet the challenge. The Member will also be aware of the actions that we are taking to increase the uptake of electric vehicles.

On the issue of the hydrogen hub, the Member will know that, shortly, we hope to bring online three hydrogen-fuelled buses. With the hydrogen hub, that will be the first on the island of Ireland. I recently met the Finance Minister, the Economy Minister and the AERA Minister to see what we can do to maximise the environmental and economic benefits of positioning Northern Ireland as a leader in the world of hydrogen.

Ms Mallon: As you will be aware, a number of Members have raised the issue recently. I recognise the importance of lighting, and this is key to enhancing greenways and making people feel safe when using them. I also understand that, during the dark evenings, we still want to maintain the levels of walking and cycling on our greenways that we have seen, particularly during COVID. Lighting of the Comber greenway will require a public consultation, and the design will need to be sympathetic to the environmental sensitivity of the route. My Department is currently carrying out preliminary design work for lighting the Comber greenway. Following completion of an outline design for a lighting scheme of the greenway, a public consultation will have to be conducted. This will inform a decision on whether or not lighting should be installed.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. She will know that the ducts were installed a couple of years ago, I think. She will also know that the place is pitch-black. We now know about the benefits of walking to all of society, particularly for people's mental health in these uncertain times. People using that greenway might be in the middle of it at dusk. Then, all of a sudden, there is pure darkness, and you cannot see your hand in front of your face. At the same time, there are cyclists, joggers and pedestrians. There are rabbits and dogs, and, most importantly, there is dog fouling. People need to be able to see, not just for their safety but for the practical use of the greenway. I appreciate what the Minister said about a public consultation, but can she indicate the time frame for that?

Ms Mallon: I cannot give the Member a definitive time frame at present. As I said, we are working through a design, and it will have to go out to consultation. As someone who uses the greenway frequently, the Member will know that a number of properties back on to it and that bats are present in the area, which will have to be factored into the design. I assure the Member that I am committed to the roll-out of the improvement of existing greenways. They bring huge physical and mental health benefits. As the Comber greenway has demonstrated, greenways can be a solution to a multiplicity of problems. I reassure her that I want to advance this agenda and am keen to work with the councils. Indeed, the steering group that was established between the three councils and my Department will meet on 9 December, and I hope that we can, in partnership, continue to make progress on improving that asset.

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Minister for the work of her Department to upgrade the Toucan Crossing at the Braniel section of the Connswater community greenway in east Belfast.

Will the Minister provide an update on her Department's work, in conjunction with councils, on the potential transfer to councils of responsibility for the Comber greenway, thereby enabling the high-level, ongoing maintenance and upgrade of that community asset?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. He was an active campaigner on the issue of the crossing; indeed, he shared with me a petition signed by a number of residents.

As I said, my Department has established a steering group, with agreed terms of reference, to consider the matter. As I stated in my previous answer, the next meeting is scheduled to take place on 9 December. Councils' wider powers in respect of community development, health and well-being puts them in a better place to develop greenways as community assets. I am very open to exploring whether the three councils might capitalise on those opportunities, and that includes the option of transferring ownership to them.

Mr O'Toole: For the people of east Belfast, the Comber and Connswater greenways are examples of how wonderful these facilities are. In my South Belfast constituency, people in Carryduff are keen to see progress. Will the Minister provide an update on that and raise the matter with the relevant council at the meeting in the weeks ahead?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. It is clear from the amount of correspondence that I have had that Members across Northern Ireland feel passionate about greenways. The Member will be aware that I announced £20 million of capital funding for blue/green infrastructure. I am keen to work with councils to see the further development of greenways. I am funding a number of greenways that are ready for construction in this financial year. We have also written to councils to encourage them to develop their proposals so that we can get as many as possible to the stage where we can move them on to construction. I am keen to work with councils on the development of greenways across Northern Ireland, including, of course, one in Carryduff.

Ms Mallon: Climate change is the single biggest environmental challenge that we face today, so it is vital that we work together towards a zero-carbon future that delivers better outcomes for our people, our economy and the environment. There is an urgent need to reduce emissions in order to tackle the climate emergency that we face and reach net zero as quickly as possible. As Infrastructure Minister, I have a clear agenda on climate change. My focus is on using available resources to create greener infrastructure and to deliver sustainable transport that connects people, unlocks our economic potential, protects our valuable environment and improves the health and well-being of all in our community.

Where an application is made for planning permission, my Department, in dealing with that application, must have regard to the local development plan, so far as it is material to the application, and to any other material considerations.

Those other material considerations include the regional development strategy 2035, the strategic planning policy statement, the planning strategy for rural Northern Ireland, retained planning policy statements and supplementary planning guidance. This application was subject to environmental impact assessment, habitats regulation assessment and a public inquiry before the Planning Appeals Commission. My decision to grant planning permission was taken after consideration of all of the above, and I am content that it properly considers any impacts on climate change.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for her answer. The Minister may or may not be aware that article 31 of the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 makes it an offence to permit the carrying out of an operation which damages any feature of an area of special scientific interest — obviously, the whole of Lough Neagh is one — stating that anyone who does so shall be guilty of a criminal offence. Given that the removal of natural habitats by sand dredging creates unquestionable damage and the fact that sand dredging is still unlawful, is the Minister not clearly committing a criminal act under that legislation by permitting further extraction that damages an area of special scientific interest?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. I am an advocate for protection of the environment, particularly a special one such as Lough Neagh. The decision to grant planning permission for sand dredging on Lough Neagh was taken in line with current planning policy. The environmental effects of the development have been the subject of rigorous assessment including environmental impact assessment, habitat regulations, appropriate assessment and a public inquiry hearing. I have come to the view that no adverse effect will be caused by the development on the lough in terms of its integrity or other aspects of its designated status, provided that suitable conditions and agreed measures are put in place.

Given the importance of maintaining the integrity of the designated status of Lough Neagh, my final decision will issue only when the section 76 agreement with the applicant and relevant parties has been concluded to my satisfaction. The conditions and section 76 cover matters such as the area that can be subject to dredging and the amount of dredging that can take place and when it can take place. They also cover the system for monitoring those aspects of the operation. The conditions and section 76, between them, will limit the number, size and operating times of the barges and restrict the hours of operation of the downstream processing facilities.

Ms Sheerin: Following this decision, will the Minister, at the very least, commit to robust monitoring of the dredging of Lough Neagh?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for her question. As I outlined in the supplementary response to Mr Carroll, there are a number of conditions attached. Monitoring is one, and my officials and I, as Minister, will take it very seriously.

Dr Aiken: Dredging has been permitted in a very limited area of Lough Neagh. Does the Minister accept that, were we to import sand from elsewhere, even more significant environmental and economic damage would occur and add significant costs to the construction and manufacturing industries here?

Ms Mallon: The Member makes an important point. We, as leaders, always weigh up the environmental aspect and the economic aspect. I have been very clear in the conditions that are being placed on this particular development. That is to ensure that we do what we can to protect our environment. However, the Member is also right to point out the contribution that it makes to the construction sector, in particular. As someone who is very mindful of our housing shortage, I am very conscious of the need to build more homes. We have to make sure that we are in a position to be able to do so. We have to consider all those things in the round. I hope that anyone who has been following this situation closely will take some reassurance from the fact that we have placed conditions on this. I am always very mindful of the impact on our environment of the decisions that we all take.

Ms Mallon: I am pleased to advise that my Department started the delivery of its winter gritting service on 19 October. Gritting on selected routes in the northern and western divisions has already been undertaken, and 330 tons of salt has been used to date. As part of planning for the winter gritting programme, my Department ensures that adequate staff are available, that all winter service equipment is in satisfactory working order, and that there are adequate supplies of salt. There are also arrangements in place to supplement stocks of salt during the winter period, if necessary. A full winter service will operate from 19 October until 5 April and will have approximately 300 staff and 130 gritters available and ready to salt main roads in order to help drivers across Northern Ireland deal with wintry conditions.

The average cost of providing the winter service is £7 million, but it can be as high as £10 million in more severe winter conditions. I have already allocated £3 million from the opening 2020-21 resource baseline budget as a contribution to funding for the winter service, and a recent COVID bidding exercise provided a further £5 million in funding for winter gritting services. I was disappointed that my further bid for £2 million in the October monitoring round was not successful. However, funding for the winter service will be reassessed as part of January monitoring, and any bid that is required will be submitted by my Department.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for her response. She will be aware that, along with Ms Sheerin behind me here, I have been lobbying for quite a while now in relation to the B47 route through the Sperrins. That is a key route for people living up in communities like Cranagh for accessing services in south Derry, Magherafelt and Ballinascreen. Will the Minister give further consideration to including that section of the B47 from Cranagh to Ballinascreen on the main gritting schedule?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question; I am aware that, with his colleagues, he has been raising this issue. Under the present policy, 28% of the road network is gritted, which covers 80% of the volume of traffic, and that has an average cost of £7 million. If I were to extend that to cover, say, 90% of our traffic, it would double the cost of the winter gritting service to £14 million. If I were to extend it further to cover 100% of traffic, we would be talking about an annual budget of £28 million for the winter gritting service. My Department has to operate within the policy to ensure that it is fairly applied across the board in Northern Ireland. I would very much like to be in a position to do much more salting and gritting, but I have to operate within the policy and, particularly, within the financial constraints facing my Department.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, given COVID, what contingency services are in place for winter services going forward?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. My Department has a staff sickness contingency plan in place which ensures that, initially, efforts are directed towards motorways and trunk roads before moving on to other main roads. Even with all of our available resources, it is unknown what impacts COVID-19 will have on our winter service. The traffic information control centre is operational 24 hours, 7 days a week, and will advise the public through the TrafficwatchNI website and social media of any routes not salted due to staff sickness. I want to assure the Member that this is something that we are very conscious of and that we are keeping our contingency arrangements under constant review.

Mr Butler: I am sure that the Minister would like to join me in Road Safety Week and take up the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service challenge today to "kill your speed", given the problems that ice and snow can cause. As we know, rainwater has been a problem over the past weekend. Will the Minister take a look at the A26, particularly under the railway bridge? Members from Lagan Valley will know what I am talking about. Close to Moira, it floods absolutely every year, and it is a main arterial route. It is one of the busiest roads in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister give an undertaking today to look at that, please?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. Unfortunately I do not have the detail of that specific road to hand, but I am content to speak with officials after Question Time and ask them to look into the matter and report back to you.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question; I know that this is an area he is very passionate about. My Department does not identify spend on walking and cycling separately but includes funding for both in active travel. The attribution of spend to active travel is also not a precise exercise, as some projects have benefits for active travel even if they are not carried out specifically for that purpose. Other Departments, councils and other agencies provide additional funding for walking and cycling promotion and infrastructure development. For example, we have had recent commitments of many millions of pounds by a number of councils for walking and cycling as part of their contribution to the greenways that they are developing.

I am not in a position to provide guarantees for active travel in 2021-22. The Executive have not agreed the Budget for next year; therefore, I do not know what budget my Department will have. However, I can confirm that I am committed to investing in active travel and encouraging walking and cycling. In demonstration of that commitment, I have appointed a walking and cycling champion in my Department and invested in a £20 million fund for the development of blue/green infrastructure, which will support the connection of communities and active travel. I expect to make further investments in active travel next year.

Already this year, I have completed the new Blaris greenway and pop-up cycle lanes on the Dublin and Grosvenor Roads, and I continue to develop more opportunities to put walking and cycling at the front of a green recovery for all our towns and cities. My September announcement indicated a total capital grant for the six greenway projects of £1·4 million this year and £2·3 million next year. Capital funding for those increased grants could be made available from blue/green infrastructure funding.

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Minister for her support of active travel. Does she, however, agree that there has been underinvestment in active travel infrastructure? Would she consider an active travel Act to make it a statutory responsibility for a minimum percentage of the Department for Infrastructure's budget to be spent on active travel?

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. I agree with his assessment that there has not been enough funding to encourage and provide opportunities for citizens to walk and cycle. I am committed to addressing that.

I advise him that I am actively considering an active travel Bill. I have asked my officials to prepare a submission that sets out a range of options for how I can move that forward with policy changes, resources and what we might be able to do on the legislative front.

Mr McGuigan: The Minister will obviously be aware of the tragic death of another cyclist on our roads five days ago. Without any knowledge of that specific incident, as a cyclist, I am well aware that, without cycling-only infrastructure and additional cycling safety measures, unfortunately, further tragedies on our roads will occur. Does the Minister intend to review the Highway Code to explore ways of strengthening it with cycling safety measures?

Ms Mallon: I am aware of that fatality, and I want to express my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of the person who lost their life. I agree with the Member that one of the best ways of encouraging people to cycle and ensure that they can do so safely is by providing cycling-only infrastructure. I am very keen to work with councils on that. I have to be honest: as someone with very little patience, I would like to see a much faster pace of change, but we are trying to do what we can.

As part of my consideration of safe active travel, I have asked officials to look at what we can do to review the Highway Code. I am keen to provide updates to the all-party group on cycling, which I know the Member is on.

Mr Dunne: Is the Minister convinced that she is getting it right with her priorities? I appreciate her enthusiasm for greenways, cycle lanes and so on, but we need to get back to the basic principles of maintaining our existing road structure. Is the Minister convinced that she is getting it right?

I look at my constituency of North Down and the A2, which carries 45,000 vehicles per day. The drains are blocked. Following a strong campaign by us, the grass is now being cut twice a year and weeds are growing wild on the verges. That is not happening only in my constituency; Belfast, including south Belfast, which now has an SDLP MP, is an absolute disgrace. Weeds are growing on footpaths and grass verges.

Minister, with all due respect, you have your priorities wrong. We have a huge volume of vehicles —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Could the Member come to a question or he will not get an answer?

Mr Dunne: People pay road tax, but cyclists do not.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Question please, Gordon.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate that. Thanks very much.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member. I know that he is very passionate about his constituency. I do not believe that I am getting my priorities wrong. The Member will recall that, on taking up my post, I said that we needed to get the basics right, and that is why I have fully funded a 12-month repair scheme for street lighting and why I have invested £8 million in LEDs to replace our street lights. It is why I have maintained the structural budget for our roads and set up a £10 million rural roads fund as well.

It is not a question of getting priorities right; it is question of having the resource to be able to do what you want. The Member will know that the Barton report said that we should be investing £140 million per annum in our road network. I am not being allocated money to in any way touch the sides of that figure. I want to bring about change in active travel, and I want to make sure that people can be active and that they have better outcomes for their physical and mental health and in terms of the environment as well, but I share the Member's frustration. If I had much more money, I would be doing much, much more.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I have time for a very brief question from Sinéad Bradley, followed by an answer.

Ms Mallon: I am fully committed to improving connectivity across the island, and I am working with my counterparts in Dublin on a number of key all-island projects aimed at improving the lives of people across the island. This includes enhancing the rail network to create a spine of connectivity on the island, the A5 project, the Narrow Water bridge project and the Ulster canal project, all of which are commitments in New Decade, New Approach.

The Member will know that I have been engaging with Minister Ryan, and I know that she has an interest in Narrow Water bridge. I joined party colleagues in a Zoom meeting with the Taoiseach on Friday night. He is giving updates to all parties on the shared-island unit, and I discussed with him the issue of Narrow Water and the multiple benefits that that project can deliver, which is news that I know the Member will be delighted by.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): That concludes the period for listed questions. We will now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. Our local airports play an important role in growing our local economy and in connecting people and business. I am disappointed to learn about the reduced hours of operation at Belfast International Airport, but I understand how that reduction in operations will help the airport reduce its cost base in light of the reduction in scheduled services because of the COVID-19 measures.

The Member is right: my Department's remit on airports is limited. I have agreed previously to meet the airport, and I am committed to working alongside my ministerial colleagues, given the shared statutory responsibilities in this area, to explore what the Executive can do to support the industry through this challenging time.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for her comments and, indeed, her support for the aviation sector in Northern Ireland. As she is aware, Belfast International Airport is the only 24-hour operational airport in Northern Ireland, and it is not just a question of commercial aviation but a question of general aviation. It is about fixed-wing air ambulance support, about the PSNI and it has been available as an alternative diversionary airfield along the edge of the Atlantic as well, so it has significant implications. The fact that Northern Ireland does will not have a 24-hour operational airport will have a considerable impact, not just on our international reputation but on our ability to grow and maintain business going forward. Is the Minister willing to join with the Finance Minister to work together to get a bespoke package for Belfast International Airport so that it can get back to 24-hour operation for the good of everybody in Northern Ireland as soon as possible?

Ms Mallon: As the Member highlighted, the issue of airports cuts across a number of policy areas but also across the statutory responsibilities of a number of Ministers. I can assure him that, just as we did before, I am committed to working with the Minister of Finance and, given her responsibility around airlines, the Minister for the Economy as well. I believe that, if we work together, we can and should be able to support the industry through this incredibly difficult time.

Ms Mallon: As the Member will know, we have allocated £10 million for the rural roads fund. That is being worked out across divisions. We are providing reports to all of the councils on the projects that have qualified for investment as part of the rural roads fund. Those reports are being made available on the councils' websites.

Ms Dillon: I appreciate the Minister's answer, and the fact that we will be able to get online access to those reports. Does the Minister's Department have a strategy or funding coming forward for short stretches of footpaths in rural areas? Such infrastructure would make a big difference for people being able to walk to school or football clubs. At this time, we are devoid of a strategy and, in many areas, any type of infrastructure.

Ms Mallon: I am aware that the absence of footpaths to ensure that people can walk safely is an issue across the North. It runs counter to my ambition to have more people walking and cycling. That is why I have set up the £20 million blue/green fund. I have also been clear that I cannot impose solutions from on high. I do not know communities. That is why I am looking to councils to bring forward proposals that I can support financially, and on which I can work with them to try to progress. We have had a focus on cities in the initial roll-outs and pilots, but I am conscious of the fact that we need to see improvements across the North.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. He will know that I set up a ministerial advisory panel to look at that issue. I understand that the panel has reported to the Committee. I am sure that the support that the Committee had for the initiative when I went to discuss the matter, remains. I am keen to see that it is progressed with my Executive colleagues. I have already met the Finance Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and I am due to meet the Education Minister and the Communities Minister. There are opportunities to be more strategic in the planning and delivery of our infrastructure in its more holistic sense. I am, therefore, keen to see how that can be progressed with my Executive colleagues so that we can get into a better position with regard to long-term planning and the future delivery of strategic infrastructure projects.

Mr Hilditch: I thank the Minister for the optimism in her answer. Does the Minister see the report as having sidelined the Infrastructure Minister in any way, as the commission would report directly to the Executive? What takes place in other devolved situations?

Ms Mallon: I am sure that it seems bizarre to have an Infrastructure Minister say that she wants to see an infrastructure commission that deals with issues outside the Department and brings them to the Executive, but it is not about a power grab for the Infrastructure Minister. It is about ensuring that we have the right mechanisms for delivering our infrastructure projects strategically, minimising delays and doing it in the most efficient manner. We have to look at our competitors across these islands. We look to New Zealand and often cite it as an example of how you can do things much better. All of those places have an independent infrastructure commission because they have ambition. We should not have any less ambition.

Ms Mallon: As the Member will know, driving instructors were included in the Executive's regulations on businesses that closed until 13 November to help stop the spread of COVID-19, and which have been further extended by the Executive to 20 November. Following that Executive decision, driving tests ceased over that period of increased restrictions based on public health and scientific advice. I assure the Member that we have work in order and that we will be recommencing driving tests on 21 November. We took a decision not to recommence on 20 November, because we are allowing a day for people to have their formal driving lessons, if they need to.

With regard to creating additional capacity, the DVA has opened up the booking system for February for the customers who were impacted by the recent restrictions. Over 2,000 additional booking slots have been made available in November, December and January as the DVA increases capacity by recruiting additional examiners. Once all customers whose test has been cancelled recently have had the opportunity to rebook their appointments, the DVA will open up the booking service for all other customers in early December. The DVA will continue to offer driving tests on a Saturday. Following consultation with key stakeholders, it is planning to offer driving tests for HGVs on Sundays. The DVA will also use overtime to rota off-shift dual-role driving examiners to provide additional capacity and cover for scheduled driving tests where, due to a variety of unforeseen reasons, such as sick absence or the requirement to self-isolate, driving examiners are unable to attend work.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for her answers so far. Minister, I have concerns about how you are going to address the backlog. I appreciate that, for car MOTs, you can issue a temporary exemption certificate (TEC), which will let people drive on. I have concerns about that as well because of the amount of work that garages are not doing; there are cars on the road that are not safe, although it is up to the individual to ensure that their car is safe. How are you going to increase the percentage and numbers? A rate of 100% means that driving test numbers will just sit still; you need to increase that by another 100% to address the backlog. Many young people have contacted my office because they have been turned down when they try to get a test date; they cannot get one. One or two more people will not do it; we need a massive increase in the percentage to address the backlog.

Ms Mallon: I know that disruption is being caused to learner drivers. I have taken the decision to further extend the validity of their theory test pass certificates to try to reduce the disruption to them. It is a public-facing service, and all public-facing services are being impacted by COVID. I assure the Member that it is not just a case of recruiting one or two additional examiners; we are recruiting 27 additional temporary and permanent examiners. We are looking at testing on a Saturday and Sunday to free up capacity as well. We will continue to look creatively at doing what we can to try to maximise the number of people who we can test, while being mindful of the public health advice and the need to adhere to the risk assessments that we have carried out.

Ms Mallon: I have not, to date, been able to give very active consideration to that. I am struggling to make sure that our public transport network remains viable under the current conditions, given that we have seen such dramatic falls in passenger numbers. As I have said, my job is to protect the existing public transport network in terms of bus and rail, but I also want to see it being improved and enhanced. I will continue to make representations to Executive colleagues to ensure that we get the finances that we need to see enhancements to the network, such as the one that the Member has, rightly, highlighted.

Mr O'Dowd: I appreciate the pressure that the Minister's Department and the entire Executive are under. I would not expect her to be able to say, "I'm building that within a short time". I want to ensure that it is in the mindset of the Department that we need to expand our rail network. We need to be imaginative in the provision of further rail halts, particularly along the main Belfast to Dublin line. A rail halt in central Craigavon would lift the traffic congestion out of Lurgan and allow Lurgan to return to being a market town with specialist traders.

Ms Mallon: The Member does not need to persuade me of the merits of that; I can see it, and I share his enthusiasm. It is an issue of finance. My Department is currently working on the regional strategic transport plans, which will go out for consultation. That will be an opportunity for Members and members of the public right across the North to respond and share their views and ambitions of what public transport provision they would like to see in their local community. I encourage Members and their constituents to respond to that consultation once it is published so that I can be clear on their views.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): If we turn around the next one quickly, we will get in a question and an answer.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. He will know that I was given new powers for the financial scheme on 3 November. Ten days later, I opened the taxi scheme; it opened on Friday, and, at close of play, there had been around 2,000 applications.

I have committed to ensuring that payments for that scheme are out before Christmas, because I understand that people are finding it very difficult financially. The scheme for the bus-and-coach sector will open next week.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Members, please take your ease while we change the Chair and move on to the next topic.

Mr Speaker: Members, I have received notice from the First Minister and deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement.

Mrs O'Neill (The deputy First Minister): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank you and your office for making arrangements to accommodate the statement today. The First Minister and I recognise the importance of making these announcements to the Chamber, and we are grateful that you were able to facilitate us at such short notice.

On 16 October, the Executive put a series of measures in place in response to a significant increase in the transmission of COVID-19 and a concerning rise in positive cases and hospital admissions, including those requiring intensive care. Those measures were informed by the latest scientific and medical advice and a consideration of the societal and economic impacts that they could have. They have been a necessary and proportionate step to protect our valuable health service at this difficult time.

While the measures have not been easy for any of us, we are starting to see the positive impact. That has been due to the hard work of all of us in adhering to the measures, and I want to thank every one of you for that. The R number has started to come down, and positive cases and hospital admissions have started to level out. However, they are still at a very high level, which means that we are not out of the woods yet. It is, therefore, vitally important for us to continue to be vigilant at this time, especially as we face into the winter months.

It is in that context that the Executive met last week to consider the next steps that must be taken. That resulted in the current restrictions being extended for one week until 19 November, after which there will be a number of relaxations. They relate to the opening of close-contact services, including driving instructors, on 20 November, which will be by appointment only, and to the opening of unlicensed premises such as cafes and coffee shops, also on 20 November. They will operate with restricted opening hours of 5.00 am to 8.00 pm, and the consumption of alcohol on the premises will not be permitted. Both unlicensed premises and close-contact services will have a legal duty to record contact details of those using their service to assist in contact tracing. Additionally, pubs and bars will be permitted to sell off-sales from 20 November. They must be in the manufacturer's original sealed packaging only. All other restrictions remain in place until 27 November. They include the measures relating to private households and gardens, gatherings, marriages, funerals, sport and indoor attractions and libraries. We know that this will be difficult, but I want to commend the determined efforts of all of the people in our community who to date have ensured that we have made good progress. We want to thank you for that, and we want to urge you to continue to work with us in the weeks and months ahead.

You will have heard the First Minister and me talking previously about co-existing with the virus, and it is with that focus that the Executive have agreed a number of support measures, which we are now working on. They are the roll-out of a vaccination programme as early as possible, initially targeting priority groups such as healthcare staff, care homes and those with underlying vulnerabilities; ongoing preparation for the introduction of rapid and mass testing at the earliest opportunity; and additional financial supports in place for affected businesses and individuals. A focus working group will also be established that will work to mitigate the risk in the opening of hospitality businesses, including improved ventilation and requirements for the recording of customer information for contact tracing purposes.

We have all acknowledged that this was a challenging week. That is because none of the decisions before us are easy. The Executive have had to consider the impact on health, our hospitals, our health staff, alongside the economic and societal impacts and the very real impact that it has on people there too, including employees, many of whom are lower-paid. We also know that further decisions need to be made. The ability of the health service to cope over the winter months and the economic and societal impacts will remain key issues.

Going into winter — a time when people's health is already more vulnerable and the health service is under more pressure — it is vital that we continue to work together to suppress the transmission of the virus. COVID will also have a detrimental impact on people's general health and well-being, and we are mindful of the other health impacts that we are seeing in the pandemic. People will present with illnesses that are not COVID-19-related. We want people to make sure that they seek advice and services if they are worried about their health. People will also be experiencing mental health problems, social isolation and anxiety.

We will work with all sectors and other partners to identify the measures and solutions that can be put in place to effectively tackle the spread of the virus. Our wish is to avoid the need for ongoing cycles of restrictions, but we are living in a period of great uncertainty. We need to work closely with all our partners and citizens to get through the Christmas and winter period and to prepare for mass testing and the delivery of vaccines. The Executive have a very clear focus on that pathway.

There is still some way to go, and nothing about the virus is predictable. As I have previously said, there is no certainty. We know that everyone wants to know what the next few months will hold, and that is a natural expectation. We are currently planning for that, and we want to protect as much of the festive period as we can. Our clear commitment is that we will do absolutely everything we can to secure that, and we will make more announcements on that soon.

At this point, I would like to draw everyone's attention to the most powerful tool that we have at our disposal in the fight against the virus: our own behaviour and the actions that each and every one of us takes. Our decision will now ultimately shape what happens next and what steps are required. We have a new media campaign, and we encourage everyone to engage with it; to continue to follow the public health advice on social distancing; to limit our social contacts now; to wear our face coverings now; to wash our hands now; to go out only for necessary activities and travel; and to stay at home as much as we can. Those are small individual acts, but they are incredibly powerful when we act together. As a society and a community, our small, daily steps can make that real difference. They will build capacity for the health service. They will help keep the economy going. They will mean that we will do the right thing for our friends and families. Those small, daily steps are more than the sum of their parts. They are a huge part of how we will get through this.

As I said, we are very grateful to everyone for the steps that they have taken, and we understand how difficult the past months have been. We all have to dig deep now, and I have every confidence that we can do this together. The vast majority of society are following the public health advice and, in doing so, are keeping people safe and, undoubtedly, saving lives. To those who are considering going against the public health guidance and regulations, I ask you to think carefully. Your decision could be detrimental to all our efforts to reduce the transmission of this deadly virus. Your decision could also be detrimental to the health and well-being of your loved ones and to the capacity of our health service to cope.

In closing, I thank everyone for their efforts and their hard work so far. This has been a difficult year for all of us, especially the many families who have lost loved ones and the many others who have been ill as a result of COVID. However, let me end by saying that I continue to be amazed and impressed by the widespread fortitude and resilience across all our society. I know that, looking forward, we are well placed to continue rising to the unprecedented challenges that we face.

Mr McGrath (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I thank the joint First Minister for her statement. Last week was a failure of good governance here. It was an embarrassment and an example of how not to reach decisions. It may have been an embarrassment to the Assembly, but, more importantly, it created a system of chaos that does not deliver for the public. The background briefings, leaks and updates to us via the media were shocking. Can the joint First Minister confirm and detail the plan that is now being put in place by the Executive Office to ensure that the shambles that we witnessed last week will not be repeated and that, before 27 November, we will have a timely way forward for protecting lives and livelihoods and not party political perspectives?

Mrs O'Neill: I thank the Chair for his question. Last week was unedifying for everybody: not one party, not two parties, but every party that sits around the Executive table. Let me put that on the record.

We need to get a grip on the pandemic. We need to get to grips with the fact that, comparatively speaking, we find ourselves in a worse position compared with many other areas and many of our neighbours. We need to get virus transmission under control, and we need to find a way to work collectively to deliver that. We need to continue to follow the public health advice. We need to be guided all the while by what we said we would do at the very start of the pandemic: keep transmission in check and keep the pressure off our health service. Those are our guiding principles through this. What we need to do as an Executive is to go forward in the way that I outlined in the statement, where I talk about looking to the future. What can we do? What will allow us to open things up? We have had some glimmer of hope around vaccination, and we look forward to having that rolled out. Even before that, however, there is the issue of mass testing. How can we quickly get that rolled out? Doing that will allow us to have more freedoms to move around.

Everybody wants certainty now. This has been such a difficult year for everybody, and everybody is craving some certainty. I only wish that we could give that certainty, but the reality is that, because we are dealing with the pandemic, we cannot. What we can be certain about, however, is when we are going to communicate with the public. What we can be certain about are the trigger points at which we take certain decisions. That is what I want the Executive to focus on. We will focus on vaccination, on mass testing and on additional supports for individuals. The Minister for Communities will make a statement on that tomorrow, which, again, is some positive news. We have to give the public something to grab onto for the future, and it is those areas that we want to work on. The Executive need to get a grip collectively on their approach. We need to reflect on last week and make sure that it is not repeated.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement to the House at what is a critical stage of the pandemic. I welcome the new media campaign. I caught sight of an ad at the weekend, and it was very good.

Does the deputy First Minister agree that every one of us has the power to control the spread of the virus and that, through taking the most basic of precautions, infection rates can be reduced further, thus allowing non-COVID health services to continue or, indeed, recommence?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I concur with the Member. It is back to basics. It is back to the principles of washing your hands and staying apart. In the simplest terms, we are trying to break the transmission of the virus, and the best way in which we can do that is to limit our contacts. We really want to reinforce that message, and we hope that the new communications campaign will help us get that message out there again and remind people of what is expected of all of us.

I also think that people should take some hope from the fact that the restrictions that we have brought in to date have worked. We have demonstrated that they work. The rate in Derry and Strabane was through the roof: the intervention there worked. We can see that the four-week intervention that we have had is starting to work. We are at where we predicted that we could be. We have to learn from those things and continue to do them where required, but, ultimately, we need to get to the point at which we have the virus transmission at a controllable rate and the pressure off our health service, and then we can focus on the other areas on which we need to be very much focused into the future.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. I thank the Minister for her statement. I wonder whether she can tell us what she thinks the political fallout will be from the Executive's decision last week.

Mrs O'Neill: I described last week as being unedifying for everybody. It does not reflect well on the Executive. We have a challenging Executive in the most normal of times. We have five parties sitting around the table that have a duty to work towards collective decision-making and collective responsibility, and, unfortunately, that was not the case last week.

It was a really challenging week for the Executive. It does not reflect well that we found ourselves in a difficult position but we had very clear public health advice. It is very challenging to work your way through, and I readily say that. I believe that everybody is conflicted all the while when trying to make decisions. The majority of Ministers voted to extend the restrictions for two weeks, and that should have been the case and the outworking of Executive. I find it a matter of profound concern and regret that colleagues opposite decided to use a mechanism that is there to protect minority rights. That should not have been the case. The will of the Executive should have been carried through.

We need to accept where we are now. I accept that this is now the outworking of the Executive. We are all duty-bound now to communicate the current situation to the public and to work with the public and to work our way through this. We need to try to give people some hope in the middle of all this doom and gloom and the challenges and mental health damage that the pandemic brings and everything else that comes with it. For me, certainly, last week was a bad week all round, and I do not want to see that repeated.

Dr Aiken: I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement. I echo the thanks that all of us in the Assembly owe our health service workers in what they do.

In the light of the disastrous example of so-called leadership and management shown by the Northern Ireland Executive last week, in particular the divisive, significant and controversial use of the cross-community vote, will she highlight how decisions, which should be based on the science and medical advice, will now be debated and delivered cooperatively, rather than having decisions based on the narrowest of narrow political expediency, a political expediency that has already reduced the people of Northern Ireland's faith in our institutions to a new low that even I thought was impossible. With the First Minister and the deputy First Minister here, I ask you both to make a commitment now that you will not use the cross-community vote mechanism, particularly on health issues and issues that are of vital interest to the people of Northern Ireland? You are both here: you can make that commitment.

Mrs O'Neill: We should always inject a wee bit of honesty into these debates and conversations. It was not two parties that used a cross-community vote: it was one party. Let us be clear about that. Let us also say that all other parties in the Executive wanted to extend the period for two weeks. That is also honesty with the public. That reality was voted down by a cross-community mechanism, which I am aghast at. I do not believe that it should have been used. That is my clear position, and that will always be my position.

Where do we go from here? We communicate to the public where we are now; we tell them where the spread of the virus is now; we tell them about the hospital pressures that we are under now; we tell them what the current restrictions are now; and then we work towards what can we do for the future. What can we do to fix this picture and take pressure off our health service and to support people to isolate? That is what is required. All the evidence tells us that, of the people who have to self-isolate, many of those on low incomes dread getting a ping on their phone, if they have downloaded the app, because they cannot afford to isolate.

We have to get to a point where we make this as easy as we can for people in the most challenging of times. That should be the objective of the Executive, and we should be guided by two things that we said on our pathway to recovery: keeping the transmission rate under control, under 1; and, alongside that, keeping the pressure off our health service. That is what should guide us in all our future decision-making. All those decisions should be made in a timely way to make sure that people have that information well in advance so that they can plan.

Ms Armstrong: I am delighted to hear that the deputy First Minister no longer supports or does not support the use of the cross-community vote. As someone who does not have their vote counted because of the cross-community vote, I think that maybe it is now time to change that, to modernise the Assembly and move on.

Deputy First Minister, you mentioned that last week was a bad week: I do not want to continue that bad week any further. You talk about supporting people to isolate. On that basis, when we look at your statement where it talks about the roll-out of a vaccination programme, we need clarity on how some of the things in the statement will work. That is one on the things that we can give people clarity and certainty on. For clarification, will domiciliary care workers and unpaid carers, who have not had a break in nine months, be included in the vaccination programme?

All of us are looking for clarification. For instance, it talks about unlicensed premises such as cafes and coffee shops, but many of those cafes and coffee shops have bistros that open in the evenings with licensed services. Does that mean that they are closed for the whole day? We need clarification for the businesses that can open. I ask the deputy First Minister to give that clarification either now or in the regulations as they come forward.

Mrs O'Neill: On the second point, clarification will come with the regulations. We said last week that we need to help businesses to understand what is expected of them. I do not think that there has been enough communication between the Department of Health and the wider sector. Meetings with various sectors have been held throughout the pandemic, and I have to say that many sectors and businesses have worked really hard to adjust their businesses and to bring in things to make them more COVID-19-secure. We will just have to keep working at that. However, people need to be communicated with in order to make decisions about what comes next.

On the issue of the vaccine roll-out and prioritising who will get first, there will be an Executive discussion on that. I am sure that we will be able to say more about it over time. Clearly, those who work on the front line will be prioritised, as will those who are vulnerable to the virus. There will be choices to be made by the Department of Health. However, we are assured that we will receive a paper for discussion on testing and vaccination. I look forward to that conversation, hopefully this week.

Mr Buckley: The deputy First Minister talks about injecting honesty into the debate. However, she failed to mention the fact that her position on Sunday was a fair compromise. Only she can answer why that changed on Monday.

In the spirit of looking forward, I welcome the statement, as, during the crisis, it gives clarity on dates for businesses, in particular for working families, who have borne the brunt of some of the restrictions. The deputy First Minister and the First Minister have talked about coexisting with the virus, so I want to ask this: what work is going on with businesses to ensure that, when businesses reopen, they do so in a safe and compliant manner?

Mrs O'Neill: I hope that I addressed the Member's point in a previous answer when I spoke about the compliance group being put together to work with different sectors to get them ready to open. We also have supported our councils, as they have a key role to play, with local environmental health officers and enforcement officers working with businesses to help them to open in a safe, secure way. I welcome the funding that has been given to councils to do that work, and we need to continue to do that.

In order to deal with the pandemic, we need not just the Executive but all partners. We have said from the very start that it would require a partnership approach and heavy lifting by everybody. That is how we will take it forward.

Back to the point about honesty: I was very honest on Sunday in saying that I would weigh up all the factors on the basis of the public health advice. Every time we come to one of these crucial points, we have to look at it from the perspective of health, of the economy and of society. All those things are factored in to our discussions. They are very difficult decisions for everyone. You cannot take away from that. People have different emphases and priorities for what is required. When we, at this juncture, as at every juncture, have discussions with the public health team, with the Health Minister, with Michael McBride and Ian Young and they tell us, "No matter how you slice and dice it, we will, in all likelihood, be coming back to an intervention before Christmas if we do not have a full two-week lockdown" — that was the scenario with which we were faced — when I hear that evidence, I take it seriously. Further to that, after days of conversation in the Executive, we have the Chief Medical Officer saying that to proceed down this route will cause excess deaths: again, we have to take that seriously.

I accept that these are challenging conversations, and the best way to communicate with the public is with honesty. None of us can make cast-iron guarantees: we are dealing with a pandemic. It would be untrue to the public to give them any kind of guarantee. All we can do is try our very best and communicate it in a timely way and take balanced decisions in the best way we can.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for her statement and for the honesty and integrity with which she has handled this. Can the deputy First Minister update us on what local financial assistance there is for individuals at this time?

Mrs O'Neill: This is a fundamental tool in dealing with COVID-19. As I say, all the attitude surveys tell us that people intend to self-isolate, for example, but cannot because they cannot afford to. The pandemic has a disproportionate effect on those on lower incomes and women. Its implications are dire. Financial support is, for me, crucial. I know that the Communities Minister will make a statement to the House tomorrow on that. However, I will drive that message home to the public: there is financial support in place. Tomorrow, as I have said, we will have more detail around a self-isolation grant, and the current scheme will be increased. That is really important in getting that money to people who are on low incomes and maybe face a reduction in their pay because they have tested positive or have been told to self-isolate. The grant that Carál has brought forward is a tax-free and non-repayable grant, and no other jurisdiction has it. That is a really important thing that we have that she has been able to bring forward.

Alongside that, there is a dedicated urgent referral service from the advice sector to escalate supports for people who desperately need them. We, as MLAs, all should promote this work to make sure that people know where they can get support when they need it. We have had the different supports through the different helplines, which I very much welcome, and we have had the community support funding and the commitments that were made to councils. That was to help with things like, for example, grassroots services so that, whenever there are localised lockdowns, we will provide wrap-around services, food and financial support. Those are all really important areas of work that we need to continue to promote. That is because a lot of these things are out there, and I do not know if everybody knows about them. We need to continue to promote them to make sure that the people who need that support know where to go to get it.

Mr Clarke: I follow on from other questions about your honesty, deputy First Minister. You referred to advice from Mr Young: we heard Mr Young on the radio this morning, and he said that the excess deaths would occur whether we opened or otherwise. My colleague asked you about your change of opinion. Of course, at the start of this lockdown, all of the parties agreed that this would be for four weeks and four weeks only. The circumstances that brought of us out of the first lockdown were to get the R number under 1: last week, we were told that the R number was 0·7. What changed? What advice has the Minister got, and will she publish that advice on what changed between 0·7 and the previous advice, where it was under 1?

Mrs O'Neill: I encourage the Member to maybe listen to all that I say on different occasions. I was consistent from the start of the four-week intervention that I hoped that it would be a four-week intervention but we needed to keep everything on the table because we did not know where the virus would sit at the end of the four-week period. We had predicted and all of the modelling told us that the four-week intervention could get us to 0·7, which it did. Again, that demonstrates that what we are doing works. It also further modelled that it would go up again with the impact of schools, and we know that all of our measures have a lag period. The impact of schools opening means that our R rate is sitting at 0·9 and is maybe even closer to 1, if not above it, this week. We will know more about that later in the week.

All of these things are predictable and they are modelled. The Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser have been very clear with regard to the four-week-only intervention. If you remember back to the four-week intervention, the Health Minister wanted more; he modelled four to six weeks. We talked about all of these things, and we tried to get an accommodation and a way forward. We really hoped that the intervention would work, but, when it does not work, you have to do further things. That is the position that we find ourselves in [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to continue to show respect to everybody else when they are speaking. You had your chance to ask a question, so please respect others.

Ms Anderson: Thank you, Minister, for that statement. In the statement you talk about the additional financial support that is in place for individuals and businesses that have been affected. However, Minister, there is the failure of the Economy Minister to release the funds for those who are recently self-employed and those in the supply chain. Given the comments that we have heard, especially over the last week, about poverty and deprivation, does she realise and could you please relay to her that some of the people who have not received a single penny need to put food on the table and to pay bills?

Mrs O'Neill: I thank the Member for her question. Yes, I am deeply concerned that many of the businesses that were asked to close four week ago have still not received their grant aid, particularly those in the close-contact services — again, a predominantly female workforce who are often at the lower end of pay scales. The money needs to be delivered to them and into their bank accounts ASAP. It should already have been delivered. There is no doubt that these are complicated times, but I have raised this with the Minister for the Economy and will continue to do so in the Executive.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answers so far. The deputy First Minister has spoken about giving people some hope. At the weekend, I had an email from a constituent, who is looking for some hope. This is what she said:

What do you say to her?

Mrs O'Neill: That reflects the concerns of many families right now and demonstrates the enormity of what we are dealing with and the fact that people have been separated all year long. Now, we are coming up to the Christmas period, and it is the natural instinct of us all to be with our family and friends and to spend time together. We have to work our way through this. We have to be very clear with the public about the fact that close contact spreads the virus. At the same time, we have to give people something in terms of being able to find some way to spend some time with family members. As an Executive, we will have to discuss the approach to this. It will be dependent on the virus's spread at the time, as you would expect. We will have to find a way to communicate it, in the clearest possible terms that we can, to the public. It will depend on the public health at the time. It will be a challenging time for people, but we have to give them that wee bit of hope. We should be able to find a way to allow some flexibility to allow people to get over the Christmas period and have some comfort.

Mr Chambers: I thank the Minister for her statement. Does the Minister agree that the decision taken by the Executive last week has the unfortunate potential to breed public complacency and to undermine confidence in the public, medical and scientific messaging that is coming from the Executive?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do not think that anybody can get away from that. When the public see what happened here last week, they will rightly be dismayed. Let us not repeat what happened last week. Let us make sure that there is a better way forward — a consensus way forward. Let us make sure that we use this time to not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a global pandemic. Despite everything that happened last week, we still need to communicate to the public that we are asking them to do those basic things to break the transmission. We are in a very challenging situation, and our health service is under huge pressure right now. We are asking people to continue to work with us, and, hopefully, we can continue to keep the virus's transmission down.

Mr Robinson: First and foremost, I thank all our dedicated health staff who are working day and night to try to protect us all from this horrific virus. When does the Minister hope that the first people in Northern Ireland will be able to avail themselves of the much-needed virus vaccine? What role can rapid testing and potential mass testing play in Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks to the Member for his question. We cannot give a definitive date right now, but we have been told that we will perhaps have supplies of vaccine this side of Christmas — so, hopefully, in December. There will be prioritisation around how we roll out the vaccination programme. That is one of the discussions that we will come back to at the Executive around what that will look like and who gets prioritised. We await a paper on that from the Department of Health. I have no doubt that, given the significance of having a vaccination programme, the Health Minister will want to make a statement to the Assembly and to take Members' questions.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, joint First Minister. Given the serious impact that the measures have on business and the fact that they are absolutely necessary in the absence of other public health measures, what supports are in place locally for business?

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks to the Chair of the Health Committee for his question. There is a range of supports in place. We have different schemes across the Department of Finance and grants available at three different levels: £800, £1,200 and £1,600 per week. In addition to that, we still have the 12-month rates holiday in place, which is obviously a welcome initiative for businesses that still have their overheads to pay but that are not trading right now, whether that is in hospitality, tourism or leisure.

Obviously, we know that some services are impacted more than others. We also have the localised restrictions support scheme in the Department for the Economy, and we have the COVID restrictions business support scheme. There is a whole range of schemes that we have tried to get into the public domain as quickly as possible. There is the Department for Infrastructure scheme for taxis and buses, and we still have the furlough scheme, so there is a whole range of schemes to help businesses to survive this. That is the best that we can do in this period: try to mitigate the damage that this is causing to our economy. There are also other areas that we need to focus on such as, as I said earlier, the issue of mass testing. How can that help us to open up more things in the economy and lift some of the restrictions?

At the weekend, I had a very interesting conversation with Joe Anderson, the Mayor of Liverpool, about its mass testing programme. It was really interesting to talk to him about how it has been able to break the chain of transmission. Some of the early detail from the pilot is that mass testing can bring transmission down by as much as 50%. That is transformative in terms of what we can do here. That is a really important area of work, and I would make the case that we should give priority to the roll out of either a mass-testing pilot or its full implementation on the back of the pilots that are being done. That, to me, would allow us to have both personal freedom and freedom for more businesses to open as well.

Mr Lyttle: Participation in sport is vital to the physical and mental health of young people. What work are the Executive doing to establish the impact of youth sport on the transmission of COVID-19, and when will youth sport be allowed to recommence?

Mrs O'Neill: We have not got any decisions on what happens next. The current restrictions are still in place. I am happy to take that up with the Communities Minister and talk to her about the current restrictions. You have put on the record the positive benefits of youth sport. It is about giving people the chance to go outside, if there are opportunities for us to do things outside, because being outside comes with less risk than being inside. I will ensure that that is raised with the Department for Communities and that it is factored into the conversations about what comes next.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Minister for her responses so far. I caught your response to Martina Anderson about business support. I think that it is really important that that be raised as a matter of urgency with the Economy Minister. Further to Sinead McLaughlin's question, what advice would you give to people this Christmas?

Mrs O'Neill: We will communicate that to the public as soon as we can. We are very conscious that people want to spend time with their loved ones and families; I know that I certainly do. How much time we can spend with them will depend on the current position with the virus at that time. We will talk about that at the Executive, and we will come back and communicate what it will look like for people as soon as we possibly can. Unfortunately, it is a wee bit too far away yet to be able to give that information in any kind of detailed way.

Mr O'Toole: One of the big issues facing businesses, as we all know, is the inability to get money out to them quickly enough to enable them to get through this period of restrictions. Many of them are willing to close, because they know that that is in the broader public benefit and that it is better for them to be open around Christmas than in late November, given the rising infections. Can the deputy First Minister confirm that £500 million has not yet been allocated? Does she agree with me that it is incumbent on the Economy Minister to work with, yes, the Finance Minister to get as much of that money allocated and out the door to businesses as quickly as possible?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, you are right. We received an additional allocation of £400 million, and that has been added to some money that we already had. The public would be right not to forgive us if we do not use that money wisely to support them through the pandemic. It is incumbent on all Ministers around the table, actually, to come forward with ideas, and I know that the Finance Minister is talking to all Ministers about that. We need to help people in the here and now. Whatever we can do to get financial support to them in the here and now is what we should do. Certainly, the Executive are focused on that, and we want to make sure that we get everything and every penny out the door to support businesses as quickly as we can.

Mr McNulty: I thank the joint First Minister for her statement and her answers thus far. In relation to protecting the health service, the economy and our family and friends, the joint First Minister mentioned the importance of us all taking small, daily steps. That I agree with. However, many businesses and families are on their hands and knees and have yet to receive any support from the Executive. There are 11,000 applications to the Department of Finance, but only 9,000 have been paid. What does she have to say to those businesses and families who are on their hands and knees about taking small, daily steps?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member would be wise to separate the two things. What we are asking people to do is about compliance and their personal behaviour. What I said, throughout the statement, is that this is a challenging and difficult time for everybody, particularly for those who have had to shut businesses. As I said in answer to many questions that I have been asked today, I am aware that many businesses have raised concerns about the slow payment of grant aid. I also said that the delay concerns me greatly. I also said that I have taken the matter up with the Economy Minister and I will do so again at the Executive this week.

Ms Bailey: We are now nine months into the pandemic, and for nine months we have known that it is a winter virus, so while it might be reassuring for some to hear that the Executive are now starting to prepare for the introduction of mass testing, it is long overdue. They are looking to establish a focussed working group. Again, that is long overdue. How can the Minister assure the public that they can have confidence in delivery from the Executive, given the track record of chaos and given the Executive parties' continuing to act as their own opposition? People need action and delivery more than they need promises and statements.

Mrs O'Neill: I thank the Member for her question. I can assure her that, the whole way through the pandemic, we have been guided by the two principles that I outlined earlier: keeping the virus transmission under control and keeping capacity in our health service to be able to respond. However, there is no doubt that it is challenging. I have also said repeatedly that it is challenging to be in a five-party Executive in normal times, but to deal with a pandemic in the middle of it all is even more challenging and difficult. We need to work to gain the public's confidence. We need to work to make sure that the public continue to work with us — they have been absolutely amazing in getting us to this point. Every time something was asked of the public, they responded, and I very much welcome that and commend them for that. However, we are not out of the woods yet. We have a way to go.

All I can say to the public is that I will continue to lead and to steer us through these most challenging of times, and that means taking all of those things into account. The message that the public needs to hear from this Chamber this week is that we are working together, we are going to chart our way through this, and we are going to get to the other side. The best way we can do that is to have a first-class system in place to test, trace and isolate cases. I agree with the Member. I do not think that enough was done as regards the Department of Health's preparation. We always knew that winter was coming. That was certain. We did not know when a second wave would come, and I think that it came more quickly than people expected. So there is a whole combination of things, but there is a trust and confidence issue on the part of the public, and I am determined to capture that.

Mr Nesbitt: Earlier today, the First Minister agreed to look at the Women's Policy Group NI's document, 'Covid-19 Feminist Recovery Plan' and the Civil Service's reaction to it, and in particular what the group feels has been the failure to acknowledge the gender pay gap or the fact that 82% of part-time workers are female and therefore the most affected by COVID-19. Will the deputy First Minister join the First Minister in looking again at that document and its recommendations?

Mrs O'Neill: I thank the Member. Yes, I heard that question earlier, and I am more than happy to look at it.

Mr Allister: Mr Speaker, the six pages of this statement would not go far to paper over the gaping chasms in the Executive's approach. The statement contains some great words, if only they were not so empty falling from the lips of the deputy First Minister. There are words like:

and words like:

Deputy First Minister, I think that invites the question: with people still outraged by your behaviour in attending the Storey funeral, how carefully did you think about that? Do you not think that you could claw back some credibility for yourself, in making these exhortations to others, if you were to belatedly apologise not for the undermining of the public message but for your actions in causing the undermining of the public message?

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks to the Member for his repeated question. I think that I have answered that question in the House on many occasions and I am satisfied that I have nothing new to add.

Mr Carroll: I do not really know where to start with this statement. It is embarrassingly lacking. There is little content, little direction, and an attempt to paint a united picture of the period ahead when we are likely to see in the near future a repeat of last week's charade.

Can the deputy First Minister please give a concrete answer as to whether she backs the political decision of living with this virus rather than putting a zero-COVID, strategy in place, which could have results as successful as those in New Zealand and would put our health first?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member will know that we are not New Zealand, we are Ireland, and we are very challenged in dealing with this strategy. We have been clear from the start that we needed an all-island approach. I actually think that we should have had a two-island approach from the outset of the pandemic. I regret that that has not been the case. There has been some cooperation but nowhere near enough.

When we say "coexist" or "find a way to live with", the best way to say it is, "find a way to live through this pandemic" because we have to live through the pandemic. We have to find a way to maximise people's freedoms, lift the restrictions as best we can, when we can, to keep the pressure off the health service and to give people that glimmer of hope. I would say to people not to be over-optimistic, but the fact that we now have a vaccine shows that there is some light and the fact that we can roll out mass testing and that that will bring transmission down by 50% are huge advances. So, there is the wee bit of hope for people in the middle of this.

We have to continue to find a balanced way forward that respects the public health advice, keeps transmission in check, keeps the pressure off the health service, supports people who need to isolate, and that finds cases. Do not just wait until people come forward; we need to find cases and asymptomatic people in the community. Mass testing will help us to do that.

There are a number of things on the horizon that can help us to turn the corner. I look forward to that day, and to working with all of the Executive and Assembly until we find that way forward.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for her statement. In her last answer, she used the word "hope". That is a word that was been bandied around here for a number of years. Last week, however, we had people crippled by the fear of contracting COVID and people crippled by the fear of losing their finances, but all of them were crippled by the fact that they could get no answer from the Executive, which was worse than lamentable.

Minister, what confidence can you give to people that lessons have been learned by the Executive, and what has been put in place to ensure that information comes out in a timely manner so that people are not waiting until the last minute to hear the decisions that the Executive come to?

Mrs O'Neill: I have no doubt that your colleague the Health Minister gave you chapter and verse about the Executive meeting. I have no doubt that he also said that I was very supportive of him the whole way through. I have no doubt that he could not say anything other than that I tried to find consensus the whole way through, and I have no doubt that that would be the statement that he could make to you today if he was sitting beside you.

We will continue to work with the Health Minister and Executive colleagues. We will continue to try to find a way to keep the virus in check, keep the pressure off the health service, and do all the things that I have stated here at length today. That is what we need to do; that is what the Executive need to do; and we all need to work together. We are all in this together, and we have to be as fulsome with the public as we can be and tell them how difficult and challenging these decisions are. The best thing that we can do is to communicate clearly.

Ms Sugden: The deputy First Minister has consistently criticised the use of the Northern Ireland Executive cross-community voting mechanism, and I agree with that criticism. However, that mechanism was legitimately applied in that the current policy and legislation allowed it to happen, and all five Executive parties signed up to it on that basis knowing that it could be applied at some point. Will the deputy First Minister commit to abolishing that mechanism either in law or policy, and, if she does not abolish it, is that an admission that, at some point when politics suit, it will be used again?

Mrs O'Neill: We should never tar everybody with the one brush. One party decided to use the mechanism, which is there to protect minorities; the Member is absolutely right. Two questions arise from that: is it the mechanism itself, which is designed to protect minority rights, which I absolutely fully support, or is it the use of the mechanism? It is the use of the mechanism that is being called into question. It is appalling that it was used. I would not use it. I could have blocked the last decision in the Executive, but I chose not to. This is a public health crisis; it is not about minority rights. The COVID pandemic impacts everybody equally. This conversation to be had is about whether it is the mechanism or the use of the mechanism — it is the abuse of the mechanism that is at the heart of the problem.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I invite Members to take their ease before we commence the next item of business, which will be a question for urgent oral answer from Mr Colin McGrath to the Health Minister.

Mr Speaker: Colin McGrath has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health. If Members wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who asked the original question will be called automatically for a supplementary.

Mr Swann: I am glad to have this opportunity to come to the House today to clarify some of the issues regarding this year's flu vaccination programme.

First, let me assure Members and, more importantly, those listening at home, that there is no shortage of ordered vaccines. This year in total, 1,050,300 doses have been procured for the flu vaccination programme. As of last Friday morning, 826,890 doses have been delivered to Northern Ireland. A total of 601,243 doses have been delivered to GPs and trusts. I can confirm that, as of this morning following two further deliveries totalling 192,700 doses, the total vaccines delivered now stands at 1,019,590 doses. Around 30,000 doses of the childhood vaccine are still to be delivered and that is the only order that remains outstanding.

As was outlined by the Public Health Agency last month, uptake has been exceptional with higher numbers of people getting the vaccine than ever before. A temporary pause was placed on some aspects of the seasonal flu vaccination programme but those additional vaccines are now available.

Let me assure Members that there significant quantities of the vaccine available for those over 65. There are approximately 323,000 people over the age of 65 in Northern Ireland. Initially, we aimed for a target uptake of 85%, which equates to 275,000 vaccines. Therefore, we purchased 286,000 vaccines. Last month, I approved the purchase of a further 10,000 vaccines bringing that total to 296,000. The additional 10,000 vaccines arrived in Northern Ireland on Thursday 5 November. Therefore, the reports in the media today that Northern Ireland is almost 200,000 doses short of the flu vaccine for the over-65 age cohort, or that we are unable to complete the vaccination programme, are simply not true. I want to reassure everyone listening that there is no shortage. Further plans are now in place to procure even further quantities of vaccine at a later date, if necessary.

Finally, I would like to thank all of our GPs, practice nurses and Community Pharmacy for their expertise and persistence over recent weeks. This is an incredibly busy and pressurised time for them all, and yet, without them, our flu vaccination programme would simply not succeed.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber today. When the news broke this morning, it was deeply worrying and concerning for people who are facing the perils of COVID and who fear getting the seasonal flu, which may put them into a position where they are more vulnerable to other illnesses. This was scaring and frightening people, so it is welcome that the Minister has been able to come here today, put the record straight and send a clear message to people that they will be able to receive the vaccine that they require.

May I ask two questions? First, can the Minister given an assurance that all people over the age of 65 and those with underlying conditions will be able to access that vaccine in a timely manner before, as is projected, the flu season starts in December? Secondly, does he have a sense of the breakdown in communication that led medics in the sector to make that announcement today?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member for his questions. Prior to coming to the House, I had a meeting with representatives of the Public Health Agency (PHA) and the Health and Social Care Board so that we could discuss how that communication failure came about. A meeting of all parties last week seems to have led to what I think has been described as inaccurate reporting by the BBC. Its report incorrectly stated that Northern Ireland did not receive its full vaccine quota. One million doses were ordered; the BBC claimed that between 500,000 and 600,000 were delivered. My first answer has assured the House of the number procured, ordered and delivered to Northern Ireland.

The Member mentioned uptake, and I am due to receive a report by the end of this week on the normal uptake of the different flu vaccines. We use different strains for children, the under-65s and the over-65s. The concern seems to be in the over-65 population, and my original answer details how our order equates to an uptake of 85% in that cohort, which is far in advance of what was used this time last year, when we had an uptake of 74·8%. We have ordered additional vaccines. On top of those, we are getting additional vaccines to ensure that those cohorts can be vaccinated. We are working with GPs to ensure that we can get those vaccination programmes and mass vaccination events back up and running in order to ensure that vaccinations are given in a timely fashion.

Mr Buckley: First, I put on record my sincere thanks to the doctors and nurses who have been implementing a very successful flu vaccination programme to date. We have all seen in our community the level of organisation required.

I came to the Chamber with considerable concern about what is going on in the Department and the PHA. This morning's statement from the PHA said that the demand for vaccine has resulted in a "temporary pause" in the supply of vaccine for eligible people under the age of 65 and that additional controls were in place to ensure fair distribution to all GP practices across Northern Ireland. Dr Gerry Waldron, the PHA's head of health protection, said that he regretted that some flu clinics had had to be cancelled. That is in stark contrast to what the Minister is saying in the House today. In that spirit, Minister, does this build confidence in people who are looking towards how a potential COVID-19 vaccination programme would be implemented across Northern Ireland?

Mr Swann: I do not think that it is in contrast, if you listen to what the PHA actually said. There was a pause in the supply of the vaccine. The Member may not be aware that the delivery of flu vaccines comes in two batches; the initial batch is the one that we ordered at the start of the year; the additional batch is the one that we ordered in the summer. Some clinics were paused to allow for the delivery of the second batch. In the initial set-up of the mass flu vaccination programmes, we saw an exceptional uptake. I referred to that when answering a question from the Member's colleague Paula Bradley in the House last week. Some GPs reported that 499 people attended in response to their sending out 500 letters. In the past, the maximum uptake was in the region of 75%.

The Member's assertion was, I think, an attempt to talk down the programme, but the early uptake was exceptional, as was the delivery and coordination between the PHA, GPs, Community Pharmacy and nurses. Now that we have those structures in place to enable us to run vast vaccination outreach programmes, should they be in community halls, church halls or car parks, including underground car parks, where we have been doing in-car vaccination programmes as well, it sets us up with a sound basis for what the COVID vaccination programme will look like once that vaccine becomes available.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to answer questions. Minister, you have referred to modelling and planning. What specific modelling and preparation did the Department do for the demand and uptake of the flu vaccine this year? When was that completed and by whom?

Mr Swann: I thank the Committee Chair for his questions. The planning that we did this year was for an uptake target, specifically among the over-65 cohort, of 85%. As I said in an earlier answer to Mr McGrath, last year, we saw a 74·8% uptake and, the year prior to that, a 70% uptake. The numbers that we ordered to target an 85% uptake even allowed for a 7% wastage rate, which is normal in a large-scale vaccination programme. Those calculations were done by the PHA. We ordered that additional vaccine over the summer to complement our original order, which was made at the start of the year to allow for production and delivery.

Mr Chambers: Minister, one of the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom is that the four nations have shared resources throughout the pandemic. Whilst I very much welcome today's clarity from the Minister, which again emphasises the need for accuracy in public reporting at this time, will the Minister contact the Department of Health and Social Care in England if, in the days and weeks ahead, he believes that he will require even greater quantities of vaccine to fully meet the needs of Northern Ireland?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member. He makes a valid point. As I said earlier, specifically for the over-65 age group, we had set an 85% uptake target, which is 275,000 people. We approved the purchase of another 10,000 vaccines, which arrived on Thursday 5 November. I can report to the Member and the House that, having contacted Matt Hancock, over the last 24 hours, we have been able to obtain an additional 15,000 vaccines. So, in addition to the vaccines that we had ordered to achieve the 85% target that we set ourselves, we now have more vaccines on the way, which will be put into a further programme of vaccination.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber. You talked about the exceptional uptake of the flu vaccine. What lessons are being learnt for the forthcoming roll-out of the coronavirus vaccine programme in both operational issues and communication?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member. Her last point is bang on the money. It is about communication. As I said, I had a conversation this afternoon with the PHA and representatives of the board about how we get right the communication on how the distributions of the vaccines work, especially the COVID vaccines. There are now two COVID vaccines on the market, one of which the UK has pre-ordered. There are logistical challenges regarding how that is managed because it has to be stored at -70°c for a period before it can be stored in normal fridges for the last five days before its use, so there is a large piece of logistical work.

However, it is also about communication to identify the cohorts that will be eligible in the early stages. We must make sure that GPs, Community Pharmacy and all the other aspects have clearly identified those people and that we put in place a process and locations for doing it safely. I talked earlier about some of the fantastic work that GPs and community pharmacies have done in delivering mass vaccination programmes. I do not think that any of us in the House, even this time last year, would have envisaged flu vaccination programmes being completed in underground car parks, but those have proved to be highly effective and deliverable. In most cases, people were able to do it in the comfort of their car. It is about making sure that we get the communication phase right when the COVID vaccine becomes available.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Health Minister for his attendance. I also welcome the news that the flu vaccine will be made available to those who are most vulnerable. On 12 October, there were 46 care homes with a COVID-19 outbreak. By 12 November, that number had risen to 143. In all that time, hospitality and close-contact services were closed. It makes no sense that, many months into this pandemic, there is no rapid testing or mass testing of staff in key wards or in care homes to complement the vaccines. That should be a daily occurrence for those key healthcare workers. Regardless of what other regions are doing — I have heard that some care settings in England are carrying out daily testing for staff and visitors — I respectfully ask the Minister why he is not testing healthcare staff on a daily basis.

Mr Swann: With respect to the Member, I am aware that this is something that has been raised in a number of press releases from her party, although not connected directly to the flu vaccination programme. What I will say to the Member is that the number of care homes that are currently indicated as having outbreaks is due to our positive and reactive testing programme that we have introduced — something that I know the Member supported. The Commissioner for Older People supported it as well.

The Member spoke of a number of pilot programmes that are currently ongoing in Liverpool and, I think, in a number of care homes in the south-east of England which have been in the media today. One of the things I will say is that we are fully plugged in to those pilots, because that is what they are. They are actually testing the viability of the testing machines, their protocols and their utilisation to make sure that they use them in the best way to support the residents, the patients and the staff.

With regard to testing hospital workers, which I think was part of the Member's question as well, in line with our current testing protocols, testing is prioritised for all our healthcare workers, and that includes hospital staff who are symptomatic or whose household contacts are symptomatic, to help enable those essential workers to return to work as soon as possible. The position with regard to testing of all hospital staff is kept under active review.

With regard to the new testing technologies that I was talking about, there are emerging plans — sorry, it is the technologies which are emerging. The plans are progressing with a range of local partners and experts for testing those pilots across different settings, including healthcare settings. That will include repeat testing for asymptomatic healthcare staff. The new test for asymptomatic people aims to identify those at risk of spreading the virus, reduce the risk of onward infection and to find positive cases earlier to actually reduce transmission of the virus. Those pilots are something we are watching, and watching with interest, to make sure that the equipment is effective and efficient enough to bring benefit to what we want to do.

Ms Flynn: I know that one of the Members touched on guaranteeing that the over-65s would have access and whether there is enough stock of the flu vaccine, but I wonder whether the Minister can guarantee that everyone over the age of 65 will be able to receive the vaccine before the end of November.

Mr Swann: I thank the Member for her point. As I said earlier, our original estimates were for an 85% uptake target, which equated to 275,000 vaccines. We actually purchased 286,000. We have received an additional 10,000 and, as I said to Mr Chambers, an extra 15,000 has been agreed by the Department of Health and Social Care for part of the Northern Ireland allocation, so we will have in excess of 311,000. Our current population of over-65s sits at 323,000, so there is enough there — not for everyone, but for the vast majority — and far in excess of the percentage uptakes that we have seen in previous years.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber today. First, I put on record my thanks to the healthcare staff in GP surgeries, schools and healthcare settings who have administered the vaccine so diligently and proactively so far. I spoke with one GP last week, and she told me how incredibly, exceptionally hard everyone is working. Have all residents in nursing homes been vaccinated, Minister? What has the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) advised will be the impact on the battle against COVID of not having the flu vaccine administered?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member for his questions. One of the points that the CMO has been making in the last number of weeks and months is about how vital it is that nobody should contract flu and COVID at the same time.

Our flu vaccination programme is well ahead of schedule of where we would be in any normal year, but, as everyone in the House, including the Member, knows, this is not a normal year. I welcome the Member's acknowledgement of the GPs, community nurses and community pharmacies that have taken forward the vaccination programme.

Everyone over 65 is eligible for the flu vaccine, no matter where they are resident.

Mr Speaker: Before I call the next Member to speak, I ask Members to come to their questions quickly. A number of Members still want to ask questions, so please keep your introductions very brief and to the minimum.

Mr Butler: I very much welcome the clarity that the Minister has given us. It stands in stark contrast to what has been reported up to now. Will the Minister give us a commitment that there will be close monitoring of the development of the additional vaccine by the PHA and the Health and Social Care Board?

Mr Swann: I thank the Members for his question. Following the meeting today, I asked for weekly updates on where we are with the flu vaccination programme, not just on the distribution of the vaccine but on what the percentage uptake has been across all groups. While we are specifically talking about the over-65s today, a number of other groups are also eligible for the flu vaccine, including all pregnant women, all individuals under 65 with current chronic medical conditions, primary-school children and front-line healthcare and social care workers who are employed by a trust. A number of additional groups are eligible for the flu vaccine, and I have asked the PHA and the board to make sure that I receive regular updates on how the remaining part of our flu vaccination programme is progressing.

Mr Carroll: Does the Minister seriously believe that the potential COVID vaccination that is being touted by the media as being available here in December will be available, or was that just a line inserted into an Executive press release last week to save face during the mother of all Stormont shambles?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member for his question. I am here to answer questions about the flu vaccine, but I am happy to talk about the coronavirus vaccine as well. What we saw in the media was an advance statement by a company that it has a vaccine that is 90% effective. That is one of the vaccines that the UK Government have pre-bought, so we will be part of that uptake, as I reported to the House last week. Off the top of my head, our allocation will provide enough vaccine for, I think, 275,000 individuals in Northern Ireland.

There are reports today of another vaccine coming on to the market, which its makers claim to be 95% effective. That is not one of the vaccines that were part of the UK pre-procurement exercise, but I am led to believe that the UK Government are in negotiation with that company to make sure that, if it becomes available safely on the market, they will have access to it. By default, we will get our share as part of the United Kingdom.

It is widely believed that some vaccine will be available by the end of this year, but it should not be perceived as a panacea for everything or for COVID. Any of the experts who have spoken about the efficacy and utilisation of vaccines have indicated that it will be well into next year before we see the real effect of the vaccines in combating COVID in the community.

Mr Speaker: I ask the next Member who is called to ask a question to relate it to the question for urgent oral answer.

Ms Sugden: Minister, are there any know contraindications of those who have received the seasonal flu vaccine receiving the COVID-19 vaccine? Will patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 make use of the anticipated COVID vaccine? I ask those questions because the answers will help with the management of an expected programme in the winter months.

Mr Swann: One of the points of concern expressed by the GPs that I share is that we need to get the flu vaccination programme out of the way before we can commence the COVID one. There is advice and guidance that there should be at least three weeks between the vaccines being delivered to ensure that both have the maximum effect.

In regard to whether there are any known studies, I am sure that that is ongoing. As we are well aware, neither of the two COVID vaccines that are now reported to be available have gone through the full clinical and safety trials for utilisation in the community, and, until that process is completed, I do not think that they will be used widely in the United Kingdom. That work still has to be done. To back up what the Member said, it is important that any COVID vaccine is safe to use and that we promote it as widely as possible. Those who are eligible to get it should get it. There is no barrier, for want of a better word, and nobody who has contracted COVID in the past or tested positive for COVID will be ineligible for the vaccine.

Mr Frew: The Minister will know — I have corresponded with him about it — about the growing number of vulnerable residents in north Antrim who have been unable to avail themselves of the flu vaccine because they have had to drive into a practice instead of walking in. Can the Minister shed some light on that issue? Is it a growing problem? How does he fix it?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member. He has raised that with me in correspondence. We talked about the protocols and the advances that we have seen in GP surgeries. The drive-ins and the underground car parks are great advances, but our GP colleagues, community pharmacy and our practice nurses have always made available the ability to walk into clinics, should they be in community halls or church halls, so that people can avail themselves of the flu vaccine. What is being done at GP level is that, if people do not make themselves known, other ways of obtaining the vaccine will be made available to them. I think that I have given that answer to the Member in writing as well.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for taking the question. I am surprised to hear him say that the story that was broken by a reputable journalist this morning is not true, because there has been other evidence of difficulties with the roll-out of the vaccine. The Minister mentioned the pauses, and his colleague on the Health Committee told us some weeks ago that there was a delay in the roll-out of the school vaccination programme. There are issues. Confidence in the PHA is not at a premium at the moment given its woeful underestimation of the number of positive COVID cases, so can the Minister explain why he is so confident — he answered a question from my colleague Órlaithí Flynn — that everyone who needs a vaccine or wants a vaccine will get it in a timely fashion?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member. He made a comment about the PHA: I noted his exchange with PHA officials in the Health Committee a number of weeks ago, and I do not think that his comments were edifying. I do not think that an elected Member of the House should speak to any official in that way, no matter how much they disagree or want to challenge the evidence that they bring or what they say. I do not think that how the Member spoke to the PHA officials who were before the Committee did him any good.

In regard to my comments about the reporting, I actually said that the BBC report had incorrectly stated:

That is inaccurate, and I stand over that comment. It is in Hansard as well.

In regard to the uptake, work is ongoing by GP practices, the Health and Social Care Board, Community Pharmacy and the PHA to make sure that we can roll out the second batch of vaccine, which has now been delivered to Northern Ireland. The programme was paused because of the success of the delivery of those mass vaccination programmes, which were delivered by GPs in the first instance. We actually got in front of the delivery of vaccines that we were expecting and the additional ones that we had ordered over the summer. They are now in Northern Ireland and will be distributed to GP practices, as necessary, to meet the demand. I have gone through the percentages, especially in the over-65s, we had ordered enough for an 85% uptake with a 7% wastage rate, but, on top of that, we have received additional vaccines from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in the UK.

Mr Speaker: I call Steve Aiken. We have one minute.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his comments so far. I speak as someone who has had the flu vaccine and as a cancer survivor. One of the issues mentioned at my local GP surgery is that quite a few people do not turn up at their allotted time. Will the Minister help me in getting out the message that, if you are allotted a slot for a flu vaccine, you should make every effort to be there for that vital health measure, if you can?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member. The importance of getting the flu vaccine has been well rehearsed, especially, as I say again, as our colleagues across GP practices, practice nurses and Community Pharmacy go to the effort of organising the flu programmes and flu vaccination programmes that we have seen across the country. I encourage everybody to utilise the slots that they are offered, because they are being delivered in a timely and efficient manner to make sure that we not only get the efficient uptake of flu vaccines here in Northern Ireland but make best use of our professionals' time.

Mr Speaker: That concludes this item of business. Will Members take their ease for a moment, please?

Mr Speaker: Ms Pam Cameron has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary.

Mr Swann (The Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will take slightly longer than the two minutes to answer. I believe that this is an important issue.

When I published the surge planning strategic framework on 6 October, I was clear that our health and social care service was likely facing the most challenging period in its history. That prediction is coming to fruition, with our health service under immense and sustained pressure. The surge planning strategic framework includes 19 key actions. I can confirm that 11 have been completed and eight are ongoing. The trusts are managing the pressures that they are facing within their available capacity and in line with their individual surge plans.

The key issue facing our health and social care service is staffing capacity. Let me be clear: our health service is our staff. Our latest published statistics demonstrate the scale of the problem. As of 30 June, this year, we carried more than 5,000 vacancies across the health and social care system. The largest numbers were vacancies in relation to nurses and midwives, with a total of 1,786 across the system. In addition to those vacancies, the system is experiencing a higher than normal rate of absence due to COVID-19. The latest available figures show that almost 1,900 staff are absent across the health and social care sector, ill with COVID-19 or self-isolating. That adds 2·6% to the absence rate across the system.

I have taken action to try to address that issue through the workforce appeal. The response, to date, has been positive, with more than 5,000 applications, of which more than 3,000 are from Health and Social Care (HSC) staff. I have also taken action to commission the critical care plan through the critical care network. That allows for the potential to flex up to 158 critical care beds through the use of our Nightingale facility at Belfast City Hospital. I have also commissioned an additional Nightingale facility on the Whiteabbey Hospital site. That will be an intermediate care facility that will provide up to 100 additional step-down beds. It will be operational on a phased basis in a matter of days.

The insinuation that not enough planning or preparation for future surges was undertaken is not correct; in fact, it is deeply unfair on our clinicians and HSC managers who produced the plans. During the first wave, our HSC system delivered 12,150 new outpatient consultations in April. There were 29,163 in October. In terms of inpatient or day-case procedures, 4,859 were delivered in April, compared with 13,301 in October. Similarly, there were 39,907 outpatient reviews in April compared with 56,071 in October. I could go on. Overall, there was over 73% more activity in October than April. That was because of our surge plans and rebuild plans.

Behind what may be construed as party political press releases being issued, that is the truth of the matter. It is testament to the tireless dedication of our Health and Social Care staff. I challenge any Member to stand in the shoes of any of the medical directors across any of the trusts for even a single day to see the level of preparations that they had made and, even with all that, the gravity of the decisions that they now have to make every day. Were we ready? Yes. However, I could never have planned for the situation where the scientific and medical advice given to the Executive was blocked. Only when the spread of the virus is minimised can we hope to reduce the COVID-19 pressures on our health service. That is what is really needed, and it is needed now.

Mrs Cameron: I appreciate the opportunity to ask this question for urgent oral answer in the House today. I thank the Health Minister for his response thus far. I fully recognise the continual challenge that is faced in the delivery of services in these difficult times, particularly in maintaining staff levels. I also welcome the imminent opening of the step-down facility — Nightingale 2 — at Whiteabbey.

The Department's critical care surge plan envisaged being able to cater for the needs of 158 COVID and non-COVID patients in the event of a high surge across Northern Ireland. In recent weeks, the total has reached around 140, which is short of the number set out in the frameworks. If those contingency arrangements have not been implemented in full, why are we hearing reports of hospitals operating over capacity? Have health planners failed to meet that target for available critical care beds?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. It is important that she does not confuse the two issues of bed numbers and overcapacity, including ICU. Since March, the critical care network has had its surge plan in place. Getting to 158 ICU beds involves the utilisation of the Nightingale facility at the tower. It also involves — this is one of the most stressful points for our ICU nurses and specialists — moving away from the 1:1 care ratio. Moving to our high surge and then our critical surge, which allows us to flex up to those 158 beds, means moving away from that 1:1 ratio. No matter how much I am challenged or criticised about what we have not done over the past two or three months, one thing that we cannot do in two or three months is train an ICU nurse. At the start of the pandemic in February, we identified where we were going to need additional skills. Staff members across our health and social care sector started to upskill and retrain in what would be a very critical part of our action against COVID: the maintenance and utilisation of ICU beds and the challenge that that brings those staff members not just physically but emotionally and mentally. That is why we put in place mental supports for those staff as well.

The Member indicated that our hospitals are operating at overcapacity. Much of that is in regard to what are termed our "general medical" beds, which are there for general medical conditions.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Minister to conclude.

Mr Swann: When we have to utilise more of those beds, that is where we see the pressures on the number of beds across our health and social care system.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his answers to those questions. I will observe, given the Minister's last answer, that our health service reached 106% capacity some weeks ago. The Minister is aware that the surge plan is to address a surge in hospital cases and transmission in the community; however there also needs to be a plan to suppress the spread of the virus in the first place. The first people who need that plan are the hard-pressed staff on the ground, and we owe it to them to deliver on that plan. I recognise what the Minister said about the inability to quickly scale up the vacant nursing posts or the ICU nursing, but what we could do and what we need to do, in my opinion, is to increase our testing capacity. We could recruit and train contact tracers at a quicker level. Will the Minister commit now to bringing forward a new health strategy to replace the failing test, trace and protect strategy?

Mr Swann: Regarding the Member's criticism of our test, trace and protect system, when the PHA was in front of the Health Committee, he also used language that, I think, was unfair. Last week, I gave an update to the House during Question Time on our test, trace and protect system. At that point, we had 220 tracers employed over three different employment contracts so that we could flex up and flex down the number of tracers who were working at any time. Test, trace and protect works best when we have a low number of cases, and that is where I agree fully with the Chair of the Health Committee. That needs to be our strategy, not how we increase beds or how we improve test, trace and protect; it is how we reduce the number of people with COVID in our community. That is where the real challenge is.

I will update the Chair. In the week preceding 10 November, of the 3,519 cases that were transferred to test, trace and protect, 3,317 were successfully contacted. That is 94·3%, even with that high level. Of the 4,987 close contacts that were identified, the test, trace and protect system was able to complete 4,898 contacts. That is 98·2% of successful contacts being made from those contacts. That far exceeds what is deemed to be an effective system. Most effective systems are graded at being 80% effective or above. Even with the high numbers coming into our test, trace and protect system, it was still achieving high levels of successful percentage outworkings.

In the past, the Member has asked in this place about the protections and the support mechanisms that are put in place for anybody who tests positive. I welcome the announcement today by the Minister for Communities, who is from the Member's party, that she has increased the payment rate for those who are seeking COVID support. That is done through the Department for Communities. As I have said in the past, the response to COVID and test, trace, protect and isolate is a cross-Executive effort, not solely a matter for Health.

Mr McGrath: Managing mental health is contained in the surge plans. It is also Anti-Bullying Week, and I have my odd socks on today to highlight that fact. Given that bullying is a significant factor in youth mental health issues, can the Minister detail what work is being done to deal with the legacy of long waiting lists to get appointments to be able to manage counselling and other psychological services and how disrupted that has been as a result of COVID?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member, especially for his mention of Anti-Bullying Week. I think that the House can send out a strong message that bullying should not be tolerated anywhere. I have never condoned or supported bullying, and, being the height that I am, I can assure you that I have often been in receipt of it. Never mind that, I have been in receipt of it in the past few days, as attempts were made to shift me from my position. Having been in receipt of many a bullying incident in my younger days, I can assure you that it is hard to shift from that mentality. Young people who are on the receiving end of bullying incidents in the early stages of their life carry those mental challenges through into their adult lives.

On 19 May, I published my Department's mental health action plan. That includes the dedicated COVID-19 mental health response plan, which provided immediate action across seven of the themes to support mental health and emotional well-being in the face of the pandemic.

There have, however, been some changes to how services have been delivered, and, unfortunately, many of those face-to-face meetings have changed to accommodate remote working, which includes phone calls and video communication. So, while we approach that service utilising different tools, the problem still maintains. When we get through the COVID pandemic — I believe that we will get through it — there will be a challenge for our mental health systems, which we are already factoring in. That is why it was critical that we put in place in the Department's mental health action plan back in May that specific response plan to COVID-19 because we all know that that is what will face us towards the end of the year.

Mr Chambers: A few weeks ago, the Health Committee received some evidence on nursing homes from a senior official from the Royal College of Nursing. She was asked for her opinion on moving staff testing from two weeks to a one-week regime. She made the point that it would increase the bureaucratic burden on nursing homes and nurses. Also, there was the problem of nurses having to travel in their own time to get the testing done. She finished by questioning how beneficial the move would be, and she thought that it was not achievable. This morning, we read a headline story in one of the newspapers that Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, who serves in another House, was calling for testing to be done on a daily basis for staff —

Mr Speaker: Will the Member come to the question, please?

Mr Chambers: — and, indeed, at the start of every shift. Does the Minister have any views on the practical benefits of such a regime?

Mr Swann: I did not see the headline, but, in response to a supplementary question that was asked during the earlier question for urgent oral answer on mass testing, I said that my Department's expert advisory group on testing is fully linked into the national mass testing programme, which is being led by the Department of Health and Social Care. We will utilise and work with colleagues across the United Kingdom to make sure that any advances that we use when mass testing becomes available are fully utilised to suppress the further spread of COVID-19.

Those plans are progressing, and we are working with a range of local partners and experts on testing pilots across different settings. Those will include universities, meat factories and healthcare facilities, along with repeat testing of asymptomatic healthcare staff and employees.

I await a response from the expert advisory group on testing. I had indicated that we would bring a paper to the Executive on that shortly, so I am not sure if Sir Jeffrey had received advance notice that I intended to bring that work forward to the Executive. Maybe he was asking for it to be brought forward knowing that it was coming.

Ms Bradshaw: Does the Minister agree that the reintroduction of shielding could play a part in reducing pressure on our health service and provide an extra layer of protection for our clinically vulnerable?

Mr Swann: The Member raised that last week during Question Time, and I informed her that the Chief Medical Officer was bringing together the shielding advisory group.

That group has met, and I am awaiting the outworkings of its report. A piece of work that it has completed is comparing what is currently in our advice to those who are extremely clinically vulnerable with what advice was given to those in England who were advised to shield when it went into its advanced stage of lockdown, in order to see what the difference is and what additional advice we need to bring forward. That work is ongoing, and I am looking forward to the Chief Medical Officer updating the guidance based on the advice coming out of the shielding advisory group.

Mr Buckley: I understand the pressures facing both the Minister and the Department, but I take issue with his comments that for anybody to raise those issues and concerns in the Chamber is to be political. We do so out of real concern for patients, front-line staff and healthcare workers.

I am not the only one with concerns. Today, Dr Gabriel Scally, a professor of public health and planning and a member of the independent Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) committee, stated:

Probably most concerning of all, he implied that, if a public health expert got five days in the Department, they would take it by the scruff.

Mr Speaker: I ask —.

Mr Buckley: Minister, is it the case that the public and, indeed, front-line healthcare workers are having to bear the cost of a failure by a Department to manage and meet its objectives and to implement a detailed surge plan. In the light of Dr Scally's comments, will the Minister invite an external public health expert to conduct a five-day review of the Department's plan and offer a prognosis?

Mr Swann: Perhaps the findings of such an expert would be in awe. One of the first things that they may question is the utilisation on the Executive of a cross-community mechanism —

Mr Buckley: That is not the question, Minister.

Mr Swann: — on voting down —.

Mr Buckley: That is not the question.

Mr Swann: Sorry? Let me finish.

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Minister and the Member to address their remarks through the Chair.

Mr Swann: Apologies, Mr Speaker, but I will not take a lecture on what the Department should bring forward in surge plans, when I brought recommendations to the Executive over a week ago that we should extend our current regulations and restrictions for another fortnight — another two weeks — so that we could take some of the pressures that we are talking about today off our health service and our healthcare workers. For the Member to try to insinuate that it is a failure of mine or of my Department's when, if his party colleagues had perhaps supported me and my Department —

A Member: Hear, hear.

Mr Swann: — on the Executive, we might not be in the position in which we are currently.

If I were to bring in a public health professional, I think that one of the things that they would do would be to point out the failure on the Executive to support the recommendations from the Chief Medical Officer, the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Department of Health. Instead, those recommendations were voted down on a cross-community basis, through a cross-community vote that was brought against a Unionist Minister.

Mr Speaker: Justin McNulty is not in his place.

Ms S Bradley: Based on that answer, Minister, do you agree with me that the fundamental external factors that directly affect how efficiently any surge plan can work rely not just on the public playing their part and listening to the Chief Medical Officer but on the Executive hearing that message, acting on it and thus safeguarding everybody.

Mr Swann: I thank the Member for her point. Mr Speaker, I apologise for the temperament in which my previous answer was delivered. It is not usual for me in this House, but it frustrating when I hear accusations levelled against the healthcare staff in my Department and the advice that the Department is giving.

What I will say to the Member is that it will take a coordinated, unified Executive response to drive down the rate of community transmission of COVID in Northern Ireland. One thing that we cannot factor into any of the surge plans presented by my Department or the trusts themselves — all six trusts — is the failure of some on the Executive to listen to the medical and public health advice that is brought forward.

Mr Allister: Unaccustomed as I am to pouring oil on troubled waters, may I divert the subject somewhat? Back in 2016, there was a nationwide simulation done to prepare for a pandemic. What lessons did the Minister's Department learn and action from that, or was nothing done about it?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member for his question. He refers, of course, to Exercise Cygnus, which was brought forward in 2016. The outworkings of that tabletop exercise are now published on the Department's website. There is a detailed breakdown of the recommendations and their outworkings as they were carried out by the Department. They were carried out by the Department when this place was not sitting or in being. They are available on the Department's website. I can forward the link to the Member for his information.

Ms Flynn: Minister, today the Department announced some changes to how emergency and urgent care is going to be delivered. That will obviously affect many areas and patients. The Phone First pilot is being trialled in the Causeway Hospital. Will the Minister outline if that pilot is part of the wider transformation process or is it solely part of the COVID-19 surge response?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware, as are many Members, that one of the things that was commissioned pre-COVID was a review of urgent and emergency care and how it could be delivered and improved across Northern Ireland. The publication of the 'No More Silos' report was expedited and published by my Department a couple of weeks ago. One of the things that is in it is Phone First, as an option. The pilot will start tomorrow in the Causeway Hospital to see how it operates. Anybody seeking support from an emergency department can phone first to make sure that they can have quick and timely access to the provision that they need.

It is a pilot. It one of the 10 recommendations in 'No More Silos'. If it is successful, the intention is that it will be rolled out across all our emergency departments. We will take this time and this pilot to see what needs to be or can be improved and what does not work.

One of the things that we have seen though the network of clinicians, GPs and those in primary and secondary care who have brought forward the majority of the work and recommendations in this report is that we must see primary and secondary care working side by side. One of the things coming out of COVID is real joined-up work and the breaking down of silos between primary and secondary care. I want to make sure that we can maintain that, post-pandemic.

Mr Speaker: If the remaining Members who wish to ask a question are brief, we might get them all in.

Mr Carroll: Minister, I spoke recently to ICU nursing staff, who are doing incredible work but feel overworked, undervalued and underpaid. Some of those workers have increased stress levels, which you alluded to. Some have left the NHS because —.

Mr Speaker: I remind the Member that I have just asked Members to just go to their question, please.

Mr Carroll: They did not sign up for the current situation. What is the Minister's assessment of nursing capacity in ICUs? We owe nurses a huge debt of gratitude, but do we have enough of them?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member because I know that he has raised a number of issues specifically in regard to ICU nurses and the banding and pay grades. Our Chief Nursing Officer is currently reflecting on that to see what can and should be done and how and when to do it.

A lot of the work in the health service is strenuous and stressful no matter where it is, but ICUs are one of the most strenuous and stressful places at the moment. Staff there are under advanced and extreme pressures because of the number of patients that they are working with. That was the additional strain that I referred to earlier in the debate. We are looking at care ratios which are not normal practice. They are being supported by other healthcare workers and other professionals workers but there is stress. There is the expertise of those ICU nurses. They are a group of ICU nurses, anaesthetists, theatre nurses out of that original 1,600 that we are short of. They are a group that were specifically targeted and that we asked for in our workforce appeal. They came back and helped us out.

That is where we are seeing and experiencing the majority of the strain. That is why, during the first wave, we made sure that we had psychological and mental health support for our healthcare workers. We know not only in society is that going to be a need, but that it is a need in our current workforce. We want to make sure that they are being provided with all the support they need.

Mr Beggs: Earlier, reference was made to hospitals working at 106%, and that can have implications for ambulance handover. My question is: does the Minister recognise that there is a need for the Executive to come together to ensure that our Ambulance Service, and our entire health service, can operate and treat whoever arrives at our accident and emergency units, irrespective of their needs?

Mr Swann: What the Member highlights is the desire of everybody working across the health and social care system — our nurses, our doctors, our porters, our administrative teams, community pharmacies, GPs, and people in the Department — to make sure that we have a service that can deliver for everyone when they need it and where they need it.

This is a strenuous time across the entirety of our service. Many proposed reviews, from Bengoa to Compton, have been put in place. The transformation process has started and continues in and across our health and social care system, although not at the pace that we need it to go. As I have said before, we are trying to run three health services: our current health service, a transformational health service, and a COVID health service. We are seeing the percentage occupancy of beds because, unlike the first wave when we downturned the majority of our procedures, this time our health service is trying to keep as many procedures and services going. They are really pushing the limits so that we can deliver to the people of Northern Ireland the healthcare that they want and deserve. That is why the House should be indebted to the entirety of our healthcare family across Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: That concludes this item of business. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

Members, remember your social distancing.

Mr Speaker: Stewart Dickson has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister for the Economy.

I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary.

Mrs Dodds (The Minister for the Economy): In responding to this question, it is worth clarifying that there are two schemes currently in operation. It is unfortunate that some Members of the House have deliberately, or otherwise, conflated the two and have thereby created confusion among many of the people who are seeking support.

The local restriction support scheme is run by the Department of Finance. It was designed to provide support to businesses that are mandated to close and that are operating from premises, so it makes up the vast majority of the support that is available. I know that Members of the House will, of course, be keen to hear the details of the progress of that scheme when the Finance Minister is next in the Chamber.

My Department has put in place a scheme to provide support to those who are not covered by the Department of Finance's scheme. Part A of the COVID business restriction support scheme is for those that are mandated to close, but that are not recorded in the rates database. Therefore, it is a much smaller scheme. It was important to get part A up and running as it is directed at individuals with very small businesses and who are unlikely to have cash reserves. By the end of this week, more than 1,000 small businesses will have received payments amounting to more than £3 million.

Part B is for companies that make up the supply chain of businesses that are mandated to close. It is my expectation that part B will open on Wednesday, and I have asked Invest NI ensure that it has the dedicated and necessary resources to make that happen and to respond as quickly as possible. However, again, to be clear to the House — and I am sure all Members in the House will agree — as custodians of taxpayers' money it is imperative that we have the necessary controls in place to reduce, insofar as it is possible, the risk of fraud and error around the various schemes that Departments are asked to bring forward.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for coming to the House. We really are going to have to stop meeting like this, but we are not going to stop meeting like this until I get answers to questions on behalf of those people who —.

Mr Speaker: On that note, will you come to a question? I would just like to —.

Mr Dickson: I will come to a question. Minister, on 20 May of this year —.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dickson, can you just sit down for a second? Before we move into this session, I urge Members to please move quickly to their question. That is because Members in the last session were not able to get into the queue because people were taking too long to introduce their question. Go ahead, Stewart.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, on 20 May, you told the Economy Committee that you wanted to ensure that as much money and support would be extended to as many people as possible. Well, Minister, we are still waiting for many people to be included. There are a group of people who will be described as "excluded", yet some £0·5 billion of Barnett consequentials remains to be spent. The Finance Minister indicated to the House that he is open to bids on that, so when will you finally make a bid in order to allow people to protect their businesses and to stop them from falling over?

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for his question. Of course, the Member is very well aware that I have, on any number of occasions, asked the Executive to make decisions in relation to this matter. Since decisions are exceptionally difficult to make on this issue, I have today received a submission about support for those who have been recently self-employed and sole company directors, and I hope to sign it off this evening. Of course, that will then go to the Executive and it will be for the Executive and the Finance Minister to decide whether to support those proposals.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her answers so far. The Minister will no doubt agree that grants are important, but grants alone will not make up for the loss of earnings for those businesses that have been forced to shut or that are severely impacted by the Executive's restrictions. Does the Minister agree that the best support and help that we can give to those businesses is to allow them to open safely with the proper guidance in place?

Mrs Dodds: Yes, I agree. I am on record as saying, many times in the House, that the best support that we can give to businesses is to allow those businesses to open. I am also on record, Mr Speaker — if I may have your permission to speak briefly — as saying that last week was not the Executive's finest hour. However, having come to a compromise solution last week, which in essence rolls over the restrictions for two weeks, bar close-contact services, which the Health Minister says provides 0·05% to the R rate, and the opening of coffee shops. Other than that, the restrictions are rolled over for the next two weeks, yet the Health Minister again, on television on Sunday, not in the House, said that he would be asking for further restrictions. Today, I have spoken to a number of people in the hospitality sector who are extremely annoyed and disappointed that the rules of this game keep changing all the time. I urge the Health Minister to indicate to the Chamber and, indeed, to the hospitality sector what he wants the sector to do in order to open safely so that we avoid a repeat of last week. If he cannot tell us that they can open safely, what is he saying to the 65,000 people whose jobs depend on tourism and hospitality?

Dr Aiken: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I cannot take a point of order during a question for urgent oral answer.

Mr O'Dowd: Minister, what would you say to the businesswoman in my constituency who said to me during the week that, if the Economy Minister spent less time doing the Health Minister's work and more time doing the Economy Minister's work, her business may have a future? Will you get the money out the door and to the businesses that require it?

Mrs Dodds: The Member would need to clarify for me whether he was talking to a businesswoman with a rateable premises. If that business owner had a rateable premises, of course, that would be for the Finance Minister to look at. I launched the scheme that we have running whenever we saw the parameters of the Finance scheme. We will of course get the money out as quickly as possible.

However, in answer to the main thrust of the Member's question, I do not see a contradiction between a healthy community and a healthy economy. If we allow that economy to go to rack and ruin and unemployment to grow, we will increase mental health problems and death. Poverty brings incredibly negative health outcomes for people across Northern Ireland. It is a tricky and difficult balance, and I think that you will see the agonies that people genuinely went through last week to try to get that balance. Therefore, I think that we now need to look at how we have a functioning economy and a health service that can service the needs of all patients.

Ms McLaughlin: The terminology that the Minister used to suggest that this is a "game" in any shape, form or fashion is regrettable.

Many businesses in my constituency are small and family-owned, with perhaps two or three members of the same family working in them. To date, they are in their seventh week of having absolutely no support through the part A scheme. Based on the experience with the part A scheme — I welcome the fact that we now have a timeline for part B — can the Minister guarantee that part B grants will be put out very quickly? Can she guarantee that they will be paid before Christmas?

Mrs Dodds: Again, I ask the Member to clarify whether the businesses that she talks about have a rate base. If they employ two or three people, it suggests that they have a rate base. If they have been waiting for seven weeks, it suggests that they are part of the original localised restrictions support scheme that is run by the Department of Finance. If that is the case, I advise the Member to address her questions to the Minister of Finance, as the Minister responsible for operating the scheme.

As I have said and will continue to repeat in the Chamber, part A of the scheme is for those businesses that do not have premises and those that operate on a mobile basis, such as a driving instructor who maybe operates with some ads on Facebook and his mobile telephone number and makes appointments. We are currently working our way through about 2,500 applications to the scheme. By the end of this week, we will have paid out over £3 million through that scheme. We will endeavour to get the rest of the money out as quickly as possible, with as much assurance as we can have, so that the House and I can be satisfied that taxpayers' money is being spent appropriately.

Part B of the scheme is, of course, for businesses that have a number of customers but part of their supply chain is impacted by the restrictions. The Member and the House will understand why we wanted to directly target, first of all, those people who had no income whatsoever. That is what we have done. Part B will, we hope, be out on Wednesday. Of course, we will pay out as quickly as we can, given the assurances that are required in order to make sure that taxpayers' money is being well spent.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for her answers so far. You rightly say that the businesses that apply for the scheme are ones that have limited cash flow, and that is a serious problem for them, especially given the conditions that they face. I had a phone call just before we came in here from a lady who rents a chair in a salon. After three weeks with no updates by email or from your Department about her application, she received an email today asking for her accountant's details. She does not have an accountant; she cannot afford one. How has it taken three weeks to get to that point? When will they get their money? How is it that, given the accreditation that driving instructors have from the Department to say that they exist, not one in Northern Ireland had received their money as of Friday? Will people who have been asked to extend automatically get a payment, or will they have to reapply?

Mrs Dodds: The particular issue of the extension is one that we as an Executive will have to make a decision on.

However, I would suggest that, since part B is not in operation, it can be extended automatically. Part A will be a more difficult conundrum to deal with, but we should be able to overcome that reasonably quickly. I do not see any particular problems with it.

I do not want to get into an individual case. There is a helpline, and there are people in Invest NI manning the telephones every day in order to iron out those problems. I ask your constituent to contact them to make sure that the issues that she is raising are properly raised with those who administer the scheme and who will point her in the right direction.

Mr Muir: The Minister referred to this as a "game". I profoundly disagree with her: it is a horrendous nightmare. The people of Northern Ireland are looking to this place and to the Executive to come together to safeguard lives and livelihoods, and it is incumbent upon us all to do that.

In relation to part B, will that cover supply chains such as recruitment agencies and extend beyond what the traditional reference to food and produce?

Mrs Dodds: Part B — this is readily available on the NI Business Info site — will apply if the business supplies goods to a business named in the regulations. That includes businesses that supply goods directly to a business named and those that supply via a wholesaler or intermediary. If it is a food business, those food businesses must be licensed and registered by the local council. It can also apply to businesses whose services are provided directly to a business named in the regulations or those that supply a subcontractor. It also can apply to a business that does not supply goods or services to businesses named in the regulations but that is dependent on those businesses being open in order to operate; for example, businesses in the events sector. This is a fairly wide-ranging scheme; it is not intended to exclude. It is intended to be as inclusive as possible, hence the different categories of businesses that we have included, but they must be tied to the local restrictions that were announced on 16 October. That is the main part of it.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her answers today. I understand that the Finance Minister, Conor Murphy, has £500 million, as has been mentioned, in COVID funding for the various Departments.

Will the Minister for the Economy, once again, highlight the bids that she has made and intends to make in relation to further support for businesses? Will she assure the House that that money will be available before the end of the financial year?

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for his question. Before I answer, Mr Speaker, with your permission, I wish to address a point that Mr Muir raised. I do not consider this a game. Actually, I know so many people who are extremely stressed and anxious, people who perhaps are facing unemployment and people who do not know where to turn to get Christmas over. This is not a game.

I have made a number of bids for additional funding from the Finance Minister, and I will continue to do so. Last week, I wrote to him to ask him to consider extending the 12 months' rates relief to the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing generates about £6·4 billion to the economy and accounts for about 11% of all employees in the economy. While we have the funding to do so, even though we have an unparalleled derating scheme for manufacturing in Northern Ireland — unparalleled throughout the United Kingdom — I think that, in these very difficult circumstances, it would be an easy win for manufacturing and something that we could do relatively simply.

I am also, as I have said, finalising and hope to get Executive approval for a scheme for those who have been recently self-employed. I have been looking at a scheme for tourism support for large tourism businesses that did not fall into the £51,000 bracket in the previous rates schemes and a scheme for bed & breakfast providers. I have been looking at support for some licensed premises that have been continuously closed over the period of restrictions, and I feel that there could be some additional support, through an extension of the hardship scheme, to include companies with more employees than those covered by the previous hardship scheme.

I have made significant bids, and they will all be assessed in the coming days.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Minister for her response, for giving the details of the timeline and for her update on part A of the scheme and what is intended to be paid by the end of this week. However, I am sure the Minister will understand why people were concerned, given that payments under part A are a fortnight late and part B has not opened, and given the financial difficulties and pressures that people and businesses are facing.

Earlier today, the joint First Minister made a statement and outlined additional support being made available for businesses. Will the Minister outline what form that will take and how quickly it will be paid out?

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for her question, but I would ask her to clarify whether she is talking about the scheme run by the Department of Finance or the scheme run by the Department for the Economy, which is much newer and has moved reasonably well, given its complex nature. If it is a business in the north-west, as my colleague on the other side of the House has indicated, waiting seven weeks, then it almost certainly relates to the localised restrictions support scheme.

We need to be very clear about the schemes that we are talking about and not conflate the two. Of course, that is easy to do on social media or for a quick sound bite, but for people who actually require support, that is not the best way forward, and I take that very seriously. I have devised a number of schemes for people, right across Northern Ireland, and we try to get money out as quickly as possible with as much assurance as possible, and that is very important.

I have given an indication of the different schemes and the additional supports that I am working on. The Executive will, probably on Thursday, take decisions around further and additional supports, and I am open to looking at any ideas that Executive colleagues bring forward. The Member will know that the Finance Minister has asked for further bids in relation to the £500 million that he is holding, and I have indicated some of those bids that we are currently working on.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, last week your Department published a research paper on the expected economic impact of the four-week closure. It suggested £120 million directly and up to £400 million indirectly. It also states:

How can that be the case when we still have hundreds of new cases per day, and the highest infection rates in these islands? Can I ask you to go back to your officials and ask them to test the assumptions that they are making in that paper? Could you also, please, give us a numerical update on precisely how much money has been granted under Part A of the Department's scheme?

Mrs Dodds: The paper that the Member refers to is, like much of the work that we are doing, is modelling around the impacts on the economy. It had as its premise that restrictions would be lifted and people allowed to trade in a freer manner.

The compromise solution that the Executive came to last week will see all the restrictions continue bar the one for close-contact services, which the Health Minister indicates adds about 0·05 to the R rate, and the opening of coffee shops. If we are to have a full bounce-back of the economy and not increase that £400 million number, we will have to allow our economy to operate.

I accept that these are very difficult situations for us to be in. I talk on a regular basis to the Health Minister. I accept his sincerity in what he is putting forward, but two things have to happen: we have to know the further restrictions that the Health Minister wants to bring, and the proposals from Health on how we break the cycle of lockdowns. These are incredibly difficult, unpredictable and new circumstances for us all, and the anxieties of last week were a demonstration of that.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister very much for her comments. In her dossier that my previous friend from South Belfast alluded to, one of her officials — I do not think that she would have let this go out if she was a Minister herself, but maybe she would — it states:

Minister, does that refer to your entire approach to helping the excluded of Northern Ireland, and when you say that you are going to get information out on Wednesday, can you give a specific guarantee that that information will come out on Wednesday, and, if it does not, will you consider your position, as you should do?

Mrs Dodds: The paper that was produced last week on modelling the impacts on the economy adopts exactly the same premise as modelling on health impacts that his colleague the Health Minister produces. They are models; they are not precise instruments, just as those from the Health Department around health predictions are modelling. I commend the Member for his persistence but ask him to at least read the paper and the premise on which it is based. [Interruption.]

I am unsure which section of society the Member is referring to. The Executive will get a paper from me on Thursday on those who term themselves as excluded. That paper is ready and will be signed off. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Aiken: My apologies, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Mr Aiken, please behave yourself. Minister, please continue.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Speaker. No amount of shouting at me in this Chamber will change my mind on how important these issues are and how important it is to respond to people in difficult circumstances.
The Member can shout all he wants in that respect.

On Thursday, the Executive will consider a paper on those who call themselves excluded. Of course, it will be for the Executive to decide what to do on that. There will also be further payments, as I said, by the end of this week under part A, and the expectation is that part B will start on Wednesday. These are important things, and I know that the Member, as Chair of the Finance Committee, would want that money to go out with assurance and probity around it, although his recent statements might not suggest that.

Ms Sugden: I wish to pick up on a point that Mr Stewart made about accountant verification. That in itself has its own cost, and constituents tell me that they have to pay their accountants to sign off forms. I ask the Minister to consider that, particularly for the scheme that she is bringing forward on Wednesday. Also, will the Minister confirm that businesses, further to the new restrictions from Friday past, will get the various business support schemes, whether they are partially closing or fully closing for the two weeks ahead?

Mrs Dodds: Yes, it is fully intended that those businesses will receive those financial supports. It is unfair and improper to ask businesses to close and not to support them. We will endeavour to do that.

Many Members to whom I speak, either individually or in the Chamber, will know that one of the real difficulties in schemes such as this is the verification of applications. Accountants' letters were one way in which we could do that in the absence of HMRC cooperation. I understand that that is difficult for some people, but we must have assurances around taxpayers' money that is being used for the schemes. I hope that that does not put people off from applying. People have told me that they have phoned the Invest NI helpline and have been helped considerably about how to get these things moving. I would advise your constituents to do that and to keep in contact.

Mr Speaker: I call Trevor Clarke. I will try to call one more Member after you, so take one minute, please.

Mr Clarke: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the way in which she outlined her concerns for the businesses that have been affected so dramatically by the virus. Given the very difficult position that the Minister found herself in last week, and the counter view on what the Executive should do — I believe that the right thing was done — did any of the other parties that are now concerned about how an extended lockdown will affect those businesses express the same concerns as she has expressed all along about such businesses?

Mrs Dodds: Most Members in here, whether or not they agree with me politically, will not underestimate my grave concerns for businesses that have been told to close, for people who may lose their jobs and for people who, even under a furlough scheme, face having 80% of their salary in the run-up to Christmas. These are incredibly difficult circumstances. The Executive last week, ungainly as the situation might have been, reflected the difficult, tricky balance of issues. It is really important that we have a health service that can function, but it is equally important that we have an economy that can function. An economy that is in poor shape will produce poor health outcomes, more difficulties for communities and individuals, and even death. That weighs heavily on our minds.

Mr Speaker: I call Linda Dillon for the final question — very quickly, please.

Ms Dillon: When the Minister came up with this paper about the excluded, who call themselves "excluded" because they have been excluded since March — these people have not been waiting for a couple of weeks — did she engage with them to ensure that the paper meets their needs?

Mrs Dodds: As many Members know, I have engaged with a wide range of people, including those people who call themselves excluded, over a long time. The issues will not change.

Mr Speaker: Members, that concludes this item of business. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: I have received notification from the members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).

Mr O'Dowd: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments while we change the Chair.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): We now return to the debate on the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill: Second Stage. I call Sinéad Bradley.

Ms S Bradley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset, the SDLP acknowledges the reasoning presented surrounding the need for a reformation in the committal process and the objectives presented by the Bill. With mounting political agreements and an independent report spanning a significant time period, all indicating the need to engage in reform, it is regrettable that this matter has been delayed until now. However, we are here now. The proposals contained within the Bill present us with an opportunity to take action on any reform necessary.

There is no doubt that the committal process has its problems and a review is welcome. A reduction in the costly process may be achievable, but the opportunities to support the wellbeing of alleged victims and witnesses are amongst the strongest arguments for proposing reform.

It should be noted that a fair system that reaches justice in a timely manner is in the best interests of all parties. The inclusion of certain offences in the direct committal process, upon early inspection, certainly appears to be a clean and efficient way of reducing the delay that can be experienced under the committal process, as does the proposal to further simplify the process itself. I note the single list of serious offences to which direct committal will apply. Also important is that additional clarity will be given that any other offence that the Magistrates' Court considers to be related to the qualifying offence will also be directly transferred to the Crown Court at the same time.

On the basis of these proposals, it seems reasonable to conclude that the demands on the Magistrates' Court and the committal process could be significantly lightened. However, the additional powers proposed, arguably necessarily, may have the effect of cancelling out or reducing any such efficiencies. The aim of transferring cases to the Crown Court more quickly and shortening the time taken to complete these cases will, in the view of the SDLP, depend heavily on the redistribution of resources. Without a clear business case for the number of cases projected to flow through the proposed new system, the SDLP is concerned that the desired effect of reducing the length of the committal process could lead to new pressure and delay in the Crown Court. Should that be the case, the objective of swifter outcomes could be compromised. We therefore will engage with the Minister and the Department to seek assurance that these proposals are deliverable.

In principle, the SDLP welcomes the Bill and its objectives and looks forward to engaging in the process of scrutiny and building the legislation to ensure that it delivers on all its outlined objectives.

Mr Dickson: I welcome the Bill's Second Stage. I begin by commending the Minister for continuing the programme of reform started by our Alliance colleague David Ford when he was Justice Minister. Our justice system is much improved from 2010. As ever, however, there is much to do to bring it into the 21st century by speeding up justice, improving victims' experience of the system and ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on all of our lives and put pressure on Departments, but we must not lose sight of the long term. I would therefore like to thank the Minister of Justice's officials for the work that they have done to bring this legislation before us.

Committal reform has been on the agenda for quite some time. In fact, I recall that the abolition of oral evidence at committals was part of the Justice Bill (Northern Ireland) 2015 before it was amended, as was direct committal through differing mechanisms. This Bill brings together a number of recommendations and actions from the Fresh Start Agreement, the Gillen review, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and Criminal Justice Inspection. It will help to speed up justice and improve victims' experience of the system. I welcome that such an evidence-based approach has been taken to the Bill and to understanding what the need is and what our actions should be. Many, not least the Northern Ireland Audit Office, have pointed out that criminal cases in Northern Ireland take significantly longer than those in a similar system in England and Wales. The delays represent additional cost for defendants and victims, and committal reform will be a major step forward in addressing this. It is also worth noting that the committal process was abolished in England and Wales a number of years ago. It took time but, by May 2013, committal proceedings to determine whether there was sufficient evidence had ended. It is vital that we get on with the task here as well.

The first three clauses are quite straightforward, finally implementing the much-needed abolition of oral evidence in the committal process. Clause 1 provides for the abolition of preliminary investigations, which involve the calling of witnesses, oral evidence and associated cross-examination.

These can have a particularly traumatic impact on victims of crime and require them to give evidence more than once more during the progression of the case. However, hearings can also be lengthy, lasting a couple of days, as we see with delays in arranging the attendance of witnesses in the Magistrates' Court. This slows down our justice system, adds cost and potentially creates a traumatic experience for those who are cross-examined, all for little tangible gain.

Clause 2 repeals elements of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to abolish mixed committals and evidence under oath at preliminary inquiries. This brings forward another part of the recommendations of the Fresh Start panel for tackling paramilitarism and/or organised crime, and it is to be welcomed. Clause 3 tidies up minor appeals and amendments. Clause 4 is perhaps the most complex element of the Bill, bringing the necessary legislative changes to amend the 2015 Act to provide for direct committal for a range of offences triable only on indictment.

At this point, it is worth looking more specifically at the case for committal reform in Northern Ireland and the range of reports and recommendations which have called for it. First, there was a Fresh Start commitment to bring forward legislation to reform the committal system and remove the need for oral evidence to help tackle organised and paramilitary crime. In 2016, the Fresh Start panel published a specific recommendation for the Department of Justice to:

This was under the aim of "Promoting lawfulness", which the panel agreed could be done:

Of course, the intervening period of Assembly hiatus has put this off. I would like to, again, thank the Minister for her speed and efficiency in bringing it forward and for her commitment to such reform. I recall, in fact, that we were here over five years ago trying to remove oral evidence at committal as part of the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill. However, this was altered to continue the practice where the courts thought that it was in the interests of justice.

In 2018, the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland's 'Without Witness' report recommended that:

so as to allow for direct committal.

Then, the Gillen Review's 'Report into the law and procedures in serious sexual offences' called for similar reform to the system. Specifically, Mr Gillen called for direct committal arrangements to be made for serious sexual offences. These would have the effect of speeding up justice, reducing costs but, most importantly, reducing the potential for additional stressful and traumatic experiences that committal hearings can cause for victims. Reform is clearly needed to ensure that victims have a better experience of the justice system than they currently have. Committal causes impacts for the victims of crime, the slowing down of committal proceedings, and the slowing down of justice. However, it is also important that we consider the costs associated with this system.

In 2018, the Audit Office published 'Speeding up justice: avoidable delay in the criminal justice system'. This report highlighted a number of challenges facing our justice system. One of the most notable was the committal process. The report commented that the committal process is:

It noted the progress made in the 2015 Act to remove the process, and ultimately made the recommendation that:

This Bill represents a step forward in that regard.

Finally, a commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' states that:

Again, it is welcome that the Minister is taking action on this New Decade, New Approach commitment, as we are all still waiting for progress on many other aspects and in many different areas in the Executive.

I recall that the 2015 Justice Act contained provision for direct committal in certain circumstances for guilty pleas. However, following engagement and identifying the complexities and risks inherent in this, the system will be simplified to be based on the case. That is a sensible and more workable way forward. Nonetheless, the Bill allows for magistrates to speed up the process in certain circumstances where there is an indication that the defendant wishes to plead guilty by ordering the necessary reports for the Crown Court.

Of course, when we are reforming our justice system we must always consider the balance between the fundamental right of the defendant to a fair trial and the rights of victims and witnesses. This Bill achieves that. The eventual end of the committal proceedings, including pre-trial oral evidence, has been seen in England and Wales as not having a negative impact on the delivery of justice. In fact, the justice system moves more swiftly there. We must also remember that delays to justice have implications for defendants and their right to a fair trial in a reasonable period, as outlined by article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. My understanding is that the provision will not apply to cases already in progress, nor, indeed, retrospectively, so there will be no unexpected changes for those progressing through the system at the moment.

In closing, I welcome this legislation, which builds upon previous legislation brought forward by former Minister Ford. It takes a clear step towards reforming a part of our justice system that is antiquated and that does not deliver for the defendant, the victim or the taxpayer. It will speed up our justice system. It will ensure that the rights of all are respected and, in doing so, maintain and build vital confidence in the system and in how it will deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

Dr Aiken: I apologise for our justice spokesman's not being here today, but I support the Bill. The UUP acknowledges the need for the changes and for this Bill. It is regrettable that this has been so long delayed, but we welcome at long last the reform of our justice system that is much needed. Streamlining and improving efficiency is needed, for justice delayed is indeed justice denied. The judiciary, the victims and the whole process of the justice service need to support these changes, and we need to also make sure that we have suitable resources and the ability to support the changes that have to go through our court system, which is in need of reform. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the changes.

Mr Dunne: I welcome the opportunity to speak today, as a member of the Justice Committee, on the Second Stage of the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill. There has been a significant amount of work done on this Bill within the Department, and that should be acknowledged. This Bill represents a real opportunity to speed up the justice process, make the justice system more fit for purpose and further support victims and witnesses. There is a strong case for reforming the committal process, and there is a body of evidence from external organisations both within the criminal justice system and outside it. The Gillen report and the Northern Ireland Office report of 2018 both carry recommendations which would, if implemented, significantly reform the current committal process.

This Bill seeks to achieve a number of key outcomes. One of the most significant outworkings of the Bill will be to remove the need for victims and witnesses to give oral evidence twice, first at the committal hearing in the Magistrates' Court and then again at the Crown Court. Giving oral evidence can be very daunting and traumatic for victims and witnesses who may have suffered horrifically, and can often only add to the pain for an already distressed victim.

This will also cut down on duplication and help to streamline the process for the Courts and Tribunals Service, as well as the criminal justice agencies, and, most importantly, improve the experience for the victims of crime in their pursuit of justice. The Bill will also ultimately result in more cases getting to the Crown Court faster than is currently the case. Magistrates' Courts conduct a very significant amount of business, and, often, Magistrates' Court lists are overflowing. However, it is important that we see an integrated approach to these reforms that mitigates the pressures on Crown Courts and ensures a managed, balance transaction approach. We do not want to just see the balance shifted from one court to another. The plan for a phased roll-out is a sensible approach that allows for flexibility and the tools to rebalance resources prudently. Although committal hearings are used to test evidence and determine if cases should proceed, it is very unusual for cases to be dismissed at that early stage, yet significant time and resources, including court time, are required, adding unnecessary costs and time to proceedings. Committal hearings can also often be subject to adjournments and delays for a number of reasons, which are often outside the control of victims and witnesses and which often add to their pain and frustration. We can learn lessons from other jurisdictions and ensure that any reforms are tailored and focused on making our justice system more efficient and effective. It is also important that there is a degree of flexibility with such a significant reform. That is why I believe that the use of orders in the Bill, which would allow other offences to be added, are an important tool.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for victims of crime, with some court business conducted virtually during the lockdown and ongoing periods of restrictions. Even today, there are significant pressures on court business and virtual measures can sometimes limit full engagement and participation in the justice system and have an adverse effect on getting justice and, ultimately, support for victims. It is always wiser to consider ways of improving our justice system in a way that benefits victims and witnesses, with the aim of reducing offending and, ultimately, delivering safer communities.

I am content to support the general aims of the Bill, and I think that it has the potential to deliver leaner and more effective justice processes for victims of crime, who should always be the number one priority for the Department.

Ms Dolan: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Stage of the Bill. Reforming the committal process and speeding up criminal justice were commitments that were made in the Fresh Start and the New Decade, New Approach agreements. Speeding up justice is a priority for Sinn Féin and, although the Bill will play a part in doing that, it is clear that there are many other problems in the wider justice system that will not be resolved under the Bill. Therefore, there is a responsibility to fix the system as a whole.

The COVID-19 pandemic has added further complications, with a high number of cases having to be cancelled because of restrictions earlier in the year. Therefore, the Department has a responsibility to ensure that any remaining lists are dealt with swiftly.

We are aware of a pilot project that was carried out in Belfast recently, which involved fast-tracking serious sexual-offence cases involving child witnesses under the age of 13. We understand that that was carried out without the need for additional resources and that the pilot was successful. That is an example of the whole justice system pulling in the same direction to improve outcomes for victims and witnesses in an innovative way and is the type of thing that should be implemented and encouraged.

When discussing the Gillen review in 2018, the assistant director of the PPS said:

She also emphasised the need for collaboration between criminal justice organisations. Such collaboration has been seen in a number of other projects that have been taken forward in recent years, including the Working Together project, which required enhanced early engagement between the PPS and PSNI and other criminal justice organisations at key points to improve the quality and timeliness of the investigative stages, as well as improving case files and disclosure. Better cooperation between those organisations is vital if we are to see the improvements to the speed of case progression that is required.

There is also the issue of increasing the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court, which, in 2017, the Lord Chief Justice identified as having a number of benefits, including speedier case progression, the better use of the professional skills of judges and alignment with other proposed reforms, such as problem-solving courts. I ask the Minister whether her Department has done any scoping work on that issue and whether she intends to take it forward.

One of the most important ways of speeding up justice will be the further roll-out of problem-solving justice initiatives. We have now seen a number of successful pilot schemes and initiatives, such as the use of enhanced combination orders. There is a wide range of innovative and expansive thinking options out there, which, taken together, will deliver the radical changes to the criminal justice system that are required if we are to support victims and witnesses. That work needs to be a priority for the Department and other organisations that are involved in the justice system.

Mr Frew: I rise to speak on the Bill. First of all, I welcome the fact that we have legislation coming through the Assembly. That is what the Building and Chamber were designed for. We are legislators. Is it not great to have a late-night sitting, and the atmosphere that it brings, when we could be at home or anywhere else? This is where we are, and this is why we are here.

This is the business end for us as legislators. I am delighted that we can get our teeth into Bills. I thank the Minister for that. Of course, legislation is a bit like buses: you wait for a long time for one Bill to come along and, then, a number of them do. I can only impress upon the Minister to keep them coming. No matter how many there are, let us see legislative change for good.

I think that we all realise how long the Bill has been in the system and has taken to get to this point. I welcome that. I welcome the fact that some good can come out of it. It is only Second Stage. I cannot wait for the Bill to get to the Committee, where we can get into the nuts and bolts of what it is designed to do. It is clear that when one looks back at the catalogue — and it is a catalogue — of reports, there are some from all arts and parts

; not only are there reports from the judicial system but from experts who have reported on the justice system of late.

Recommendation 3 from the Northern Ireland Audit Office's 2018 report on speeding up justice states that:

Even recommendation 110, I think that it is, of the much-valued Gillen report states that:

There are even all the political agreements, which I will not go into because they bore me as much as they do everybody else in the public. Then, there is the Intelligence and Security Committee report on Northern Ireland-related terrorism, published in October 2020, which states that:

of course, we all know that it is years —

Of course, anybody who has had any experience on the Justice Committee will know that it is a problem that has dogged the Committee, the Minister

, the Department and the judicial system for a long time. Therefore, I believe that we are taking a positive step forward in the right direction.

It is a very small Bill. There is not much to it. Most of what it contains relates to abolition of preliminary investigations and the committal process. That brings me to some of the problems that we might see. We have the benefit

of hindsight with regard to England and Wales. Of course, they abolished committal proceedings quite some time ago. I think that it was the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that did away with committal. Therefore, they have had a lot of time. Something that they realised about that — it was in a National Audit Office report — was that, while abolishing committal hearings had reduced waste in the system, getting rid of those hearings had added little value because that had, instead, added to pressure on Crown Courts, where a backlog of cases gathered more quickly.

We cannot have a bottleneck and for people to wait just as long, albeit it would do away with a horrendous stage of the court proceedings for the people who are involved. If outcomes take the same length of time, we will have failed. That is a sobering picture.

Ms Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that we must ask the Minister to provide assurances on how that will be prevented from happening?

Mr Frew: I hope that the Minister heard that. Yes: I support that intervention and key question. The Committee will want to look at that issue.

There is no point abolishing a stage of a hearing process, horrendous as it is, if we still have the same outcome and it will not assist. We know and are told time and time again by all the experts that justice delayed is justice denied. We will keep repeating that and we have done for years, but we have not seen any change, so here we have an opportunity for real change.

I note Mr Allister's earlier commentary, and that is why I cannot wait to get the Bill into the Committee Stage. I am sure, given the Member's interest and expertise in this, that he will contribute to the Justice Committee's scrutiny, and I welcome and encourage that from the Member, as I am sure the Minister does. She is nodding her head. The more people we can get to scrutinise the Bill, the better. It is the same as with any Bill in the House.

We will want to scrutinise that issue to make sure that the changes that we are trying to make will bring real reform, real meaning and real positivity.

I thank the officials for coming to the Committee to give us a briefing before the Second Stage. One of the questions I asked was: how will it affect crimes and offences that are carried out by suspected terrorists but are not terrorist-related? With that comes the fear, the presence and the spectre of the fist and, in many cases, worse. We know that there is real fear out there in the population, not only among alleged victims but among the families of alleged victims. We need to ensure that we cover all bases and that, as much as possible, we try to protect the people involved from the gangster, the terrorist and the gunman. That is very important. It is highlighted in some of the intelligence-led reports, and some of the organisations have commented on that over the years. It is very important that we cover and protect those people.

It is not only about the alleged victims and their families but the perpetrators — or the alleged perpetrators, before I get told off. It is quite right that every single one of us should expect swift justice, even the perpetrators. That is hard to say, considering some of the horrendous crimes that have taken place, but everyone deserves quick, speedy justice outcomes. When you read all the reports, you will know that, especially for young people, delayed justice, if it is years in the making, can lead to a lack of responsibility from the perpetrator and that person not linking their crime with their punishment. We need to grapple with that. We need to make sure that that is quicker, slicker and more effective. We should remember that it is not just about punishing people but about rehabilitation, and we will have no chance of rehabilitating if the perpetrator cannot link the offence that they have committed with the punishment that they have been given. That is very important.

I will move on to costs. How will this save money and how much money will it save? That is a hard question to answer, because it changes and is so fluid over the years and, of course, it all depends on the rate of crime and everything else, but we need to see meaningful change in the area of saving money.

Let us not get away from the impact that this might have. Members of the Justice Committee are close to the courts. We should probably be closer, but we are close enough to the courts to know how they work. Many Members will have experienced court proceedings over the years and during their lives, and it is a daunting prospect. Even when you know you are right, if you are involved in a case, the buildings and the process can be alien to everyday life. Unless you are a trained barrister, solicitor or judge, it is alien to you and it is not your place of work, so it is daunting. It should not be the case that an alleged victim is asked to give evidence, and to give evidence again, or that a witness is asked to give evidence, and then to give it again in a different setting. We do not need that. It has been proven in other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom that it is not required. We need to cut away the layers that are not needed and speed up justice. That is the point that I make now. Passing the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill is the start, not the end, of the journey. It is important that we encourage and increase efficiency, even in our Crown Court proceedings. We must ensure that there is no bottleneck as a result of losing this layer, and make sure that our court proceedings are much more efficient than they are currently. That is vitally important.

I also want to touch on the utilisation of our estate — our court buildings and every art and part of those buildings. It is vital that they are utilised and maximised completely and utterly. If we do not have court proceedings, we should maximise the use of that building by using it for DLA and personal independence payment (PIP) appeals. That is what we do in courtroom 3 in Ballymena, and it works very well. We have not had any appeals this side of lockdown, which is wrong, because there is no reason for that, but the buildings and the court setting have to be utilised better. Over the years, they have not been well utilised.

All of those issues are in the mix. Even though the Bill is only five clauses long, the Committee will take its time. It will scrutinise it as only the Justice Committee can. I have been very impressed with the Justice Committee's work on the Domestic Violence and Family Proceedings Bill. We have done an enormous piece of work — a very good piece of work — and we will bear that out tomorrow. I have no doubt that we will do the same with the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill, because I have faith in the Committee members to scrutinise diligently and get to the kernel of the issues and the point of the Bill. We will probably make it better, as we did with the Domestic Violence Bill.

I support the Bill's Second Stage and look forward to its Committee Stage. I would welcome commentary and comments from all Members at the Committee Stage.

Ms Rogan: I welcome the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill. It arose from the New Decade, New Approach deal in January, as part of the reform to direct committal proceedings. It will mean that rape and serious sexual offences are to be added to the list of specific offences under the 2015 Justice Act and, therefore, allow such offences to bypass the committal process and be directly committed to the Crown Court. That was a key recommendation of the Gillen review into the law and procedures in serious sexual offence cases. Recent figures show that the major delays in the justice system disproportionately affect those cases which involve serious sexual offences. It is, therefore, vitally important that such offences will be directly committed under the Bill.

I want to take some time to speak about the Gillen review. The recent Department of Justice figures show that, on average, it took 698 days to complete serious sexual offence trials in 2018 and 2019, which was up from 470 days in 2015 and 2016. The Gillen review stated that the current system:

— or alleged victims —

It also stated that expanding the number of offences subject to direct committal to include sexual offences would reduce the anxiety for victims and should reduce delay in the case progression. Although the Bill, if passed, will go some way to rectifying that problem, it must be noted that behind every statistic is an individual. The victims who are at the heart of this have been subjected to some of the most horrific crimes. Victims have been let down by the system for too long, because too much time has been taken to deal with the case, or there has been a failure to deliver an acceptable outcome. Although the number of serious sexual offence crimes being reported is increasing, the conviction rate remains unacceptably low. The Bill will be an important way in which to support victims, but it is not the only solution; it is merely one piece of a wider problem that must be addressed. To that end, it is welcome that, during the summer, the Department of Justice published the Gillen review implementation plan, which Department of Justice officials briefed the Justice Committee on recently. It includes time frames for processing the recommendations. I welcome the Minister's intention to legislate for a number of Gillen recommendations as part of the Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill later in this mandate. I encourage the Minister to ensure that, even though a high number of Bills will be processed during the remainder of this mandate, the miscellaneous provisions Bill completes its passage during this mandate.

It is vitally important that the other recommendations of the Gillen review that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice are made a priority so that the system can finally begin to treat victims with the respect, dignity, efficiency and competency that they deserve. Although tackling delay in the justice system is an absolute priority, we can do better in how we treat victims, including vulnerable and/or young witnesses. Gillen made two specific recommendations relating to the successful Barnahus system, which the Children's Commissioner described as:

It is innovative, it is successful, and it is the type of radical reform that we need to see if we are to truly develop a justice system that looks after the best interests of victims and witnesses.

Ms Bradshaw: I agree with Mr Frew: it is great to see this Bill proceeding through the Assembly. We were all elected as legislators to bring in policy changes and new laws to make our constituents' lives better.

As the Minister mentioned, the principles of the Bill are not new. It is, of course, as she explained, designed to speed up the justice system, which, in many cases, is operating at only half the speed of those in the rest of the UK, and, ultimately, to improve the operation of the criminal justice system. We could probably do with a bit of speed being injected into the political system, too. The principles of the Bill are not new, and previous Ministers have attempted to legislate to implement them, but, as ever in this place, delays have been the outcome. We already have the Justice Act, but its directly relevant provisions have not commenced. What we are doing here was done, for the most part, in England and Wales as long ago as 2001 and was agreed in the Fresh Start Agreement action plan. My colleague Stewart Dickson outlined some of the background of why we have fallen so far behind, so I will not repeat it. We are now following on from what Criminal Justice Inspection, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and 'New Decade, New Approach' all advocated.

One advantage of the delay is that more offences are now included for direct committal. Those include serious assault, serious driving offences, sexual assault, aggravated burglary, human trafficking and firearms possession with intent. It is more essential than ever to get on with the Bill because it complements other legislation that is currently proceeding through the House or is currently proposed. That is because the Bill is about not just speed, as important as that is, but reducing stress on victims and potential victims. The Bill will improve the quality of evidence and will relieve stress by ensuring that evidence is given only once. Indeed, it is the abolition of oral evidence at the committal hearing, which is, primarily, dealt with in clauses 1 to 3, that will follow most swiftly after the passage of the Bill. That is also important following the Gillen review into serious sexual offences. Although that review was specifically about sexual offences, it called for a holistic approach. The cases added for direct committal extend well beyond rape and sexual assault, so the principle that victims should not be further victimised by the length or nature of evidence that they have to provide surely extends beyond them, too. Clause 4(8) is notable in that regard.

I also draw attention to clause 4(4), which enables the direct committal of a case to trial by an order of the court or through regulations of the Department that define which cases must be so committed.

This will help to enable the ultimate goal, which is the eventual abolition of committal hearings altogether. I look forward to this Bill now proceeding swiftly to speed up our justice system and improve the quality of evidence presented in it.

Miss Woods: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Second Stage debate, and I welcome the Minister back to the Chamber. As many Members have alluded to, committal reform has been discussed for many years and has featured in a number of reports pertaining to the justice system in Northern Ireland, notably the Gillen review, the Audit Office report and the 2016 Northern Ireland Executive action plan on tackling paramilitary activity and organised crime, which recommended that the Department remove the need for victims and witnesses to provide oral evidence before a trial and abolish committal proceedings in respect of offences most frequently linked to so-called paramilitary groups. There was also the Intelligence Committee report that Mr Frew mentioned.

Also, in 2018, Jonathan Hall QC provided an independent review of terrorism legislation across the UK, and he highlighted a finding that one of the reasons why difficulties are encountered in Northern Ireland in bringing successful terrorism prosecutions could be because of the aggressive adversarial court processes, with all of the defendants requesting old-style committals during which every point is fought over. I am also aware that this formed part of the debate in 2014 with the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, where, at Second Stage, proposals to reform committal proceedings were generally supported. So, this is not a new issue, but I, unlike many other Members here, was not part of that process. Therefore, I initially extend an invitation to, in particular, Mr Allister, who was vocal on this earlier today, to speak with me on this matter and outline his position and his experience with this in practice to me and to the Justice Committee.

As has already been discussed, the primary purpose of the Bill appears to be improving justice procedures by reforming the committal stage of cases moving through the court system. The Department's overall aim is to eradicate the traditional committal process entirely through rolling out direct committal. Fundamentally, it is to make the experience of victims and witnesses better, removing unnecessary steps and improving the speed of cases throughout the justice system. The committal proceedings as they stand have been described as a redundant, unnecessary and traumatising addition to the justice process for victims, and we know that there are fundamental problems that must be addressed.

Sir John Gillen, in his review of serious sexual offences, recommended that current proceedings should be discontinued, stating that they:

He stated:

I am glad to see this being part of the Bill and the additional offences added to the list of direct committal. I also note other Members' commentary on the delays in the system for sexual offences along with the conviction rates, and I agree that it must be addressed. So, there is much more to do as well as this Bill.

With preliminary enquiries, the situation is even more traumatic for victims and witnesses, as they are called to give evidence in what is experienced by them as an actual trial, leaving them hostage to a system that claims to be intent on ensuring that victims of crime will have to give evidence only when it is necessary. So, do we actually need a dress rehearsal of the case or are there other safeguards in the system that could prevent this? The oral committal system can add an additional layer of evidence, given that it has been recognised by the Department of Justice and those working in the criminal justice arena as unnecessary, not least because of the physical and emotional toll that giving evidence at this stage has on those who have already had to live with the after-effects of criminal activity. This has most loudly been advocated by groups and organisations such as Victim Support, and I look forward to engaging with them further on this. Perhaps the Minister can outline in her closing remarks what recent engagement she and her Department have had with organisations such as Victim Support, which I know was incredibly active on this issue even when the Assembly was down for some years.

Committal hearings add to the already significant delays and mammoth costs of our justice system, but, unfortunately, the Department was not able to provide any assessment of the costs of these proposed changes to the Committee during the oral evidence session. I note that, in 2012, when the Justice Committee was presented with the consultation on early guilty pleas and committal reform, the Department had not conducted detailed costings on abolishing the committal process altogether. I hope that that information and the other effects of the Bill will be provided at the earliest possible stage to the Committee.

I welcome information, from a purely financial perspective, on how much the current system costs and any projections of what those reforms would save and where the finances would be redirected to in the courts process.

I would also appreciate information on what lessons have been learned from other countries that have implemented committal reform, such as Scotland and England, as well as lessons from Australia on the different approaches taken there. In Canada, too, this has come up in much discussion, and recent issues have been raised with committal proceedings around the country's extradition laws. Have any studies and research been done to make sure that this legislation will do what it says on the tin, that is, remove undue delay?

In 2012, the Justice Committee was also told that part of the issue with abolishing committal in its entirety was that so many consequential changes would be required if it were uprooted and got rid of entirely. I am aware that it will be done in a staged process through this Bill, but the Committee was told that there would be a queue of cases waiting to get to the Crown Court, and there would be a fear that if the rest of the system were too slow, the Crown Court would end up becoming a remand court.

So, where are we now? Eight years later, have we got the necessary changes in the court system that mean that there is no queue? What front-loading has occurred to prepare for the changes? What safeguards are in place already? Do we need to go further? Is a trial sufficient to safeguard the rights of the defendant and scrutinise evidence? If it is — and, surely, that has been suggested in Gillen with regard to sexual offences, as well as reforms to proceedings elsewhere in the UK and Ireland — this Bill needs to address that. We must go beyond this Bill to do our best to sort out the speed of justice.

Overall, I welcome the introduction of the Bill and look forward to scrutinising it as part of the Committee to get the best possible justice system for victims.

Mr Allister: The removal of a citizen's liberty through incarceration is the most severe step that the state can take against any citizen. Therefore, over centuries, we have built up a hedge of protections against injustice resulting from that situation so that we are sure that before the state dares to remove the liberty of any citizen, be he the most odious terrorist charged with the most odious terrorist crimes, be he charged with the most sickening of sex abuse crimes or be he charged with theft or robbery or anything else, that it is sure that it has a process that is foolproof, as far as it can be.

We built up a number of matters to hedge that about. The ultimate one is that no one can be convicted of any crime without proof beyond all reasonable doubt. I trust that none of us would want to tinker with that or change that. That is a bulwark, but, as part of the hedging about of protections for citizens over the centuries and decades, we have established a committal process to ensure that, before a case goes for trial, there is at least a prima facie case against the accused. That is the difference.

In committal, the test is not whether there is proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The test is whether there is prima facie evidence that the person who is charged committed the offences with which he is charged. Only if there is prima facie evidence is that person committed for trial.

Anyone can see the vast difference in the scale of what is required. What is required at committal stage is very modest. It is to show only a prima facie case. It is quite different from what is required for conviction.

What are we looking at therefore at committal stage? What we are looking at in 95% of committal cases is the papers in the case. How do the papers evolve? Are they sworn statements? No. Are they statements that have been sifted and tested by any interrogation? No. Papers at committal are witness statements taken, almost invariably, by a police officer. They may reflect the actual words of the witness; they may not. They are the words framed by the police officer to convey what the witness is saying.

The statement is then signed by the witness. It is not sworn; it is signed. What this House is therefore being invited to do is to say that it is OK with us to put people on trial, for perhaps the most serious of crimes or the least of crimes, in the Crown Court, without the evidence against them ever being sifted or tested or sworn. That is the effect of abolishing committal proceedings, because most committal proceedings involve the production of what is called a bundle of preliminary enquiry (PE) papers, which the magistrate reads. Based on those papers, he decides whether there is a prima facie case. He is applying a judicial process before someone is sent for trial.

This Bill wants to remove that. This Bill wants ultimately to remove that from every single crime that ever goes to the Crown Court. This Bill wants ultimately to create the circumstances in which the state can do the greatest possible injury to citizens, namely to deprive them of their liberty. This House wants to create a situation in which someone can be put on trial for whatever it is, without those papers ever passing through any judicial sift or ever being sworn to be the truth. It is just enough that it says it there in black and white. I do not think that that is wise. I do not think that it is sound. I do not think that it is in the interests generally of society.

I have to say that the process does not cause delay in the criminal justice system. The regular committal, which is over 95% of all committals, is a paper exercise that does not cause the delay that is pretended in this House today. What of the other 4·5%? They come either through what is called a preliminary investigation (PI) or, more likely, through a mixed committal. That is to say, at its initiative, the defence can ask for all the evidence to be called. It would be very unlikely that you would do that. You do not really want to hear from the mapper or whomever. Or it can ask for key evidence to be called. Why would it do that? I can tell you. In my experience, I do not think that I have ever read a set of committal papers that would not leave you believing, "This probably is the truth", and yet, when you get a witness in the box, you can discover that it is anything but the truth.

Ms Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: In a moment. You can discover that it is fabrication. You can discover that there were motives that produced the fabrication. That is why a defence counsel or solicitor would say, "We know that to be fabricated. We know the motive of that person. We know the frailties of that evidence. To save the need the need for a trial, we are therefore going to try to expose that at this point by asking for a mixed committal or a PI".

And if they succeed, what happens? They save the public purse the cost of a trial. In 2014, when we last debated this, in that year 18 preliminary investigations/committals resulted in no committals. That meant that there did not have to be tens of thousands of pounds spent on 18 trials. That is only a drop in a very big ocean but it needs to be taken account of.

Ms Dillon: I thank the Member for taking the intervention. I agree with Rachel Woods. In scrutinising this Bill we will listen to many witnesses. I would be happy to meet the Member to hear his side of the argument, along with my colleague on the Committee and anybody else who wants to be part of that conversation, because we do want to make the best law and we want to ensure that these issues are dealt with. I would like to hear some alternatives as to how we make this process less difficult for those alleged victims.

Mr Allister: If the Member continues to listen I hope that I will be able to assist.

Why have we got a committal process? Think of it. I have tried to deal with that. We have a committal process as a sift. Let me remind the House that in the Continental system, for example, committal is done by the magistrate presiding, interrogating the witness and deciding whether or not they are believable and then they go to trial. We have a much more modest system here. It simply requires the statements to be sifted in 95% of the cases and for the magistrate to be satisfied that there is something here, that it is prima facie and needs to be tested by a jury, and so they are committed.

You have the very few cases where the defence say, "We would like to challenge the evidence at this stage". Very often, the defence strategically decides not to, because they want to keep their powder dry, so to speak. Every time you call your witness and show your hand in your cross-examination they are more ready for you the next time, if there is a next time, so very often the defence will keep their powder dry and agree to a committal on the papers and not ask for it. However, in cases where it is crying out for challenge I do not see why this House would want to remove that.

We had this debate in 2015 and this House, with the votes of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists, if I remember correctly, preserved the right for oral hearings at committal, not on a blanket basis — we removed that — but in the interests of justice. What this House arrived at as a compromise in 2015 was that if the magistrate presiding is persuaded that in the interests of justice he should hear some oral evidence, then he hears it. What this House in 2020 is being asked to do is to liquidate the interests of justice, to take away from this process the opportunity for the interests of justice to be served.

I could understand this House's stance if this was a choice between everyone can have a PI or a mixed committal and it is an absolute right, or nobody has it. I can understand that, but when the choice is between this House having reached a settled view in 2015 that those who can persuade a magistrate that is in the interests of justice that evidence is heard, then they can have a committal.

Really, we are saying — there is no dodging of this for this House, and there will be no dodging of this for the Committee — that the question that you are being asked in this Bill is, "Do you want to remove the protection that says that committal happens, and only happens, if it is in the interests of justice?" If your answer is, "I don't care about the interests of justice; I just want to remove it", you will vote this Bill through, lock, stock and barrel. However, if you do care about the interests of justice, you will ask yourself what is wrong with a magistrate having to be persuaded that oral evidence can be called if it is in the interests of justice. What do the courts exist for, if not the interests of justice? I find it quite surprising that we want to arrive at a situation where mere statements — no sifting, no rigour, no testing — are enough to send one to trial. Indeed, we want to do more than that. We do not even want to have a process; we just want to send them for trial.

I was astounded when I read the explanatory and financial memorandum. I hope that all Members have read it, because we discover in it that, for this proposal, the House is being asked to rely on a consultation from 2012 — eight years ago. Is that good enough for this House? A Minister is bringing a proposal with a backup document that relies on a consultation from eight years ago. It recites what the great and the good think and what some very knowledgeable politicians think and Fresh Starts and New Decades and all sorts of things. However, the obvious gap is that, not once, in this document is it indicated that the solicitors' organisation, the Law Society, was ever asked for its opinion or that the Bar Council was ever asked for its opinion. It is so selective that it seems to be interested only in views that might agree with it. What sort of a tawdry document is it to accompany a Bill that eschews consultation, other than that which suited in 2012; which eschews the democratic decision of this elected House in 2015?

Members are, of course, fully entitled to change their mind, but I have reminded you what some of you voted for in 2015. Have the fundamentals changed? Are the principles different? Are your principles different from what they were in 2015? Do you now think that it should be an easier process? Do you think that article 6 of the European Convention, which still applies, now allows shortcuts in the process of justice? That is what you are being asked to legislate for.

Paragraph 30 of this document goes on to say:

So much for the Assembly. There is something of the arrogant about that. The Assembly debates and decides, it has its Committee Stage, it takes amendments and takes a view, but the Department has produced a document that relies on a consultation from 2012 and says, "We are still convinced that that is the best, and we don't bother to ask those who might take a contrary view". I do not think that that is how we should make legislation in this House. Two thousand and fifteen was an honourable compromise. It removed the wholesale right to committal, but it preserved it in those circumstances where it was in the interests of justice. I do not think that that is something that is open to abuse. What you are saying is that if that is abused, there are magistrates in this country who have a wrong view of what is in the interests of justice.
Is that what you are saying? If a magistrates decides that it is in the interests of justice to hear some oral evidence then who are we, in this House, to go behind that to say "Oh no, we know better. We do not like this notion of the interests of justice so we are going to exterminate that from the Bill". Of course, it is clear, in paragraph 17 of this document, that the ultimate aim is to liquidate committals altogether. So, everyone is returned; there is no sworn evidence, tested evidence or sifted evidence, just return them. Whoever said it is right, that will create an inevitable logjam in our Crown Court. It will just push it down the pipe, as far as that is concerned. Of course, as the game plan is for no committals, you have to get rid of the opportunity for oral evidence in clauses 1 and through clauses 1, 2 and 3. Then the Department wants to give itself the power by order to extend the list of offences. Maybe it is in here, but it was not clear to me whether that has to be done by affirmative resolution, negative resolution, any resolution or whether it is just an arbitrary power for the Department. I think that the Committee needs to look at that.

There is something else that it wants to take out; in the 2015 Act we made a provision that there was a right to call evidence at the application — in what was the old no Bill process. So, when you get to the Crown Court and the lawyers for the defence think that there is not the evidence to stack that particular charge up — it is more likely to be out of a number of charges — and, therefore, they want to call some evidence — it is going to be defence evidence — to help to knock that out. Again, the 2015 Bill said that you could do that if it is in the interests of justice, whereas the 2020 Bill says "you cannot do it; forget about the interests of justice, you cannot do it". So, Members, that is the critical question in this Bill: are you prepared — each and every one of you — to take a step which removes something which is premised on the interests of justice from our legislation? If you are then vote this Bill through, but if you are not then think again. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I call on the Minister of Justice, Mrs Naomi Long, to conclude and wind on the debate on the Second Stage of the Bill.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be able to wind on the debate today. This is another significant piece of legislation from the Department. Although it is a relatively short Bill with only six clauses and one schedule, the changes that it proposes will deliver a much needed and long awaited reform of the criminal justice process in reducing delay and improving the experience of victims and witnesses.

I thank all of the Members today for their constructive engagement, and for the useful discussion on the elements of the Bill. As the Bill moves through its stages in the Assembly, I hope that we can continue in this spirit to ensure that this important piece of legislation reaches the statute book as soon as possible, and that we can start to deliver these much needed changes in reality.

I appreciate that much of the content of the Bill is technical in nature. However, in summary, the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill seeks to, first, expand the use of direct committal to a wider range of offences, and to bring more offences more quickly to the Crown Court. Secondly, it will remove the need for oral evidence before trial. Finally, it will smooth the operational outworkings of direct committal. In doing so, it will help to deliver on the commitments from the New Decade, New Approach deal, Fresh Start, the Gillen review of serious sexual offences and a number of other scrutiny reports by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Audit Office. However, most importantly, it will help us to fulfil our responsibilities to victims, witnesses and defendants for fair and speedy justice.

I turn now to some of the issues raised during the debate. The Chairman of the Committee, Paul Givan, mentioned in his remarks that this became an Assembly Bill when it came before the House. Mr Speaker, as you will be aware, no such thing exists. It remains an Executive Bill, albeit Justice-led, and the Assembly and Committee process is an important one, which I respect on principle and in practice, because it allows it to improve the Bill. However, where that is most likely to succeed is where the Committee approaches its duties with equal emphasis on the scrutiny and on the cooperation and support for the Minister.

Furthermore, my responsibility and that of the Executive parties is set out in guidance note 2 when it comes to Executive Bills. As a former Minister, the Member will be fully aware that the guidance note states that Ministers should obtain Executive agreement at key stages of the legislative process. Paragraph 4(d) specifically refers to amendments to the Bill involving policy changes, not technical or presentational amendments, by the Minister or by the Committee or a private Member, which the Minister intends to accept. Where it is proposed to resist amendments from a Committee or private Member, the sponsoring Minister should write to ministerial colleagues explaining the reasons for that approach and reminding them of the need to support the Executive's previously agreed policy.

That in no way diminishes my respect for the role of the legislature, but it simply reflects the fact that it is incumbent on the Executive and on me, as a Minister, to seek to ensure that proposed amendments either from a private Member or a Committee are competent and do not deliver outcomes that may have unintended consequences, such as obligations on a Department that, due to resource or capacity, cannot be delivered, or the creation of additional financial liabilities that the Executive, as a whole, may have to bear.

It is not true to say that it simply becomes no longer an Executive Bill. As members of a five-party coalition, it is incumbent on Members to be cooperative, as I will be with the Committee, as it goes through the stages of the Bill.

The Deputy Chair of the Committee asked some questions.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Minister's giving way and her outlining her role in the Executive. Does the Minister accept that it is the Assembly that is the final authority on legislation, not the Executive? The Assembly passes law, not the Executive.

Mrs Long: Yes, that is correct, Mr Speaker, and I am well aware of that. My duty is to bring forward legislation on the basis of agreement at the Executive. I gently remind the Member that we are part of a five-party coalition, not a 10-Minister one.

I want to address the questions raised by Linda Dillon. First, I will outline the expected outcomes. It is impossible to put a specific figure on it, but I expect that cases will reach committal more quickly than at present and, consequently, arrive at the Crown Court at an earlier stage. If the Bill achieves both the abolition of PIs and mixed committals and the direct transfer of all indictable-only cases, it will mean that victims and witnesses will not be required to attend the Magistrates' Court at all to give evidence. That will reduce stress and worry, and it will also save on the costs of having victims and witnesses taking time out of their schedules to attend court. It will also save time in the Magistrates' Court. Whilst the number of PIs and mixed committals is relatively small, in some cases, they can take days or even weeks to complete.

Linda also asked about the level of engagement that there had been with victims groups, and that was echoed in the queries from Rachel Woods. Victims groups are supportive of the current proposals in the Bill. They were consulted during the original proposals around the 2015 Act, but they have been further consulted. Victim Support NI has been invited to work alongside the Department as part of the committal reform programme of work. Our most recent engagement with them was in the last month.

Sinéad Bradley raised a number of points and was broadly supportive of what we were trying to do in the Bill. However, she asked how much it would cost and whether we had the funding to deliver. The Department of Finance approved a business case for £1·3 million in November 2017 for the capital cost associated with the IT changes required to implement direct committal. That expenditure is largely complete, and any remaining costs will be met from existing capital budgets. The main aim of direct committal is to transfer cases to the Crown Court more quickly than at present and, therefore, shorten the overall time that it takes to complete the cases. In effect, there will be a rebalancing of resources: less work will be done in the lower-court tier — the Magistrates' Court — but more work will be done in the higher-court tier — the Crown Court.
A business case that is being prepared will capture the relative rebalancing of costs and resources between criminal justice organisations. It is not expected that the changes will have a negative impact on costs, including legal aid costs, and should therefore be affordable. On that basis, any resulting costs will be prioritised by my Department in future budget periods.

Stewart Dickson and Steve Aiken both made very supportive speeches about what we are hoping to do, and I have to commend both of them for their support and particularly Mr Aiken for his brevity and succinctness.

Gordon Dunne, whilst broadly supportive, queried whether direct committal will just shift delay from the Magistrates' Court to the Crown Court. That point was also made by his colleague Paul Frew, Linda Dillon and others during the debate. The aim of direct committal is to move cases to the Crown Court at an earlier stage in the criminal justice system, which is expected to result in shorter overall end-to-end case times. Whilst it is possible that some cases will spend longer in the Crown Court, that will be offset by cases spending less time in the Magistrates' Courts. Transferring those cases to the Crown Court at an earlier stage will also allow the trial judge to have oversight of the case from an earlier point. That will help the court, with the assistance of the prosecution and defence, to identify the key issues in each case, resulting in a more efficient and quicker process. It will also help to ensure that cases are in the appropriate venue to take pleas at the earliest opportunity and to deal with exceptional circumstances such as issues of capacity. A key part of working to implement direct committal will focus on the rebalancing of resources between the two court venues.

Jemma Dolan also raised the issue of problem-solving justice. As she will be aware, last month, we presented a problem-solving justice five-year strategic plan to the Justice Committee that set out how we plan to roll out problem-solving justice, subject to affordability. It is a very important way of dealing with offending behaviour and makes a valid contribution to speeding up access to justice, which I believe is hugely important.

In Paul Frew's contribution to the debate, he was thrilled and delighted to be detained so long whilst legislating. Whilst perhaps we are not all quite so thrilled to be here at this point in the evening, I am nevertheless glad that I was able to bring some joy to his life today. However, on a more serious point, I agree entirely with him that this is, indeed, what the Chamber is for: legislation. For three years, we had no Assembly, and people questioned what the value of the Assembly might be. Perhaps, over the last week, they have questioned that again.

However, it is our job and our primary responsibility to legislate, and it is good that we are debating real laws and real changes, so I very much welcome his enthusiasm for getting on with the legislative programme. I assure him that I will keep him busy, if I can.

Mr Frew also asked how the Bill would impact on terrorist-related offences. As he will be aware, those are not a particular cadre of offences that are easily identified. What it will do, though, is deal with some of the more serious offences that normally go through the Crown Court. When we move to abolish committal reform and the committal process entirely, obviously, those more serious Crown Court offences will go automatically to the Crown Court. So, whilst it is not specific, a significant number of paramilitary-related and terrorist-related offenders would go through that mechanism. That is how it meets the Fresh Start recommendations.

Mr Frew raised two other issues about bottlenecks and speed. This is not the only improvement that we are making to speed up justice, although it is a very important one. The priority for me and the Criminal Justice Board is to see that we have a more effective and efficient justice system. In 2019-2020, the median time taken to complete cases fell to 149 days. That is an 11% reduction on the previous year. We need to do more, and this will make a contribution to that, but it is fair to say that it is not the only tool in our armoury.

Mr Frew also raised the enhanced jurisdiction of Magistrates' Courts. Committal is a complex issue, and roll-out is intended to be on a staged basis. We will consider the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court in parallel with that roll-out, and should we decide that changes need to be made in that regard, we will require additional primary legislation.Emma Rogan asked about Executive approval and when we will be in a position to deal with the miscellaneous provisions Bill, which will bring forward the next tranche of Gillen recommendations. I am hoping that tomorrow we will get Executive approval for the drafting of inclusions to the miscellaneous provisions Bill, and it will then go to the Office of the Legislative Counsel for further, detailed drafting. We are hopeful that that will happen, if not tomorrow, certainly in the very near future. It is a priority for me, and it is absolutely crucial that what was intended by John Gillen is rolled out, not just in the Department of Justice but across every Department in the Executive, because I believe that many of the issues that he highlighted relate not only to the delivery of justice but to the change of culture that is required to deal with serious sexual offending at a much earlier stage to make people safer, which, I think, is something that we all desire.

Paula Bradshaw raised a very important point about achieving best evidence. We talked a lot about the stress and anxiety that victims and witnesses can be under when they have to give their evidence twice. However, there is also an issue about that stress and anxiety preventing them from giving their best evidence in court, and that, in itself, can lead to miscarriages of justice.

It can also create difficulties if victims and witnesses, having gone through the committal process, then feel unable to go ahead and give their evidence in the Crown Court. That is why, in some cases, we have high attrition rates for some offenses, where victims, by dint of delay and fear of giving evidence in open court, end up pulling out of the process completely. That is not in anyone's interest. We need to make it a simple as possible for people to give their best evidence. Mr Allister is correct; that also includes defendants. They, too, have the right to give their best evidence. However, in this case, the stress seems to be mainly transferred to those who are waiting to be witnesses or to the alleged victims of these crimes, and it has a serious impact.

Rachel Woods was broadly supportive of the Bill, and I think that I addressed some her questions as we were going through the issue.

Then we heard from Mr Allister, who was not supportive of the Bill. That is not surprising, because he was not supportive of the Bill on the last occasion it came forward, and Mr Allister is not known for changing his mind.

Mr Allister: Then convince me.

Mrs Long: I will do my best.

I understand the points that are made. I do not, in any way, dismiss the validity of them. I think that it is important that we listen to those points, but we must also weigh them against the evidence that we have from other justice inspectorates' reports, from other sectors, from the Criminal Justice Board and from others who are invested in the system and are concerned about victims' rights.

Ms Dillon: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention. Does she agree that those independent reports must be given, not all the weight, but greater weight than reports from those who might have a vested interest in the process?

Mrs Long: I absolutely agree with that. I had a rather lighthearted conversation with Mr Allister outside, where I suggested that some of those people may wish to have multiple hearings in court because some of their payments will depend on it. However, he countered, just as justifiably, that if they are successful in getting the case against the person in court dismissed, they lose out on the payments for the Crown Court case. None of these things are about vested interests alone. That is important. We need to listen to the experience of those in the defence business as well as those in the prosecution business, and I think that is important.

That is why we approached the Law Society and the Bar Council, which were not comfortable with the previous recommendations. We briefed them both on the committal reform proposals and invited them to join a stakeholder group at the point where we start to roll the reforms out. In general, there is broad support for reforming committal, but the Law Society and the Bar Council have expressed reservations in the past, and I acknowledge that.

I have already dealt with Mr Allister's earlier intervention on the length of time that cases take. One of the issues that he raised today is an important one that we should address, and it is this: does abolishing oral evidence as part of the traditional committal process affect the rights of the accused?

That is an important point because the accused also have rights within the system. One is innocent until one is proven guilty, and it is important that we do not prejudge the outcome of any case or trial.

Overall, these proposals provide a fair balance between the rights of the defendants and the rights of victims and witnesses. They will tackle delay in the criminal justice system and ensure that an accused can receive a fair trial within a reasonable period, and that, too, is required by article 6 of the ECHR.

There are sufficient safeguards in place through the no bill, as it used to be called, application process to allow the defendant to challenge the evidence at an early stage in Crown Court if the defence genuinely feels that the available evidence is insufficient to disclose a case for trial.

The Department is satisfied that the rights of an accused to know the case against them, and to call and cross-examine witnesses, are secured at the trial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is telling that now there is nowhere in the UK that has a committal process in the way that we have in Northern Ireland.

The other issue that Mr Alllister raised, and, again, it is a valid one, was about the powers he is concerned that the Justice Department is taking onto itself to be able to add offences to the schedule at will. I want to reassure people that we put that in not in order that we will be able to roll out the committal reform process without coming back to the Chamber. We expect that there will be two further points at which primary legislation will be required for this to be able to proceed, so we expect that the Committee and others will have the opportunity to look at it.

The reason we are allowing for additional offences to be added by affirmative resolution is because we may create additional offences over the next couple of years that would fall into the same category of offence as those that we are putting on the schedule now. Rather than having to wait until the next tranche of the roll out, we will be able, by affirmative resolution of the House, to add those. I am thinking, for example, of some of the more serious cases around stalking and the more serious end of offences that we will be dealing with.

It would be by way of an affirmative order, and it would give people the opportunity to scrutinise and have a say in what happens. It is not about trying to take power for the Department; it is about trying to ensure that we are responsive in the justice system and have looked ahead and scoped out what may be necessary over the next weeks and months.

In conclusion, — and everybody bar Paul Frew will be delighted that I have said "in conclusion" —

I am encouraged by many of the comments and issues that have been raised. I, like all of you, am eager to take forward these changes, and I want to see a timely passage of the Bill through the Assembly.

We have seen already the detailed scrutiny that the Committee has done, and I will be able to elucidate more on that tomorrow for the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill. I hope to work in the same spirit of collaboration and cooperation with the Committee to deliver the best possible Bill for the people of Northern Ireland.

I am asking again, however, for your support in keeping the Bill focussed on its current provisions in relation to the reform of committal proceedings. The Bill has been carefully designed to provide the necessary clarity to practitioners within the criminal justice organisations, to whom it will fall to implement these complex changes.

I ask Members who have material policy and legislative amendments to delay those until a future legislative vehicle in order that this legislation can be enacted as soon as possible, and with as little disruption to the criminal justice system as possible.

I thank everyone who contributed to what was a ueful and constructive discussion, and one that will continue. I commend the Bill to the House for approval, and wish the Committee well in its scrutiny of the Bill. I and my officials stand ready to assist it in any way that we can.

Mr Allister: On a point of order. Miss Dillon, in her last intervention, seemed to infer that I had some sort of vested interest in these matters. I make it plain that I am now a non-practising barrister. I have no vested interests, financial or otherwise, in any of these matters, and I would like Miss Dillon to consider withdrawing that suggestion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I thank the Member for that, and that is firmly on the record. I did not hear her specifically mention you by name, but that categorisation is firmly on the record, unless you wish to make a point of order, Linda.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): That concludes the Second Stage of the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Justice.

Members should take their ease while we change the Chair.

Ms Bailey: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one and a half hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. One amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List.

Ms Bailey: Members will be aware of the current scale of the ammonia crisis in Northern Ireland and its impact on human health and the environment. Health-wise, ammonia pollution is linked to lung damage, heart disease, diabetes, problems with memory and thinking, cognitive decline, respiratory issues, higher death rates and lower birth rates. Members do not need to be reminded that we are in a pandemic. COVID-19 is a virus that affects the lungs, heart and respiratory system. We know that ammonia pollution can have a significant impact on the rates of serious illness and death from COVID. This is not something that we should be taking lightly.

Some Members will also be aware of the scale of the ecological crisis in Northern Ireland. The number of breeding sows has gone by 24% to almost 48,000, broiler chickens up 41% to almost 17,000,000 and hens up 89% to almost 4,000,000; whilst the number of wetland birds has fallen by 19% and the freshwater bird population by 42%.

95% of our lakes now fail water framework directive quality standards. 78% of our shellfish water bodies now fail water quality standards for E. coli. It is not a pretty picture, but I would argue that it is no accident either.

The policy of agriculture intensification that has been pursued by the Executive through its Going for Growth strategy since 2013, has resulted in pollution that sits in our air, soil and our water. Nature, and our communities are paying the price. How did we get to this point? Amongst other issues, with indifference and inaction across several Government Departments, we are seeing systemic planning failures that omit legal environmental considerations from planning application processes.

The Green party have been examining, in depth, how the planning system works and where it does not work. Through our research, we have found that habitats regulations assessments, which are a legal requirement for projects within a certain radius of protected habitats, are sometimes not being carried out.

I will use the example of anaerobic digester (AD) plants which produce vast quantities of ammonia. The Green party mapped each of the 79 active AD plants in Northern Ireland and we found that 49 of them should have had that assessment carried out. To date, we have only found one instance and evidence in that one case of this actually being done.

We wrote to all 11 councils. So far, we have received five responses. From those responses, we know that 34 of their AD plants have no planning approval, yet they are getting public subsidies. This has been stated in the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report.

I cannot say it any more plainly: this is unlawful and it contravenes our legal obligations under the habitats directive. These assessments are systemically not being conducted and potentially illegal projects are systemically going ahead.

When we do assess the impact of ammonia on protected habitats, existing ammonia levels at that site are not taken into account. We now have situations where sites exceed critical levels of ammonia by over 300%, year-on-year-on-year. The fact is, that this is actual planning policy and that is astounding. Current confusion around the system has left farmers unable to upgrade or replace existing sheds, even where the building of more modern sheds would result in the falling of ammonia levels because, under planning, these are considered to be new developments.

The overall picture is of a broken planning system that enables the non-stop intensification of our agri-food sector, rapid and extensive species decline and irreparable damage to protected habitats, not to mention 500-600 premature deaths in Northern Ireland every year.

Let me be clear, this is not the fault nor the responsibility of the farming community. This is the result of deliberate and informed Government policy to expand, grow and intensify, in the full knowledge of the facts around environmental and health impacts. They cannot say that they did not know, because they did. As demonstrated, time and time again through answers to written and oral questions, ammonia seminars and the Department's own planning policy documents, the information is there and they have known it for a long time.

The facts tell us that ammonia pollution is causing mass species extinction, harming public health and ending lives early. The Executive's Going for Growth strategy has resulted in, on one hand, the creation of Northern Ireland plc, and we have seen big companies such as Moy Park, Thompsons and Dunbia smash through the annual £1 biillion sales target, with directors paid salaries as high as £2·6 million. Good for them. However, we also see the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the very government body charged with protecting our environment, signing prosperity agreements with these same corporations, which have direct links to the Agri-Food Strategy Board and the drawing up of the Going for Growth strategy. I would like to know where else in the world the environmental protection authority would sign prosperity agreements with some of its biggest polluters.

On the other hand, we see an in industry that has become increasingly hostile to those working within it: the key workers who have shown just how vital food production is to our economy and our people. Rural poverty is at an all-time high, with one in four farming families living in poverty. As the costs of production have gone up, farmgate prices have been driven down so that farmers are operating at a loss or barely breaking even.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bailey: Yes.

Mr Beggs: The Member has highlighted planning failures with regard to anaerobic digesters. If only a very specific grouping is causing the problem, why is she suggesting a moratorium on all planning applications?

Ms Bailey: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I will explain as I go through. I thought that I had made clear that AD plants were operating even without planning permission. There are problems in the system. However, we also have a situation where the number of full-time and part-time farmers is dropping year-on-year, which indicates that, for many, it is no longer possible to make a living in the industry. I would like to quote what one farmer told me:

Traditionally, when times were good for farmers, they called in professional builders to replace or repair their buildings. We always say that a cash-strapped industry is never a safe industry.

Further down the production line, the COVID-19 crisis has exposed just how precarious jobs in the industry are. We have seen outbreaks of coronavirus among meat factory workers, many of whom are on poor contracts and unable to self-isolate or take sick leave. We have seen employers flouting the 2-metre social-distancing rule and putting public health and workers' lives at risk for profit. Poverty pay and exploitative contracts are endemic in the sector. You do not have to be a genius to realise that the way in which we do business, and this Executive policy of relentless intensification at all costs, simply does not work for most people. Instead of ensuring the prosperity of some of the most powerful businesses in this sector, we should be focused on ensuring the prosperity and well-being of its workers.

In conclusion, we know that we have a deeply flawed planning regime and a deliberate government policy to disregard environmental law and regulation. That is what has led us to the situation that we face. The scale of this is overwhelming — it is beyond alarming. This pollution is in our waterways, our air and our soil. It is in our rural communities. How long will we allow this to continue? We know that planning is flawed and that the policy that we have in place to assess ammonia emissions is obstructive to farmers. It has not been legally proofed and is, more than likely, not complaint with our legal obligations. We know that good planning could help to fix this. We need to stop, establish exactly where we are and put good practice in place. We need an urgent review of the planning system and of approved planning applications for ammonia-emitting projects within 7·5 kilometres of the habitats protected under EU law.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Bailey: We need a moratorium to allow us to assess the situation.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McGuigan: I beg to move the following amendment

Mr Speaker: The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to wind. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mr McGuigan: I share many of the concerns articulated by Clare Bailey on the environmental impact of ammonia. In a unary world, I could agree with her about the solution; we do not live in a unary world, however. In this instance, while agreeing with the problem, I feel that a more nuanced and rounded solution is necessary.

The motion asks for this problem to be dealt with by the Infrastructure Minister through a moratorium on planning. I have some sympathy with the Infrastructure Minister having to be with us tonight because, from my point of view, this is a motion and debate which requires the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister to be with us. A moratorium on planning is not going to solve the problem. Not only will it not solve the problem, it could exacerbate it in some cases. If, for example, a farmer wishes to redevelop or replace an existing building that would allow for a reduction of his or her farm's ammonia output, a planning moratorium would not allow that to happen and, therefore, no reduction would occur.

Sinn Féin is committed to protecting our environment. We are committed to a climate change Act. We are committed to the reduction of greenhouse gases. We are committed to clean air and health water. We want to see a green new deal, and we want to see a just transition in progressing all of this. A just transition is a framework of measures that Governments and organisations must take to secure workers' rights and livelihoods as economies transition to ones based on sustainable forms of production. Just transition in no way seeks to slow or deter this transition. It is an environmentally positive principle that encourages radical steps towards halting climate change, but also acknowledges that the only way that those steps will be successful is if we can bring people in carbon-heavy industries with us, and assure workers that they will not find themselves unemployed as a result of a shift to, for example, renewable energy.

Agriculture, in this instance, should not be given special dispensation. However, we need to recognise the wider negative impact on this sector, which is so vital to the economy in the North, should a planning moratorium be introduced. It is important to also highlight that our food and drink sector is key to the economy and employment here, with sales of over £5·1 billion. There are too many unknowns for the Assembly to support a moratorium on planning. The solution to addressing our ammonia problem can be found only by working with and not against our farmers. Remember that, in most cases, farmers are the custodians of our countryside and natural environment. Recognition needs to be given to farmers who are currently reducing their ammonia output. Any solution must include leadership from DAERA and be driven by its Minister. This is a cross-departmental issue. Given that the original motion that the Green Party submitted was aimed at the AERA Minister, I think that the Green Party also recognises this fact.

At this point, I should declare that, as an MLA representing a rural constituency, I have been involved, on many occasions over the years, in planning applications on both sides of this argument on behalf of constituents. Ammonia is a form of nitrogen and can lead to the creation and release of greenhouse gas emissions such as nitrous oxide. We need to reduce our nitrogen levels; there are no arguments there. A key driver of ammonia emissions is when urine and faeces mix. This is primarily an issue of the production of livestock and management of slurry. Livestock production is recognised as a key factor in the extent of ammonia admissions. Some 96% of our ammonia emissions come from agriculture. I recognise the critical ammonia levels here in the North and the impact that they are having on biodiversity. The North's ammonia levels are particularly high in comparison to those of our neighbours. None of this is in dispute, so we need to be very serious about addressing the problem. Moreover, we need to do it sooner rather than later. We live on an island where emissions do not recognise borders. Ammonia needs to be considered as a long-range pollutant because of the island's atmospheric and topographical conditions.

Anne O'Reilly from DAERA, who facilitated a recent workshop on ammonia emissions, stated that:

Teagasc, a research organisation for agriculture in the South, stated:

Mr Allister: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGuigan: Yes.

Mr Allister: Does the Member share any surprise that, when it comes to this issue, there is very little talk about ammonia sequestration? Planting trees is, according to the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, a very efficient way to sequester ammonia. Why do we not have a strategy? The Agriculture Minister has promised an ammonia strategy, and he is supposed to have a tree planting policy. Should those not be gelled together to deal with the issue rather than talk about moratoriums, which put people out of business?

Mr McGuigan: I welcome the Member's intervention and agree that the issue at stake is the lack of an ammonia strategy coming from the Minister. We need to see that soon, and I will be making remarks later on in relation to that.

Not only do we need a cross-departmental solution, and even, as the Member's intervention shows, solutions crossing within Departments, but we also need an all-Ireland approach to properly tackle this issue and reduce emissions. In recognising that agriculture is the key producer of ammonia, we need to ensure that agriculture is the key driver for reduction of ammonia. I think that our farmers are up for that; however, they need help. Education is key, investment is important and support is vital. There are solutions that will reduce ammonia production and actually make farming here not only more environmentally friendly but also more efficient for the farmers. We need to see the implementation of these solutions accelerated.

We can be optimistic that our ammonia reduction strategies will bring improvements to our protected sites. According to the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), a 25% reduction in ammonia achieves significant improvements in the nitrogen disposition of all the North's protected sites. We are keenly waiting for the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to bring before the Assembly his action plan on ammonia. It is required urgently. We have been advised by departmental officials that this draft ammonia plan will be published soon and that it will, hopefully, be an important road map to reducing ammonia emissions here in the North.

We all agree that we need to improve our environment and have a sustainable and prosperous agri-food sector. As I have said already, we need to see financial investment in order to help with this. I welcome the Agriculture Minister's recent announcement of £7·5 million for tier 1 of the farm business improvement scheme supporting the sustainability of farm businesses, a scheme which will support the purchase of equipment and machinery that costs between £5,000 and £30,000. I urge farmers to apply to this scheme. Sinn Féin is also concerned for low-income farmers who cannot afford to buy this low-emission slurry-spreading equipment. The Department must fulfil its statutory equality commitments and ensure equality of opportunity, as well as mitigations for those farmers who will be negatively impacted. It is important to flag up that whatever measures are outlined will have ramifications for hill farmers, whose farm income is already low and whose farmland is currently disadvantaged. Nevertheless, we should be optimistic. There are a lot of measures to reduce ammonia, and AFBI scientists have stated that there could be significant improvements at designated sites in five to 10 years through the implementation of ammonia reduction measures. We need to get on with this.

Miss McIlveen: I oppose the motion. Everyone in this Chamber obviously recognises that more needs to be done to tackle ammonia emissions and protect our environment. This is an issue that is readily accepted by the agriculture sector, which is responsible for more than 90% of ammonia emissions. However, the motion asks for three very specific actions: a review of every planning permission for ammonia-emitting projects within 7·5 kilometres of a Natura 2000 site; a moratorium on planning approvals for all ammonia-emitting projects; and the production by the Department for Infrastructure of a report on whether or not Northern Ireland has complied with article 6 of the habitats directive. From the outset, I must make it clear that I oppose this motion not out of a lack of desire to tackle the issue but, rather, a recognition that the steps being proposed by Ms Bailey and Ms Woods are inappropriate. Unfortunately, my party's amendment, which might have allowed for a more practical and workable approach to the issue to be discussed, was not selected for this debate.

The first requested action relates to the review. There are a number of problems with this request.

It is not time-specific and requests all approvals from any time. A vast range of activities emit ammonia, so that would involve a huge number of approvals. The review also has no scope. If the aim is to revoke or modify approvals, that can only happen if developments have not been completed, which would make the process pointless. It would also require huge resources to assess whether developments have been completed. Is it to assess whether the correct assessments have been carried out? Planning officials will readily acknowledge that they are not experts in environmental law, but they defer to the relevant statutory experts in their appraisal of proposals, which are the NIEA and Shared Environmental Services, bodies that, of course, are outside the remit of the Department for Infrastructure.

Such a review is, ultimately, a toothless, ineffective and, dare I say it, costly fishing expedition, which does not deal with the problem at hand. It certainly would not be able to assess whether Northern Ireland is in breach of its regulations or obligations under the habitats directive.

The request for a moratorium would apply to all such planning applications, not just those within 7·5 km of protected areas. That, again, is open-ended, essentially, until the Department produces a report, which I will deal with shortly. The impact of such a moratorium on Northern Ireland's fragile economy could be enormous. The motion presumes that the planning process is the means by which a solution can be sought to those problems, but I suggest that it is not. A moratorium would grind the system to a halt. It would have a potentially detrimental impact on major infrastructure projects, roads upgrades and homebuilding schemes, which could have a further devastating impact on the Northern Ireland economy, on top of the devastation that is being caused by the global pandemic. It would undermine projects that all Executive parties have signed up to and the key objectives of the Executive. Therefore, any party that is part of the Executive should not and cannot support it.

Finally, on the report, the Department for Infrastructure is not best placed to determine whether Northern Ireland is complying with its article 6 obligations. With the focus on the planning process, the implication is that tightening the planning process can address the issue in some way. Planners will and do follow the experts. The vast majority of ammonia emissions come from activities that fall outside the scope of the planners and, indeed, the remit of the Department for Infrastructure. As an aside on the habitats directive, developing a process and creating certain obligations have not proven to be effective tools in addressing environmental damage to protected sites. The midterm review of the directive that was carried out by the EU noted a very slight improvement in the number of species in habitats in protected areas, but, by and large, previously noted negative trends continued across the EU and there was a recognition that the EU would not meet its 2020 targets.

There is huge scope for member states in their approach to national conservation measures. Although the European Court has an iron fist in its case law, the European Commission uses a velvet glove in its dealings with member states. Put simply, we can comply with the minimum standards of the directive but still fail its objectives. There is a need to act and for an effective and sustainable plan to address our very real issues, but, unfortunately, the motion is not the way to achieve it.

Mr McGlone: A résumé of the issues that have arisen in the debate include water quality management, habitats, agricultural development, agricultural diversification and poverty in agriculture. Frankly, the wrong Minister is here to be held accountable for those issues and to respond to the debate. Nevertheless, the SDLP welcomes the opportunity to note its concern about the scale of ammonia emissions in Northern Ireland. The party will support the amendment and that will become clear as I speak further.

Although ammonia emissions are not unique to us, by any means, they are a particular problem here. As with other environmentally damaging factors, we do not have specific targets for reducing ammonia emissions and our efforts are expected to contribute to the UK target for reducing ammonia emissions by 16% by 2030. The particular problem with ammonia emissions here is that we are responsible for 12% of the UK total, but we have only 3% of the population and 6% of the land area. The proportion of sites here that exceed the critical level of ammonia concentration is, however, higher than in England, Scotland and Wales. Ammonia emissions were also 19% higher in 2018 than they were in 2010. That is higher than the previous peak that was recorded in 1996. Ninety-six per cent of Northern Ireland's ammonia emissions come from agricultural activity, with all livestock sectors being responsible for most of that figure; largely from manure and slurry management and fertiliser spreading.

Since 2019, those have been regulated under the nutrients action programme, with a derogation available for some grassland farms. However, the current level of ammonia emissions is a barrier to achieving sustainable agricultural development and meeting our shared climate and biodiversity targets. In addition to the ecological damage as a result of ammonia emissions, which has been noted in the motion, the majority of priority habitats and species are now at an unfavourable conservation status. There has been significant and continued loss of biodiversity since the 1970s. In particular, we have witnessed that in the evidence from the past 20 years. It is clear that a big problem with discharges into the environment is imminent.

That having been said, we welcome the work that has been done by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs since July 2016 to address the issue of ammonia emissions. We also welcome the efforts by farmers to reduce those levels, which they are responsible for through modernising their farm practices and facilities. One particular concern of mine about the motion that has been proposed by the Green Party is that, in effect, by reopening planning applications, aside from the considerable stress and resource implications that would have for the Department and councils, which, as we know from the figures, have enough difficulties, we would put pressures on farms and farm businesses. I am concerned that uncertainty would be created about their futures, and that their financiers would have that uncertainty about their futures. That is of great importance to me.

The Agriculture Minister has described the strategy on ammonia reduction which has been brought forward by the Department as a comprehensive approach to ammonia, and has repeatedly stated his intention to publish those proposals for consultation soon. It may be that the three-year absence of an Executive has contributed to delay in producing the draft ammonia strategy, but any action by the Infrastructure Minister should clearly be taken in coordination with that strategy and must be complementary to it. I have already mentioned some issues in respect of planning. It is currently the case that DAERA is the statutory consultee on those planning applications. It is the Department that is legally obliged to consider the impact of ammonia emissions and subsequent nitrogen depositions that a proposed building development or development of that nature would have on the environment. Any moratorium could have the unintended consequence of preventing the updating of facilities on a farm and thereby preventing the reduction of ammonia emissions.

It is clear that action is needed to reduce ammonia emissions to prevent further biodiversity loss and help to repair the ecosystem. Such action is essential for the sustainable development of the agriculture industry and improving public health. However, responsibility for that area does lie with the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It is to be hoped that the motion and debate will prompt the Minister to publish his proposals and draft ammonia strategy sooner rather than later.

Mr Beggs: First, I would like to declare that I have a small agricultural holding, which is let, and that my parents have a relatively small family farm; more of a grate-and-wheelbarrow than large-feeder-wagon operation, I have to say. I rise on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party to indicate its support for the amendment standing in the name of Philip McGuigan, Declan McAleer and others. The motion suggests a nuclear option. Earlier, the proposer justified it because a major flaw has happened with AD units, as has been indicated in the Audit Office report. I am surprised that, if that is where the problem is, the motion does not focus on that area. Its proposal would affect every farm in Northern Ireland, would affect the entire rural community, and may actually have an perverse effect on ammonia levels.

A moratorium on planning approvals for projects that would increase ammonia emissions would be counterproductive. In the long term, would more imported

beef be bought that has been produced with lower welfare standards and, perhaps, even higher ammonia emissions? Would cows be fed a high-protein diet, where we would have no control over that?

That would be wrong. It may even involve cutting down more rainforests to feed such a system. We need to be very careful that we do not create perverse outcomes.

Clearly, there is need for a review of the planning system. I note that that is mentioned in the amendment, but a similar view perhaps needs to go in a different direction.

Let me illustrate how the planning system, which is supposed to be improving the environment, has gone wrong, in my opinion, and why I could not support the main motion. First, as others have indicated, the replacement of existing livestock sheds is being treated by shared environmental services and NIEA as new developments. Even if a new building will improve welfare standards and reduce emissions, it may well be rejected. That is crazy. If we want to reduce ammonia emissions, we should allow farmers to —.

Mr McGlone: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: I certainly will.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for making that point. Will the Member accept that that can even happen in cases where the livestock numbers are being reduced and therefore so is the contribution that they are making to extra ammonia in the atmosphere?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an additional minute.

Mr Beggs: I am not at all surprised to learn that. We need to be very careful that government and politicians do not propose policies that have the opposite effect to what is intended. We need to be very careful to think them through so that we bring about improvements to the environment as well as to the well-being of our farmers.

Shared environmental services also, on its own, imposed guidance that is much stricter than that of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. How was that allowed to happen? What happened? Of course, eventually, it was overturned by a court. The Ulster Farmers' Union took that body to court and it backed down at that stage. It is a nonsense that a body can almost, of its own right, change policy and effect significant costs on the farming community. In fact, that policy was resulting in virtually no planning applications being permitted.

We have an overly bureaucratic planning process. Whilst the regulations may be appropriate for larger applications — I do not know how they missed out the AD units because they are major, multimillion-pound applications — they are often disproportionate. What am I talking about? I am aware of a constituent who wanted to build a shed for six cows and six calves. He put his application in and then discovered that he had to have his ammonia assessment. He did not have a clue about it, as most would not, and started to find out how to get that completed. He was quoted almost £2,000 to get an ammonia assessment done for six cows and calves. He will probably have to sell one of his cows and calves to get his ammonia assessment done. Clearly, there is a disproportionate scale of assessment required, and it needs to be downscaled, depending on the size of the application. We need to avoid consultants where possible so that undue costs are not added for hard-working families who toil long hours, often for little reward.

I will turn now to the 7·5-kilometres rule. I recently learned that farmers in Islandmagee, when completing their ammonia assessment, have to reference the Maidens lighthouse ecosystem, which is many miles offshore. Are we for real? How is a farm in Islandmagee going to have an impact on the Maidens lighthouse? I actually did not believe it when I first heard it until it was verified to me, but that is what our current system requires.

We clearly do need to improve biodiversity, but we must make sure that, when we bring proposals, they actually reduce emissions and start to work. There is much to be commended in 'Making Ammonia Visible', the 2007 report of the expert working group led by John Gilliland. We need to communicate with and educate our farmers and encourage mitigation, such as the trailing hose or trailing shoe, which can reduce ammonia emissions by 30% and 70% respectively. It is possible to improve air quality and water quality and reduce ammonia emissions and improve farm efficiency. Let us take everybody with us and give them the knowledge, the information and the financial support to enable them to do so. I support the amendment.

Mr Blair: Other Members have pointed out, and it is worth repeating, that Northern Ireland ammonia levels rose by around 20% in 2010, compared with around 5% in the rest of the UK, and, more crucially, 98% of designated special areas of conservation are exceeding critical levels of pollutants. That can seriously impact such protected sites as peatlands. Additionally, ammonia emissions can cause the depletion of our treasured natural landscape and lead to marked reductions in plant biodiversity. There is no doubt that action is required to address the issue. In the context of that reality, I understand the principle of the motion, but we need to schedule and plan the suggested changes to make the motion practical for those most impacted. The motion, if successfully followed through, would introduce change, with immediacy — there is no doubt about that — but with no consultation with, or preparation for, those most seriously impacted.

As has been mentioned, it comes as no surprise that the planning moratorium, essentially, that is being held with the Infrastructure Minister present will have a deliberate focus on agriculture matters. That is because we have to consider the potential severe and immediate impacts on our crucial agriculture sector — those who contribute such a proportionally high amount to our economy, and who are responsible for putting food on our tables. If the motion and its outworkings were to succeed, farmers who have plans to upgrade existing facilities could, potentially, face a backlog of farm planning applications in Northern Ireland caused by questions, perhaps, understandably, about their environmental impact. That is a problem not unknown to those in the sector who faced a similar backlog in recent times when around 166 applications were stuck in the system as officials tried to agree how to assess them for ammonia emissions. On that occasion, ministerial intervention was required. That reinforces the need for consultation and careful consideration before we confront that sector, without warning, with restrictive measures, especially when they are already facing uncertainties and potential problems surrounding the EU exit process and all of the issues involved in that.

Effective measures to reduce emissions of ammonia into the atmosphere have already been trialled. A range of methods through which it is possible to reduce emissions of ammonia by at least 50% have been developed and field-tested. They include mitigation strategies such as separation of sensitive receptors from local sources and the use of shelter belts to enhance dispersion through increasing turbulence and capture of ammonia close to source. Those actions are already taking place in the agriculture sector, and valuable work is being done by such organisations as the Nature Friendly Farming Network and the Dairy Council Northern Ireland. As has been mentioned, the Department is also working on an ammonia action plan. We await and urge further progress on that.

Northern Ireland Environment Agency figures, and other analysis, show that ammonia emission levels from local agricultural sources are a problem. I do not seek to deny that. I suggest that we set frameworks, structures and goals with the sector. It is essential that we support our agriculture industry and make necessary changes to tackle ammonia emissions, with the industry on board.

The ammonia problem is not exclusively, or generally, caused by traditional family farming on a small scale, but, mostly, by larger developments and intensive processes, such as large-scale pig farms — something that I know a bit about in my constituency. We might, therefore, seek to look at scale as well as practice. I cannot support the motion, but I will support the amendment, which offers schedule and structure to buy more time to consult properly with the industry. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the amendment.

Mr Irwin: I declare an interest as a partner in a farm business. I rise to oppose the motion. Although the motion highlights an ongoing issue facing the wider agriculture industry in Northern Ireland, it does not in any way assist the industry with its contents, but halts development through the idea of an unwelcome moratorium. That is not the way in which to deal with this issue, as, for a variety of reasons, it would be detrimental to agriculture.

As we fully realise, farming in Northern Ireland is, by no small measure, crucial to the economy here. We are talking about an agri-food sector with a value of almost £5 billion, and it supports in the region of up to 100,000 jobs in Northern Ireland. Those are not insignificant figures, and they point vividly to the importance of the industry to the economy and, by default, the well-being of everyone in Northern Ireland. We are in the midst of a pandemic that has required unprecedented financial support to be given to many sectors of our economy, including agri-food production. A motion that seeks to halt important progress on farms is most unwelcome. Farming in this day and age is certainly much more complementary to the environment, with farmers spending much of their day-to-day lives working the land and producing the food that we all enjoy. The effort that is expended on caring for the countryside is very clear for all to see as you drive around this great Province. The way in which our countryside is maintained is down, in the main, to the hard, tough graft of our farming community.

The motion that has been brought to the House today by the Green Party gives the impression that simply halting the approval of very necessary measures for the welfare of animals will have a direct impact on ammonia emissions. That is simply not the case. As has been my previous position on these types of matters, which are now regularly brought before the House, the issue is about balance. That is something that the farming industry tries to seek at all times. There is a balance to be struck between curtailing the level of unavoidable emissions and the need for farming to continue to be sustainable and for food security and supply to be met domestically. Both of those issues require ongoing and significant investment. We are in a global market for food. We cannot continue to push the idea that we can put significant and costly restraints on any industry in Northern Ireland while ignoring the fact that the obvious increases in production costs would make goods more expensive. That would all be unravelled by the importation of goods from countries with vastly inferior standards and commitments around emissions and food safety. That is the reality of the proposal before us today. Although I support the need for Northern Ireland to play its part in reducing global emissions, we are, globally, on account of all the statistics, one of the lowest emitters. That, of course, does not mean that we should sit back and do nothing. Indeed, legislatively, that is not possible, given the commitments that we are working towards already. Farmers are behind those efforts.

The motion focuses on planning applications and calls for the halting of approvals despite the fact that all planning applications in that instance must already comply with strict criteria on ammonia. That, in itself, has been a source of significant concern for farmers who may wish to erect only a structure on their farm to replace an old, worn shed, for example; that is treated as a new development by shared environmental services and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. I have represented a number of farmers who have been waiting for many months on progress on their farm development and improvement. That very issue is the cause of the delay.

Given the lengthy delays that have been experienced by farmers who have entered the planning system for various projects on their farms, it is very clear that there is a need for a fresh look at the system. However, a moratorium is not the way forward for agriculture in Northern Ireland. It would place the sector at an unfair disadvantage compared to, for instance, the Republic of Ireland. I would very much like to see a joined-up approach from the Minister for Infrastructure and the AERA Minister to try to address the issues around ammonia and reach a consensus that is practical and economical for our agricultural and food industry and which continues to recognise the importance of protecting the natural environment.

Mr Boylan: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate. We have this one slightly back to front. I have some sympathy for the Minister in that regard; maybe he will comment on that. We are going through the review of the Planning Act. There may be something in there that we will be able to do in terms of working across the Departments. Sometimes, the Departments operate in silos.

Most of my remarks will be about ammonia and supporting the rural community. Obviously, I represent a large rural constituency. People tend to forget about the contribution that the rural community makes to the economy; as some Members have mentioned, it is up to £5 billion. Most of my remarks will be about farming and ammonia, which is the basis of the motion. We need our farmers to farm in an environmentally sustainable way. Our planning system must work with DAERA to identify a process for verifying emissions that helps farmers to develop their farms in a more sustainable, greener and efficient manner.

Ammonia needs to be considered as a long-range pollutant because of the island’s atmospheric and topographical conditions. There are challenges to accurately establish levels of atmospheric ammonia and to test the validation of the model ammonia emissions. The 'Making Ammonia Visible' report recognised that challenge and made the following recommendation 1b:

Modelling is an evolving process, and it is acknowledged that there are deficiencies in prevailing models. The Inventory of Ammonia Emissions from UK Agriculture notes the following on modelling of emission factors for cattle housing:

The modelling of emissions needs to be on an all-island basis, as ammonia does not recognise borders.

The need to address ammonia will present challenges to our current food strategy, Going for Growth. In any potential future food strategy, particularly the word "growth" is a key objective of any such strategy. This was recognised in a report produced by Teagasc, which is the Agriculture and Food Development Authority in the South. It has future scenarios for Irish agriculture and implications for gas and ammonia emissions.

The bottom line is that scenarios that involve increased levels of agricultural activity in the future will require either one or all of the following: a wide-scale deployment of available mitigation actions, moderation of the level of ambition for emissions reduction within the sector and a re-examination of the growth ambitions for the sector. We need to understand what impacts this will have on the agrifood sector. Our food and drink industry is worth £5·1 billion, as was said earlier in the debate.

It is important to recognise the complexity of ammonia emissions from agriculture. The creation and amount of ammonia emissions are influenced by a multitude of factors. DAERA hosted three online events on ammonia emissions on what will be expected from our farmers to meet international targets. Low-emission slurry-spreading technology will reduce ammonia emission quite significantly, but other measures are required in tandem. Other mitigation measures include the grazing season for cattle to be extended by two weeks, lowering the crude protein in diets of all livestock, covering 30% of above-ground slurry stores and a 100% switch from straight to protected urea.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member conclude his remarks?

Mr Boylan: Farmers know that change is coming, but they will need financial support to make that change.

Mr Harvey: I rise in support of the amendment to the motion tabled by the Green Party. Whilst the motion deals with an important issue, it fails to strike the right balance. In fact, it fails to strike any meaningful balance between ammonia reduction on the one hand and protection of future sustainability of the agri-food sector in the other. The motion seeks to place a ban, albeit in part, upon activities that would overload critical thresholds in relation to the production of ammonia within specific geographic locations. The outworkings of such a proposal would be a direct attack not just on sustainable food production but on other Executive priorities, something I could not support.

First, we must acknowledge that ammonia production is a fact of life.

Its production, both naturally and from man-made sources, cannot be eradicated. As such, the net zero position adopted by the Green Party on the proposed moratorium is neither proportionate nor pragmatic.

In Northern Ireland, approximately 94% of ammonia emissions come from agriculture. I am sure that this Assembly does not need reminding how vital the agriculture sector is for Northern Ireland's economy, environment and people. Northern Ireland farmers and growers are a central part of rural economies and communities, providing secure jobs and driving growth in food production and diversified industries, such as renewable energy and tourism. Indeed, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, farmers have played a vital role in feeding the nation, and we all gained a greater appreciation for our local produce.

Some 70,000 livelihoods depend on the agri-food industry, which is worth £5 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. Those jobs also support many more in ancillary industries, such as transport, animal health supplies, construction and many more. It is no exaggeration to state that the local economy relies on our food production, which is known for its quality across the world. It is therefore vital that, instead of placing unworkable burdens on the sector around ammonia reduction, we must work with the industry on this issue and support it in what is already being done to tackle it.

Local research around the Making Ammonia Visible strategy is already providing Northern Ireland with relevant science to help tackle ammonia emissions on farms and inform the best course of action for the industry. As the Ulster Farmers' Union has stated, it was the industry's lobbying that resulted in an additional 28 ammonia monitoring stations being established in 2019 across Northern Ireland to help measure and understand the impact of ammonia emissions. I believe that credit must be given for the willingness being shown by those in the sector to engage and be proactive on the issue.

The Department is also aware of its obligations in the habitats directive, and recent actions have attested to that. Some £7·5 million of the farm business investment scheme has been allocated to capital investments. That will reduce ammonia emissions. Research into soil health and the outworkings of the green growth strategy will also address ammonia. I am aware that the Minister's Department is working on a dedicated ammonia strategy, and I welcome that. A discussion paper for consultation would be beneficial to formally engage with stakeholders and interested parties prior to such a strategy. The UK Government are currently engaged in a live consultation process on ammonia for England.

The motion also touches on the planning process. In many cases, delays with planning approval are hampering the ability of farms to reinvest and replace new buildings, thus reducing emissions. Contrary to blocking planning and construction, we should be encouraging the development of more energy efficient and environmentally friendly buildings.

The motion could have far-reaching consequences for major infrastructure projects, and its call for a review of approved planning applications may not only be totally unworkable but is unlikely to be even legally possible. For those reasons and others, I support the amendment.

Ms McLaughlin: I support the amendment, as I believe that we need to have a cross-departmental solution to reducing ammonia levels. I do not believe that a moratorium on planning will solve the current problem and, indeed, it could do more harm than good.

We currently find ourselves on a very dangerous path with ammonia pollution. Northern Ireland is going in the wrong direction. Where the three nations of Britain are cutting their ammonia emissions, here emissions have increased over recent years. DAERA has admitted that ammonia emissions increased by 20% from 2010 to 2018. As has been noted by other Members this evening, ammonia pollution is known to have a damaging impact on both biodiversity and human health.

Since it is a major issue in my constituency of Foyle, I would like to focus on the key role that ammonia plays in the formation of PM 2·5. By speeding up atmospheric reactions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, ammonia leads to larger concentrations of those very damaging, minute particles. Prolonged exposure is associated with increased mortality from lung and heart disease and is also linked to conditions such as dementia. It is therefore hugely concerning that Derry has been identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as exceeding safe levels of PM2.5. Across Northern Ireland as a whole, research by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) projects that poor air quality leads to 500 premature deaths each year.

It is also estimated that millions could be saved on healthcare costs if we were to reduce air pollution. Prevention is better than cure, both for human and economic cost. We need action that supports air quality and agriculture, but I have to tell the Assembly that I have received representations arguing that agriculture policy has gone in the wrong direction: specifically, that the Going for Growth strategy has promoted farming methods that have caused increases in ammonia emissions. We need to listen to the science, just as we need to be led by the science when it comes to the COVID health crisis.

Agriculture accounts for 94% of total ammonia emissions, yet Minister Poots recently dealt with a backlog of farming applications by increasing the ammonia levels at which applications could be passed. That is certainly not to demonise the farming community: far from it. I have far too many family members involved in farming here in Northern Ireland, and they would not be too long in letting me know that I was not doing my job properly on their behalf. Farmers are the backbone of our local economy. Allowing such levels, however, raises the need to engage constructively with the sector to reduce emissions. DAERA recently opened tranche 3 of the farm business investment scheme, which will primarily fund ammonia reduction equipment. I am told that the farmers have been largely receptive to it. That is a welcome step, but it can be only one part of a long-term strategy that must also include a clean air strategy that sets legally binding limits on air pollution, with targeted interventions to address the sources. It is also imperative that DAERA publish its ammonia action plan as a matter of urgency.

Our poor quality of air in Northern Ireland is not only a result of high ammonia emissions. Our air is seriously damaged by the relationship between ammonia emissions and other polluting emissions. Those include nitrogen oxides from road traffic emissions, especially from diesel vehicles, and particles from residential burning of solid fuels, particularly the burning of smoky coal, which, amazingly, is still permitted in Northern Ireland.

My colleague Minister Mallon has set out her determination to support the switch from diesel and petrol engines to electric and hydrogen vehicles. Even the British Government are taking increasingly strong action in that regard, as we heard over the weekend. It is time for Minister Poots to show the same level of commitment and to prove that he is not just the Minister of Agriculture but equally the Minister of the Environment. At present, he is simply allowing an environmental —

Mr Speaker: Will the Member conclude her remarks, please?

Ms McLaughlin: — and public health disaster to unfold before our very eyes, and we certainly do not need another one.

Ms Mallon (The Minister for Infrastructure): First, I thank Clare Bailey and Rachel Woods for tabling the motion. I have listened with interest to the comments made and issues raised by Members. I appreciate and share all Members' concerns about the scale and complexity of the ammonia problem in Northern Ireland and the need to protect human health and our natural environment.

This is a complex issue, and the situation presents a significant challenge to finding a way to reduce the impacts of this air pollutant while supporting a profitable and sustainable agri-food sector, which is a point that the vast number of Members made. As planning Minister, I want to assure Members that I will do all that I can to ensure that our planning policies are evidence-informed and that our planning system works effectively.
I know that Ms Bailey is passionate about this matter, however, it is important to clarify that policy and statutory responsibility for this area lies with DEARA and that responsibility for determining the vast majority of ammonia-emitting planning applications lies with council planning authorities. Therefore, while my Department is responsible for planning policy, we rely on DEARA, which has the expertise and policy lead when it comes to assessing the impact on our wildlife and our natural ecosystems.

A number of Members referred to compliance with EU requirements. I am aware of the importance for all competent authorities, including planning authorities, to comply with EU requirements. This means carrying out appropriate assessments under the habitats regulations to assess the potential impacts of development on the environment, particularly in relation to European Natura 2000 sites, such as special areas of conservation (SACs) and special protection areas (SPAs). DAERA, as the statutory nature conservation body and consultee to the planning system has an important role to play in ensuring that planning decisions and permit authorisations are well-informed and compliant with European environmental law.

Planning has, at its core, a central focus on delivering sustainable development. That requires the consideration and balancing of environmental, societal and economic interests. My interest, as Minister for Infrastructure, is the health and efficiency of the planning system. I expect DAERA to provide the correct advice, as a statutory consultee to the planning system, and I expect councils in their role as local planning authorities to take that advice into consideration in determining planning applications made to them.

I am aware that DAERA is planning to go out to public consultation in the near future in relation to a proposed ammonia strategy which will include a review of its operational protocol. It is important that that happens quickly. It is my hope that it will further assist DAERA in fulfilling its roles as a statutory nature conservation body in providing advice to competent authorities who are undertaking the habitats regulations assessment required by article 6 of the habitats directive. I know that DAERA has been working with stakeholders to develop this strategy, which aims to deliver tangible and sustained reductions in ammonia. Hopefully it will help reduce the pressure on sensitive sites while facilitating the sustainable development of a prosperous agri-food industry.

I understand that the strategy is likely to incorporate a series of ammonia-reduction measures designed for implementation on farms here and that it will also focus on habitat protection and management to reduce the impacts on nature. I strongly welcome the work in hand to produce this strategy and have already made clear to Minister Poots my readiness to work with him to help the deliver the progress that we all want to see in this area. Given his statutory responsibilities in this area I have already written to him on this important matter.

It is important that this new strategy provides clarity and certainty in terms of how the ammonia situation can be addressed effectively. It should also enable greater certainty for planning and allow councils to determine planning applications with confidence. In the interim, it is important that planning authorities and DAERA continue to engage on individual planning applications to keep the system moving and to ensure that environmental obligations and requirements are met.

In relation to the call in the motion to review approved planning applications for ammonia-emitting projects, this would not be appropriate for my Department, particularly while DAERA is working on the ammonia strategy.

I am content with the current planning policy position, as set out in the strategic planning policy statement (SPPS) for Northern Ireland. That makes it clear that planning permission should only be granted to those projects that will not have an adverse effect on protected sites, such as our special areas of conservation and areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs).

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Will the Minister give way?

Ms Mallon: I will.

Mr Beggs: Will the explain why new developments which would replace old buildings, thereby reducing emissions and improving the well-being of such sensitive areas, are being refused?

Ms Mallon: As the Member will know, those applications are determined by councils, as the planning authorities. One of the issues here is that Shared Environmental Services is providing information and responses on planning applications, which is very much relation on more up-to-date information and modelling.

Difficulties are coming into play as tensions grow between those responses and those from DAERA, which is operating on a more outdated operations protocol.

Mr Allister: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Mallon: I will.

Mr Allister: Will the Minister explain to the House to whom the Shared Environmental Service is accountable? In a number of cases that I have been involved with in my constituency, it has taken quite a belligerent attitude. When you push it, it says, "We are waiting on DAERA to give us some guidance". Is the Shared Environmental Service accountable to DAERA, to councils or to the Minister's Department?

Ms Mallon: The Member will know that my Department has an oversight role. He will also know that there is a two-tier planning system. He will also know how the Shared Environmental Service operates. However, I come back to the point: DAERA is a statutory consultee in this process; it provides responses and is using data that is not as up to date as that of the Shared Environmental Service. That is the difficulty. That is why I have written to Minister Poots, urging him to bring forward an ammonia strategy — an updated ammonia strategy — so that we can resolve some of those tensions and, as I said earlier, keep our planning system moving.

I note the proposed amendment to the motion calling on my Department to review the planning application process in consultation with the farming and agri-food industry and the DAERA Minister to ensure that planners have access to all the appropriate guidance on ammonia. As I have indicated, DAERA has policy responsibility for the impacts of ammonia; it also acts as the statutory consultee on this issue in the planning application process. Given DAERA's area of responsibility in relation to farming and agri-food, which a number of Members highlighted, I would fully expect those sectors to be closely engaged in that work as it progresses. I am satisfied that planning policy, and the planning application process, remains fit for purpose. It should work effectively in considering the impacts of ammonia emissions, informed by advice from DAERA as the statutory consultee on nature conservation.

I have listened intently to Members, and I assure them that my officials will continue to engage with DAERA officials on this, and on any other measures, to address the ammonia issue at a strategic level.

I want to turn to some of the points that Members raised that I did not address in my opening remarks. Ms Bailey said that the Department for Infrastructure planning policy was not fit for purpose. I suspect that perhaps she was referring to DAERA's operational protocol. Ms Bailey also made a number of points in relation to the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. However, that falls outside my departmental responsibility. Nevertheless, I want to assure her that the strategic planning policy was agreed by the then Executive and is considered appropriate and fit for purpose. It makes it clear that planning permission should be granted only to projects that do not have adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites. Ms Bailey also said that anaerobic digesters are operating without planning permission. That is a matter for the local council planning authorities to investigate, in line with their planning enforcement powers.

Mr McQuigan said that he had great sympathy for the Infrastructure Minister. I hope that that is not the first and last time that I hear a Sinn Féin Member say that, as I have taken those comments close to my heart. He said that he recognised, as did many Members, the scale of the problem and that it required a more nuanced solution. He said that a moratorium would not solve the problem. In fact, it might even exacerbate it by preventing the upgrading work of farmers to adopt more environmentally friendly practices. He said that he was very much in favour of a climate action Bill, the green new deal, and I very much agree with him. He also made the point that there are too many unknowns to agree a moratorium and emphasised the importance of working with farmers and of coordination across the island. I agree with him on those points.

Ms McIlveen worked methodically through the three asks in the motion. She made it clear that she could not support the motion, not because she does not recognise the scale of the problem but because she believes that a more pragmatic solution would be beneficial. She made the point that a moratorium would grind the system to a halt, with detrimental impacts on strategic infrastructure projects across Northern Ireland.

Patsy McGlone said that we were discussing, through the motion, water quality, agricultural diversification, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, and agricultural poverty. He suggested that it might have been more appropriate for the DAERA Minister to have been with you this evening to respond to the points that were made.

He made the point that we have had a three-year absence of the Executive and that, perhaps, this has played a contributory role to the delay in the publication of a new ammonia strategy. He highlighted that this was clearly the responsibility of DAERA, and that he hoped that we would see an updated ammonia strategy sooner rather than later.

Mr Beggs described the moratorium option as the nuclear option, and he said that it would affect every farm in Northern Ireland and the entire rural community, and that he believed that it would be counterproductive in its impact in the longer term.

Mr Blair also recognised the scale of the problem, but he highlighted the importance of consulting with those who would be affected in identifying and implementing a solution. He framed the approach as one of frameworks, structures and goals, and of working closely with the agricultural sector.

Mr Irwin also described the moratorium as almost a nuclear option, and he said that it would be detrimental to the agricultural community, which is crucial to our economy and supporting up to 100,000 jobs. In his view, a better way forward is one that is in balance. However, he emphasised that this does not mean sitting back and doing nothing. He called for a joined-up approach across Government and I very much agree with that approach.

Mr Boylan raised the issue of the Planning Act, the review of the Planning Act and the role that that might play. As I have said previously, planning permission should only be granted to projects which do not have adverse affects on their areas of special scientific interest and so forth. As I said in response to the comments that were made by Mr Allister, I think that the difficulty here is the outdated operational protocol that is being utilised by DAERA. The difficulty here, with regard to the some 19 applications that are stalled, is the tension between the responses that are coming from DAERA and those in the Shared Environmental Services, which is using much more up-to-date modelling work. That is why I am very keen to see the updated ammonia strategy being brought forward by my colleague Mr Poots.

Mr Harvey said that the solution that was being proposed under the motion was not proportionate or pragmatic. He emphasised the importance of food production to our economy. He also highlighted some of the proprietary work that has been undertaken by DAERA on updating the ammonia strategy and, again, he talked about delays in the planning process. Again, I make the point that those delays are very much around the tension in the responses from the Shared Environmental Services and DAERA, but I hope that that can be addressed.

Ms McLaughlin talked about the fact that Northern Ireland is going in the wrong direction, with our rising ammonia emissions, compared to other places across these islands, and she highlighted that this was a particular issue in her constituency. She highlighted the impact on human health, as well as the environmental impact. She talked about the need for a long-term strategy and also emphasised the role of a clean air strategy as part of the solution.

I thank all of the Members who have contributed to the debate. I suggest, perhaps, that the Green Party has brought this motion out of frustration, and that is why it has very much been addressed at the Infrastructure Minister. However, the important issue here is to ensure that DAERA's new ammonia strategy and the review of its operational protocol is brought forward as quickly as possible to provide certainly and clarity for all stakeholders in the planning system, and to ensure that planning applications are not delayed. That is why I have written to the DAERA Minister to urge this, and I will continue to engage with him on this important matter.

Mr Speaker: I call Declan McAleer to wind on the amendment. The Member has five minutes.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for her response to the motion. Indeed, she recognises the frustrations of the Green Party in bringing forward this amendment. However, I think, if I do a summary around the Chamber, that most Members here recognise that this sort of a blanket ban or moratorium on planning would be detrimental, not just to our farming community but to the wider economy.

With regard to winding up, I do not want to repeat what other people have said because a lot of stuff has been covered here. However, I believe that farmers are up for actually this, and they are up for this for a number of reasons. Farmers are environmentalists. The North, according the land parcel identification system in DAERA, is made up of a jigsaw of 750,000 fields, which are individual parcels of land, and our farmers maintain those green fields — our emerald island and our green and pleasant land — in the way that they are, which is as carbon sinks and with the natural beauty that we have. You see that in our postcards that you see all around the world. The other reason is that it is not efficient. That is because ammonia is nitrogen and nitrogen blowing off your fields onto other habitats is not very efficient; it is better off in the fields and within the grass to make the grass grow instead of making its way in the wind to other habitats.

Again, that highlights the importance of the cross-border issue. Teagasc made the point that progress will be undermined if one jurisdiction here on the island is making good progress in reducing emissions and the other is not. In areas such as County Fermanagh, where Rosemary, my colleague on the Agriculture Committee, is from, the ammonia might get there by coming across from the South of Ireland on the south-westerly breezes. Indeed, that might happen from North to South as well.

Farmers are environmentalists. They are up for it. It is not efficient for nitrogen to blow off land in that way. The ecological damage that is caused by nitrogen leakage is costly and that is not sustainable.

We supported the views of the expert working group. It said that the way to deliver a strategy is to avoid putting more nitrogen into our production system and to try to retain the nitrogen that is in the production system and not to have it being released into the atmosphere and going across borders and on to ecological sites.

West of the Bann, virtually everywhere is within 7·5 kilometres of a Natura 2000 site. Two thirds of those sites are in counties Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh. If the proposal was implemented, we would see a moratorium on not only everything to do with agriculture but to do with everything. All soil systems that have nitrogen in them have the potential to create ammonia. We see a blanket ban, effectively, on farming and all types of development. Living in the west, as we do, we do not have a motorway or a railway. The last train left Fermanagh in 1957; the last train left Omagh in 1965; and they never came back. The motorway stopped when it hit the Bann for some reason. We do not have motorways, we do not have trains, and we do not have broadband. Are we going to impose more scrutiny to try to block future development and thwart the Executive's plans as well? That is not going to happen.

There has been progress. I know from the figures that have been quoted today that it does not look like that, but farmers are doing their best. A lot of work is being done through AFBI and Teagasc in the South, looking at the animals' diets and genetics. The farm business improvement scheme is out there at the minute. We are at tranche 3 of tier 1. It is targeted towards ammonia-reducing equipment, and there is a good uptake.

My point is that this type of a blanket ban would be crazy, given the impact on the environment and the economy. We must also remember that farmers are our food producers. During the current pandemic, they are designated as key workers. It does not matter whether you live in a rural area or an urban one; you still go down to your local shop for your milk, bacon, eggs and sausages. Those do not grow on trees; they have to be produced by farmers. Our farmers, as food producers, are key workers. I know farmers. I am from a rural area. I live beside a bog. We all appreciate the importance of maintaining such sites and the biodiversity connected to them, but we must also be mindful that it is important that we support our rural economy and our food security and supply.

Mr Speaker: I call Clare Bailey to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. The Member has 10 minutes.

Ms Bailey: I thank everybody who spoke on the motion and the amendment. It has been an interesting debate. There seems to be a consensus that we need to have a system in place that provides clarity for farmers and that enables them to farm sustainably while being economically viable. There also seems to be a consensus that we have a problem but, over the years, have done little to nothing to fix that problem, which we have created. In order to tackle the ammonia crisis, everything possible needs to be done to encourage and develop good practice. We must, at the very least, ensure that we are complying with our legal obligations in Northern Ireland. I would like Members present to really consider the nature of the policy of agriculture intensification and the expansion being pursued by the Executive and to ask themselves whether they are ready to stand by the threat to public health, the destruction of our biodiversity and the cost to human lives and well-being that comes with that.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to put on record my support for her party's motion. Does she agree with me that, whilst the Executive parties might have been at each other's throats last week over other issues, they seem to have each other's backs tonight on this issue?

Ms Bailey: That is an interesting one. I thank the Member for his intervention. We will see how it goes.

We have the data, the research and the science. We have all the information that we could possibly need, but what we need to do is act. A moratorium does not need to be a long, drawn-out measure. That is very clear. If we are to get to grips with the harm that we have created and allowed to happen, we need to stop, draw breath and assess where we are. That is called creating a baseline, from which we can start to make things better. That is possible, and it can be quick, but it needs political will, so, on the Member's intervention, let us see.

A number of issues were raised, although I probably do not have time to go into all of them. One of the issues was why the Infrastructure Minister is here instead of the AERA Minister. I was happy to hear others address that. This is a cross-cutting issue, and we cannot deal with it properly if we continue to act in silos. Like any action on climate change, pollution and the biodiversity crisis, this has to be seen as a whole. We know that the problem exists and that we created it, but we have not taken action to address it. We therefore need to try something different and introduce other avenues. That is why we put a focus on planning and not DAERA.

Why a moratorium? A moratorium is needed because we need to see whether we are meeting our existing legal commitments. The debate has, again, been shaped around this being about farmers versus the environment. That is an absolute false narrative. Farmers did not create the problem. Our Executive did, and they did so through economic incentives. We need to reverse that. That has also been pointed out by the sector itself. The Ulster Farmers' Union wrote to every MLA ahead of this debate. Even it has pointed that, while ammonia emissions from farms can be reduced, that can add additional costs to farm businesses, and a balanced way forward is needed to ensure a sustainable future for family farms. That raises a question about why farm businesses are being expected to foot the bill for the harm caused by Executive strategies.

There were other issues and concerns about the impact on farmers. Farmers are asking for help, but we have had an inadequate response so far. DAERA and the Environment Agency have reports, meetings and discussions with the sectors. They wring their hands when they tell us in Committee that they are very aware of the problem and that they know they are not doing enough. What are they going to do? How long will we sit back, hand-wring and rub our chins? We need to commit to reforming our system to get ahead of the problem.

I now come to the amendment. I know that most here have expressed support for the motion as amended, but what the amendment serves to do, compared with the motion, is replace the call for a moratorium — we have to ensure legal compliance, and we know from the Department and its agencies that they are unsure whether their policies are legally compliant — with the call "to conduct a review" so that planners:

I would like to reiterate, first, that the problem here is not just that planners do not seem to be aware of the guidance and their legal obligations, in many instances from the start, but that the guidance itself is deeply, deeply flawed, and the Minister has recognised that. It is not appropriate, has not been legally proofed and is open to being legally challenged. Guidance must be led not just by science and data but also by compliance with our laws.

The amendment also calls for a consultation with the farming and agri-food industry and the Agriculture Minister to understand the impact on the farming and agri-food sector. I most certainly welcome such a consultation and point out that the effects of ammonia are not experienced solely by those in the industry. Ammonia is a public health issue. It is an environmental issue too, and we would invite consultation with rural groups, medical professionals and environmental NGOs, as well as the wider public.

Lastly, and most starkly, the amendment removes the mention of the need to be compliant with the law, and that is important for how we do business. It removes mention of the need to avoid further worsening the crisis. For me, that is perplexing, given that we all acknowledge the problem. For that reason, coupled with a lack of action to date from the Department, despite knowing the problem, we looked at how to do this differently, through tightening the planning system.

In July, the House debated and voted in support of a motion acknowledging the climate and biodiversity crisis. I know that Sinn Féin actively acknowledges the urgent need to include biodiversity in climate actions, but that will require far-reaching and radical actions to create the solutions. UUP representatives have openly and publicly spoken about the growing need for, and the duty of, lawmakers to step up urgently and be aspirational in policymaking. Well, we are the lawmakers.

The SDLP stated in its 2019 manifesto that:

Those are all big ideas and big words, indeed. Yet, it is hard to view them as anything but disingenuous when they are not backed up by action.

Do I need to remind you all of the cross-party Climate Change Bill signed by most parties in the Chamber, which puts legal obligations to address climate change and biodiversity loss?

Mr McGuigan: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bailey: Yes.

Mr McGuigan: Does the Member acknowledge that in the Climate Change Bill there are targets to 2045 and that key to the Bill is, as I outlined, a just transition in that we bring all sections of society along with us?

Ms Bailey: I thank the Member and I agree absolutely with him, which is why, if we go into any consultation process, we should do so not just with industry but with wider sectors, the public and local communities as well.

Environmentally, it seems that we all know how to talk the talk, but walking the walk seems to be a different matter. Members are being presented today with the opportunity to step up and support tangible action and to say, "Enough is enough". I invite you all to seriously consider how much destruction of wildlife and damage to human health you are prepared to stand over, because this one, simple issue has been going on for nearly a decade, and we have done nothing.

Mr Speaker: I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. It was very informative and well mannered.