Official Report: Tuesday 08 February 2022

Mr Speaker: Mr Matthew O'Toole has been given leave to make a statement on the Police Ombudsman's report, which fulfils the criteria that are set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions will not be accepted. I will not take points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business is finished.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for accepting the Matter of the Day. On Saturday past, I, along with others, joined the families of those who were murdered at Sean Graham bookmakers 30 years ago, on 5 February 1992. At that event, those families gave voice to the decades of frustration at their inability to get accountability and justice for the murder of their loved ones. The people who died that day were Coleman Doherty, Joseph Duffin, who was also known as Jack, James Kennedy, Peter Magee, and Willie McManus. There were the attempted murders of several others.

Today, the Police Ombudsman, Marie Anderson, has published her detailed report into those murders and allegations that surround them, and the murder and attempted murder of several others in that area. Those include the attempted murder of Samuel Caskey on 9 October 1990, the murder of John O'Hara in April 1991, the murder of Harry Conlon in October 1991, the murder of Aidan Wallace in December 1991, the murder of Michael Gilbride on 4 November 1992, the murder of Martin Moran in October 1993, the murder of Theresa Clinton in April 1994, and the murder of Larry Brennan in January 1998.

The ombudsman finds a web of investigatory failings, completely inappropriate police behaviour and what she terms "collusive behaviours". As Members in the Chamber will know, as a result of a Court of Appeal finding, the Police Ombudsman is now not able to make a direct finding of collusion, but in her detailed report, which comes to more than 300 pages, she is clear that she finds extensive evidence of what she terms "collusive behaviours".

I will not go through all the allegations. They are not allegations any more but findings in her report. I will highlight a couple of them, however. One is the failure of Special Branch to share information with investigating police on the murders. Another is the failure to tell people when there were known threats against them. Although the Police Ombudsman does not find that the murders could have been prevented by police actions, she does find that there was a failing to tell people that they were at risk, which is shocking. Perhaps most shocking of all, however, is the finding that an apparently deactivated gun was placed back into the hands of a UDA/UFF informant. That is utterly shocking.

The findings of the Police Ombudsman's report speak for themselves. It is now time, 30 years on, for the families to get accountability, and although I —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — understand that many will want to speak up for —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — the many RUC people who served with decency and honour —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — it is important to say that not having accountability for these types of actions does nothing for all those RUC officers.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: I therefore stand today with the families of those who were murdered at the Sean Graham bookmakers and with the other families.

Ms Kimmins: At the outset, I will say that my heart goes out to the families of the 11 people murdered, who included a 15-year-old boy, and all those injured as a result of collusion between the British state and the UDA. My thoughts are with them today as they try to come to terms with the stark revelations in the Police Ombudsman's report on the deaths of their loved ones at the hands of loyalist murder gangs.

It follows previous reports into loyalist mass killings in Loughinisland and Greysteel, carried out using weapons that British state agents helped to import and distribute to the UDA, the UVF and Ulster Resistance. Eighty people were killed with those weapons, and the ombudsman has revealed that those responsible for bringing them in have never been investigated, despite the involvement of state agents.

The ombudsman has also said that eight RUC Special Branch agents were involved in 27 murders and attempted murders in south Belfast, with one agent being recruited because of his involvement in the planning, preparation and execution of previous murders.

The ombudsman found collusion in each and every killing. Lives could and should have been saved, but warnings about attacks being planned were not passed on, and state agents involved in murder were allowed to kill and kill again.

It beggars belief that the RUC handed guns back to loyalist paramilitaries so that they could be used to kill again.

The latest report by the ombudsman shows a clear pattern of collusion and cover-up. Evidence and documentation were destroyed, and warnings were not passed on to victims. Special Branch refused to pass on relevant intelligence to investigators. Eyewitnesses to killings were exposed to risk, with their names read out in front of suspects.

The report is a devastating indictment of collusion between the British state and loyalist paramilitaries. That is why the British Government want an amnesty for their state forces, their intelligence services and the agents who killed for them, and it is why victims, families, political parties and human rights groups continue to oppose those plans vigorously.

It is time to address the legacy of the past by implementing the mechanisms agreed at Stormont House in a human rights-compliant manner to ensure that families are not waiting any more decades for truth and justice.

Mr Clarke: I declare an interest as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB).

It gives me no pleasure to talk about the contents of this report today.

However, I find it ironic. I am sure that you would not give me enough time to read out the names of all the people who were murdered at the hands of terrorists, many of whom are represented in the Chamber today on the Benches opposite. Indeed, the identity of the SDLP Member who submitted the Matter of the Day was telling, given that his colleague who sits on the Northern Ireland Policing Board besmirched the name of the RUC in previous comments. This is just part of a litany of incidents in a campaign to destroy the name of the RUC, which is something that many of us thought had been settled in 1998.

The findings of the report on any involvement are disappointing, but then I think about the previous Member's comments about documents being destroyed and weapons being handed out. I say to her: how many opportunities did the organisation that her party represents have to hand out weapons that killed almost 3,000 people in Northern Ireland?

I am also struck by the fact that the ombudsman has found the opportunity to create a criminal offence for coercive behaviour. All those things stand in contrast with the out-of-court settlements that the Chief Constable has made in the past few months, not connected to loyalist paramilitary attacks but to those from the nationalist community and the cover ups in relation to them. Indeed, I have sat in many meetings with the Historical Enquiries Team (HET), and if the information that was provided at those meetings was in the public domain, it would be harrowing for people to hear. However, I have never heard calls from the Benches opposite for inquiries into those cases, nor have I heard Members from the Benches opposite condemning the actions of some of their own in relation to murders, including those of RUC officers.

In 1998, a line was allegedly drawn in the sand on all these things, but we continue to hear about all these inquiries, which are one-sided in nature. The sooner that that stops and we move forward, the better.

Mr Nesbitt: The Ulster Unionist Party is a party of law and order: no ifs, no buts. No one is above the law. Anybody who is guilty of wrongdoing should face the criminal justice system. That said, we are possibly in the worst of all places. Not for the first time, the Police Ombudsman has concluded that there were murders that could not have been prevented and could not have been stopped, yet she points the finger at police officers with the expression "collusive behaviour". What does that really mean?

During my time as a victims' commissioner, the most powerful conversation that I overheard in this area was between a retired senior police officer who had served in the RUC and a man who had spent time in prison as a member of the Provisional IRA. The policeman said, "You see, I never woke up in the morning thinking, 'Who can I hurt today?'", and the IRA man replied, "Ah, but I did".

There are things in life that you can explain but you cannot excuse. I am not standing here trying to excuse wrongdoing by anyone who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. However, if you think about the length — decades long — and intensity of our Troubles and the number of fallible human beings who put on the uniform of the RUC, inevitably you have to conclude that mistakes and bad decisions were made. I do not excuse that; I just accept it as part of the human condition.

Yesterday, the House marked the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and I am reminded of what she said in Dublin during her state visit in 2011. Looking back on our Troubles, she said there were:

That applies to the Troubles. Violence was not inevitable. As an Ulster Unionist and a trustee of the John and Pat Hume Foundation, I am committed to peaceful change.

Had we all committed to peaceful change, we would not be having this debate in the House today.

Mr Blair: I declare my membership of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. My first thoughts are with the families of those who were killed in these attacks and with those who survived and have been living with the physical and mental scars for all these years. Today will be one of mixed emotions for them as their long-held concerns have been proven to have foundation. They have the full support of the Alliance Party in their campaign for justice.

The revelations in the report are deeply disturbing and raise serious issues and questions that need to be answered, and they have the potential to undermine confidence in policing. It must be addressed by the police and the Policing Board immediately as the report identified collusive behaviours by the RUC in the investigation of murders and attempted murders carried out by loyalist paramilitaries in the 1990s. There remains in our society huge individual and collective hurt. The Police Ombudsman's report is further evidence of the pressing need for a comprehensive mechanism to deal with that and give people the justice and closure they deserve.

Mr Buckley: I, again, put on record my membership of the Northern Ireland Policing Board as I rise to speak on what is, no doubt, a very difficult day for the families involved with the Sean Graham bookmakers. I think of those families because, no doubt, this has brought back some very painful memories of a very difficult time. Equally, I look towards many former serving RUC officers and families who are equally disturbed and annoyed by the memories of their loved ones that this incident brings to their doorstep. Let us not forget that 300 RUC officers were killed during the Troubles while performing a duty of law and order to defend and protect the people of Northern Ireland. Over 280 of those officers were killed by republican terrorists. How many inquiries or reports did they get, and how many of their killers were brought to justice?

Sadly, today, in 2022, we continually see an attempt to compare today's standards of policing operations with what was happening in a chaotic time in this province's history. It is important that I put that on record because I come from a family with members who have served in the law institutions and forces that protected this country through some very dark and difficult days. I think of the nine officers killed in the Newry mortar bomb attack. I think of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Robert Buchanan, who were lured to their death in the Irish Republic, yet many have fallen silent in their pursuit of justice for them. Many former RUC officers are scarred by what they saw during the Troubles. They lost friends and family and had to live in constant fear. We need to remember that 90% of deaths in Northern Ireland during the Troubles were caused by paramilitaries. Everyone deserves justice. Let us think of Teebane, La Mon, Bloody Friday and Enniskillen. Some want to tarnish the memory of the RUC. For those who were wrong, the vast majority will call them out for what it was. I, for one, am proud and grateful for their diligent service in the protection of the citizens of Northern Ireland through some very dark and difficult days.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Storey: I stand as a former member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. No one should take any joy or any sense of glorification in a murderous campaign that left widows, orphans and broken families.

I have a brother who has proudly served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve and as a part-time PSNI officer for 41 years. I thank God every day that he is still alive, because, sadly, many other families heard the knock on the door and a masked terrorist shot them through the head or in the back. Sadly, there are people in the Chamber, elected to public office, who have glorified those heinous crimes; who have covered up; who have been involved in collusive behaviour; and who have not told the police all that they know about what happened. Today, I call on them to search their conscience. The party opposite has supported and glorified the IRA, a murderous machine that cost lives and created orphans and whose members could not even tell families from their own community the truth about where they buried their loved ones. Is it not time that we had the truth?

Members from the party opposite always like to talk to us about truth and justice —

Mr Speaker: I advise the Member that we are dealing with a Matter of the Day tabled by Mr Matthew O'Toole, which deals with the ombudsman's report. He has strayed very, very far from that. I advise the Member —

Mr Storey: Mr Speaker, I am not questioning your authority, but it is all part of our dark past. If we are to have the truth about what happened with the members of the RUC, we are also going to have to have the truth about what happened with the members of the IRA and those who have been their fellow travellers for 40 years, who still put on uniforms and go to memorials and graves to glorify them and say that it was right. Remember, it was the republican movement that talked about an Armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other. It was the Armalite that created the burials, the orphans and the graves.

Today, I stand here proud of a family member who served in the RUC.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Storey: I commend the RUC, and I trust and pray that its vilification will come to an end.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Thank you.

Mr Catney: I did not want to speak on this, and I do not want to make any political statements about it. However, I operated in my workplace in a bar, which was not too far from Hamilton Street, and I knew the family of James Kennedy. I knew the father, Jackie, very well, and I remember the shock that we had at the death of that young boy at 15. I remember my mother baking a cake of wheaten bread and bringing round the ham to Hamilton Street and the pure sorrow within that house.

All of this really shocked me, all the statistics and all those who died throughout the Troubles. At times, to keep my place of work open, I probably called on the police to try to open up the town, but that does not excuse it. If there was wrongdoing in the police, we need to root it out. There is nobody here who would disagree with that.

I will finish with one last comment. I think of young Jamie's mother — Jackie's wife — who very soon followed her son to the grave. I can tell you, folks: she went into her grave with a broken heart, never mended from that day. I pass on my condolences to all the victims.

Mr Chambers: I was proud to wear the RUC uniform as a part-time reservist for some 15 years. I did not serve with one officer who I heard threatening to go out and harm any member of our society. Thousands of officers served with distinction, many of whom have gone to their graves and many of whom are still alive. The families of those who served will be hurt by the broad-brush nature of the ombudsman's report and, more importantly, the broad-brush opportunities that it provides to the history rewriters.

My colleague Mike Nesbitt spelt out where the Ulster Unionist Party stands on law and order. If anyone, whatever uniform they wore or none, has done wrongdoing, they should be brought before a court of law, be made to account for their actions and receive the due punishment, but please do not besmirch the reputation or memories of those thousands of officers who left their homes every morning and left their wives and children behind them without any certainty that, at the end of their working day, they would return to their family unharmed or, indeed, alive.

Ms Bailey: It has been said that everybody deserves justice. It is a sad day when we still have to step up in the Chamber and declare that we support law and order and when, in looking at and addressing such reports, we have to caveat them with political point-scoring.

Lives were lost. People died. Other lives were damaged. Families were broken. A community was terrorised. When we know that wrong was done, we have to make it right. It is time that we put people first and that we do everything that we can to end the suffering of so many victims. Let us put people first, and, if everyone deserves justice, let us do all that we can to make sure that they can access that justice. Let the ombudsman do her work, and let all our thoughts be with those families today. We have made some great strides forward, but we are not there yet.

Mr M Bradley: I rise to speak on this disturbing report. It is not pleasant reading. While no one is above the law and all should be subject to the law, the report is strong in both supposition and allegation. I think of friends in the RUC who were murdered, blown up, maimed and left with severe disabilities. In my area, an IRA bomb explosion on the street where I worked killed six innocent civilians, mainly pensioners. I will never forget my memories of that day.

I feel strongly that all victims of the atrocities that were carried out in Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles should be remembered. Anyone who breaks the law should be subject to the law, be they RUC officer or terrorist. I extend my sympathy to any family that lost a loved one during the Troubles, no matter what their background or where they come from.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for that contribution. That concludes the Matter of the Day.

Mr Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I failed to declare my membership of the Policing Board. I apologise to you and the House for that omission.

Mr M Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I, too, failed to declare my membership of the Policing Board. Like Mr Nesbitt, I apologise to the House.

Mr Speaker: The first item of business on the Order Paper is the consideration of business not concluded on Monday 7 February, which was yesterday. As the motion from the Committee for Infrastructure was not reached when the sitting was adjourned last night, we will commence with that item of business. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

Mr Buckley (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allocate one hour and 30 minutes to the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mr Buckley: I stand as the Chair of the Committee for Infrastructure to speak to the motion and to commend it to the House.

I wish to acknowledge the difficulties that DVA staff have faced during the pandemic, trying, as they have done, to continue the vital work of carrying out driving tests, vehicle tests and other important services. I can safely speak for the Committee when I say that, like many during this period, they rose to the challenge in difficult circumstances and their efforts should be commended.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Committee for Infrastructure has engaged with the Minister and her officials on the impact of COVID on her Department, specifically on the work of the DVA. Prior to my time as Committee Chair, the Committee engaged in the matter extensively. Shortly after the initial lockdown in spring 2020, the Committee requested that the Minister provide oral evidence on the impact on DVA services. The Minister and her officials came to the Committee on 3 September 2020 to discuss the issues, the first of many briefings on the problem. During the briefing, the Minister acknowledged the challenges for the DVA, the fact that the lockdown had created a backlog in its services and, now that services had recommenced, the real need to deal with that backlog.

During the briefing, the Committee discussed with the Minister how she intended to tackle the backlog, which, all Committee members realised, was a growing concern. The Minister said that, after the initial lockdown, the DVA began to resume services in June 2020 with mitigations and social distancing in place. The reinstatement of driving tests began in July 2020. Motorbike driving testing resumed from 6 July 2020, as did driver theory tests, with safe social distancing in place. The Minister outlined that, as of 1 September 2020, around 200 key workers, including doctors, nurses and front-line workers, would be tested first, followed by approximately 3,800 customers, most of whom were young people who had had their tests cancelled, to ensure that they were not inconvenienced further.

At that time, the Minister and her officials assured the Committee that all was in hand, a plan was in operation and the backlog was a priority. At that meeting 18 months ago, the Committee tested that assertion. The Committee asked about the backlog of 3,800 customers. Surely the backlog was bigger than those whose test had been cancelled. What about all those who would normally have been added to the list in the intervening months? Given that the Minister had indicated that fewer tests could be conducted per day due to COVID restrictions, how would the backlog be dealt with? The response from the Minister and her officials at that time was that they had not extrapolated how many tests they expected to receive. Members asked the Minister to look at the average intake in previous years and were told:

estimate from previous years, due to COVID. That was a fundamental mistake. There was an error in risk management and crisis planning. There was an acknowledgement that there would be a backlog but no understanding of what was coming down the line. At the early Committee meeting, when Committee member after Committee member asked about the rationale, they were informed that working from home restrictions made it difficult to know what numbers were coming down the track. At that meeting, the Committee asked about the employment of new examiners and was informed:

That was in September 2020. The Committee continued to have briefings on the issue: on 4 November 2020, 20 January 2021, 21 April 2021 and 10 June 2021. I could go on and on.

The Committee has spoken about DVA testing and driving tests continuously because of the legitimate concerns of Members across the House about the impact of delays and backlogs on individual constituents. At almost every meeting, the Committee agreed to write to the Department for updates and more information. Every time, the Committee emphasised the public concern about the growing backlogs. As time went on, it was not just about the backlogs: it was becoming clear that there were huge difficulties behind the backlogs. Individuals were not able to take up work, businesses could not get staff into roles where driving was a requirement and increasing numbers of cars were being left with no MOT and were falling foul of insurance companies and, worryingly, the PSNI.

That is not to say that the Minister and the Department did nothing in the face of that pressure from the Committee and the public. Temporary exemption certificate (TEC) schemes were put in place; there were discussions with the PSNI and insurance companies about enforcement; and opening hours at test centres were extended. Eventually, there was the recruitment of new staff. That is to be applauded, and I will do so publicly on the Floor of the Assembly as the Chair of the Committee. The backlogs, however, have continued, and the issues have remained. I know that the Minister has been on record at each Committee meeting emphasising that it is not a perfect scenario and that, in a sense, there is still a significant issue to be dealt with in relation to backlogs.

By 26 July 2021, the DVA was able to reinstate normal vehicle testing times and advised the Committee that, since then, it had been able to maintain vehicle testing capacity by adopting a range of measures including the recruitment of additional vehicle examiners, the use of overtime to provide cover for leave and sick absence and a reduction in the vehicle test appointment time. On 28 October last year, the DVA advised the Committee that it had conducted 117,907 full vehicle tests in August and September — 96% of the five-year average for those months. Again, that progress is to be applauded. The backlog, however, remained. The reason given to the Committee for that was that demand for services had increased. That is the same demand as the Committee had warned the Minister of and asked her to put measures in place to address from the beginning of the pandemic.

The Committee for Infrastructure has tirelessly asked questions and heard evidence, but the backlogs remain and are causing hardship and stress. As Committee Chair, I, for one, can speak of several examples of young people keen to get into the workplace and keen to contribute to their household being held back by their inability to secure a driving test. That is not prevalent in just my area — at Craigavon test centre, for example — and I know that other members, going by the experiences expressed at the Committee, have had similar issues.

That has taken the Committee to this point. We felt that, because we were getting nowhere with the Department through constant back-and-forth correspondence, by bringing the motion to the House, we could plead with the Minister to think and talk creatively and to bring forward creative solutions with the resources that she has. The Committee asks that she and the Department get off the merry-go-round of chasing the backlogs and try to get out in front of the crisis for the sake of the individuals who are concerned and for our economy. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Boylan: Ba mhaith liom labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin. I will speak in favour of the motion. I remind Members that the role of a Committee is to scrutinise, not criticise, and part of its responsibility is to try to work with the Department in order to address the issues, which is why we brought the motion to the Floor today. I want to put that on the record.

At the outset, I welcome the motion and commend the efforts of DVA staff, who have worked very hard to tackle the backlog that has arisen as a consequence of the COVID pandemic. People have been frustrated with trying to get a vehicle or driving test since services resumed, there is no doubt about that. Not getting a test can be very restrictive for people, many of whom need a car to get to work or to get on with daily errands. While some measures have been introduced, and we welcome them, it is clear that more needs to be done in order to provide the public with better access to important services such as driving and vehicle tests.

Our learner drivers are struggling to get a timely driving test and are waiting months on end, and when tests do show up, many of those drivers cannot make a booking at their test centre. What does that mean? It means that they have to travel further distances to get to a test centre and mothers and fathers have to take time off work to transfer them to the test. We need to see additional examiners being recruited in order to increase testing capacity across the North. The driving test backlog has distressed learner drivers for far too long. Many people, like I say, need transport to get to work and for day-to-day living.

We need to see the vehicle test backlog addressed as well. It is vital that the MOT backlog is urgently addressed and that people can get timely access to such a basic service as a vehicle test, not least because there can be unfair car tax penalties. As we all know, we need a valid MOT certificate in order to tax a vehicle. While the DVA asks drivers to contact it if they need an urgent MOT for their tax, many have been fined for not getting a test in time due to the MOT backlog. I was disappointed by the Minister's response to that. She stated that car tax is an issue for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in Swansea, and, when asked, she did not state how many drivers had been affected. I would appreciate it if she could say whether that has been qualified or quantified since. We need to look at addressing unfair penalties that have been issued due to circumstances outside drivers' control. Overall, there needs to be better communication between DVA and drivers on what to do in this unique situation, whether that is for driving tests or vehicle tests.

On another note, on behalf of my colleagues who are looking for a theory test centre in Fermanagh, I ask that the Minister give us a wee update on that. I know that many Members from there have raised that before.

It is vital that the driving and vehicle test backlog is urgently addressed so that people can get timely access to tests and not have to worry about being unfairly penalised. I will work with the Minister and the Committee to try to address the issue. I support the motion. Sin a bhfuil le rá agam.

Ms Hunter: I thank my colleagues on the Committee for working together on the motion. In particular, I am pleased that members accepted and acknowledged the work that has been done by the Minister for Infrastructure and the Department to restore the services. It is important to acknowledge the work that has been done. Not only did Minister Mallon take on crumbling DVA services, with the lifts breaking in her first few days, but, following the Executive's decisions and based on the public health advice of that time, she had to turn off and turn on DVA services. It is no secret that the COVID pandemic has thrown all our public services into disarray, which, in turn, has led to delays. We only have to look at our health service and the waiting lists: there are patients who have been waiting for years for operations. It is testimony to Minister Mallon and officials in the DVA that they have kept drivers safe on our roads. They are now doing record numbers of MOT and driving tests against pre-pandemic figures. Against all odds, and against delta and omicron, DVA staff are working longer hours. Those public service workers deserve our thanks and support. They have been on the front line, working against the highly contagious virus.

I agree with other Members that there has been disruption and confusion for the public. My constituents have faced those challenges, too. The challenges were caused by COVID and met with solutions by the DVA and our Minister. For anyone to argue otherwise is pathetic politicking. With some parties walking away from their responsibilities in government and others trying to pull down the Assembly for an early election, I say to them, "Take a leaf out of the SDLP Minister's book and go back to work and find solutions". The SDLP is focused on people: people first and people before politics. To ensure that we can continue to enhance our public services, we need to continue with the job that we are paid to do.

Members will note that the motion asks about "creative and innovative measures". I am still unsure about what measures colleagues are seeking. I know that the Minister has asked the Committee what additional ideas it has for the DVA to explore, but I am not aware of what is on the table.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way on the creative solutions?

Ms Hunter: I am going to get through this.

Preferring to deal in facts rather than fiction, I will focus my closing comments on reality. The reality is that the Assembly and the public owe a great deal of gratitude to our public workers and civil servants who have worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic to keep people safe on our roads. Yes, COVID has caused great disruption, but the service is working and delivering, rather than crumbling in the face of challenges.

Mr Beggs: I, too, support the motion. I recognise the challenge that the DVA has faced in keeping the public and its staff safe during the COVID epidemic. MOT staff have worked a considerable amount of overtime. The DVA has attempted to recruit staff, but it has experienced great difficulty in doing so. I can see why there is a difficulty in recruiting, considering that a fully qualified mechanic with a minimum of three years' experience will, I understand, receive a salary of £23,500. Only three out of 10 who were selected and invited to start training actually turned up. The others probably got a job since they were initially assessed. Despite the efforts to date, waiting lists are growing. Others have referred to a comparison of five years. The only valid comparisons are of the demand and supply numbers. Sadly, in recent months, the waiting lists have been growing. In September, waiting list numbers increased by 36,000 and, in October, by 22,000.

Mr Catney: I thank the Member for giving way. It is no secret that the pandemic has thrown all our public services into disarray, which has led to many delays across all those public services. Look at our health service. A lot of that is due to the pandemic. Does the Member agree?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an additional minute.

Mr Beggs: The pandemic has, obviously, created difficulties, but we are over the pandemic. The restrictions that had existed are over, as of the end of the summer. We need to meet the demand. There were problems pre pandemic as well. Due to the problem with the ramps, virtually all testing was stopped for a period in DVA, immediately after the Minister took office. That was not her fault, so I am not pointing at her.

I am saying that there is an endemic problem with the DVA. Even before then, there were usually periods during the year when we would hear of excessive waiting times. The DVA is a monopoly provider, and, as a result, the public have difficulty keeping their cars on the road. There has been anxiety as people try to get an earlier test. Many have been fined for failure to tax their car, and they cannot tax their car because it has not had an MOT test.

I welcome the fact that the DVA has trained additional dual-skilled testers who can carry out driving tests, but, again, there is huge demand. I recognise that considerable overtime has been worked. What therefore do we do? First, there are huge risks from doing nothing. If we do nothing, there will be additional pedestrians, particularly ones walking on rural roads, where the private car is virtually the only means of transport. There will be an effect on the economy as people are unable to get to work. There is already an effect on NHS staff who are unable to work shifts and take up overtime opportunities because they perhaps rely on public transport and have not been able to get a test or keep their car on the road. There is also a shortage of staff in domiciliary care. To work in that sector, new applicants need a driving licence, and, without one, they are blocked from applying. The follow-on from that is bed-blocking, with patients unable to get support in their home.

What are the real options that we can suggest to address the backlog? This is what we are about. As the Minister will know, I have been asking why we are not using more temporary exemption certificates. Why are we not dealing with the bulge that is there? We are testing almost as many vehicles now as there is demand, but we need to remove the bulge. It takes about 10 weeks from applying to getting a vacant spot. I know that personally from having experienced it. A departmental road safety official who appeared in front of the Committee indicated that only 1% of accidents occur as a result of mechanical failure, and he also said that there is no statistical information pointing to any increased risk as a result of the use of temporary exemption certificates. I do not want this to happen in the long term, but using TECs now is the only practical means of quickly dealing with the backlog and allowing the public to have a degree of normality.

What are the other options? I think that we have to free the DVA from the restrictions of the public sector, which are what is preventing it from paying the going rate for a mechanic. Recently, I was talking to some major vehicle retailers, and I know from them that they would generally advertise a job with a salary of £35,000, so are we surprised that we have difficulty recruiting staff? We have to free the DVA from the restrictions of the public sector so that it can get out there and meet the market forces.

We also have to recognise that there has been no difficulty in Great Britain throughout the period in question. There is no monopoly there. Private garages provide a service, and guess what? They provided that service the whole way through the pandemic. Great Britain has not experienced all these failures. Perhaps we need competition. Competition is good for improving standards, and that flexibility of competition is needed.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Beggs: What can we do about driver testing? I ask that we look at what is happening in GB, where the testing of light trailers has been dispensed with, and that we avoid the taxi licensing requirement —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Beggs: — that wedding and funeral cars are subject to in order to create capacity.

Mr Muir: I thank the Minister for coming here and the Committee for tabling the motion. I will talk a bit more about MOTs, about which a number of Members have already spoken, and driving tests.

I recall from back in January 2020 the situation that arose from the suspension of all MOT testing as a result of cracks being found in 52 of the 55 vehicle lifts in 15 test centres across Northern Ireland. That is the background to what we are dealing with, and a report was published following the investigations into that. It does not make for great reading, but that is the context for what we are dealing with. MOT tests had already been cancelled, and, unfortunately, we then moved into the COVID-19 pandemic, which has had a devastating impact on people's lives and livelihoods. Far too many people have lost their lives as a result of COVID-19. I pay tribute to and thank all the staff at DVA for the work that they, as key workers, have done to provide key services. It is important to recognise that work. The measures that suspended MOTs and driving tests and the current operational arrangements for MOTs were put in place as a result of public health measures to protect staff and the customers who access those services.

This is a key and serious issue that needs to be addressed, but it is not unique to Northern Ireland. At the end of last month, it was reported in the 'Irish Independent' that learner drivers were waiting an average of 10 weeks to take a driving test and that 33,000 drivers were waiting to take their driving test, with, on average, 3,500 tests being done per week. The Road Safety Authority (RSA) said that it would take 10 weeks to clear the backlog, and it was confirmed that eight of the 60 test centres had reported waiting times longer than 10 weeks. So, the issue is not unique to Northern Ireland, but it is one that we need to address.

I am aware of the testing regime that we have in Northern Ireland, and we can, perhaps, debate that another day, but the background is that it is in place for good reasons, and it is important that we take that into account.

I thank those responsible for the work that has been done on MOTs, with the recruitment of additional vehicle examiners, the use of overtime, the conducting of tests on Sundays and bank holidays and additional slots being made available. I must recall, however, the frustration that there was with the new booking system when it was launched and the problems associated with it. There were significant queues and frustration with trying to get an MOT booked.

As has been discussed, there are also issues with insurance. Some insurers are not showing the flexibility that we had hoped they would. Also, if you do not have an MOT, it is, frankly, impossible to get your motor tax. That issue impacts motorists and, in particular, those involved in used car sales. Last week, alongside other MLAs, I met the National Franchised Dealers Association (NFDA), which outlined the frustration that they are experiencing in getting MOTs for the used car fleet to enable them to sell those cars on, particularly at a time when demand for them is high.

Turning to solutions —

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Muir: Yes, no problem.

Mr Beggs: Like the Member, I have met that organisation. It indicated that there is a shortage of new vehicles and that more used cars are being sold by its franchises. Does he agree that there is an urgent need to increase capacity, because there will undoubtedly be more MOT demand?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his intervention.

Turning from problems to solutions, we are very good at talking about problems in this House, but we are not too great on solutions, particularly in the current situation —

Mr Speaker: The Member has an additional minute.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

One solution could be a targeted use of temporary exemption certificates, which have been discussed, to deal with the backlog. That is particularly relevant, given the engagement with the National Franchised Dealers Association that I outlined on assurance about roadworthiness before any further TECs are issued.

Another solution lies in the length of time that people get as notification for their MOT. If I had waited for the letter for the MOT for my vehicle to arrive, I would not have been able to get an appointment before the MOT expired. I knew the day that I could go on and book, and, as soon as that came around, I was able to get an MOT. It seems to be a very simple administrative thing, but we could send people letters much further in advance to encourage them to book their appointments. That is a simple solution to the issue.

The other key issue is the availability of driving tests. That has impacted so many people, particularly key workers who do night shifts and need access to a vehicle to undertake their duties. There is also an impact on people as a result of increased use of taxis. I appreciate the efforts that have been made, but there is not a great deal of light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to the backlog for driving tests. I need to hear a bit more from the Minister about what more is being done on that.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He has raised some of the issues to which he sees there being innovative solutions. Does he agree that it would be unfair for anyone to criticise the Committee for criticising but not offering solutions? As Mr Beggs pointed out, it is on record that the Committee has offered solutions, whether on temporary certificates, an increase in the number of testers or the other solutions that the Member raised. There is also the idea of a reserve list for those who, having waited a long time to get into the queue, fail their test and are put to the back of the queue again.

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his intervention. That is an important issue, because you go right to the bottom of the queue. There is also the issue of key workers, who are in vital need of transport.

At the end of the debate, let us focus on leaving here with solutions and with positivity, because that is what people are looking for from the institutions. People are looking to us to provide leadership and solutions. I have no doubt that the Minister is committed to doing that, but let us all focus and, yes, unite on the motion.

Mr Clarke: I will follow in Cathal Boylan's spirit when he said that we are here to scrutinise. I am not a member of the Committee for Infrastructure, but it is important that we scrutinise, although not necessarily be critical. As we get into the debate, however, it is difficult not to be critical.

First, my thoughts are with all those who work in that environment. We have been through a horrendous two years. I am not suggesting for a minute that the ramps were the Minister's fault — clearly, that was not the case — but we could say that it was a perfect storm. The timing of that situation, closely followed by the pandemic, provided an opportunity for some of those things to be fixed. That worked out in the Minister's favour, but "perfect storm" is probably the best way to describe it. As time has gone on, however, the innovative ideas have not been there.

We have heard, for example, that the police will not do someone for not having an MOT, but we have never heard the same assurances from the insurance companies. Now, we are two years down the road, and people are having difficulty with obtaining road tax. There is no help for those people — no innovation, no ideas. Mr Beggs highlighted the problems associated with that, and I concur with him. Recently, most of the people who have contacted my office have asked how they can tax their vehicle without an MOT. They cannot do so because there is no solution for that. The Minister has missed a trick here. She should continue with short-term exemptions until she can get on top of the waiting list.

I will correct the Minister's party colleague, who said that the numbers are now similar to those pre-COVID. We are testing less than we did pre-COVID, according to my reading of the motion, unless I have read it wrongly. It talks about a reduction from the pre-COVID numbers. If that is the case, it is an indictment of the Department. Maybe the Minister will address that in her contribution.

As I look around me, there are not many Members here who look close to 17 or 18 years of age. There is a degree of excitement when that time comes. [Interruption.]

No, definitely not. [Laughter.]

I did not want to call the Member out.

Mr Speaker: It is a distant memory for many.

Mr Clarke: It may be a distant memory for us all, but I can clearly remember it. I remember the excitement of that time coming up to 17, but that has now been dashed. I have heard from people who, in the midst of the coronavirus regulations, had come to the magical age of 17 but had to wait for another year. In the grand scheme of things, that may not be the most important thing, but, as Mr Beggs mentioned, there are, for example, people who have gone through their education and want to work in domiciliary care but cannot do so unless they have their driving licence.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He has touched on a very important point that has been of great concern to the Committee. There are young people who have waited, perhaps, for a year to get their test. They are experiencing mental anxiety and, unfortunately, due to nerves, may fail the test and have to wait for a time, paying again for lessons, with no test available in the short term. That adds to their anxiety and fear, and it is a huge concern.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an additional minute.

Mr Clarke: Absolutely. That takes me back to November/December 1985, when I failed my test: I got to do it again in February. Now, however, in the same scenario, you will wait much longer. I know that, in the grand scheme of things, that may not seem important.

I suspect that the Minister muddied the waters at one stage when she talked about increasing the period from one year to two years: I am against that. You cannot say that you are up for safer roads and safer standards and then increase the MOT period to two years. Someone else referred to what has happened in England: they have continued with business as usual, but, of course, they have an added complication that we do not have, which is that their cars come due for MOT a year sooner than ours. There is already a difference between here and the mainland, and it is probably more important to look at that, as opposed to making roads and cars safer. Obviously, we cannot do that at the moment.

Ms Hunter talked about us running away, but the Minister has had this problem for two years, and it is still not fixed. Whilst some may accuse us of running away, the Minister has been responsible for her Department for two years. The problem has not gone away; indeed, it is getting worse. I look forward to hearing those innovative and creative ideas for fixing the problems and coming up with solutions. We cannot continue in the way that we are.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Clarke: I will, yes.

Mr Beggs: As I said, in GB they have dispensed with light trailer testing, which frees up the testers to deal with the waiting list. Why are we not doing that? On top of that, there is no need for the drivers of wedding and funeral cars to have a taxi licence. I have even learned of advanced drivers failing the theory test, yet they are perfectly good drivers. We need to adopt what has worked elsewhere.

Mr Clarke: I concur with the Member. I raised the issue of the trailer test with the Minister, but she was not minded to do that here. Today is an opportunity for her to say why that is and why she is not taking on some of the suggestions that the Member makes. All those things will reduce the numbers of people waiting.

I support the thrust of the motion.

Mrs Erskine: Although I am not a member of the Infrastructure Committee, I commend it for bringing the motion to the House. I also pay tribute to the DVA staff.

I will just paint a picture of the situation that faces my rural constituents. The Member rightly raised the issue of theory testing in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Many constituents have been in touch with me, exasperated, frustrated and angry that they cannot access testing appointments in a timely manner. Fermanagh and South Tyrone residents are disadvantaged, especially when it comes to MOTs. They have been told to meet appointments that involve travelling as far away as Ballymena, Downpatrick and Mallusk: lovely places but difficult for my residents of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It takes a resident of Belleek, for example, two hours to travel to Ballymena. From Derrygonnelly to Downpatrick takes two hours and 15 minutes of travel. From Maguiresbridge to Mallusk takes an hour and a half. Those times are one way so, if you live in those areas of my constituency, you essentially lose a day's work to get an MOT test, and it costs more in fuel. Is there any redress for people in my area who have had to make those journeys through no fault of their own?

Someone in Fermanagh and South Tyrone whose MOT expires on 17 February cannot get an MOT appointment until 6 May. Those reports have been covered in the local newspapers, and it is not good reading for the Department for Infrastructure. In an area where bus routes are limited and there are no trains, how are people to get their shopping or their pension or meet hospital appointments? It is a particular difficulty for my young constituents, who have difficulty in accessing work due to transport difficulties and are unable to access driving tests in a timely way.

I also want to raise an issue regarding the theory test. People have to travel, again, to access them, and I ask the Minister to provide an update on what her Department has done to alleviate the problems. How and why has she allowed this situation to develop, and what answers can she provide to my rural constituents? Many in my constituency rely on their cars and vehicles, and, without them, there is social isolation. This issue goes beyond simply getting an MOT or a driving test.

When it comes to the MOT backlog, garage owners have rightly raised real concerns. They fear that people will continue to drive their cars when there might be an unknown fault or, indeed, through necessity, in a rural area. MOTs ensure that there is car safety and flag up motoring issues that motorists might not otherwise be aware of to ensure that their cars are roadworthy. However, in my constituency, garage owners say that this is affecting their livelihoods. Last year, a garage owner was in contact in desperation, looking to get an MOT test for a person buying a second-hand car. They were afraid of losing some of their second-hand car trade as a result of the difficulties of getting MOT bookings.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that the vast network of second-hand car dealers has faced significant challenges in accessing MOTs to enable them to sell cars? It would be important to hear an update from the Minister on her engagement with that sector at this difficult time.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an additional minute.

Mrs Erskine: Yes, absolutely. We have heard that second-hand car trade has increased during the pandemic. That point is important, because, as was touched on earlier, the fact that people are buying second-hand cars will add to the backlog. In the case of the small rural garage dealer that I spoke of, the loss of trade equated to £30,000. That may seem insignificant to some people, but it was a lot for that business and stressful for the owners. The issue is affecting livelihoods. The delay is costly, and that is why the Minister must act. We have heard about temporary exemption certificates, and different solutions have been bandied about in the House today. For the sake of my Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituents, I ask the Minister to act on what is a real problem.

Mr Speaker: I invite the Minister for Infrastructure, Nichola Mallon, to respond. The Minister has 15 minutes.

Ms Mallon (The Minister for Infrastructure): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Committee for Infrastructure for tabling the motion and for its positive framing, which recognises, as Members have, the incredibly hard work that our DVA staff have been doing over a sustained period and after significant disruption to what is a high-volume, public-facing service.

As Members will know, driving tests and vehicle tests are high-demand public services that have been badly disrupted as a result of the unprecedented pandemic. Driving tests have been suspended for a total of around 10 months, and vehicle tests have been delivered at a significantly reduced capacity to comply with public health advice and guidance. Like all public-facing services across these islands, DVA services are experiencing high levels of demand that are unprecedented.

We are still in the midst of the pandemic, and the DVA continues to put in place measures to maximise capacity and minimise disruption while keeping customers and staff safe. The challenge of delivering the services remains, and my officials monitor closely the impact of omicron on staff absence levels, particularly where absences may impact on the delivery of front-line services such as driving tests and vehicle tests. I thank all the DVA staff, who are working so hard and flexibly through the pandemic to provide services to customers whilst keeping themselves and customers safe. They certainly have not been doing nothing; in fact, they have put in a series of measures and continue to do so.

The DVA continues to work hard to increase its capacity to meet the high demand for driving tests for all customers, including those who are required to take a further driving test. In the first full eight months since driving tests resumed on 23 April, the DVA conducted 46,525 driving tests, which is 39% higher than the five-year average for that period.

The DVA currently has 42 full-time driving examiners and 43 dual-role examiners who conduct vehicle and driving tests and can be utilised across the network of test centres to meet driver testing demand. The DVA is completing an external recruitment competition for 16 new full-time driving examiners to be assigned across the network of test centres. That will increase the overall full-time driving examiner capacity by approximately 40%. In addition to the recruitment of additional examiners, the DVA will continue to offer driving tests on Saturdays and, in certain centres, Sundays, where it is suitable to do so. Overtime is also being used to rota off-shift dual-role driving examiners to provide cover for scheduled driving tests where, due to a variety of unforeseen reasons such as sickness absence or the requirement to self-isolate, driving examiners are unable to attend work.

The DVA releases private car driving test appointments five months in advance on the first working day of each month, and additional test slots are released as resources become available. Due to the constantly changing position, customers are advised to check the online booking system regularly. They may also wish to consider booking a test at another centre.

Of the 46,525 driving tests that have been conducted since services resumed on 23 April, over 9,000 candidates who failed their driving test have successfully booked a second test and, of that number, over 5,000 have gone on to book a third or subsequent driving test. Those figures show that a significant number of candidates have been able to book a further test or tests in a relatively short time, because they have the same unrestricted access to the booking system as anyone else.

I recognise that nerves play their part for everyone who takes a driving test. It is important to point out, however, that a candidate must commit more than 15 minor driving faults or one serious or dangerous driving fault to fail a driving test. Generally, serious and dangerous driving faults are not caused by nerves but by poor driving due to the candidate either lacking concentration or not being properly prepared for the test. I therefore consider that prioritising driving tests for those who have already failed a test, particularly that minority who have failed to prepare properly, would be unfair to the many candidates who have waited patiently to take their first test.

It is also important to point out that figures show that, for private car candidates who failed their first test between 1 October and 31 December, the average number of days that it took to book a subsequent test following an initial fail is as follows: from the first to the second appointment, the average waiting time was 21 days; from the second to the third appointment, the average waiting time was 19 days; and, from the third to the fourth appointment, the average waiting time was 17 days. Those facts demonstrate that the processes that DVA has been able to apply are having a positive impact on reducing the waiting times for drivers who fail their first driving test.

I will turn to vehicle testing. On Monday 26 July 2021, the DVA reinstated normal vehicle test times. That increased capacity across the network of test centres. From 1 September to 31 December, the DVA conducted 264,540 full vehicle tests, which is 8% more than the five-year average for those months.

Mr Beggs: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Mallon: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Beggs: Does the Minister accept that the five-year average is much lower because there are more cars on the road and much greater demand? The important figure is not the five-year average but the number of applications and the number of tests that are delivered.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question.

Mr Clarke: Will the Minister give way on the same point?

Ms Mallon: Yes.

Mr Clarke: Does the Minister also accept that the five-year period from which she has taken those figures covers the period when the centres were shut?

Ms Mallon: The point is that some Members are of the view that we are conducting far fewer tests than previously. The facts that I stated demonstrate that, despite mitigations having to be put in place and despite the fact that DVA workers have been working long hours and additional measures are being put in place, we are conducting over and beyond pre-pandemic levels. We are not just accepting that and standing still. As I outlined, we have recruited additional examiners and are using off-rota deployment. We are providing additional capacity where we can, and we continue to do what we can to maximise capacity and minimise disruption.

Mr Delargy: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Mallon: Yes, of course.

Mr Delargy: Minister, I come back to a point that I wanted to raise earlier. A huge number of young people from my constituency cannot get to school or university or take on part-time jobs because they cannot get their test. I was therefore very pleased to hear that one innovative solution that was talked about was that additional testers would be put in place. I hope that, when that is done, there will be a guarantee that at least some of those testers will be deployed to Derry to make sure that the backlog, which seems to be more stark in my constituency than in others, is tackled.

Ms Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. As I outlined, we continue to recruit additional examiners. Since driving tests resumed, the DVA has conducted 4,320 driving tests from the Altnagelvin and New Buildings test centres in Derry. That number is over 33% higher than the five-year average. Of course I recognise the frustrations faced by first-time drivers, but we continue to put additional capacity in place to try to alleviate frustration and minimise disruption.

I will go back to vehicle testing, which is an issue that was raised by a number of Members. The DVA has steadily increased its vehicle-testing capacity by adopting a range of measures, including the recruitment of additional vehicle examiners, the use of overtime to provide cover for leave and sick absence and a reduction in the vehicle test appointment time. The DVA is also offering vehicle test appointments on Sundays and bank holidays at most test centres. Following the conversion of an adjoining building at the New Buildings test centre, additional testing capacity has been made available to meet demand in the north-west.

The DVA releases vehicle test appointments each day. Customers are encouraged to regularly check the booking system, as they are able to change existing appointments to a different test centre and time if a slot becomes available. We are also issuing reminders earlier than previously, which recognises the point that Mr Muir made.

The DVA's resourcing position remains fluid. The DVA has completed the recruitment of 37 full-time vehicle examiners, which will help to meet the demand for vehicle tests. So far, 29 of those vehicle examiners have been posted to test centres. The other eight, who finished their training last Friday, will take up their posts this week. Further training courses are being scheduled for February and March.

The DVA is experiencing significant demand for vehicle testing services. In some cases, customers may not be able to have their vehicles tested before their current MOT certificate expires. I know that that is an issue of concern to Members. In such cases, I ask them to encourage their constituents to book the earliest available test appointment for their vehicle. That may mean travelling to another test centre instead of their preferred location. The DVA has consulted the PSNI and the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to make them aware of the current position. The PSNI has agreed not to penalise a driver of a vehicle whose MOT has expired, so long as the vehicle is in a roadworthy and safe condition, the vehicle is properly insured, and the driver can provide proof that a test appointment has been booked. The ABI view is that not having a valid MOT certificate would not necessarily invalidate your insurance, but customers should check their policy documents or speak to their insurer if they find themselves in that position. The ABI has confirmed, however, that it is a condition of insurance that owners maintain their vehicles in a roadworthy condition.

Members will know that vehicle tax is a reserved matter under the DVLA, operating on behalf of Treasury, but the DVA's advice to customers who need to tax their vehicle and cannot secure an MOT date before their MOT expires is to book the earliest available appointment and check the booking system for an appointment before their MOT expires. If you get to within five days of the expiry date of your tax and have not been able to secure an MOT appointment, or if your tax has expired, contact dva.customerservices@infrastructure-ni.gov.uk, and the DVA will do its best to get an urgent appointment for your vehicle. I assure all Members that, to date, all customers who have used that process and contacted the DVA in those circumstances have been offered an earlier appointment. Any customer requiring an MOT to tax their vehicle will be given priority. Leaflets including that information are being issued by the DVA to customers with their MOT reminder notices. Details are also available on the nidirect website and are being communicated through social media channels.

Mr Beggs raised the issue of systemic change. Members will be aware that, in August 2021, I issued a call for evidence on the potential introduction of biennial MOT testing for private cars, light goods vehicles and motorcycles. That ran for eight weeks, and I am pleased to say that some 1,200-odd consultation responses were received. Those responses are being analysed, and a synopsis of the results will be published shortly. For me, road safety remains a priority. I remind drivers and riders that, regardless of the frequency of MOT testing, the statutory responsibility to ensure that a vehicle is roadworthy rests with the owner at all times. Any subsequent introduction of biennial vehicle testing would require the development of primary legislation, which would not be deliverable in the current Assembly mandate.

One of the suggestions made by Members previously, although not here today, was to use approved driving instructors to conduct driving tests. That is not possible under the legislation. In fact, under the legislation, driving instructors cannot act as driving examiners. To do so, they would be required to resign from being a driving instructor, which would have an impact on the people who are waiting to take their driving test in the first instance. However, we, of course, examined that as a potential option. The other issue that was raised by Mr Beggs was the privatisation of the DVA. That is the model that is used in England, where you can take your car to a private garage. The issue of the DVA delivery model was scrutinised under a previous Minister, and the public-sector model was the recommended way forward.

It is my policy preference that DVA remains in the public sector, but, of course, if a subsequent Infrastructure Minister wished to take a different course of action, it would be for them to have that discussion with their Executive colleagues.

I have to say that there is tension about the extension of temporary exemption certificates. I am conscious that, in some ways, Members are telling me that they are opposed to the move to biennial testing because of the impact that it would have on road safety and on private garages, but, at the same time, they are calling for TECs to be utilised once again in order to try to deal with the situation. The truth is that we do not have the vires to do that. The legal vires to issue TECs no longer exist now that normal test times have resumed. I also have to constantly balance the road safety concerns with that call. As Members have said, as a result of the lift situation and the pandemic, we have issued a number of TECs. I think that Members will agree that, in that context, it is important that vehicles are brought forward for testing for road safety purposes.

Mrs Erskine raised the theory test, and you will know where all the test centres are located. They are all located within 40 miles of constituents. The balance in this matter is between the provision of additional test centres, the additional costs that would be incurred and those costs then being passed on to the customer. I am keeping the issue under review.

In closing, I thank Members for their acknowledgement of the Committee's hard work. I am always open to hearing the Committee's suggestions about what we can do that is beyond what we are currently doing, what is legal and will not counterbalance road safety. I thank the Committee, and I look forward to continuing to work with it on this and many other matters.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister for that contribution, and I call the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure, David Hilditch. The Member has 10 minutes to conclude and wind up the debate.

Mr Hilditch (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I welcome the Minister and thank her for her attendance in the Chamber this morning. I will make some remarks first as an individual Member.

I recognise the range of measures that the Minister has adopted to lessen the burden, such as the recruitment of additional vehicle examiners and the use of overtime to provide cover for sick and leave absence, making additional vehicle test slots available in most centres. Further slots may also be made available due to cancellations and by offering vehicle test appointments on Sundays at most test centres and on bank holidays when testing is not normally available. However, through my constituency office, I am contacted day and daily by concerned members of the public who still cannot access an MOT appointment. There are a number of people who cannot, for various reasons, access the internet. That completely excludes them from the process of booking an MOT test. One issue is communication. I attempted to use the advice phone number, from which I was signposted via an automated message to a lengthy website address that the Minister was able to read from the page in front of her. That is quite difficult, especially when the call is cut off. That is not good enough. We are excluding a significant portion of our society. The current phone booking system is not fit for purpose.

The pandemic showed us that those digital forms of communication are not available or accessible to everyone. Digital exclusion in later life has become starkly apparent. Research by the Centre for Ageing Better emphasised the significant digital divide amongst 50- to 70-year-olds and how it has worsened because of COVID. The Department needs to do better and make the booking process accessible to everyone.

Another issue is insurance. I appreciate that the DVA has consulted with the PSNI and the Association of British Insurers to make them aware of the current position that the Department is in with delays. Although the Association of British Insurers says that its members would take a pragmatic view until the delays are resolved, there are too many grey areas that have left motorists in limbo and wary about the process. I have been contacted by people who have been unable to access an MOT test for months. They do not wish to take the risk and are, therefore, left without any form of transport.

Another issue is tax. Without an MOT, you cannot get your vehicle taxed. That is handled by the agency in Swansea, as has been stated. If your vehicle is not taxed, legally you have to declare that and take it off the road, and you are at risk of being subject to fines.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hilditch: Certainly.

Mr Clarke: Does the Member accept that the Minister has been fairly dismissive of some of the suggestions that have been made in the debate and even of the Association of British Insurers and the grey area to which he has referred? Does the Member accept my assertion that the Minister has been dismissive of some of those suggestions and has disregarded the concerns of many members of the public about all the problems that they face?

Mr Hilditch: I agree with the Member about the difficulties that members of the public face. They really need to be dealt with by the Department.

It is essential that the Minister works with DVLA to address the unfair penalties that have been issued due to the poor management of the Department, which are completely out of the drivers' control.

Another issue is that driver tests are being cut short. If the pupil makes a mistake in the first five minutes, the test is basically over. The test experience is essentially for learning, and for that to be cut short is leaving certain pupils at a disadvantage.

Whilst I acknowledge the difficult circumstances that the Minister has operated in and the work that she has done to date, the cocktail of examples that I have provided shows the extent of the failings, which are directly impacting on the most vulnerable in our society. I call for the support of other Members to pass the motion and call:

I will now speak as Deputy Chair. We have heard much today about the impact of the pandemic on the work of the DVA and on the individuals who use its services. I, too, praise the staff of the agency for their diligence and hard work in what has been an unprecedented and difficult time.

The words of my fellow Committee members stand as a testament to the importance placed on the issue by our Committee and to our in-depth scrutiny. Since the start of the pandemic, the Committee for Infrastructure has continually asked for the Department's mitigation plans. The Committee and all Members here will have heard from constituents who have felt the impact of the DVA backlogs. We have not been able to offer them solutions coming from the Department; instead, we have had to advise them to hold on for a little longer and that, sooner or later, they will move up the list. As Members know, we can do that for a while, but, after that, members of the public, understandably, expect to see improvements.

The Department has had two years to think of ways out of the situation. However, as we have heard, the difficulties, the waiting lists and the impact on individuals remain. The mitigations that have been put in place by the Department are not enough to ensure that an end to the backlog is in sight. As we have heard from members of the Committee, we have had rolling exemptions and increased opening hours. However, as outlined in the Committee's motion, it is now time:

Given the hardship that has been caused, the economic cost and the constant requests by the Committee, we ask the Minister to please act. It is often said that to repeat the same actions over and over again and expect a different result is a sign of madness.

Mr Catney: I thank the Member for giving way. I am not a member of the Committee, but I think that there is some politicking going on here. To be honest, some parties walked away from their responsibilities. This SDLP Minister stood up, faced them, answered them and showed you that there is an increase. Please stop politicking. [Interruption.]

Mr Hilditch: I am sorry that I gave way to you there.

Mr Catney: Stop it then.

Mr Hilditch: Stop what?

Mr Boylan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hilditch: Stop what?

Mr Speaker: Order, Members.

Mr Hilditch: There is no politicking in the Chamber here. As you can see, the Committee has widespread party membership, so, for you to get up and make those accusations is totally wrong.

Mr Catney: It is not wrong.

Mr Hilditch: It is wrong. It is wrong.

Mr Speaker: Order, Members. Mr Hilditch, resume your seat. Mr Catney.

Mr Boylan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Speaker: Mr Boylan, behave.

I want Members to stick to the agenda, stick to the Order Paper, stick to the running order and stick to good behaviour in the Chamber. We will go back to Mr Hilditch.

Mr Boylan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hilditch: Yes.

Mr Boylan: Apologies, Mr Speaker.

A couple of Committee members talked earlier about innovative measures. Over the last 12 or 18 months, we, as a Committee, have never got an answer from the Minister on the theory test centre in Fermanagh. There is also the issue of biennial testing, which Members may agree or disagree with. Mr Beggs suggested the extension of temporary certificates. Those things were talked about, and departmental officials listen in every week. We suggested solutions. They may not have worked, but the Member has to agree, no matter what any other Member has said and not to deflate the tyres on the vehicles of Mr Muir or Ms Hunter, who sat on the Committee too, that we brought forward suggestions and solutions. That cannot be denied.

Mr Hilditch: I certainly agree with the Member. This is a cross-party issue at the Committee. Nobody is in any doubt about that.

We have all lived with the pandemic for two years. A year and a half ago, the Committee drew the Minister's attention to the issues and the detail, and it has continued to do so. Surely the Minister and her officials have now been able to find better ways to deal with the issue. The contributions in the Chamber today have acknowledged the areas of concern and echoed the calls for action. I therefore urge the Minister for Infrastructure to recognise those factors and take action. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Speaker: I thank Members for their contributions, more or less.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease for a moment or two.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The next items of business are motions to approve four statutory rules (SRs), all of which relate to the health protection regulations. There will be a single debate on all four motions. The Minister will move the first motion and then commence the debate on the motions listed in the Order Paper. When all Members who wish to speak have done so, I shall put the Question on the first motion. I will then call the Minister to move the second motion. The Question will be put on that motion, and the process will be repeated for the remaining statutory rules. If that is clear to Members, we will proceed.

Mr Swann (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Swann: Today, Members are considering four statutory rules that are narrow in scope and that implement the decisions of the Executive taken on 20 January 2022 to ease the restrictions. SR 2022/6, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2021 (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022, was made on 14 January 2022. SR 2022/11, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022, was made on 21 January 2022 and came into operation at noon on the same day. SR 2022/12, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2021 (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022, was made on 21 January and came into operation at noon on that day. SR 2022/16, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2021 (Amendment No. 3) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022, was made on 26 January 2022.

At their meeting on 20 January, the Executive were given an update by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and the Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA), who confirmed that Northern Ireland was likely to be past the peak in case numbers, although it remained a possibility that case numbers could rebound due to the impact of the return of schools. They also advised that hospital admissions and bed occupancy as a result of community transmission of COVID had peaked and were beginning to fall slowly. The data showed that a rise in COVID ICU occupancy was not expected in this wave and that the amendments to the regulations were a balanced and proportionate intervention based on the best available evidence.

Taking into account the improved outlook in hospital pressures, the Executive decided to relax some restrictions. They also decided that the requirement to provide proof of exemption from wearing a face covering should be removed and that the reasonable excuse of severe distress be reintroduced to the regulations. Therefore, while the requirement to provide proof of exemption may no longer apply, the other provisions remain.

Turning to the regulations that are the subject of debate today, with your permission, I will take the three coronavirus restrictions amendments first, followed by the amendment relating to face coverings.

The first set of amended regulations today is the amendment No. 6, which made minor amendments to ensure that the regulations fully aligned with the policy intent and did not make any substantive change to the restrictions. The amendments were, first, to amend the language used to describe how a person must remain in their seat in a theatre, concert hall, conference or exhibition venue or similar venue except to access their seat. They replaced the reference to accessing a table, which was relevant to a hospitality setting but not a performance venue. Secondly, they corrected the drafting of regulation 11, which had inadvertently become corrupted in the preparation of the regulations for publication. None of the changes made altered the policy intent.

The amendment (No. 2) regulations removed the requirement to be seated in performance venues and hospitality settings and removed the maximum number that can be seated at a table.

The amendment (No. 3) regulations amend the principal regulations to permit dancing in hospitality and other venues and the reopening of nightclubs. They amend the requirement for COVID status certification so that that applies only to nightclubs and indoor unseated or partially seated events with 500 people or more. They make an amendment so that failure to comply with regulation 3 is not an offence; that is to say that it is not an offence for a person responsible for a shop to breach their duty to take responsible measures to limit the transmission of the virus. They remove a statutory requirement for those responsible for office premises to have social distancing measures in place.

The amendment to the wearing of face coverings regulations removes the requirement to provide proof of exemption if requested by a relevant person and reinstates the reasonable excuse of severe distress.

As has been the case throughout the pandemic, any restrictions will be subject to regular review by the Executive. Likewise, all Ministers have repeatedly said that we will not retain restrictions for a day longer than is necessary. As always, if we are to step our way out of restrictions, both personal and public responsibility is required. I again take the opportunity to urge everyone to continue to make safer choices and follow the public health advice. Doing that will not only help to keep you, your families and others safe; you will undoubtedly play your part in keeping our society and economy open and in reducing the pressures that our health system faces as we move into the time of year that increases the pressures on our health service and its workers.

I commend the regulations to the Assembly.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I will make some brief remarks as the Chair of the Health Committee before making some comments as my party's health spokesperson.

The Committee welcomes the fact that we are in a place where we can look at lifting restrictions. We have got to that point thanks to the vast majority of the population following the guidance and rules through difficult and challenging times. I thank every one of them for their patience over this period. We are also at that point thanks to the vaccination programme, and I thank all those who took part in the vaccination programme, including GPs and their staff, pharmacies and other vaccinators in our centres and mobile teams. I continue to encourage people to get their vaccinations and boosters when they can. We are also at that point thanks to our Health and Social Care (HSC) staff, who cared for our most vulnerable, our families and our friends, often when we were unable to do so.

I thank them for all their work and for the support that they provided and continue to provide to our families and communities throughout the pandemic.

While it is welcome that we are considering the easing of restrictions, we are not through the pandemic yet. We have a consistent number of people — over 300 — in our hospitals with COVID, and we are seeing COVID-related deaths daily. Therefore, it is important that we all continue to play our part and follow the guidance, including wearing masks, social distancing and having good hand hygiene.

The Committee was briefed by officials on the statutory rules on 3 February. The Committee welcomes the clarity provided by the amendment that deals with the wearing of face coverings. That removes the requirement to provide proof of exemption and reinstates the reasonable excuse of severe distress. That issue caused the Committee some concern during its consideration of a previous statutory rule, and it welcomes the clarity provided by the amended rule.

I ask the Minister to provide some clarity on the process for bringing forward further COVID rules if there is no First Minister or deputy First Minister in place. It would be useful to hear from the Minister what powers there are to bring forward further rules.

The Committee considered the statutory rules and agreed that it was content for the rules to be approved by the Assembly.

I will now make some brief remarks as Sinn Féin's spokesperson for health. Many of the changes relate to the lifting of restrictions and the easing of some requirements. The Assembly and virtually all Members, at some point or another, have stressed that the restrictions should not be in place for any longer than they need to be. Given the evidence and advice to lift the restrictions, their lifting is, indeed, to be welcomed.

I also welcome the clarification of and changes that have been made to the face-covering regulations and the lifting of some restrictions on hospitality. However, the possibility of the further easing of restrictions may be in some doubt. As we debate the lifting of restrictions that affect hospitality and some of the most vulnerable, it has not gone unnoticed that the DUP seems intent on restricting the ability of the House and the Executive to deliver for people. I look forward to the Health Minister's announcement on the legal advice that he has sought on the making of future regulations.

Obviously, a lot of the focus today is on the regulations and the legal powers within them on, for example, the lifting of social-distancing requirements in nightclubs, workplaces and hospitality and entertainment settings. However, I and others are struck by the fact that, more than a week after the Minister stated that he had approved a plan to reopen day centres and respite services, we have seen nothing to date. The current guidance and direction are not contained in legislation, yet, as we ease restrictions on nightclubs and other hospitality settings, day centres and respite services are no better off than they were last week or last month. I plead with the Minister to make his plan public and to act urgently on something that is within his power to provide relief and respite to hard-pressed carers.

Mrs Cameron: First, I express my condolences to those who lost loved ones in recent weeks as the result of COVID-19. While society continues to embrace a return to normality, it is important to remember that there are those who mourn and for whom that return to normality will be more difficult, having suffered loss. Furthermore, it is worth reiterating our support for front-line healthcare workers who continue to care for those with COVID-19 in our hospitals, for those who work in the care home sector and, indeed, for all those who are involved in management across the trusts, as they battle winter and pandemic pressures in light of high levels of staff absence. A huge thank you must go to all those, at every level of the health service, who have been at the coalface of the pandemic. We owe a great deal of gratitude to each and every one of those individuals.

The amendments represent, once more, the improving situation and the step-by-step return to what we once took for granted. The previous time that I spoke in the Chamber on COVID regulations, I spoke of the devastating impact that the pandemic, and the regulations that had been brought forward, had had on our hospitality industry. I do not need to repeat my previous comments, but I add that the progress in these amendments — on table numbers, seating requirements, dancing, the reopening of nightclubs and so on — is a welcome boost to the hospitality sector and, indeed, to all in wider society who enjoy a night out or catching up with friends.

The reinstatement of severe distress as an exemption to the wearing of face coverings and the removal of the offence that went with that particularly bad move is very much welcomed.

We must continue to look at ways of supporting our hospitality sector to recover. In that regard, I know that my colleagues at Westminster are lobbying for the VAT reduction to 12·5% to be extended to at least the end of this year. That would be a great help to local businesses, and I trust that the Finance Minister is making similar representations to the Treasury on that matter. It is now my hope that the Health Minister can use the powers that I hope he has — I look forward to getting clarity on that — to move ahead with the withdrawal of the remaining regulations and to take that final step, as a society, back to normality.

For the past two years, the Minister has repeatedly said that he will not play party politics with the pandemic. I shared that view and worked with him throughout that challenging time. On occasion, I could have chosen to disagree with the Minister, but I stood with him, as many of us did, in order to combat and get through COVID-19. For anyone to play politics now with the removal of regulations would be entirely wrong, so I welcome the comments made by the Minister yesterday that he believes, as I do, that the restrictions must be lifted this week and that he will endeavour to do so. Reaching this point in the pathway out of the pandemic is very welcome for every person in Northern Ireland who wants our home lives, workplaces and social lives to return to normal and who wants to see our young people and children back enjoying the full experience of the youth that they deserve to enjoy.

We have always said that restrictions should be in place only for as long as is strictly necessary. Therefore, we welcome the Minister's announcement earlier this week. We want the direction of travel that the Minister has outlined and to which he has committed to become irreversible. As vaccination rates remain high and natural immunity increases, there should be a shift to encouraging responsible personal choices and providing very clear guidance. It is important that any legal advice that the Minister has commissioned also clarifies the basis for reintroducing restrictions or extending powers, should a new and serious wave of the virus emerge in the coming weeks and months. I support the motions before us today.

Mr McGrath: I welcome the opportunity to speak on these statutory rules today. I am fully aware that they allow for the easing of some restrictions that have since been amended, but that is the nature of the legislative process that we have dealt with over the past two years. In summary, the first statutory rule that we are discussing today is a technical amendment, the second one removes the need to be seated and the cap on the number of people at tables, and the third permits dancing and live music once again. The last one relates to face coverings. It removes the requirement to prove an exemption and allows for a reasonable excuse for not wearing a face covering. We will, of course, support those statutory rules today, as we have throughout the past two years.

It has been a period of unprecedented crisis and, for some of us at least, continuous learning, such is the nature of an unknown and unseen virus. It forces us to constantly have to respond to its evolving presence, and, as the Health Minister detailed for us, it has been through the collective efforts of everybody working together that we have been able to turn this corner today.

We all have been working together for the past two years, but today we heard that, even without a First Minister and a deputy First Minister, the Health Minister may be able to remove further restrictions. The public will welcome that. Businesses will certainly welcome it, though, as the Health Minister rightly said, it cannot be a free-for-all. The public have worked with us for the past two years. They distanced themselves from their families and friends and did every single thing that we asked of them. We were truly all in it together. However, at the last minute, the DUP has walked away. Suddenly, the hard Brexit that it championed seems to be more important than the COVID restrictions and public health. I wonder whether that has been the case —

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Certainly.

Mrs Erskine: Does the Member agree that, while my colleagues and I are here, we are debating legislation, and that legislation will go through, we cannot forget that the protocol is costing £2·5 million per day in Northern Ireland? Yet I am here and debating important legislation today. I have not walked away, and certainly the DUP will continue to debate legislation here.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for her intervention. She may be right about the costs associated with the protocol. Say that to the families —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order. I encourage Members to come back to this debate, not to have a debate about the protocol. I ask Members to concentrate on the COVID regulations that are in front of them.

Mr McGrath: Say that to the family whose family member has died. Say to a relative of someone who has died as a result of the pandemic, which we have tried to prevent with these regulations, that financial issues in another policy area should impact on our capacity to legislate on this matter. The families of those who died will not find much comfort in it being argued that, somehow or other, there is a legitimisation of another policy area and that it can impact on this one. They would struggle with that.

The regulations that we discuss today — I do not want to deviate from the business at hand — have been a key tool in our fight against COVID. When the leader of the DUP was all over the media last week saying that, in removing the First Minister, he had allowed the Health Minister to remain in post so that he could do the business, that was generous of him. However, if you can excuse my frustration, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say that it is the business of this place to legislate for the good of people. If our COVID response is to work, this place must work in the entirety of its parts. If some parties feel that their narrow, blinkered agenda is more important than the health of the public and our education services, perhaps they need to reassess why they are here in the first place.

We will support these regulations and do what we can to continue to help our communities to get through the COVID pandemic.

Mr Chambers: We have asked families across Northern Ireland to make many personal sacrifices in their daily lives over the last two years, in particular with regard to the education of their children and grandchildren. Those with loved ones in residential care were hard hit by the restrictions that had to be imposed on visiting to prevent the transmission of COVID into those vulnerable settings.

We also asked the public, when the game changer of vaccination came along, to avail themselves of the vaccine, and they did so in their tens of thousands. We owe a debt of gratitude to that public cooperation. Unfortunately, many others took a different view, but that was their choice.

The very fact that we are here today discussing relaxations in the regulations and guidance around COVID is due to public adherence and to the dedication of our health and social care staff and volunteers, who not only nursed the sick at great personal risk at times but rolled out the vaccination programme, which was such a huge success and a credit to everyone involved.

The Minister of Health has maybe been placed in a difficult position by the events of the last few days. He has made it clear in his public statements over the last few days that he is keen to see the regulations being relaxed as far as they can be at this time. I hope that that legal advice does allow him to repeal regulations that, we cannot forget, were put in place at the will of the entire Executive. I hope that the legal eagles will take the view that it would be well in the public interest to allow the Minister to intervene on an individual basis and to repeal and relax the regulations.

I have put this on record many times, but we cannot put it on record often enough: the House sends its sympathy to all those who have lost loved ones. I know many families who have lost mothers, grandmothers and fathers during this terrible pandemic. We must also not forget the hundreds of people who are still suffering from the various long-term symptoms that they have been left with because of the virus. The medical profession does not have all the instant answers to that, but I am sure that there is a lot of research going on in the background to find ways to help those people who are still suffering from the effects of COVID.

Finally, we cannot put on record often enough our absolute gratitude to all the staff in our health and social care system. Pharmacists, doctors, GPs, nurses, health visitors — I do not want to leave people out — and the entire health and social care family have really stepped up to the plate and, at times, at personal risk. Once again, I put on record my personal gratitude and that of the Ulster Unionist Party. Today, we certainly support the Minister in all his efforts to relax the regulations.

Ms Armstrong: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I will support the regulations today. The last time these regulations were debated, we were all aware that the changes that we are now seeing and that are being debated would be coming, so I do not intend to repeat many of the points that were made previously by my colleague Paula Bradshaw MLA.

It is worth following the logic. We have moved to allow some venues that were closed to open, subject to presentation of a relevant COVID pass, and we have allowed venues that were already open, by and large, to operate free from COVID passes and the rule of six. It may be noted that COVID passes remain a recommendation. Venues may feel that they may benefit from using them as a risk-reducing mitigation, but it is now left to them to use their judgement.

The changes to the face coverings regulations are the ones that my colleague Paula Bradshaw spoke about during a previous debate. Alliance was never totally convinced that the Christmas changes in that area would be practicably implementable — that is hard to say. The announcement of changes caused genuine stress to many, and they will welcome this absolute confirmation that they will not be pursued. These regulations constitute a very sensible way out of restrictions. They allow for significant and greater freedoms to be restored while leaving measures in place that will restrict spread and act as a clear and present reminder to the public that there is a declining but still very present risk from the virus to public health.

As we all know, we were due to take further steps on 10 February, but some have opted to make that difficult and leave those decisions on the shoulders of the Minister of Health. Suffice to say that health is Alliance's priority, even if it is not the priority of others.

For clarity, these regulations apply predominantly to hospitality venues, with some technical changes applying to areas such as the vehicle used for driving instruction. None of them applies to schools. What is going on in schools is, first, instructive. Secondly, it is highly frustrating for those working in schools that the provision and use of filtration or ventilation systems seem to be sporadic, and many teachers are left baffled as to what the strategy is. Regulations are clearly in place to reduce the spread in other public spaces, yet that is not evident to many schoolteachers. There is a very practical impact. Many teachers get the virus and have to self-isolate, leaving schools short-staffed and constantly playing catch-up. Exam year students are not having the continuity of teaching that they need to prepare them to sit written exams, most for the first time ever. It remains unclear what the strategy in schools is concerning the virus, taking account of the understanding that it is airborne and particularly that omicron is so infectious.

This debate concerns the regulations, and we still have time to consider and plan for what lies ahead, even though we are now in far from ideal circumstances. I trust that planning is ongoing across Health and Education. Like the Chair of the Health Committee, I ask the Minister to clarify what will happen to the restrictions, and their further easing, if a First Minister is not renominated by this Thursday. Can he clarify how they will move forward?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): No other Members have indicated that they wish to speak. I therefore call the Health Minister, Mr Robin Swann, to wind on the debate and conclude the discussion.

Mr Swann: I welcome today's debate on the three amendments to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations and the amendment to the face coverings regulations. I thank Members for their contributions. Ms Armstrong's last question about what will happen is the most pertinent. As yet, I have not received legal advice on what will happen, where the powers lie and what steps I can take. We knew and understood what the process was prior to the First Minister's resignation. Now, however — not for the first time, unfortunately — we are in uncharted waters.

As I said yesterday, it was my intention to go to the Executive this week to advocate the removal of COVID restrictions. In the absence of an Executive, however, I am seeking, as I said, legal guidance on how I can replace the bulk, if not all, of the remaining restrictions with clear guidance and advice. As I said, it would be intolerable if we were to find ourselves in the position of being advised that this week is the time to lift remaining restrictions but had no legal or political mechanism to do so. I await legal advice on what options I currently have. Let me be clear, however: the easiest way to have ensured that the restrictions were lifted would have been not to collapse the Executive last week. As they say, a week is a long time in politics. The Executive were due to meet on Thursday, and that decision could have been made there.

Mr Allister: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Swann: Yes.

Mr Allister: I have two points, if I may. Surely, under all of the regulations, the power is bestowed on the Minister of Health, and, secondly, is it not correct that, given that the enabling legislation has a sunset clause, all regulations will fall upon attaining the sunset date?

Mr Swann: I will respond to those points in reverse order. The current sunset date for the regulations is 24 March. I think that it was Ms Cameron who asked what ability there would be to reintroduce or extend —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order. I ask the Minister to ensure that his microphone is pointing in the appropriate direction so that we can pick him up.

Mr Swann: Apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I think that it was Ms Cameron who asked what ability there would be to reintroduce or extend powers if necessary, should there be another variant or an international requirement. That is also being explored. The basis for the regulations is the Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. As I have always said at the Dispatch Box, all decisions to date have been made by the collective authority of the Executive, so we need to seek legal guidance. The Member will be fully aware that I need to seek that clarification before I can announce any further iterations or make decisions on my own, as Minister of Health.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much for giving way. I want to follow on from the last remarks. Interestingly, if the Health Minister was able to take the decisions all along, he was not the one who was out announcing those to the public and who was seen as the guardian of the public. Other Ministers got out there and took to the fore in order to make sure that they got the limelight for that. Now that they are not in position, it is suddenly your issue, and you have to deal with it.

Will you undertake to publish this week the medical evidence suggesting that the regulations can be relaxed? That is especially important if they are not relaxed because, legally, you cannot do so. It is important that the public realise exactly why, if regulations can be relaxed, that is not being done.

Mr Swann: I thank the Member for that point. He may not be aware, but I thought that, being a member of the Health Committee, he would be, that the Department continues to publish the R paper every week and put it online. The Executive met fortnightly, but we continue to produce that weekly update.

I will return to some of the decisions that demonstrate that anything to do with COVID was a collective responsibility of the Executive.

I remind Members, although they will be fully aware of this, that in, I think, November 2020, a cross-community vote was taken in the Executive not to proceed at a certain point with recommendations that came forward. That demonstrates that, legally, that power rested with the Executive as a body corporate, but, as I said, I have not received the final legal advice on what responsibilities or powers lie with me as a Minister, given where we are politically.

I replicate and reiterate the Chair's words of thanks to the people of Northern Ireland for the steps that they have taken and the dedication and support that they have shown in following the regulations and guidance over the past two years. We need to continue to take those steps because we are not yet completely out of the situation. I encourage anyone who has still to come forward to take part in the vaccination programme, whether that is because they have not started it or still have to complete it, to take the opportunity to do so while the vaccine is here.

The Deputy Chair, Ms Pam Cameron, reminded us that, unfortunately, there are still people losing their lives due to the virus but that there are things that we can all do and continue to do. She is right. I know that there were times when it was difficult for her and her party to support some of the propositions that I was bringing forward, but they did, because we knew that it was right to have that collective support to combat COVID, and we continue to have that. I thank her for the encouragement to seek further guidance on the ability to reintroduce or extend powers should that be necessary, considering where we currently sit.

Mr McGrath's comments re-emphasise the commitment and all-party support that I still see and feel in the House for our health service and those who work in it. I hope that that apolitical support continues over the next weeks and months because it will be crucial as we see what happens and what our health service needs to do as it re-engages in the work that it wants to do.

Mr Chambers talked about the game changer, which is our vaccination programme. Again, I encourage anyone who has not yet taken up availability in any stage of the vaccination programme to come forward, should that be for a first dose, second dose or booster dose. I encourage everybody to do that, because we have seen the difference that our vaccination programme has made to the seriousness of the illness, hospitalisation rates and pressures on our ICU. Mr Chambers commented on the legal eagles who are out there. We have found a new cohort of legal eagles on social media who have moved from being experts on epidemiology to being experts on legality and what lies in regulations and law.

Ms Armstrong made a point on the schools issue. That has been raised by the Education Committee, and there has been a recall for a debate in the House on it, but, as the Member will be aware, schools and education have always sat outside the regulations. The recommendations that we provide and the advice and guidance that are given to schools and boards of governors to follow are a conjoined piece of work between the Department of Education, the Education Authority, the Public Health Agency and we in the Department of Health.

I hope that I have answered as many —

Mr Gildernew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Swann: Yes.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, do you understand the frustration of those who have had the services of day centres and respite care removed? Given that we are welcoming today the relaxation of restrictions and a return to at least some degree of normality, those people still do not have access to those services. Will you advise us when the trusts will bring forward plans to reinstate the services in full?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member. I apologise to the Chair, because he had raised that point. The Member will be aware that when I was most recently here for Question Time, I said that I had given instructions to the trusts to include in their three-monthly rebuild plans details on when those services would be up and running again. I will get that clarity for the Chair from each of the trusts when those plans are updated and published.

I hope that I have answered as many Members' queries and questions as possible. In closing, I remind Members that the choices that we make now will be crucial in ensuring that the virus does not begin to spread once more. As we continue to remove the remaining restrictions, our society will move closer to a return to normal life. As we move through one of the most difficult times that we have faced throughout the pandemic, we are again asking everyone to look after themselves and one other by following the simple precautions: get your first and second vaccine doses and your booster; limit your social contacts; meet outdoors when possible; if meeting indoors, make sure that the rooms are well-ventilated; wear a face covering in crowded indoor spaces; take a lateral flow test before meeting others; and practise good hand and respiratory hygiene.

By making safer choices, following public health advice and complying with the regulations, we can all play our part to help lower the spread of COVID-19. I commend the regulations to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The second motion on the health protection regulations has already been debated.

Mr Swann (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The third motion on the health protection regulations has already been debated.

Mr Swann (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The final motion on the health protection regulations has already been debated.

Mr Swann (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

Mr Swann (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on this debate.

Mr Swann: Standing Order 42(1) provides that there should be a minimum of five working days between each Consideration Stage of any Bill. I fully recognise that providing that time between stages serves to ensure the Assembly's detailed legislative scrutiny by providing Members with the opportunity to consider in detail the legislation that is being proposed. I ask that it be noted that no amendments have been tabled to the Bill at any stage, despite a number of Members expressing their opposition at Second Stage.

I am sure that Members are aware of the Donate4Dáithí campaign and how Dáithí and his family have been involved in campaigning for and promoting the Bill. It is therefore only fitting that I have moved the motion to suspend Standing Order 42(1) in order to accommodate the Mac Gabhann family, who are present at the Bill's Final Stage. I trust that I will get the support of the House on that basis.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): It is appropriate that we take all steps to ensure that this crucial legislation goes on the statute book. It is a credit to all those who have campaigned over many years, and, at this stage, it would be bitterly disappointing for them to see it interrupted as a result of political considerations in the Assembly. I fully support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I call the Minister to conclude and wind on the motion.

Mr Swann: No one has expressed a negative opinion, and I have the support of the Chair of the Health Committee. I therefore ask that the motion be agreed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Swann (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Swann: The Bill illustrates precisely why it is so important for us to have a functioning, progressive Assembly in Northern Ireland: one that works to improve life for all our people. It is only two years since New Decade, New Approach, and we once again face political uncertainty that threatens to deny this place and the citizens of Northern Ireland future opportunities to bring forward positive changes.

It is in that context that I have great pleasure, and some relief, in moving the Final Stage of this Bill. As we all know, it has been long-awaited by so many who are involved in organ donation and transplantation. One of the greatest challenges has been bringing the Bill forward in a shortened mandate. The support from the public and all those who have long campaigned for it, however, has helped secure its passage to this point. On their behalf, I am extremely pleased to have been able to bring forward this legislation in my tenure as Health Minister.

I once again place on record my sincere thanks to Jo-Anne Dobson, who started the journey and who personally convinced me that our organ donation laws needed to change. I also thank the many individuals, families, teachers, patient support groups and charities across Northern Ireland who have worked tirelessly over many years to promote organ donation.

There are too many to name, but particular recognition must go to the Mac Gabhann family for its resolve in not only campaigning for a change in the law but raising awareness and support for organ donation in Northern Ireland. That is why I ask that the Bill be commonly known as Dáithí's law. It is about the passion of Jo-Anne, of Dáithí and of Maírtín and Seph, his parents. As a parent of a child with a congenital heart defect, I know only too well what has driven them to campaign for legislation to get the support that is necessary.

For them and for the patients who will benefit from organ transplants in the future, the Bill's reaching Final Stage is an important moment.

Agreement from the Assembly will permit my Department to begin a full year of implementation preparations, which will include comprehensive public awareness campaigns and staff training, before deemed consent comes into effect in the spring of 2023. It is important that we take this time to inform people and encourage them to have the conversations that they need to have.

I would like to recap the particular elements of the Bill and what it seeks to achieve. Our strategic aim is to increase the rate of consent in the small number of cases in which it is clinically possible for organ donation to proceed after a person's death. Doing so will increase the overall number of donors and, ultimately, the number of life-saving organs that are available for transplantation to those people in Northern Ireland who are on the transplant waiting list. The consent rate is normally around two thirds of possible cases. We want that to be consistently at 80% or above, as that will make a real difference to those who are on transplant waiting lists. This Bill, alongside continuing public education and awareness, has the potential to achieve that.

It will be considered that everyone living in Northern Ireland agrees to donate their organs when they die, unless they have confirmed otherwise by opting out of the organ donor register or have otherwise made their decision known or they are from one of the excluded groups. It will be vital to make sure that the public fully understands the new law. Accordingly, the Bill includes a requirement for my Department to inform the public about deemed consent every year. In order to meet that requirement, there will be 12 months of comprehensive public engagement and advertising before and after the law comes into effect. Thereafter, that work will become part of the rolling programme for promoting organ donation, which my Department oversees.

Half of our population have joined the NHS organ donor register, which represents a steady increase from 30% since 2013. Many more than that — consistently around 90% — say that they support organ donation. However, that means that families are often left with a difficult decision when a loved one dies. Approximately one in four families decide to not proceed with donation when faced with that decision, most often because they do not know what their loved one would have wanted or what decisions they had made. When families know what their loved ones would have wanted, they are much more likely to honour those wishes.

It is important to emphasise that families and loved ones will continue to play an essential role in a deemed consent system. The effect of the proposed change to the current law will be to shift the focus to the donation conversation. That conversation is conducted with families at the end of life by expert NHS specialist nurses in order to establish the known decisions of their loved ones. Every other part of the end-of-life care pathway will remain unchanged and will be conducted in line with current clinical and professional standards.

Those individuals who do not wish to donate their organs will still be able to record their decision on the NHS organ donation register. They will be able to that through the NHS Blood and Transplant website or its helpline. They can also discuss the issue and let their families know their decision. Under the new law, being an organ donor will still be your choice. Organ donation will remain a priceless gift.

I thank those who have assisted and advised my Department in the development of the Bill, particularly NHS Blood and Transplant, the Human Tissue Authority, the British Medical Association, the Public Health Agency and our exceptional clinicians and specialist nurses who work in the field of organ donation and transplantation. I thank the Health Committee — its Chair, members and staff — and all the Members who have contributed to the passage of the Bill.

It is also important that I recognise the expert input from the Office of the Legislative Counsel in the preparation of the legislation. In particular, I acknowledge Mr David Sewell, who drafted the Bill but, sadly, passed away late last year. His support and advice throughout was greatly appreciated by my Department.

I thank my departmental officials for their work and support in drafting the legislation. Their work was notable by the fact that no amendments were tabled to the legislation at any stage.

Finally, I acknowledge every one of the 2,307 living and deceased organ donors and their families from across Northern Ireland who have given the ultimate gift of a donated organ.

Every one of those is a decision that has helped another person to live or have a better quality of life. We are fortunate to live in a place where people have such generosity, compassion and kindness towards others, and we are fortunate to have a health system, which has grown alongside that, to provide a world-class transplantation service.

I hope that the passage of the Bill fittingly honours our past donors and donor families by taking organ donation and transplantation to the next level for current and future generations. I therefore urge all Members to support the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm, and I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 1.30 pm. I ask Members to note the time.

When we return, the first item of business will be the continuation of this debate, the Final Stage of the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill. The next Member to speak is Michelle O'Neill.

Mrs O'Neill: Today is a hugely positive day. I commend everybody who has worked together to get us to this point. This legislation is vital and life-saving and will make a huge difference to the lives of so many people and families who are waiting for a transplant. If there was ever a reason for politicians in this place to unite and join together, this was one. It has been a fantastic campaign, and I give all credit to wee Dáithí and his parents, Seph and Máirtín, for being the face of the campaign and taking us to this point. I know that they are watching eagerly. It is about much more than our passing the legislation today, however, because that is not their only achievement. The very fact that we are talking about organ donation is crucial. Robin, you have been passionate about the issue the whole way through, and I commend everybody for bringing us to this point. It has opened up the necessary debate and the healthy conversation that we all should have with our families, friends and loved ones.

We know the impact that organ donation can have on so many families. Well done to everybody for getting us to this point. As we come towards the end of the mandate, it is an incredible and life-saving legacy. On this important day, we say to everybody: continue to have the conversation. I am so glad that we have got to the Final Stage.

Mrs Cameron: I am delighted to speak in the Final Stage debate on the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill.

Whilst I do not doubt that we all support organ donation and the desire to prolong and protect lives, for some of us, including Members of the Assembly, deemed consent is not a subject that we are entirely comfortable with. I am pleased that, in our party, Members were not whipped on the Bill.

I am personally pleased to give my full support to the legislation. Through the Bill, we have provoked discussion, greater awareness of the need for organ donation and, ultimately, conversations around the dinner table. That needs to be replicated across Northern Ireland if the Bill is to be the success that we so greatly want it to be. I firmly believe that, ultimately, the controversy around deemed consent will drive all those important conversations and will, hopefully, ensure that we are confident in our thoughts and wishes on organ and tissue donation. My personal support for the change in the law is motivated by one thing, which is to stop unnecessary deaths. Whilst I in no way wish to imply that any other position on the Bill is less legitimate, for it is not, I cannot get myself away from that core reason for supporting the Bill, which will help people to live longer, healthier lives.

The Bill retains the right of the family to have the final say, by stipulating:

That acknowledges that the role played by someone's family is what ultimately distinguishes between a hard and a soft opt-out model for organ donation. I am, of course, conscious of all the differing views on that. It concerns me that, even though I can make my wishes known and sign up to the organ donor register, my wishes can still be overturned. I also accept, however, that, for some, it is simply too much in the face of the heartbreaking scenario that a few of us may find ourselves in. I say that because it is my hope that, ultimately, the stipulation will provoke discussion amongst family members. If the Bill is to have that effect in Northern Ireland, we need to ensure that it is promoted in such a way as it becomes a topic of conversation and that families have clarity.

None of us wants our wishes to be acted against when we can no longer speak for ourselves; hence the importance of awareness. I again stress the need for the Department to take forward a publicity campaign to provoke debate in the public sphere and in the private home, should the Bill become law. In Wales, where a similar deemed consent model is in place, the new law was accompanied by an active public awareness campaign: first, to ensure that people understood the new system; secondly, to encourage more people to make the positive decision to become an organ donor; and, thirdly, to give people who may want to opt out the information that they need to do so. Let us learn from Wales and take advantage of being the last in the UK to legislate by introducing best practice.

Similarly, the exemptions around children are appropriate and right. They will help to ensure maximum public support for the change in the law. How we treat children in this area is a particularly sensitive and emotive issue, as it always is. However, there are many inspirational children who have donated or received organs. One such inspiration is little Dáithí. He has waited for his heart transplant for three years, but his story and campaigning have helped to raise awareness of donation and rallied support for the law. I am sure that I speak for all Members when I say that our hope and our prayer is that a transplant can happen as soon as possible for that little man.

I mentioned that there were public awareness campaigns in Wales when they changed the law. As I draw my remarks to a close, it is worth restating that, in Wales, adopting the policy has had a positive impact on donation. It has helped to increase rates of donation from 58% in 2015 to 70·7% in 2020. As identified in the Committee's consideration of the Bill, it is important that, once the Bill becomes law, the Department monitors the impact of the law change and reports its findings.

Donated organs have saved lives and will save lives in the future. We are not talking about millions of organs; only a small number of organs can be donated after death. I say that not to minimise the importance of the issue and the debate but to ensure that there is an understanding that, for most people, organs will never be donated, because of the circumstances of death. Yet, every donation matters greatly and can literally mean the gift of life or of a physically much better quality of life and a life lengthened due to the generosity of another.

There are also great opportunities for organisations such as Cancer Research to use donated organs and tissues. It is a wonderful opportunity to play a part in finding cures and treatments for serious and life-threatening diseases.

I started by stating that my support for the Bill was based on my belief that we must do what we can to stop unnecessary deaths. That is what Wales did, and I believe that the people of Northern Ireland want to do the same. However, let us also ensure that those who explicitly do not want to donate know how to opt out, ensuring that their wishes are also fulfilled.

I thank the officials from the Department of Health, the Committee Clerk and team and all those who gave evidence to the Committee on what, for many, will be a life-changing and life-enhancing Bill.

Mr McGrath: It is my delight to speak about the Bill. This place is so often defined by the issues that divide us, but, with this Bill, we have been afforded an opportunity to let this place be a force for good and to be something positive. Ultimately, it is something that will save lives.

For a little moment, I will look at where we are. In the last year, 87 of our residents received 113 life-saving transplants from 51 donors. That is 87 of our citizens who might not be alive today were it not for the selfless choice of the 51 individuals who signed up for the organ donor register. The sad side of this, however, is that an average of 115 people across the North are waiting for a transplant. Today, we are discussing matters of life and death. Some people bravely stare that in the face every day.

With almost 25 million people worldwide on the organ donor register, one would think that nobody should be left waiting for a transplant, but the cold fact is that, of the 500,000 people who die every year across these islands, just 5,000 — 1% — do so with organs that are viable for transplantation. Under our current legislation, organs may be donated only where an individual consciously consents to that while alive, or if their family consent on their behalf. The purpose of the Bill, which I am delighted to see reaching its Final Stage today, is to amend our legislation so that, when consent is not explicitly provided by the donor, it will be deemed or presumed. Exemptions, which are incredibly important to some, are built into the legislation.

Other countries have moved to an opt-out system. A number of those, such as Portugal, Belgium, Croatia and Spain, have achieved incredibly high rates of donation. What helped those countries to achieve the high rates? Was it enacted legislation, or was it education that was delivered? As with all good forces of change, it was a bit of both. As legislation is progressed, public awareness is highlighted. Media campaigning also increases awareness. In 1986, Belgium introduced the system that we are debating here in 2022. Thanks to a public awareness campaign that ran concurrently, kidney transplantation from deceased and living donors increased from 19 per million to 41 per million of the population over a three-year period. The number of available transplants nearly doubled, thanks to the legislation and the education that went alongside it.

I add my voice to the others today that have thanked the people who are live donors, or who donated after they died, for their incredible bravery. I mention in particular a young woman called Rachael Molloy, who had her whole life in front of her but, sadly, passed away a number of months ago. Her family are very close to the SDLP in Belfast. The family took that very brave decision, which resulted in three people receiving organs and surviving. The family who made that sacrifice are very close to some members of our staff and wider team in the party. I extend my thanks to Rachael's family for their bravery during what must have been an incredibly difficult time for them.

The success of the Belgian model comes from a broad package of measures, including a media information campaign and awareness raising among the wider public about the merits of the system. That needs to form part of the continuous learning process in our legislation. As has been referenced, I am sure that all Members are aware that such a campaign has been ongoing here for some time. The example has been set by young Dáithí and his family. Dáithí has been awaiting a new heart for the past three years. He, like the superhero he is — we have our badges on today in honour of Dáithí — has been highlighting the importance of organ donation wherever he goes, including here at Stormont today. The first time that I had the pleasure of meeting young Dáithí, I saw him giving our Health Minister a powerful right hook. I am not quite sure whether the Health Minister is over it yet, but that showed the power of his campaign and the power of what young Dáithí has done in bringing all of us along and ensuring that we progress this legislation.

There is much more that I could say about the Bill and the need for it, but suffice it to say that it is my hope that, in three years' time, through the Bill and public awareness, those 115 people, including young Dáithí, will no longer be awaiting the gift of life but will have received their transplants and be enjoying a happy, healthy and active life as a result of the organ donation programme.

It will also ensure that those right hooks will continue for the next set of Ministers.

Today shows the Assembly at its best. It is delivering real change that will impact on people's lives positively. It is delivering laws that make lives better. It is us being responsible, sensible and diligent. I am happy and glad to support the Bill.

Mr Chambers: I am just reflecting on the remarks about young Dáithí and the right hook that he threw at the Minister. I am sure that, if that was the only right hook thrown at the Minister in the past two years, he will have been able to dodge it.

It is a momentous day for Northern Ireland, especially for the hundreds of people, including many children, who await the opportunity of receiving a life-changing transplant. It is a day of renewed optimism and hope for all those people and their families. The fact that the Bill has come before the House at this time without any amendments or political or public controversy demonstrates that it is welcome and well-received legislation. My party fully supports the Bill and commends the Health Minister and his team of officials for progressing it to this point. It would, however, be remiss of me not to place on record today my acknowledgement of the work of Mrs Jo-Anne Dobson, a former Ulster Unionist Party MLA colleague, who has championed the cause for over 10 years. Indeed, she donated an organ to her son.

I would also like to place on record my appreciation of the renowned work that is carried out by the kidney transplant unit in Belfast. I am sure that the Bill will enhance its ability to change even more lives. It is a good day for Northern Ireland, and I warmly support the legislation.

Mr Dickson: First, I want to say how delighted I am that the Health Minister has christened the Bill Dáithí's law. That is a massive tribute to the family and their campaign, and I proudly wear the campaign pin today. I also want to give thanks to Jo-Anne Dobson, former MLA and colleague here in the Assembly. She was and remains a champion of organ donation. She spoke to me on many occasions about her family circumstances and her son. At the same time, I had a friend who was going through a kidney transplant. He had had a transplant, he then had cancer and had to recover from that, but the cancer treatment destroyed his transplanted kidney. Subsequently, five years later, which was the time that he to wait, he was able to have a second kidney transplant. Today, he leads a normal, full and healthy life. That is the success of the ability to provide a transplant.

My colleague Paula Bradshaw, who is not here today, would have spoken on the Bill. Unfortunately, Paula is not well today. I am delighted to be able to speak on it. The ability to register as an organ donor, which will take only a few moments, and share that decision with families is important. Parents may also wish to consider that their children, although unaffected by the Bill as it stands, can opt in to be donors.

With regard to the specificity of the legislation, the Bill is just one step of a journey by which I hope that Northern Ireland will come to reach the international target of 80% of transplants coming from deceased donors. It is evident from elsewhere that deemed consent will start that journey. No one, however, is claiming that it will, of itself, by any means complete it. In evidence to the Committee, the Bill was summarised as part of a journey to normalising organ donation.

That is the key here. Campaigners have noted that the public are ready and the specialists are ready, and we certainly know that the service is ready.

The Bill has a set of exemptions, which others have referred to, that cover any concerns that have been raised over the years. It bears repeating that it applies only to deceased adults who were resident full-time in Northern Ireland at the time of death. It also makes for other allowances.

Eleven people died last year while on the waiting list for an organ transplant here in Northern Ireland, yet just one donation can help up to nine people. Therefore, in many ways, the most important aspect of the legislation is the element on awareness raising, which is not in the equivalent legislation for England. I seek assurance from the Minister at the end of the debate that we have a strong publicity package ready to go immediately after Royal Assent is granted. It has been recognised that publicity goes beyond just adverts. The experience from countries, such as Spain, for example, shows that, beyond doubt, investment in education and organisations will be required in order to truly deliver an increase in organ donations. Deemed consent will need to be clear. Little difference will be made without significant effort in education and awareness raising. I note again that awareness raising should also cover the potential for anyone of any age, even if they are not covered by the Bill, to opt in. We may need to consider how to make that easier.

Others have mentioned some of those who have campaigned for the legislation, and, going back some years, I have been very grateful for the direct discussions with our former colleague Jo-Anne Dobson. I am thankful for Dáithí's family, who have done so much to emphasise the urgency of the legislation. It is also important that organisations like kidney charities, the British Heart Foundation (BHF), Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke and many others play a public role in campaigning diligently for the legislation. Many others have quietly pushed for the legislation, and their input has been valued as well. Obviously, many of them will be watching the debate today. Though it has taken a long time, I hope that this day brings relief and hope for some. I also thank departmental officials and others across the health and social care world for the work that they have done behind the scenes to get the legislation on to the statute books.

Finally, I proudly hold an NHS donor card. It is important that everybody who wants to register as a donor prior to the Bill's passing goes out there now, fills out the form and lets their family know that they want to be a donor.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I call Colm Gildernew, the Chair of the Health Committee. I have to warn the Member that I may have to interrupt him, because Question Time starts at 2.00 pm.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): As there were no amendments tabled to the Bill, this is the first opportunity that I have had to outline the Committee's scrutiny of the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill. I will, therefore, provide some detail of the Committee's consideration of the Bill before making comment as my party's health spokesperson.

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Human Transplantation Act 2004 for a soft opt-out system of consent for organ donation. The Department advised that the policy intent of the Bill is to increase the rate of consent in the small number of cases where it is clinically possible for an organ donation to proceed after a person's death.

The Committee was first briefed on the principles of the Bill by departmental officials at its meeting on 9 September, following introduction on 5 July. The Bill then passed Second Stage on 20 September and was referred to the Committee for Health for scrutiny at Committee Stage. The Committee issued a call for evidence and received a total of 30 written submissions. A total of 11 written submission were received from organisations, with the rest coming from individuals. Committee members heard the views of six organisations, in addition to Department of Health officials. The Committee took oral evidence from the Belfast Trust, the Public Health Agency, Kidney Care UK, the British Heart Foundation, the Donate4Dáithí campaign and NHS Blood and Transplant. In order to seek their views on the Bill, the Committee also had an informal evidence session that was run by the Patient and Client Council and that involved people who had received a donated organ or whose families had benefited from organ donation. I sincerely thank all those individuals and organisations for taking the time to submit written evidence, and I thank all those who attended Committee meetings and gave oral evidence, formally and informally.

In the evidence that the Committee received, there was wide-ranging support for the introduction of the Bill. In the Department's public consultation before that introduction, 90% of the 1,917 responses received indicated support for a change to an opt-out system of consent.

The Public Health Agency (PHA) advised that, currently, the consent rate for organ donation in the North is 64%, and that that has not increased for several years despite consistently high levels of support for organ donation and the growth in registrations on the donor register. Evidence from other jurisdictions that have introduced a soft opt-out system show an increase in consent rates. As the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee mentioned, rates in Wales have increased from 58% in 2015 to 70·7% in 2020.

One of the key areas for Committee consideration was the role of the family. The Bill provides that deemed consent will not apply where a person in a qualifying relationship provides information that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the deceased potential organ donor would not have consented to be an organ donor. The Committee is keen to retain the role of the family in decisions and highlights the importance of families having difficult conversations on organ donation so that they are aware of each other's wishes on the issue.

The Committee sees the duty on the Department to promote organ donation and the role of the Public Health Agency to outline the changes in the legislation as key to increasing organ donation rates in the North, as several other Members have mentioned. During its evidence, the PHA outlined its plans for promotional and educational activities, including a communications strategy with two main phases. The Committee was advised that the first phase will run for a period of 12 months in 2022 to prepare people for the fact that the law is changing. The second phase will commence in 2023 when the legislation comes into effect, and will make it clear that the law has changed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I am afraid that I must interrupt the Member as Question Time will begin at 2.00 pm. I ask Members to take their ease for a few minutes while we change the staff at the Table. The debate will resume after Question Time, when Mr Gildernew will be able to complete his speech.

Mr Speaker: Questions 5 and 13 have been withdrawn, and Kellie Armstrong is not in her place for question 1.

Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2 and 9 together.

My Department has developed a comprehensive ammonia strategy that I am currently finalising for publication. The draft strategy will propose a series of farm measures to reduce ammonia, conservation actions to improve the condition of habitats and a revised operational protocol for the assessment of air pollution effects. The ammonia reduction element of the strategy will build on the significant support provided for low-emissions slurry spreading equipment in tier 1 of the farm business improvement scheme (FBIS) capital scheme. I intend to publish the ammonia strategy for consultation before the Assembly rises, pre-election.

Miss Woods: I thank the Minister for his answer. We have been hearing that work is ongoing on the strategy since the Minister took office. We are also waiting for a long-awaited air pollution strategy. We are breaching legal ammonia limits and air quality limits, and there are around 600 premature deaths a year from dirty air. Minister, how long are we going to have to wait?

Mr Poots: They are complicated issues, or else they would have been solved long ago. That is the reality. People think that stopping all kinds of agricultural development is the answer. I believe that there are other solutions. FBIS tier 1 will help us deliver a 25% reduction in ammonia. The Member may not think that that is significant, but for most people it is. There is potential to ensure a 43% reduction in on-farm ammonia, which would be a very significant contribution to reducing that burden right across Northern Ireland, improving, as a consequence, the quality of our peatlands.

Mr O'Dowd: Minister, are you planning any mitigations for those farmers who farm in constrained areas?

Mr Poots: The problem for farms in the constrained areas and within 7·5 kilometres of them is the condition of the peatlands, or of the areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) and the special protection areas (SPAs). We therefore need to ensure that we can enable people who wish to expand their farm to do so in a way that does not have an impact on those areas. Therein lies the problem. We could look at scrubbing ammonia in chicken houses and pig houses, although, that having been said, the pig and chicken sectors are not the biggest contributors of ammonia: the beef and dairy sectors are. There is the capacity to install such equipment in pig and poultry houses, because everything is within a unit.

That adds around 30% to the cost of a unit. A typical unit costs £500,000 or £600,000, so another £150,000 to £200,000 would need to be put to that, which would be a huge burden to apply. However, we need to look at all mechanisms to reduce ammonia. The captured ammonia can also be used to produce hydrogen, so that is another opportunity.

Mr Dunne: I welcome the Minister's work on the ammonia strategy. Also important to the agri-food sector and our economy is the impact of the Climate Change Bill, which was sponsored by a private Member. Will the Minister provide an update on how concerned farmers are about their future?

Mr Poots: It is incredibly difficult for a farm to expand. We need the message to go out from the Assembly to young people that there is a future for them in farming. However, if we are telling them that they will have to do things in the same way for the next 20 or 30 years, they will not have a future in farming, because they will not be competitive and will not be able to provide the necessary efficiency.

One of the fatal flaws in the Shared Environmental Services (SES) approach on ammonia is that it is still recommending refusals for planning applications that will deliver improvements and reduce the levels of ammonia. That is an illogical situation. It is associating those decisions with the habitats directive, but that is not sustainable. The owners of pig and poultry units who wish to modernise are being held back from doing so and from reducing levels of ammonia at the same time. That is clearly illogical.

I should also say that a recent planning application was submitted, which would take all of Moy Park's chicken litter off-farm and deliver a significant reduction in the levels of ammonia. Advice has also come to us from the universities sector that our means of measuring ammonia have been surpassed and that there are better measurements for ammonia. That indicates that our current measurements are on the high side.

Mrs Barton: Minister, what research is being carried out to help inform your upcoming ammonia strategy?

Mr Poots: We have a team looking at that, which is led by Dr Alistair Carson, the Department's chief scientist. My Department spends a considerable amount of money on research, and that is one of the areas that we are focusing on. We need to ensure that we have better ways of managing ammonia. For example, for dairy and beef farms, simple things like locating tree belts close to the source of ammonia can take out a lot of ammonia that would otherwise travel.

The Member comes from an area where there are a lot of special protected areas. As she will know, those areas are vital for tourism and for biodiversity. Two things need to be done to ensure that we give good protection to those areas: reduce the ammonia burden and bring our peatlands, in particular, up to the certain levels of wetness. Dry peatlands are not vibrant peatlands, and we therefore need to look at how we can wet those peatlands again. That will deliver an uplift of over 50% in the quality of the peatlands. The greater burden comes from the dryness of the peatlands, not the ammonia.

Mr Blair: The Minister has spoken of the need for the ammonia strategy, and there is no doubt that there is an urgent need for other environmental strategies. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that environmental and agricultural strategies are linked? The impacts and issues in those strategies are clearly aligned, and so linking them should ensure that there is joined-up action across the sectors and the DAERA business areas.

Mr Poots: The future agricultural policy, the green growth strategy, the ammonia strategy and the peatlands strategy are all interlinked. The teams that are working on them cross-check with each other to identify issues that may arise. Our Department is working very cohesively to ensure that we cover that area.

Mr Poots: The most recent dates for which data is available are the period from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021. The cost for the additional staff needed to complete the checks required by the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol during that period was £4,447,580. The staff cost is made up of £1,215,231 for Department staff at Belfast, £2,182,195 for those at Larne and £98,617 for those at Warrenpoint, with a further £953,337 being spent on agency staff deployed at Belfast and Larne ports. The running costs of the current contingency inspection facilities at Belfast, Larne, Warrenpoint and Foyle ports and the service contracts for the seal checks at ports in Great Britain are a further £4·2 million over the same period.

On 30 October 2020, Her Majesty's Treasury (HMT) advised the Northern Ireland Finance Minister that, as part of the UK Government's commitment to supporting the unique circumstances of the protocol, it had agreed funding for 2020-21 to cover the infrastructure and resources required to implement the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks. HMT also confirmed that the UK Government would cover any additional funding required for Northern Ireland to meet the UK's obligations under the protocol, with that being limited to the costs associated with reaching the required level of compliance. The EU has an expectation that Official Controls Regulation (OCR) costs incurred should be borne by businesses.

Mr Allister: If I followed that correctly, the cumulative cost appears to be approaching £10 million, which is a figure that would employ 200 nurses for a year or more. If the Minister is right — I think that he is — that much of that expenditure is unlawful by reason of not having Executive approval, does that not, in fact, mean that it is irregular spend, which would cause the accounts of the Department to be qualified? It is another illustration of squander at a time when vital services are so short of money.

Mr Poots: The figure that Mr Allister came to is correct, but he may add to that the cost of the councils' work that is being carried out, which is borne by the Food Standards Agency. That is another cost to the public purse. Then, we have the cost to business, because businesses have to acquire all of those common health entry documents (CHEDs) and employ people to do that. Then, we have the further cost of the Trader Support Service (TSS). The costs of the protocol to Northern Ireland are huge and extensive. That is why we need solutions. Nobody can realistically argue that the protocol, as it exists, is good for Northern Ireland. You cannot have that burden placed on businesses and that cost placed on the taxpayer and claim it to be good.

Ms Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire fosta. I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Does he agree that, while the protocol guarantees sanitary and phytosanitary standards, the new free trade deals on food imported from Australia and New Zealand will not do that and that, as a result, animal welfare standards will be jeopardised?

Mr Poots: At the moment, the biggest threat to animal welfare standards is the Northern Ireland protocol, because it does not want us to bring medicines in from Great Britain. The British Veterinary Association has written to me to express its concern that, if the grace period ends, 40% of the medicines that are currently available to vets will no longer be available. The Member supports something that is bad for animal welfare, for people's pets and for the agriculture industry, because, owing to the EU's position on veterinary medicines, we will not have the tools available to provide the care for animals that we otherwise would have. I wish that Members would join me in demanding the removal of the European Union's demand that the medicines that are currently coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will not be blocked by the European Union and the protocol.

Mr O'Toole: People watching this will be darkly amused at the idea of Brexiteers talking about the economic costs of their project. Is the Minister aware that the Office for Budget Responsibility, the independent UK — I repeat: UK, i.e. British — forecaster states that the long-run impact of Brexit, the thing he championed, will be a 4% hit to the UK economy? In cash terms, that is £80 billion per year in revenue. Do he and Mr Allister, who asked the question, think that that is good value for taxpayers?

Mr Poots: The Member may wish to deal with predictions. I prefer to deal —.

Mr O'Toole: Facts.

Mr Poots: It is not a fact; it is a prediction. I prefer to deal with facts, and the UK is growing faster than the economies that it left. Unemployment is lower in the UK than it has ever been, to the point where we need to bring people in from other parts of the world. Let us be clear: the UK is not on its knees as a consequence of Brexit, in spite of the desires of the "Remoaners".

Mr Lyttle: It really puts into stark contrast comments from the likes of the DUP's Nelson McCausland, who stated boldly that he would not care what situation he faced, as long as he was out of Europe.

What have the costs been to date of the legal advice that the Minister has sought on withdrawing staff from checks at ports?

Mr Poots: We have not got a bill for that, but I assure the Member that the cost of the legal advice will be zero point zero zero something per cent of the costs that we pay for people to stand at the ports checking goods that were perfectly good two years ago to come into Northern Ireland and are perfectly good to come into Northern Ireland today. Is the Member suggesting checks on supermarket goods and driving up the costs of supermarket goods for the lowest-paid people, who are struggling to make ends meet? We heard Tesco at the weekend indicating how much of a proportion food costs are for the lowest-paid and those in the lowest economies, which makes up a lot of people in East Belfast. Is the Member suggesting that that is a good thing? I certainly do not believe it is a good thing to drive up the cost of food for those people.

Mr Beggs: The Minister has spoken of the costs to date and the delays etc, but has there been any assessment of the costs of the disruption for the additional vets, when there is already a shortage, and the additional environmental health officers and the additional delays and bureaucracy that would result if the protocol was fully implemented?

Mr Poots: I thank the Member for the question. The point that he makes is that, if we had the full implementation of the protocol, there would not be enough vets in Northern Ireland to cover it. Vets would be taken away from abattoirs, where we need vets to ensure that countries that buy our beef have the confidence to buy it. Vets on the ground treat animals. Vets are involved in all aspects of the food industry. We do not have enough vets, so I am not sure where, the EU thinks, we will magic all those vets up from. It takes five years of training for specialist individuals to become vets in the first instance. Taking a vet from key front-line work to check goods that, frankly, pose no threat — not even a minimal threat; zero threat — to the European Union single market is bizarre. The fact that people in here support this — they do not come out and say that they support it; they conjure up other forms of words — is the height of madness on their part. It beggars belief. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, Members.

Mr Poots: The UK Government signed a free trade agreement with Australia on 17 December 2021 and, prior to that, reached agreement in principle with New Zealand on 20 October 2021. In addition, the UK Government are seeking to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) trading bloc, have commenced negotiations on a free trade agreement with India and aim to commence negotiations with Canada and Mexico shortly. The UK Government have made it clear that Northern Ireland exporters will be able to benefit from the terms of the new free trade arrangements. The legal text of the Australia free trade agreement does not treat Northern Ireland exports differently from those from the rest of the UK, and there is no reason to believe that that will be the case for any other new arrangements.

In my assessment, the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements will offer little benefit to Northern Ireland's agricultural exporters, as those countries have a considerable advantage in terms of prices and are world-leading exporters in many of the agricultural products that our agri-food industry exports. However, free trade agreements that are in negotiations or are planned for the future could offer a significant exporting opportunity for Northern Ireland's high-quality food and drink products, and my officials are working with their counterparts in the UK Government to ensure that Northern Ireland's interests are reflected in the new trade arrangements.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Minister for his assessment. The United Kingdom has also signed a free trade deal with Japan, which is one of the largest importers of agri-food products across the world. Will the Minister agree with me that there is substantial opportunity in the trade deal for Northern Ireland's farmers and agri-food businesses?

Mr Poots: Over the years, there has always been a debate about protectionism and free trade, and most of us believe that it is positive to have opportunities to trade across the world. Therefore, the agreements that the United Kingdom comes up with will ultimately balance out to ensure that Northern Ireland will have a larger pool of countries to export to and, indeed, a larger pool of countries to import from. As a consequence of that, trade should rise, not go down, and the ultimate benefits should be to the Northern Ireland economy as a whole.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, there are no benefits to our local agri-food sector in the free trade agreements between Britain and New Zealand and Australia, both of which are massive meat producers and are our competitors. Obviously, the protocol offers some protections to our local farmers from the import of cheap meats. What engagement have you had with the British Government around the fact that our main market will now be flooded with cheap meat from those two countries as a result of the free trade agreements that your party supported?

Mr Poots: We have had significant engagement with the UK Government and with the Ministers who have been involved in the negotiations. At this time, a lot of Australian beef and New Zealand lamb etc does not get past south-east Asia, because there are better markets in south-east Asia than in Europe for that material. We will have to observe closely what the real threat will be. At this time, the threat has not materialised as anything more than a threat, and we will continue to monitor that.

I will point out to the Member that she represents a constituency called Mid Ulster, and that constituency is known for manufacturing mining equipment. Around 80% of the world's screening equipment is manufactured in Mid Ulster, and I would have thought that, given the mining that takes place in Australia and therefore its demand for screening equipment, the Australian free trade deal creates massive opportunities. In that instance, she may have something to be pleased about from the Australian free trade deal.

Mrs D Kelly: Does the Minister share the bemusement of many that Jacob Rees-Mogg will now have to work for a living and actually deliver something in his new portfolio as the Brexit Opportunities Minister?

Mr Poots: There are certainly lots of opportunities, and the world does not end at Poland or, indeed, Croatia; it stretches far beyond those places. We have the opportunity to do business in Japan, and the door has recently been opened up once again for our meat, including our lamb, to be exported to North America. That is good news. Sometimes, some Members seem to want to dwell on the bad news. There are a lot of good things happening out there. I have news for the Assembly: since we came out of the European Union, beef prices have gone up, milk prices have gone up and poultry prices have gone up.

The only farming area that is under pressure at this time is the pork sector, and we will help it until it turns a corner again and prices in that area increase.

Ms Armstrong: Mr Speaker, I start by apologising to the House and the Minister for not being in my place for question 1.

Minister, you talked about trade deals. I am concerned that some of those trade deals could be harmful to our agri-food sector and that some are with countries that have extremely difficult human rights issues. What consideration has been given to ensuring that the human rights in those countries are improved upon?

Mr Poots: Thus far, there are deals with New Zealand, Australia and Japan. I do not think that those countries stand out as having significant human rights issues. Certainly, there are others where that will be an issue, and it is for national Government to look at those issues before arriving at any agreement with them. Perhaps the Member is referring to Australia's rather draconian policies when it comes to COVID, which I could not support. Nonetheless, they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, to quite the same standard as those in North Korea.

Mr Poots: Air quality is monitored in East Belfast at three automatic monitoring stations based at Ballyhackamore on the Upper Newtownards Road, Dundonald on the Upper Newtownards Road and Holywood on the A2 bypass. Nitrogen dioxide is monitored at all three sites with particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5 also monitored at the Holywood site.

My Department publishes an annual report to summarise air quality monitoring results for Northern Ireland. The report reviews the pollutants monitored and highlights compliance, as well as the exceedances, of air quality objectives. The most recent air quality report published in December 2021 relates to the 2020 calendar year. Regulation limit values, target values and corresponding air quality strategy objectives have been met for all pollutants measured at the three East Belfast sites in 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Historical data for those sites and all other monitoring stations in the network are available online through my Department’s air quality Northern Ireland website. I encourage everyone to visit that site, where you can download the Northern Ireland air app, see the locations of all air monitoring stations and receive the most up-to-date information on the quality of air across Northern Ireland.

Mr Newton: I thank the Minister for that very detailed answer. Minister, you will know that one in 24 people in Belfast dies from a respiratory problem, perhaps in association with other issues. The monitoring points are not positioned in the areas that are perhaps most hit by environmental issues — that is, the inner-city part of the area. Statistics show that, if you live in the inner-city area, you are liable to die seven years earlier than if you live in the outer part. Will the Minister give consideration to monitoring the air quality in the inner part of the city rather than its outer aspects?

Mr Poots: I will happily arrange for the Member to speak to my officials and to meet me, along with the officials, in order to discuss those issues further. Getting it right is critical. The monitors are currently placed in areas where there is heavy road traffic usage, which is why those locations were chosen. However, if the Member, who represents the area, believes that those are not the appropriate locations, I am happy to talk to him about that.

There is a series of reasons — I will go back to my Department of Health years on this one — that people die seven years earlier in inner-city areas as opposed to other areas. Air quality may be one of those reasons, but it is just one reason. We have a responsibility to ensure that air quality is good, and we will continue to do whatever we can to ensure that that is the case.

Mr Lyttle: What action has the Environment Minister taken to improve air quality in east Belfast and across Northern Ireland?

Mr Poots: We talked earlier about the ammonia strategy and the work that we have done to reduce ammonia in the atmosphere. Monitors are put in place to give us assurances. As the Member knows, I am a big supporter of switching from petrol and diesel vehicles to biomethane, hydrogen and electric vehicles. We need more charging points in Northern Ireland for people who wish to switch from combustible vehicles to electric vehicles. I have sought to apply pressure on the Infrastructure Minister to ensure that that happens. It has not happened as quickly as it should have, in my opinion. We need to have that switch from vehicles that use fossil fuels to vehicles that use renewable fuels. That will improve air quality and reduce the carbon that enters the environment.

Mr Speaker: I call Caoimhe Archibald for a very brief question and answer, please.

Dr Archibald: It will be a year, next week, I think, since the consultation on the clean air strategy closed. Will the Minister provide an update on what aspects of that have been taken forward so far?

Mr Poots: The clean air strategy was a course of work that was done. We have sought to ensure that air quality improved across all areas. We note that levels of nitrogen dioxide have remained lower since lockdown in 2020 than they were in previous years and that the levels of particulates have been varying. Air pollution is affected by topography and weather conditions, and concentrations of pollutants can vary within relatively short periods. A 12-week consultation on the clean air strategy ran from November 2020 to February 2021. Following the period of public discussion, responses were reviewed. Officials have completed an analysis of comments, findings and recommendations, and those will be presented shortly. Once I have considered the options and decided on policy directions, officials shall engage with other Departments to develop those preferred options and policy positions more fully.

Mr Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Questions 1 and 5 have been withdrawn.

Mr Poots: I thank the Member for the question. I commend him, in particular, for the work that he did in supporting the Connswater greenway project, which has brought £20 million of investment into the city. I know that he worked closely with the local community for many years to achieve that. The east Belfast community, and beyond, is seeing the real benefits of the investment that has been made in the Connswater greenway. That has been a tremendous piece of work.

We are working all the time to improve the quality of our rivers and to take steps to achieve that, because they have not been of the standard that they should be. There is a course of work to do to get them to the standard that we want them to be. One of the investments made last year was in slurry-spreading equipment that ensures that more of the nutrients in the material that is being spread actually stay in the ground and that slurry is applied at the appropriate times. Those courses of work will help. Of course, significant investment is required in Northern Ireland Water. Unless that situation is taken seriously, great problems will be posed. We have what is termed an "integrated system". The sewers and storm drains are connected, so, when you get heavy rainfall, you get sewage washed into the water system. Frankly, that has to be dealt with. We must have independent sewerage systems that will not lead to the contamination of waterways.

Mr Newton: I thank the Minister for that. I agree with him that there needs be a joined-up strategy between Infrastructure and his Department in particular. I assume that the Minister will be pleased about and supportive of the investment in the new sewerage works at Sydenham, which may indeed make a contribution towards solving the problem.

Mr Poots: Absolutely. We are seeking to work with Northern Ireland Water and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency in order to ensure that we can be as helpful to them as possible in developing the right and appropriate schemes. On the agricultural pollution that exists, the more work that we can do on anaerobic digestion, slurry separation and ensuring that we can take as many phosphates out of the system as possible, the cleaner the waterways that we can have. I believe that there is a future for farmers in selling phosphates. Phosphates are a big contributor to water quality. They are a valuable resource, and we need to provide the assistance and support to allow farms to invest in the technology to take phosphates out of the system and apply only that which is appropriate. That is why we have done soil testing across Northern Ireland. That will identify the amount of phosphates that are in the soil. That is why we are carrying out linear testing and linear mapping so that we can identify those areas where there is more significant run-off. We will, by taking the right steps, clean up our rivers so that they are in a pristine condition, which, hopefully, will encourage tourism and recreation and sport on our rivers.

Mr Poots: At this point, thankfully, African swine flu has not reached Northern Ireland.

Mr Robinson: Are there plans in place to protect against the spread of the disease should it reach our shores?

Mr Poots: Members will have seen earlier this year how avian influenza was able to come here, mainly through wild birds. The strict biosecurity measures that apply in the chicken industry also apply in the pork industry. We have a very efficient pork industry, and the farmers who work in it have very strict biosecurity measures. Good biosecurity is the best means of ensuring that those awful diseases do not get in.

Unfortunately, an outbreak of avian influenza has been reported in County Fermanagh in the last few days. It involves a small backyard flock, but, again, that leads to significant restrictions on all farms and all poultry keepers in the area and has consequences for exports. We really need to keep those diseases out of Northern Ireland and keep our animal population as healthy as possible.

Mr Poots: Responsibility for the protection of trees lies with the planning departments in local councils, which can place tree protection orders on species that have that real benefit to Northern Ireland. Generally, those are indigenous species. I am not sure what the context of the tree removal is in the area that the Member is referring to and whether those trees were indigenous or non-indigenous, but I am sure that she will have some more questions to ask on it.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister, for your response. I, too, am a firm believer in tree preservation. Will you please provide me with an update on the Forests for Our Future initiative and any other kinds of incentives or strategies that your Department has to promote the planting of trees across the North?

Mr Poots: One of the first things that I did on entering office was to drive forward the Forests for Our Future programme, which looks at the planting of 18 million trees. That is a tree for every person, every year, for the next 10 years. We have had some really good support. Some councils have been excellent, while others have not come up to the mark quite yet; I encourage them to get on board. Other bodies and Departments have been good. Northern Ireland Water is one of the public bodies that has been exceptional in its response.

There is a real drive on tree planting. We have secured a reasonable amount of money in Forest Service reserves from last year and the previous year. That will enable it to drive the initiative forward and ensure that we can plant those 18 million trees over the next 10 years.

Mr Poots: We have had our Paws for Thought campaign. We have identified the fact that about 55% of puppies that were being exported through our ports did not have the correct documentation or chips and so forth, with the result that 44% of those were not allowed to be moved. A course of action has been taken to clamp down on that.

On animal welfare, we wish to see a register of people who are abusive to animals. Progress is beginning to be made on that. Between ourselves and the Department of Justice, which is absolutely critical to unlocking this, I hope that we will get it into the right place for it to be driven forward. That may not be in my period of office, but an awful lot of the groundwork to make it happen in the not too distant future will have been done in my period of office.

Mr Lyttle: I ask the Minister for animal welfare what action he is taking to eradicate organised dog fighting in Northern Ireland.

Mr Poots: A relatively small number of people are engaged in organised dog fighting. It tends to be carried out in the underworld. It is one of the most heinous and despicable things that people can engage in. It certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with sport. It is just vile, wicked behaviour by human beings to set two dogs on each other and gamble on them ripping each other apart to see which one will win.

It is a policing matter first and foremost, but we will do anything that we can to support other bodies and organisations to bring it to an end. I appeal to members of the public who are aware of those activities, or who have suspicions that they are taking place, to notify the police and bring that to the attention of the authorities. We will only rid ourselves of the problem when we bring a significant number of prosecutions against the individuals who are involved. I suspect that those involved are also involved in other criminal activities, so clamping down on it would be beneficial to the entire community.

Mr Poots: At the minute, it is a consultation. The Member did not happen to mention that we are looking at reducing the higher band as well. What we are trying to ensure is that the people who make their living from farming are the people who get the most support. People who operate with 3 hectares tend to have other jobs and sources of income, and farming is a hobby for them. I also do not believe that the people at the higher end need the support that had been made available to them through the European Union. I am trying to set it towards the middle so that young people in particular who want to come home to farm have a fighting chance of doing so. That is an entirely reasonable thing to do.

Mr O'Dowd: It appears to be more than a consultation, because you have said that you believe that the middle group is the most sustainable moving forward. The fact of the matter is that, if the proposal goes through, those 5,000 small farmers are more likely to be driven off the land as a result of your decision than those in the upper echelons. Will you not reconsider the proposal and ensure that small farmers can make a living off the land? Furthermore, would you not accept that many small farmers who have a second income have one in order to survive, not to live a life of luxury?

Mr Poots: Frankly, it is not possible to make a living off 3 hectares of land. It is not possible to make a living off 10 hectares of land unless you have chicken houses, pig houses, glasshouses or something else that will augment the holding. We are trying to encourage efficient farms that are environmentally sustainable going forward. That will involve some degree of expansion, perhaps involving a collaboration between some of those very small farms and other farms, which are not big but medium-sized, in order to enable those people to produce food as efficiently as possible.

If someone is working elsewhere, earning £30,000 to £40,000 a year, and wants to keep a dozen bullocks over the summertime, the question is this: should we be augmenting their income with public money? That is the question that I would pose. It is not something that I am fixed on. We will give due consideration to the consultation responses when they come in. It is, however, a consultation at this stage, as opposed to a policy, and I am just giving you the thought process behind it.

Mr Speaker: Time is up. I invite Members to take their ease for a moment or two before we return to the previous item of business.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I will continue my remarks on the Health Committee's consideration of the Bill.

As I was saying, the Committee sees the duty on the Department to promote organ donation and the role of the Public Health Agency in outlining the changes in the legislation as being absolutely key to increasing organ donation rates in the North. During evidence, the PHA outlined its plans for promotional and educational activities, including a communications strategy with two main phases. The Committee was advised that the first will run for a period of 12 months across 2022 to prepare people for the change in the law and that the second phase will commence in 2023, when the legislation has come into effect, and will make it clear that the law has changed.

The Committee asked how the strategy would address different cultural backgrounds and the PHA referred to its use of translation technologies for promotional materials and its plans to engage with community groups and organisations to produce suitable material. The PHA assured the Committee that it would consider a range of channels for the promotional materials, including mainstream TV channels, social media and direct mailing. That, of course, will require sufficient funding for engagement and promotional materials.

A number of stakeholders highlighted the impact of the Bill on existing organ donation services in terms of resources and workforce. The Department estimates that the implementation costs of a statutory opt-out system are in the region of £400,000 to £500,000 per year for up to nine years. That includes public awareness, change management, IT infrastructure changes, processing additional registrations, evaluation and clinical training. Implementation of the Bill will also require additional resources in terms of specialist staff, ICU beds and theatre capacity.

During evidence, the Belfast Trust stated that 24/7 access to fully trained senior nurses and a consultant intensivist would be required. The Committee sought further information from the trust, asking for its estimate of the increase in workforce, infrastructure and other resources. The trust responded that, as a first step, it proposed having an on-call nursing service for the operating department to ensure out-of-hours theatre access to support increased demand for transplant services. The trust estimates that that will cost £60,000 in additional revenue to implement.

The trust also advised that work has commenced to ensure that the renal transplant service keeps pace with the anticipated increase in donations, such as the clinical leads for the utilisation pilot and ongoing collaboration with NHS Blood and Transplant regarding the organ utilisation programme to identify potential gaps in the workforce, education, leadership and culture.

The Department advised that four additional senior nurses in organ donation would be required regionally. The Committee encourages the Department to work with the trusts to ensure that resources are available when required.

The Committee also discussed a number of other issues, such as the age of donors, human rights implications and exceptions to deemed consent.

Following consideration of the evidence, the Committee undertook deliberations before coming to the formal clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill. The Committee agreed that it was content with the clauses as drafted. It further agreed that its report would be published and that it would outline the evidence that it had received in the course of its scrutiny.

I thank the Minister and his officials for their engagement with the Committee on the Bill, and I thank all the members of the Committee for their work. I also acknowledge the Minister's personal situation, which he has reflected on today, and his work and interest in the area personally and as the Minister of Health. I thank the Committee team and the Bill Clerk for supporting members through their scrutiny of the Bill.

It is also worth mentioning some of those who have campaigned for this change for a significant amount of time. I, like others, pay tribute to the work of former MLA Jo-Anne Dobson and that of the BHF, which has worked closely with others on this campaign.

One of the first meetings that I and the Deputy Chairperson held in our roles was with the Donate4Dáithí campaign. I pay tribute to Dáithí and his parents, Máirtín and Seph Mac Gabhann, for their long-running campaign. We hope that Dáithí gets his transplant as soon as possible. Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá go díreach le clann Mhic Gabhann, Máirtín, Seph agus Dáithí: maith sibh. Maith sibh, a chairde, ar an lá mhór seo. Deirim go díreach le Dáithí: a Dháithí, is leat an Tionól seo inniu. Dáithí, this is your Assembly today. Thank you for your work.

The Committee is delighted to see the legislation reach Final Stage and hopes that the Assembly will support its passing today.

I will make some brief remarks as Sinn Féin spokesperson for health. The Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill represents politics at its best, where patients, organisations and the political institutions come together to make an important law that addresses a vital need for some of our constituents. From the outset, Sinn Féin has been supportive of the legislation for soft opt-out organ donation, working closely with families and groups such as the heart foundations to get this important Bill across the line. Indeed, in the early stages of the process, my colleague Pat Sheehan took the matter forward in a private Member's Bill and very much welcomed the fact that the Department and the Minister made it one of their priorities to take the legislation forward.

The soft opt-out option for organ donation will help to save the lives of those who so desperately need the legislation to do what has been done in other jurisdictions: increase the rate of consent to donate. There is work to be done by the Department of Health in the months and years ahead to ensure the Bill's success, and, as with every other area of health, its success will be affected by the Department's workforce planning for the specialists and senior nurses who will be needed.

A workforce strategy that addresses the chronic shortage of Health and Social Care (HSC) workers will require the three-year Budget and the increased investment in health that the Sinn Féin Minister of Finance has proposed in his Budget. To address the workforce shortage, the waiting lists, the health inequalities and the myriad problems threatening our healthcare system, there must be political and economic stability. We cannot plan to build a workforce if we do not have sustainable long-term funding to recruit, train and retain the workers we need to begin to tackle the waiting lists that, in some cases, are costing lives. The three-year Budget that is needed to steady the entire health and social care sector is now an uncertainty, and that is a huge concern.

Across the House, we — every Member of every party — have a responsibility to ensure that the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill does not become a casualty of the political uncertainty that has been created by one party. It is much too important to the families who are waiting anxiously for the Bill to progress.

Mr Givan: The gift of life is the most precious gift that you can give to anybody. Life is often taken for granted, but those who need an organ live every day with the desire to keep living, to contribute to society and to be with family. The Bill will help to change those circumstances for the people who need our support.

For many years, people have campaigned to be on the register for organ donation. I, along with thousands of others, am on it, so that, if I were to pass away, some good, hopefully, could come from that. People have campaigned in the House, whether it was Jo-Anne Dobson, Pat Sheehan or others, to enhance the legislative provision because they wanted to make a difference and help others. I hope that the Bill will raise awareness. There are safeguards in it for those who want to opt out. I hope that people will not do so, but I can understand why some may wish to. I hope that today's debate and the campaign raises people's awareness once again.

I have spoken to families who, in the midst of extreme tragedy, have taken great comfort from the fact that their loved one was able to donate organs to other people in order to sustain life. When those moments come, people are at the bedside and those conversations are happening, I hope that we will be in a better place as a result of the Bill. Colleagues have rehearsed well the number of people who need a donation and those who, it is hoped, will receive a donation under the legislation. Let us hope that that is the case.

The Bill is one of the items that came up in the first Executive meeting that I chaired as First Minister. I remember the heated debate that took place at the time. The Bill was among a number of pieces of legislation that had got stuck in the Executive. At that meeting, I committed to urgently engaging with the Health Minister subsequent to the meeting that afternoon. That evening, I spoke with Robin to get more information about the views of the medical profession on the Bill. I spoke with the British Heart Foundation, which has campaigned on this.

The call that I will always remember, however, is the one that I had with Dáithí's father. I wanted to speak to him to get a sense of how important this was to him, and I got that from our conversation. Later that night, I engaged further with colleagues and got to a place where we were able to have the legislation come from the Executive, get it before the Assembly and allow the Assembly to decide. I rang Dáithí's father back to tell him that I was going to take an urgent procedural decision to approve the Executive paper that the Minister of Health had taken. I had to hold the phone away from my ear, such were the shouts of joy when that news was relayed to him. In subsequent days, the deputy First Minister and I met Dáithí at Stormont Castle and played a little bit of football. He is a boxer. Like the Health Minister, who got a right hook, I made the mistake of talking to Dáithí about boxing and also got a right hook. Robin seems to have survived that better than I did. I really got a sense of Dáithí and of his determination to fight for life and for this legislation. I got a sense of the hope that it is has given to him and many others.

That is what this place is all about. When we look at legislation and see ink on a piece of paper, it is about bringing meaning and purpose to that law. It is about giving hope to people in our society so that it can be improved and made better. I hope that the Bill will be able to do that. I hope that it will give hope to people like Dáithí who need an organ transplant to give them life. I trust that the Assembly will support the Bill today and that it will make a difference, because Dáithí made the difference for me in order to get support for the Bill. I hope that the Bill will make a difference for him and people like him.

Mrs Erskine: I am privileged to support the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill. As has been stated, this is a momentous day for campaigners such as Dáithí, Jo-Anne Dobson and others. We pay tribute to them today. It is fitting that the Minister has given the Bill Dáithí's name in his honour. That is a lovely tribute to Dáithí. He is a little warrior; there is no doubt about that. He is a superhero in all of our eyes.

As has been said, the gift of life should not be taken lightly or for granted. The Bill gives hope to many who are waiting for a life-changing operation and the gift of an organ. Organ donation is transformational. Today, we pay tribute to those who have walked that road and donated their organs. We also remember those who have sadly lost their lives while waiting for that life-giving operation. I think of little Dáithí — the little warrior — and his fight for not just himself but others. Such people are inspirational and strike at the very reason why the Assembly should put the legislation in place.

We all have our badges on, and I hope that we also lead the way by putting photo opportunities aside and signing up to be organ donors. I did that when I first started to drive. My family know exactly what my wishes are, and I hope that we all do that today. We can be proud of this place on days like today when legislation such as this is passed. As has been pointed out, sometimes there is much focus in the Chamber on what divides us, but it is so lovely that, today, we are able to stand and support legislation like this.

As the Health Committee's report states, the current rate of consent to organ donation in Northern Ireland is 64%. That figure has not increased significantly for several years, despite the consistently high levels of support for organ donation, so it is important that we do something. Soft opt-out has been implemented in other parts of the UK; in Wales in 2015, in England in 2020 and in Scotland in 2021. The experience in those parts will be invaluable to Northern Ireland as it charts its way through the process; we can learn from our counterparts.

We must remember that the right to choose is still part of it. However, the key to organ donation is having the conversations with your loved ones. Family members must play an important role. End-of-life discussions are never easy. Of course, naturally, we do not want to think about that while our loved ones are fit and well. However, we must make our wishes known to our loved ones. I go further: you should be adamant when telling your family about those wishes and your choice in those end-of-life situations, so that your family members are under no illusion as to what your wishes are when you are no longer able to make decisions for yourself.

I am sure that the legislation will be in the media today. I hope that, tonight, people hear and see the campaigners and that, in homes across Northern Ireland, conversations about organ donation and what people's wishes are will start. I congratulate the campaigners on highlighting this important issue down through the years. Today is a day to celebrate their achievements. It is not about me or anybody else in the Chamber; it is about the campaigners who have campaigned so tirelessly for the legislation. Each one of them should be proud today. I am pleased to support the legislation.

Mr Catney: I am honoured to speak today on the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill, which, as the Minister stated, will be known as Dáithí's law, in tribute to such a strong young boy. I pay tribute to all those who have fought so tirelessly for such legislation, as the Bill reaches its Final Stage. They never stopped campaigning, no matter how difficult the fight became. They have been so inspiring to us all here. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber today agrees with those sentiments. I think that we have all been moved by the fight of Dáithí and his parents for such a Bill. I am sure that it is a great relief for them to see the Bill reach Final Stage.

I echo the words of Mr Chambers, who paid tribute to the former Member from the UUP Jo-Anne Dobson; in fact, I pay tribute to all those who tried to get such legislation through. I think that they first introduced the idea of an opt-out system in Northern Ireland in order to come in to line with the rest of the United Kingdom. It was Jo-Anne who got the ball rolling on such legislation in 2012. I am sure that she is delighted that such a Bill will finally become law.

Folks, this is a good day for our home place. It means that lives will be saved through the process of organ donation. Currently, around 140 people are waiting for organ donation in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Bill will ease their worries and the worries of their family about receiving a transplant.

Mr Carroll: I am pleased that the Bill has reached its Final Stage this afternoon and will be passed today. However, it is unfortunate that an issue that has such widespread support across our communities took so much time to reach the Floor and finally be implemented.

It really beggars belief that, at one stage, the DUP tried to block the Bill from progressing through the House.

The passing of the Bill will provide much hope, support and comfort for the many families in our communities who rely on organ donation. It will provide a ray of light for hundreds of families and hopefully improve the lives of their loved ones. The act of giving an organ is one of the greatest acts of solidarity that people can engage in for others whom they may or may not know. I pay tribute to everyone who has donated so far and to all those people who have joined the register as a result of the debate around the Bill.

Obviously, as the Minister is moving the legislation today, thanks should go to him and his team. However, the truth is that the Bill would not have happened if it were not for the sterling work of wee Dáithí, his mother, Seph, and his father, Máirtín. There has been no community or sporting event that has not had wee Dáithí front and centre in order to get the message out there loud and clear about the need for people to register as organ donors. There is no doubt that lives have already been saved through organ donation promotion and the work that has been done by Dáithí and many others. It is hoped that removing the current unnecessary barriers to donation will prevent anybody else missing out on being a recipient of organ donation.

There is no doubt that the Bill will have a long-lasting impact for Dáithí, his family and thousands of people out there who have made the common-sense case for it to progress. I pay tribute to them all and hope that they and their families can obtain what they need with the Bill's passing through the House this afternoon.

Mr Swann (The Minister of Health): I thank the Members who contributed to the debate and the campaigners who are present in the Assembly to see the Bill pass its Final Stage.

In making my winding-up speech, I want to refer to a number of points that were raised by contributors to the debate. I will start with Michelle O'Neill, who rightly indicated that the Bill has generated healthy conversations on organ donation across workplaces, in homes, in the bar and in a number of other avenues. As Mrs Erskine said, even tonight, it will generate those conversations in many homes so that people can understand the true wishes of many individuals across Northern Ireland when it comes to organ donation.

I thank Mrs Pam Cameron for her personal support for the legislation throughout its various stages and for the work that I know that she did with her party in getting the Bill to where it is. I also thank those in her party who supported the Bill for the conversations that were had with people in the party who did not feel that they could support it at Second Stage about what it meant and could mean and, more importantly, the gift that organ donation brings. It allowed them to have that conversation. I remember the debate at Second Stage and the democratic contribution made by DUP Members to that debate, as was their right.

Mrs Cameron, along with Mr Dickson, I think, and a number of other Members, talked about public awareness and the importance of promotional campaigns and how we should learn from Wales. We have gone further, because the Bill proposes an additional statutory duty with regard to annual promotion and reporting specifically on deemed consent. That will build on my Department's existing statutory duty to promote organ donation and transplantation. The objective is to ensure that the legislative changes are fully understood across all sections of the population and that as many people as possible are aware of the law change and how to register decisions if they wish. In the longer term, the majority of that work will become part of the rolling programme for the promotion of organ donation, much of which is achieved at minimal cost due to the current coordinated and collaborative working approach.

Subject to the enactment of the Bill, an enhanced programme of intensive communications will run throughout the 12-month implementation period to ensure adequate time for awareness before going live and for a further 12 months thereafter. Activity will be tailored to specific audiences as well as to the general population, which will ensure that audiences are engaged in the most appropriate manner. Engagement has commenced with lead organisations and area focus groups to allow members or leaders to establish their communication requirements. That includes engagement with BAME networks, faith networks and older people's networks.

Working with the community and voluntary sector will further strengthen outreach across all parts of society. As Mr Dickson said, throughout the completion of this work, engaging with children and young people will be important, and the resources available to schools will be important.

The campaign planning will examine the use of a range of media channels to maximise exposure. A media strategy is being developed to analyse and plan the most effective channels and timings. Research will be planned at regular intervals, including carrying out a baseline survey prior to any awareness activities. That will monitor levels of awareness and the understanding of the law change, and any insights will be used to amend awareness activities if required. That will be an ongoing process, and it is something that Mrs Cameron raised. It is important that it is part of not only the Bill but the Department's forward work programme.

Part of the conversation was about the importance of family involvement. Mrs Cameron raised that first, but it was raised by a number of Members. Donation conversations with families or a person in a qualifying relationship are an additional part of the donation process, and they are conducted by highly trained and experienced clinicians, usually a specialist nurse in organ donation. That is in line with the relevant provisions of the Human Tissue Act and the associated codes of practice. The Bill will not introduce any change to that requirement, but it shifts the focus of the conversation. In fact, the donation conversation will be necessary for deemed consent to be applied, as it can come into effect only when it is understood by the specialist nurse in organ donation that no prior decision was given in life. Therefore, for a person's consent to be deemed, the family or a person in a qualifying relationship needs to advise that they are unaware of a prior donation decision where that cannot be ascertained. That will continue to be part of the conversation.

Mr Givan raised the issue of protecting an individual's wish to donate. Under the current consent system, donor family conversations always focus on what the potential donor wanted. So, the family are always encouraged by the specialist nurse in organ donation to support their loved one's last known decision, and time will be spent exploring concerns that the family may have, but the patient's decision is always central to that conversation. Under the proposed deemed consent system, the focus of the donor family conversation will shift. So, unless there is a known expression or decision on whether to become a donor, the patient is considered to be willing to donate, and the family will be encouraged to support that position.

If the Bill is passed, the relevant code of practice will be revised accordingly, and staff working in intensive care units will receive training under the revised code before the new system goes live. In that way, the Bill preserves the protection of an individual's decision, as donation can proceed only where there is first-person consent or where consent can be deemed. It is not, however, mandated that it must proceed.

Colin McGrath spoke about Rachael's story. Having spoken to members of Mr McGrath's party support staff, I am aware of Rachael's story, her personal contribution and the gift that she gave to others. I am also aware of the gift that her family gave through the approach that they took and the decision that they made. So, I pay thanks to Rachael's family for their decision and to all those families and donors who have made the decision in the last number of years to support donor transplants.

Mr Chambers spoke of today being a "momentous day" and paid tribute to our party colleague Jo-Anne Dobson and a number of other Members. I remember Jo-Anne working through similar legislation during her time as an MLA. I am grateful that Jo-Anne is present in the Assembly today to, hopefully, see the Bill pass its Final Stage. As I said in my opening contribution, her commitment convinced me that this was the right way to go. When I had the opportunity to take this post, I spoke to Jo-Anne first about how we could not only progress the issue from a departmental point of view but honour the fact, which Mr Chambers alluded to, that this piece of legislation was an Ulster Unionist Party manifesto commitment and one that we are content to see through during this mandate.

Mr Gildernew indicated that Pat Sheehan had suggested that he may bring forward the issue in a private Member's Bill, but I indicated that it was already my intention to introduce the Bill as a Minister. It can go on record that that may have been one of the things, if not the only thing, that Mr Sheehan and I agreed on during his time on the Health Committee. Again, that was because it was the right thing to do.

Stewart Dickson's contribution recognised the work that Jo-Anne Dobson started, but it was also a personal testimony. Many Members have spoken, inside and outside the Chamber, about what the gift of donation means to both the donor and the recipient. Mr Givan — unfortunately, he is not in the Chamber — spoke about "the gift of life", and that gets to the very crux of what the Bill is about. Mr Dickson reminded us that the reason for the Bill is to get Northern Ireland to the international target rate of 80% of transplants coming from deceased donors, and that is central to the Bill.

Mr Givan spoke about "the gift of life", and I am disappointed that he did not remain in the Chamber, because I want to take the opportunity to thank him for his support and belief in the legislation. He described the Executive meeting when the Bill was first discussed as "heated"; I would say that it was spirited. However, it led to the further conversations that evening, which Mr Givan alluded to, that allowed him, as First Minister, to move on the urgent procedure recommendation for the Bill. Through your support, Mr Speaker, we were able to have the First Stage prior to the summer recess, and that is why we have been able to meet the timeline to be where we are today. All those pieces came together through personal commitment and support because we all know that this is the right thing to do.

As many Members have said, the Bill is what this place is truly about. It is about bringing forward legislation and delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. Again, I put on record my thanks to Mr Givan for taking that step at that time, because it allowed us to get where we are today. He finished his contribution by talking about hope. I believe that that is truly what the Bill brings to the people of Northern Ireland and those who are waiting on organ donation waiting lists.

It is also about a deeper contribution of hope. This is a Bill that demonstrates what this place can do when people work together at their best and when they want to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. So much goes on in here and across parties. I hope that things like the Bill do not get lost — they should not get lost — on the general public of Northern Ireland. There are politicians, many of us in here, who want to make this place and Northern Ireland work, and we are committed to doing that.

In her contribution, Deborah Erskine spoke of a "little warrior" and a "superhero". I think that Deborah was referring to Dáithí, but I want to clarify that for the record. [Laughter.]

I would not want you to be slighted by your party. I agree with the Member, because many of us have referenced Dáithí today and have met him. What a dynamo. It is with pleasure that I ask for the legislation to be commonly known as Dáithí's law, because that is a fitting tribute to what he, his family and all the other contributors have been able to bring about.

Mr Catney spoke about the journey that we have been on in this place. I want to correct Pat slightly, but not get him as agitated as he was before.

Mr Catney: I thought that you wanted a right hook. [Laughter.]

Mr Swann: He spoke about the contribution of Jo-Anne Dobson and how, at that point, we could have aligned with the rest of the United Kingdom. If we had have taken the step with Jo-Anne, we would have led the United Kingdom in soft opt-out organ donation. However, we are where we are today and, thankfully, we have now aligned.

There was a reception upstairs and the chief executive of the British Heart Foundation indicated that the same conversations have now started in the Dáil. The Health Minister in the Republic of Ireland is now looking at the scope to introduce similar legislation. I say to my Health colleague, Stephen Donnelly, that if there is any assistance that we can give to help them through the process, the offer is there.

Mr Catney reminded me — and Mr Givan spoke about it — of the day last summer when Mr Givan, the deputy First Minister and I met Dáithí, Seph and Maírtín after the urgent procedure had been signed off. I remember well the right hook that Dáithí gave Paul. I have thought about it since — quite a bit actually.

Mr Carroll spoke about the legislation having taken so long. Since it was first brought to this place, it has taken quite a long time. However, since this iteration of the Assembly first brought it to the Floor, we have progressed it in 18 months. We were already in a shortened mandate. We had a lot of work to do, and we did it. We have delivered. I thank Members, the staff in the Department, the organisations, the charities and everyone who has contributed. Mr Speaker, I thank you and your team for guiding us through the different iterations and procedures that have brought us here.

As Health Minister, I also thank the Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the Health Committee. As the Chair said, this is the first time that he has had an opportunity to speak on the Bill. However, the work that the Committee did behind the scenes on engagement and consultation was intense and appropriate in scrutinising the draft legislation and what could and should come forward. It is a testimony to my officials that, even after the support, guidance, and questions of the Health Committee, the legislation has got to this stage in the same form that it was first proposed. That is because officials took the time to see what has worked, and what continues to work, elsewhere.

I do not need to remind Members that reaching the Final Stage of the Bill is not the end of the matter. Members will be aware that the change in organ donation law is the first step in a staged approach. The introduction of an opt-out system for Northern Ireland must, therefore, be combined with continued efforts to promote public and professional education and long-term behavioural change. My Department will continue to implement the commitments set out in its 2018 policy statement. That will be in line with the statutory duty to promote transplantation, which was conferred on the Department by Part 4 of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016.

The overall objective of the policy remains the promotion of a positive, cultural and long-term change in attitudes and behaviours on organ donation. My Department is working with the health and social care system, the public sector, including local government and the education system, and wider society to promote organ donation through a coordinated and sustained communication programme. Those commitments are not impacted on by the proposed move to a statutory opt-out system. They will remain in place during and after the implementation of any new legislative framework.

I commend Dáithí's law, this Bill, to the House.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister and all Members for their contribution to the debate.

Mr Speaker: On behalf of all Members, I extend our best wishes to all those who campaigned for this day. I suppose that, in many ways, we have today singled out Maírtín and Seph Mac Gabhann and the young champ himself, Dáithí óg. He has punched well above his weight in his campaign to make sure that the Bill becomes law. Congratulations to all those involved. Thank you all very much.

Will Members please take their ease?

Ms Hargey (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Ms Hargey: I am seeking the Assembly's approval for the draft Welfare Supplementary Payment (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 2022. As Members are aware, my Department currently administers a number of welfare mitigation schemes that are designed to alleviate the effects of some of the welfare changes that were introduced here in 2016. The mitigation schemes provide financial support to people who have been affected by various welfare reforms, including the benefit cap and the social-sector size criteria, which is otherwise known as the bedroom tax.

Members will be aware that the House recently approved the legislation to extend most of the mitigation schemes until March 2025. The only mitigation scheme that remains to be extended is that for those who are affected by the bedroom tax. The extension of that scheme is included in the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Bill, the Consideration Stage of which will be taken later today.

The purpose of the draft Welfare Supplementary Payment (Amendment) Regulations is to close the loopholes in the existing bedroom tax and benefit cap mitigation schemes. It will strengthen those schemes to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. It is important to note that the legislation is time-bound and will cease to have effect on 31 March 2025. That aligns with the new end date for the mitigation schemes.

I will deal first with the bedroom tax mitigation.

The proposed change will ensure that everyone affected by the bedroom tax receives mitigation payments, regardless of whether they have moved home or continue to underoccupy by at least the same number of bedrooms. That will be achieved by removing the current restriction that means that people can lose mitigation payments if they move home without being allocated management transfer status. That is the right approach, as the current policy has been unfairly penalising people. It is not right that people can lose out financially simply for moving home in the social rented sector. Under the revised mitigations scheme, payments will no longer be stopped, and every household affected by the bedroom tax will be protected.

The proposed changes will also allow people who lost their mitigation payments as a result of the current legislation to requalify for payments if they are eligible. The most recent figures available show that, as of 31 December 2021, an estimated 260 social sector tenants impacted by the bedroom tax policy were not eligible for mitigation payments. On average, households lose £480 per year. That is a substantial financial burden for those families to incur. The proposed change to the bedroom tax mitigation scheme will provide much-needed financial support and protection for those tenants.

I move on to changes to the benefit cap mitigation scheme. The amendments that I propose will ensure that all families with children receive a mitigation payment equivalent to the amount by which their benefits have been capped, meaning that their loss will be fully mitigated. That means that the value of the mitigation payments will change to match the amount by which the family's benefits have been capped. At present, the mitigation payment can never exceed the initial mitigation amount awarded, so, if there is an increase in the amount of benefits to a family, not only is there a loss as a result of the benefit cap, but they do not get an increase in their mitigation payment. That is unacceptable.

The proposed amendment will abolish that rule to ensure that, going forward, all families with children will receive mitigation payments to cover their full loss of benefit. It will also mean that, from the date that the legislation comes into operation, any family not receiving mitigation payments equivalent to their capped amount will have their mitigation payments increased. The current restriction on entitlement that requires a person to have been in continuous receipt of a relevant benefit from 6 November 2016 will also be removed. Any family with children that has previously been deemed ineligible because they began to claim the relevant benefit only after 6 November 2016 will become entitled to the mitigation payments to cover their full loss of benefit once the regulations come into operation.

The amendments will also remove the current restriction that prevents mitigation payments from restarting after they have been stopped. That will allow people to qualify for mitigation payments if they have previously lost their entitlement but are impacted by the benefit cap again at a later date. Those people will receive the mitigation payments to cover their full loss of benefit. The latest analysis of the benefit cap cases shows that, as of August 2021, an estimated 640 individuals impacted by the benefit cap were not entitled to mitigation payments. On average, those individuals were losing £49 per week. Again, that is a significant amount of money for those families to find each week, and it places a huge financial burden on them.

The changes to the bedroom tax and benefit cap mitigation schemes will provide much-needed financial support, particularly to single parents, who are the group most impacted by the benefit cap. They will also protect those most in need and the poorest across our communities. I am focused on reducing child poverty, and that will go a small way in helping to achieve that.

The amendments will not be retrospective. That means that changes to an entitlement will apply from the day after the legislation comes into effect. If the regulations are approved, my officials will ensure that changes are implemented without delay. The amendments to the legislation will apply only to people who are claiming housing benefit, and I intend to bring forward further legislation to provide for statutory welfare supplementary payments for people who are claiming universal credit (UC). In the meantime, to ensure that universal credit recipients are not disadvantaged, my Department will apply the amended policy to universal credit mitigation payments from the date that the proposed changes are applied to those claiming housing benefit.

The SL1 sets out details of the policy covered by the statutory rule (SR) considered by the Committee for Communities on 9 December 2021. The Committee confirmed that it was content for the rule to be made. The draft rule was also considered at the Executive meeting on 20 January this year, and the Executive agreed that it should be laid.

I am committed to continuing to support people affected by the changes that have been made by the British Government to the social security system here. I am satisfied that the amendments will strengthen the mitigation package that was secured and ensure that payments are made to those in need. I hope that Members from across the House will join me in protecting the most vulnerable in our society by supporting the legislation.

Ms P Bradley (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): The Committee considered the statutory rule on 3 February and understands that it is to be made under article 137(5) and article 137A(9) of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015.

The Committee noted the need for the regulations to augment the existing welfare mitigation scheme for the benefit cap and the social sector size criteria policies. It accepts that they are positive amendments that will enable the provision of increased support to the most vulnerable. The Committee recognises that, as of August 2021, 640 families with children were affected by the benefit cap and were not eligible for a welfare supplementary payment. The regulations will amend the welfare mitigation scheme available to people affected by the benefit cap and the social sector size criteria to remove some of the existing restrictions on entitlement. They will provide that all families with children that are affected by the benefit cap will be eligible for a welfare supplementary payment equivalent to the loss of benefit. Similarly, any person affected by the social sector size criteria policy will be eligible for a welfare supplementary payment. The regulations will restore entitlement to welfare supplementary payments to people who have had their payments ended, so long as they satisfy the amended eligibility criteria. The Committee understands that, in practice, for the benefit cap, this means that if a person receives a welfare supplementary payment that is less than the amount of benefit lost from the application of the benefit cap, they will be entitled to an increase in welfare supplementary payment from the date on which the regulations come into operation.

The Committee agreed to recommend that the draft Welfare Supplementary Payment (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022 be affirmed by the Assembly.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. I thank the Minister and Chair of the Committee for giving a detailed overview of the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Amendment) Regulations. The regulations follow the extension of the current mitigations and will, as we heard, close what have become known as the "loopholes" in the benefit cap for families with children and in the bedroom tax.

I commend and recognise all who campaigned tirelessly for change. It is clear that our Minister is someone who listens and is committed to bringing about meaningful change where it is possible and for those who need it most. The changes brought about by the regulations will ensure that more people qualify for the payments. There could not be a more important time to do this, given the rising cost of living that we all hear about on a weekly basis from our constituents, regarding the challenges they face.

It would have been preferable if the regulations did not have an end date, as that just creates another cliff edge in the future. However, it is important that people have some certainty in the time ahead, particularly given the current economic situation and, more so, the political situation that we find ourselves in.

The closing of the loopholes, as outlined by the Minister, is welcome. The mitigations continue to play an important role in protecting people from the worst excesses of Tory policy and Tory cuts. Therefore, I support the motion.

Mr Durkan: I welcome and support these regulations, which will provide additional protection for people. The regulations will close the loopholes, as Ms Ferguson said, or close the gaps in the safety net provided by the mitigations package that people have been falling through for years. I am sure that the Minister would be surprised, and maybe even a wee bit disappointed, if I did not rehash how we got here or why we need mitigations at all, but I think that I have maybe said enough on that already. I am really pleased that this is finally being done.

I may have missed this, but, when the Minister is winding up, can she clarify whether, if we manage to — we all hope that we will — remove or change the end date in the legislation this afternoon, will we need to relay these regulations or lay new ones to fit the new, amended legislation? We would also like to have seen an element of backdating attached to this positive policy change. There is not a massive amount of households affected, but those that have been affected have been affected massively.

Finally, I congratulate the Minister on getting here. She said that she would and she has, although, to be fair, we, as a Committee and as individual MLAs may have reminded her once or twice of the need to get here. I also echo the words of thanks and appreciation for those in the sector who have been so supportive in getting this across the line.

Ms Armstrong: Thank you to the Minister and the other Members who have already spoken on this. On behalf of Alliance, I am standing, of course, to support this. The Welfare Supplementary Payment (Amendment) Regulations is the first of two pieces of legislation on welfare reform that I hope the House will pass.

This statutory rule will amend the Welfare Supplementary Payment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 and the Housing Benefit (Welfare Supplementary Payment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017. The purpose is, of course, to amend the loopholes that created exceptions to the social sector size criteria, also known as the bedroom tax, for people who moved property and continued to under-occupy the same number of bedrooms. The figures provided for us confirmed that, at 31 March 2020, 306 people had had their entitlement ended. This regulation will remove that restriction on entitlement and mean that those people who previously lost their welfare supplementary payment will requalify if they satisfy the eligibility criteria, as the Chairperson of the Committee pointed out. It also closes the loopholes created by the benefit cap. We know that, in August 2021, that cap meant that 640 local families were not eligible for a welfare supplementary payment. This regulation will remove those restrictions and provide that all families with children will receive a welfare supplementary payment equivalent to the amount by which their benefit has been capped.

As has been said before, these are positive changes. They are very much needed. I thank the Cliff Edge Coalition and all those in the sector who have pushed very hard for these loopholes to be closed. This will enable provision of support to more people, as was intended in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. However, Minister, as has been highlighted by Mr Mark Durkan, I am disappointed that we could not backdate some of those benefits for those families and people who were left out before. I am grateful that they will now be included, but with the Bill that will be debated later today, what will the impact be if that end date is changed? Perhaps the Minister can clarify that for us.

Mr Allen: I do not intend to speak for long. I just wish to speak briefly in welcoming these much-awaited regulations to close what have become known as the loopholes in respect of the bedroom tax and the benefit cap. As we well know, it took over two years for the various elements of these mitigations to come to the House. I wish to reaffirm my frustration and dismay that that resulted in some £3·2 million being returned to the centre that could have gone out to support many individuals and families right across Northern Ireland, especially at a time when the cost of living is soaring.

I place on record our thanks to the Minister and to the many organisations for campaigning and lobbying and keeping the pressure on for these much-needed regulations — and, indeed, the legislation that we will discuss later this evening — to be brought in. I place on record our support.

Ms Hargey: Thank you to the Committee Chair and, indeed, all those who spoke today. I also thank the Communities Committee for its support as I have tried to push these issues for the last two years. I am glad that, at this point in the mandate, we are now proceeding with the regulations and the Consideration Stage of the Bill later today.

As for some of the issues, we obviously looked at the fact that we cannot apply the legislation retrospectively. I tried to push for it to apply retrospectively and will, going forward, continue to look at ways for that to happen.

We cannot change the regulations if the Bill is changed at the Consideration Stage later. We would have to lay new regulations, and those would have to go through the Executive before coming to the Chamber. Obviously, that will be the focus of a future Minister in a new mandate. It also places a focus on the need to ensure that we have an Executive at that point.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Ms Hargey (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister for Communities to open the debate.

Ms Hargey: Charities are the lifeblood of our communities. Everyone knows someone who volunteers with a charity or supports them through donations. Many of our communities benefit from the critical work that charities do across our society. The value of charities in our society and the work that they do to address need for such a wide range of beneficiaries and good causes should not be underestimated. That has never been demonstrated to greater effect than during the recent pandemic. However, for charities to enjoy the support and confidence of those who give to them, they must be well run, open and transparent. It is through the regulatory framework that their worth and legitimacy can be well demonstrated. They, in turn, need to be assured that the regulation is open, transparent and proportionate and that decisions given to them by the charity regulator are made appropriately and, importantly, lawfully.

The Charities Bill will bring very real benefits to over 6,500 charities and those for whom they provide, whilst restoring the fundamental pillars of the regulatory framework — a framework that was damaged when over 7,500 regulatory decisions taken by Charity Commission staff were found to be unlawful. The fact that today sees the Bill completing its legislative passage through the Assembly will bring great relief to charities across our communities, as the vast majority of the decisions that they had relied upon will now be made lawful, thus removing uncertainty and risk for them.

My primary aim in introducing the Bill was to return charities, as far as possible, to the position that they enjoyed prior to the McBride and Court of Appeal rulings when they relied on decisions that they believed to be lawful. The charities, which had gone through the registration process in good faith, were uncertain about what those meant for their legal status, their requirements under the Charities Act 2008 and how that read across to funding opportunities. It also left a large number of charities that had acted in consequence of orders or directions that they thought were lawful in a state of confusion about what the judgement meant for them. The Bill makes it clear that their registration and those other decisions that allowed them to act in a particular way are lawful, as though they were always lawful, whilst not requiring them to provide a report and accounts to the commission for past periods, unless they choose to do so voluntarily.

Of course, legislation that has retrospective effect is unusual, and I was absolutely determined from the outset that, in making previous decisions lawful, the Bill should not impinge on the rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. The protections afforded in the Bill, whereby certain decisions will remain unlawful, will protect and allow contested matters to be pursued unhindered by the Bill, should anyone be impacted or wish to do so. Those protections are strengthened by the introduction of refreshed appeal rights for those decisions to be made lawful and the extension of the time frame in which those appeals can take place. It was difficult to achieve a balance between the need to restore the framework and the rights of those individuals, and I believe that the Bill, along with the Committee's scrutiny role, has achieved that balance.

The Bill not only deals with past decisions but allows for any appropriate framework of delegation to be introduced to the Charity Commission. That will allow it to function efficiently while protecting the rights of individuals. It does that by allowing for some decisions to be delegated to staff by way of a scheme of delegation, the first of which will be subject to public consultation. Importantly, however, it also stipulates that some decisions, which, in the main, are those that could be to the detriment of individual trustees or charity members, will never be delegated to staff. While that will put the commission in a different place to other charity regulators across these islands, it is, in our case, necessary in order to restore public trust and confidence in our system — something that is essential to good charity regulation. It is another balance that the Bill has successfully managed. In addition to that, the Bill provides the power to introduce a registration threshold by way of secondary legislation at some point in the future, should that be deemed appropriate.

The Chair of the Committee has mentioned that it was unfortunate that the report of the independent review of charity regulation was not completed and made available in time for the Committee's deliberations. That was unfortunate but unavoidable, given the urgency in delivering the Bill. As Members will be aware, the recent review report does not recommend the introduction of a registration threshold but does recommend a reduction in the regulatory burden around registration and subsequent annual reporting for smaller charities. That is one of the many recommendations that I am considering, but that does not mean that I have accepted it.

I thank the Chair, the Deputy Chair and members of the Committee for their dedication and support in progressing the Bill. I also acknowledge the contribution in the Bill's scrutiny stages of the many stakeholders, including those who provided evidence to the Committee in its deliberations. I acknowledge the Members who have been supportive of the Bill and its aims. As I said at Consideration Stage, we have a better Bill because of the comprehensive scrutiny process and the open and productive working relationships between the Committee and my officials. I take this opportunity to thank the officials, the Assembly staff and the legal teams who worked on the Bill and enabled it to move to this stage. As previously stated, legislation with retrospective effect is unusual and presents many unique challenges.

Finally, I put on record my special thanks to the primary draftsperson for the Bill, David Sewell of the Office of the Legislative Counsel, who, sadly, passed away suddenly before Christmas. David played an important role in bringing the Bill before us. I extend my condolences to David's family.

I hope that all parties give the Bill their full support. I commend it to the Assembly.

Ms P Bradley (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill and the certainty that it will bring to the Charity Commission and the sector in Northern Ireland. We are all aware that the purpose of the Bill is to:

As I have said on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill, we all know that charities legislation has a somewhat chequered history here. Although the Bill before us is a very short one, the background leading to the need for it was complex and involved decisions and legal judgements over a number of years.

The Committee, throughout its deliberations, focused on potential unintended consequences, knowing that retrospective legislation is an unusual course of action. At Committee Stage, we wrote to the Minister to ask that a number of amendments be made to clauses 1 and 2, and we thank the Minister for agreeing to those. We feel that they make the Bill better: for example, we are pleased that the public and stakeholders will now have the opportunity to share their concerns and opinions with the Department through a consultation on the first scheme of delegation. Whilst this is only a small Bill, consisting of four clauses, it has major ramifications for dealing with over 7,000 decisions taken by Charity Commission staff in the past and for how charities here will operate in the future. The level of scrutiny that the Committee afforded the Bill shows that members were aware of its significance.

In conclusion, I welcome Final Stage, and I put on record our thanks to the officials and the Minister for their assistance in the Bill's scrutiny.

Ms Á Murphy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of Sinn Féin on the Bill once again. I will keep my comments brief and concise as the finer details were addressed at Consideration Stage. As mentioned by the Committee Chair and the Minister, the purpose of the Bill is to make past decisions taken by staff of the Charity Commission lawful but to do so only where that will not impinge on the rights of the individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bill will also put in place mechanisms that will ensure greater public trust and confidence moving forward.

This very welcome legislation has now reached Final Stage. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I thank the Minister for introducing the Charities Bill, for listening to and taking on board the concerns of the Committee and tabling relevant amendments, which were all passed previously. I also place on record my thanks to my Committee colleagues and Committee support staff. We worked cohesively to ensure that the legislation was as robust as possible. I conclude my remarks there. We support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I call the Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, to conclude the Final Stage debate.

Ms Hargey: Thank you to the Chair, all members of the Communities Committee and, indeed, all Members who have spoken today. The heart of the Bill is about restoring the regulatory framework and providing a stable basis on which to make improvements going forward, particularly given the excellent work that all our charities do. I reiterate my thanks to all those involved at the scrutiny stage for their work to improve the Bill. I thank all the external organisations and charities that met the Committee and the Department to get it to this stage. I thank all the staff teams from my Department and from the OLC that have been involved with the Committee. I commend the Bill to the Chamber.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments before the next item of business.

Miss McIlveen (The Minister of Education): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Miss McIlveen: This is an extremely important Bill that is both a legislative and a personal priority. I welcome the opportunity to address the Assembly on the Bill. The use of accelerated passage is not to be sought routinely, nor do I take it lightly. Committees have a key role in the legislative process by carrying out clause-by-clause scrutiny, and Committee Stage provides an important opportunity to have any issues resolved to the Committee's satisfaction.

As required under Standing Order 42(4), I will explain to the Assembly why I seek accelerated passage and the consequences of it not being granted. The resumption of devolution in 2020 was swiftly followed by the unprecedented outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March. In those exceptional circumstances, it was not possible for my Department to commence a full policy review of the school starting age until the summer of 2021. Since that time, my officials and I have worked at pace to carry out a wide-ranging review of the school starting age, including stakeholder engagement and a full public consultation, in order to develop detailed, full policy proposals and accompanying legislation. Without accelerated passage, it would simply not be possible to effect legislative change on the school starting age in the current mandate. Greater flexibility will not be available to children in either September 2022 or for the admissions process in September 2023.

There is widespread political and societal consensus on the need for greater flexibility for young-for-year children. That is provided in my proposals and in the Bill. There was overwhelming support in the public consultation response for the proposals that form the core of the Bill. Some 93% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that there should be more flexibility in the Northern Ireland education system to allow some children to defer school starting age. Some 90% strongly agreed or agreed that deferral should be available on parental request to any young-for-year child born between 1 April and 1 July. Some 75% strongly agreed or agreed that, in most cases, application for deferral should be made at the usual time of applying for preschool. Some 89% strongly agreed or agreed that I should amend the law on compulsory school age to ensure that deferred children received 12 years of compulsory education like all other pupils.

I appeared before the Education Committee on 19 January to explain the need for accelerated passage for the Bill and to outline the consequences of its not being granted. I thank the Chair and members of the Committee for their recognition of the need to expedite the Bill and for their support in seeking Assembly approval for accelerated passage. I acknowledge and share the Committee's concerns relating to the use of accelerated passage. Subsequently, at their meeting on 20 January, the Executive agreed on the need for accelerated passage for the Bill.

Members will have an opportunity to raise issues on the detail of the Bill during each stage of the legislative process. It is a short Bill, and there will be an opportunity to review each clause in detail. In the interim, I seek the support of the House for use of the accelerated passage procedure and look forward to hearing Members' comments.

Mr Lyttle (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): The Education Committee has, for a number of years, supported the introduction of greater flexibility for school starting age in Northern Ireland. The School Age Bill is a narrower reform of school starting age than many Education Committee members would wish to see. However, the Committee gave its approval for accelerated passage of the Bill at its meeting on 19 January, as the need for families to access this modest flexibility is long overdue. I thank the Education Minister for taking the proposal forward.

I pay tribute to the parents and organisations who have led and continue to lead the campaign for school starting age reform in Northern Ireland. The Education Committee has received a significant amount of correspondence from individuals and organisations about school starting age. They have expressed deep concern about the age and stage at which children are required to start school in Northern Ireland and whether they will be adversely affected by starting school early at a crucial stage of their development.

Ahead of the Department of Education's public consultation on flexible school starting age in June 2021, the Committee for Education received an oral briefing from departmental officials as well as an oral briefing from the Assembly's Research and Information Service. As ever, the research was thorough and comprehensive and informed members of the existing policy on and practice of flexible school starting ages in the UK and other jurisdictions. The Committee received an oral briefing from departmental officials in December 2021 that outlined a summary of their findings from the public consultation conducted earlier in the year. The findings, as the Education Minister has stated, were clear: almost 90% of respondents were in some form of agreement with the proposals to introduce more flexibility to school starting age. The Committee consolidated that briefing with an informal meeting on 14 December with stakeholders from TinyLife and Early Years and vital input from concerned parents on the matter. The journey is not over for those campaigners, but they were in favour of the Bill as a first step on the path to school starting age reform.

The Education Committee welcomed the Education Minister to a Committee meeting on 19 January. Approval was given for accelerated passage of the Bill, due to the length of time that it has taken to introduce and to give the opportunity for modest flexibility to some children from next year.

Speaking as an Alliance MLA, I pay tribute to Belfast Mum, TinyLife and Early Years, who have led much of the campaigning on the issue. I have sought to raise the matter with consecutive Education Ministers at every opportunity. I thank the Education Minister for giving us the opportunity to see this modest reform and for the priority that she has given to the issue.

I acknowledge that some people may feel that the Bill does not go far enough, but I think that it is worthwhile to deliver in this Assembly mandate a reform to permit the opportunity to defer school starting age for children with April, May and June birthdays. Indeed, this afternoon, we have seen delivery on organ donation and the Charities Bill and will now see delivery on school starting age, albeit with the use of accelerated passage, which shows what we can achieve when we work together.

Mr Sheehan: From the outset, I place on record my support for greater flexibility in school starting age. The proposals are long overdue. For a number of years, I have been lobbied on the issue by various individuals and groups; indeed, my colleague John O'Dowd attempted to take forward similar proposals in 2016 before running out of time in that mandate. I commend the efforts of all the campaigners including TinyLife, as the Committee Chair mentioned, and Sure Start. Those groups have fought relentlessly on behalf of the children whom the proposals will benefit.

While it would have been preferable to carry out proper scrutiny of the legislation in the Committee, we understand the urgency and the need to get it over the line before the mandate concludes.

Everyone on the Education Committee agrees with that view.

The operation of the current compulsory school-starting-age policy can result in some children being required to attend school shortly after their fourth birthday, resulting in a gap of almost a year between the youngest and the oldest children in the class. Some children who had a due birthdate in July but were born in June can end up being the youngest in the class, whereas, had they been born on their due date, they might have been the oldest.

A year may not seem like a great deal of time when one gets to the age that we all are, but, for children so young, it is a very big gap. Research evidence shows that children who are young for their year and fall behind in their learning often never catch up. They are then at a disadvantage the whole way through their school career.

Most children, regardless of their age, will thrive in primary school, but some parents, stakeholders and clinicians believe that it is in the best interests of some children to defer starting school. In the wider context of protecting children's right to access education, an element of parental choice and judgement about that youngest cohort of children starting school is appropriate and proportionate.

I welcome the proposed introduction of flexibility for young-for-year children and hope that we can go further in future. As the Chair of the Committee pointed out, this is very modest legislation, and I encourage the Department to investigate other options further. The North has the youngest school starting age in the whole of Western Europe. In many countries, children do not start school until they are six or seven years of age. I appreciate and acknowledge that, particularly in P1 and to an extent in P2, a lot of the learning is learning through play. Still and all, perhaps it is time to rethink the starting age for formal education, and then we can have a strategic view about the age at which children start school.

Where there is clear evidence to support deferral as being beneficial to other groups of children, including premature children, consideration should be given to the potential for allowing greater flexibility. On that basis, we will support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I remind Members that this is the debate on whether we grant the Bill accelerated passage. The Second Stage debate on the legislation will follow, if accelerated passage is agreed.

Mrs Dodds: I express support from this side of the House for accelerated passage for the Bill. I thank the Minister for proposing to make this, as others have said, relatively small but very meaningful change to legislation. I hope and trust that, using the accelerated passage procedure, we will be able to ensure that that change to the law comes to pass in this mandate.

Even though we are talking about accelerated passage, as the Minister indicated, this is the end part of a fairly lengthy and extensive process of consultation. As other Members have commented, it is something that we have been attempting to do as a legislature for quite some years. It therefore seems to me that accelerated passage is appropriate in this instance, and the DUP supports granting it.

I finish by paying tribute to all those who, for so long and consistently, brought this matter to the attention of the House. We assure them that we will do what we need to in order to make sure that the Bill becomes law.

Mr McCrossan: I welcome the Minister's proposals. The SDLP supports the Bill in principle and is satisfied and happy with the use of accelerated passage. We want to see the Bill progress as swiftly as possible, particularly given that it is unfinished business from 2014 when the then Minister, John O'Dowd, withdrew the legislation because there was not sufficient time to pass it prior to the 2015 Assembly election. We do not want to see that happening again. We have had reassurances from the previous Minister, Peter Weir, and the current Minister that everything that needs to be done will be done to ensure that the legislation is passed during this mandate. They have the SDLP's support to do so.

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way briefly. He made reference to the fact that the legislation fell in 2014 owing to its proximity to the scheduled election in 2015. Does he agree that that is evidence of how important it is for the Assembly to progress as much legislation as it possibly can before the end of this mandate in advance of the scheduled election?

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Chair of the Committee for his intervention and wholly agree with his point. We are legislators. We are here to legislate to improve people's lives, and I have no doubt that this piece of legislation, like others that we have passed in the last two days, such as the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill and the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, is wholly positive and will have a positive impact on the lives of our citizens. That is why we are elected.

The Bill has certainly been a long time in the pipeline. I thank those who worked tirelessly to get it to this point, particularly the campaigners in Early Years, Sure Start, TinyLife and Belfast Mum. I also thank the Minister for progressing the Bill to this stage. Hopefully, we will see a swift conclusion to the process, which will benefit our children.

Mrs Barton: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I welcome the Bill. It gives much-needed flexibility to those of different abilities who wish to start school. I thank the Minister for bringing it forward today; it is long overdue. I also thank TinyLife and the other groups that made representations on, and campaigned for, the Bill. It is something that the Ulster Unionist Party has long thought of and welcomes very much.

Miss McIlveen: I thank Members for their comments and fully acknowledge those who have expressed concern about the use of accelerated passage in all but exceptional circumstances. Obviously, my preference would have been to have Committee scrutiny, despite the fact that the Bill, in various guises, has been in train over the past number of years. I assure Members that I have not taken the decision lightly, and I am keen that the Bill is progressed.

I welcome the support of those who spoke this afternoon. In anticipation of the vote, I thank Members for permitting accelerated passage on this occasion to allow this piece of legislation, which is of utmost importance, the opportunity to progress. The Bill will afford hope and optimism to many parents who are concerned about their children starting school before, they feel, they are ready.

A number of important points were raised during the debate, and I will be more than happy to address them at Second Stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Miss McIlveen (The Minister of Education): 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, nor, as the Bill is proceeding by accelerated passage, is there a time limit on individual contributions. I call the Minister of Education to open the debate on the Bill.

Miss McIlveen: I am pleased to bring this extremely important Bill to the Assembly. It is both a legislative and a personal priority. The Bill will provide greater flexibility in school starting age for all young-for-year children.

There is long-standing concern that children who are born towards the end of the school year suffer adverse educational impacts by virtue of starting school at a younger age than their peers. When I was a member of the Education Committee, I consistently advocated for greater flexibility — I am glad to see that Mr O'Dowd is in his place today — and, when I assumed office last June, I made sure that it was the top legislative priority for my Department. In late July, I accelerated the policy review, the subsequent public consultation and the drafting of the Bill. I am therefore absolutely delighted and privileged to be able to bring forward the Bill, which will make such a difference to so many children's life chances.

I will set out details of the policy review for Members. I will provide a detailed overview of the Bill and the evidence underpinning our proposals. Finally, I will set out the important actions that will support the implementation of the legislation.

I turn first to the policy review that underpinned the legislation. In summer 2021, I commenced a major review of our approach to school starting age. Since that time, my officials have engaged extensively with key interest groups and stakeholders to develop the proposals for change that form the core of the Bill. I launched an eight-week public consultation on those proposals, which ran from 9 November last year to 4 January and received over 750 responses, which were overwhelmingly supportive of our proposals. That is a huge level of engagement, reflecting the depth of public interest in the matter. The consultation period included a number of engagement sessions with young people. I thank the many stakeholders — interest groups, practitioners, trade unions, parents and young people — who contributed to that wide-ranging review: your contribution has been so important. Stakeholder engagement, consultation and a thorough review of the relevant research evidence have therefore informed the development of the Bill.

My new policy on school starting age is a key part of a wider suite of departmental policies that includes the implementation of the 'A Fair Start' report, investment in nurture and the children and young people's strategy. Each of those policies aims to support and develop children throughout their time in education and recognises the importance of early years to our children's development. My aim is to ensure that children have access to high quality education that is suited to their individual needs. Greater flexibility in school starting age is an important element of that approach.

I will set out the current position in Northern Ireland and the main provisions of the Bill. Currently, children who turn four on or before 1 July start primary school at the beginning of September that year. Children who turn four between 2 July and 31 August do not start primary school until the following year, when they are five years old. That means that children born in April, May and June are the youngest in the school class, starting school a few months after their fourth birthday. Those children are sometimes known as young-for-year children.

At present, Northern Ireland is unusual internationally in that it does not offer any degree of flexibility around the age at which children start school. That is why my priority has been to bring forward change. I have met many parents who believe that starting school shortly after their fourth birthday is simply not appropriate for their child's needs. Parents have voiced particular concerns about the issues of social skills, emotional readiness, the longer school day and independence in personal care. Parents of children who were born prematurely and are also young for year raised particular concerns.

Those parental concerns are echoed by the research evidence. Research, internationally and in the United Kingdom, has consistently indicated that, on average, the attainment of younger pupils, born later in the academic year, is lower than those born at the start of the academic year. The gap in attainment between young-for-year children and their peers narrows as they get older. The difference is most pronounced early in pupil's school lives but remains right through their time in education.

In light of the evidence around the attainment of young-for-year children, I propose, through this Bill, to facilitate the deferral of primary-school entry for children born between 1 April and 1 July, who are currently the youngest in the school year. Critically, deferral will be available on parental request.

The School Age Bill has four key provisions. First, it provides flexibility so that children born between 1 April and 1 July will be able to commence primary education in the September following their fourth birthday, or alternatively, on parental request, to defer entry to primary school until the September following their fifth birthday.

Secondly, it ensures that children who defer do not reach the lower limit of compulsory school age until after their fifth birthday. That removes any requirement to provide full-time home education in the year before deferred children commence primary school. It is important to emphasise that most children born between April and June will continue to start school at the usual time. The Foundation Stage of the Northern Ireland curriculum is designed to meet the individual needs of a wide range of different abilities and stages of maturity. It recognises that young children come to school from a variety of different backgrounds, having had a range of diverse learning experiences at home. During primary 1 and primary 2, children learn through well-planned, challenging play that develops their interests, curiosity and creativity.

Thirdly, my Bill amends the definition of the upper limit of compulsory school age for those children who defer entry to primary school so that they will continue to receive 12 years of compulsory education, like all other children. That means that children who defer will not leave education at the end of year 11, midway through their qualification courses. That is a very important measure that ensures equity of educational provision for children who defer.

Fourthly, the School Age Bill also amends the regulations for preschool admissions to facilitate the deferral of preschool education. That means that parents of children born between 1 April and 1 July can choose for them to attend preschool in the school year following their fourth birthday. That will allow children who defer to access preschool immediately before commencing primary school, which provides the important continuity of early years education.

Some stakeholders are keen to see further flexibility, such as the option of deferral being extended to other groups of children who are not young for year, including premature children. I assure Members and stakeholders that my officials have looked very carefully at the evidence around deferral for older children in the year group, including those born prematurely. Overall, the evidence does not strongly support the approach of deferral for children who are not young for year.

My Department aims to ensure that all children receive appropriate support during their early years and that those children who are at greatest risk of poor longer-term outcomes with additional or special educational needs receive additional support from the earliest possible opportunity. A policy of automatic deferral for certain children, regardless of their age, in the year group could potentially delay the identification and support of additional or special educational needs. Many practitioners have voiced concerns about such an approach. We do not, therefore, at this time propose to introduce greater flexibility for children who are not young for year, but I assure Members that I will keep that position under active review. That commitment is in my Department's revised policy on school starting age, which was published last week.

The policy includes a number of key actions that my Department will take to support the introduction of greater flexibility. My Department is already working closely with the Education Authority (EA) to develop revised admissions arrangements, which will take effect following the passage of this legislation. Children who defer will be treated in their new year group as target age children for admission to preschool and year 1. That approach means that children who defer will be treated in the same manner as all other children and will in no way be advantaged or disadvantaged in the admissions process for preschool and primary school. This approach is fair and equitable to all children.

I emphasise to the House that, despite the admissions process for September 2022's having commenced, I will ensure that interim arrangements are put in place to permit deferral for September 2022. I also intend to ensure that my Department puts in place effective monitoring and evaluation arrangements, which will inform evaluation of the effectiveness of the current proposed changes and any need for further intervention. That will include a detailed independent research study, which will provide a robust evidence base that is informed by the experience of pupils in our education system, and will be important in informing future monitoring and review of those arrangements.

It is vital that parents are well-informed and confident in making a decision on the right time for their child to start school. My Department will work with the Education Authority and the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) to produce accessible and easy-to-understand guidance and resource explaining the option of deferral and the play-based nature of the Foundation Stage curriculum in primary schools.

I place on record my thanks to the Assembly Business Committee, which has agreed to schedule the Bill's Consideration Stage for next Monday. I also commend my officials for working at great pace to make that happen, and under quite some pressure for me. It is clear that there is widespread political and societal consensus around the need for greater flexibility for young-for-year children. I appreciate the support that I have received to date from the Education Committee.

My Bill provides a unique opportunity to benefit children. No longer will there be a one-size-fits-all approach to starting school, but rather parents will decide what is the right approach for their child. The Bill will give children time — time to play, to flourish and to start school at the best possible time for them. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Lyttle (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): The Education Committee has supported the introduction of greater flexibility on school starting age in Northern Ireland for a number of years. While the School Age Bill presents a more narrow reform of school starting age than most Education Committee members would wish to see, there is a real, urgent need for families to be able to access that flexibility.

The Education Committee supports the School Age Bill after a number of briefings and sessions that it held throughout 2021 on the subject of a flexible school starting age and receipt from the Assembly's Research and Information Service of thorough and comprehensive research, which details extensively the potential gap in attainment between summer-born children and others.

The youngest children in classes across Northern Ireland have been over-represented in referrals to the Educational Psychology Service, and primary-school teachers in this country have been more likely to identify behavioural challenges in children with May and June birthdays. Subsequently, that group's attainment in literacy has been below average. One of the more concerning findings that was revealed in the Assembly's Research and Information Service paper suggested that the youngest children in a year group can be less developed cognitively, socially and emotionally than their older classmates, and, as a result, the youngest are up to 1·4 times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and 1·3 times more likely to be diagnosed with depression.

The need for a flexible school starting age to address those concerns and imbalances has been clear for considerable time. The support for a policy that addresses those matters has been highlighted by the Department of Education's public consultation. Committee members were briefed on those findings, which revealed that approximately 90% of respondents expressed agreement on a flexible school starting age in Northern Ireland. The Committee welcomed views from Tiny Life, early years practitioners and parents at an informal meeting on 14 December on the Department's proposals to allow flexibility on the school starting age. Whilst the group, as a whole, was supportive of that policy and the enactment of legislation within this mandate, a number of concerns were outlined around premature births, children with special educational needs and multiple-birth children. Stakeholders outlined their concerns about the impact of the proposal on those children if they fell outside the threshold of a birthday between April and July.

As Chairperson, I requested that provision be made in the Bill for a robust review system to allow for further changes at a future date, as well as raising questions about the decision to restrict funded preschool places to one year, whereas neighbouring jurisdictions have provided two years' funded preschool places in certain circumstances. Consequently, while the flexibility for school starting age may be available, it could be unaffordable for many families if their decision cannot be accommodated through appropriately funded pre-schooling. The Education Committee has accordingly asked the Minister to add a review mechanism to the Bill so that such matters may be addressed in legislation in the next mandate.

This is a first step for reform, and the Committee supports the implementation of the Bill as a priority in the current mandate. I believe that I speak confidently that that view will be shared across the Assembly today.

We have obviously reached a critical stage in the timeline of this electoral mandate. Scheduling is heavy, and priorities are many, but I am reassured that many Members in the House are in no doubt about the opportunity presented by the Bill to implement tangible change for children and families across Northern Ireland.

This is an opportunity that we ought to take today, and I believe that the School Age Bill can contribute to the broader objective of delivering equality of opportunity to the lives of children across Northern Ireland.

Mr Sheehan: As I said in my previous contribution, this is an important step forward for flexibility around school starting age. It does not go as far as most of us would like, but, still and all, we welcome it and acknowledge the fact that the Minister has brought it forward. All the groups and individuals who have campaigned will be pleased to see it moving through the Assembly, and, hopefully, we will get to Final Stage before the mandate finishes.

Other Bills have finished their passage recently, including the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, soft opt-out organ donation today and the Charities Bill, and I was just reading a tweet from a BBC journalist today saying that, when Stormont works, it can have a massive impact on people's lives here. That is true.

The Minister mentioned in her contribution how she will prioritise the implementation of the report, 'A Fair Start', and mentioned investment and nurture. It beggars belief that the Minister can stand up and talk about that when her party is intent on pulling the place down around our ears, and, at the same time, spokespeople for her party are going to the media and saying that there is no prospect of the institutions being resurrected again until the protocol is done away with, and even if the protocol is done away with —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order. I draw the Member back to the Bill in front of us.

Mr Sheehan: Even if the protocol is done away with, the DUP will not nominate a deputy First Minister if Sinn Féin becomes the largest party. So, there is a lot of hypocrisy here today. We heard the vicious and hostile contributions from the party opposite in a debate earlier when people should have been empathising with those who were victims of British state death squads.

In any event, I want to finish by saying that —

Mrs Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Member address the —

Mr Sheehan: — I welcome —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order. Please take your seat.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As far as I am aware, we are debating the deferral of school start age. Will you ensure that the Member addresses the Bill that is before us in the Chamber?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has made her point. She will be aware that I was on my feet earlier trying to encourage Members to do so. I encourage all Members to try to concentrate on the legislation that is in front of us rather than starting up some other debate or argument.

I will pass back to the Member to finish his contribution on the Bill.

Mr Sheehan: I am finished.

Mrs Dodds: Again, I voice my support and, indeed, that of my colleagues on this side of the House for the School Age Bill. All members of the Education Committee will have received substantial representation from the many parents whose children were born in the latter part of the qualifying period. Those children are often thought of as immature and not really prepared for the rigours of school. I am glad that the Bill will address the issue of children who are young for year. As has been said, Northern Ireland is unusual in the four nations of the United Kingdom in that we have no flexibility for children who are due to start school, and the Bill will bring welcome changes to the law. As we have said before, it is a relatively small and simple change to the law, but it will make a substantial difference to a number of young children.

Currently, children who turn four on or before 1 July reach compulsory school age at the beginning of September that year. Children turning four between 2 July and 31 August do not reach compulsory school age until the following year, when they are five years old. That means that the youngest children in the year start primary school aged four years and two months, while the oldest start at five years and almost two months. The law also states that, if a child who has reached compulsory age is not sent to school, the parents are responsible for the education of that child in that year. Clearly, that is not a practical option for many parents.

The Bill will allow children born between 1 April and 1 July to commence primary education in the September following their fourth birthday or to defer entry to primary school until the September following their fifth birthday. The Bill will also change the upper limit of compulsory school age for children who defer entry to primary school so that they will, like all other children, receive 12 years of compulsory education. The Bill will also ensure that children who defer will be able to receive preschool education in the year following their fourth birthday.

During our time in the Education Committee, members have been contacted by parents who are worried that their children, who were born late in the school year, are not as emotionally or socially ready for school as their peers. Although the foundation stage of the Northern Ireland curriculum, in which children learn through play, provides some flexibilities to meet a range of abilities and is adaptable and appropriate for the vast majority of children, even those who are young for year, it is appropriate for a small group of children to have a little longer before their commencement of formal education.

While many young-for-year pupils will do well in their initial year at school, much international research has consistently indicated that, on average, the attainment of pupils born later in the academic year is lower than that of those born at the start of the academic year. Although the gap narrows as children get older, it can still be a factor even at GCSE stage. The Bill rightly places the decision with parents, who are able to make the right judgements about their children. I am pleased that there is consensus in the House on the need for the Bill, and I am glad to hear the Minister confirm that, if the Bill passes, there will be interim arrangements for the September 2022 intake.

I assure the Minister that we will work in the Committee and in the House to ensure that the Bill passes its necessary stages in this mandate. Again, I acknowledge the work of those who have done so much to bring the issue to the attention of this legislature and to ensure that it will become law.

Mr McCrossan: As SDLP education spokesperson, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important legislation, which was introduced by the Minister of Education. The SDLP supports the Bill, and, as stated earlier, we support its accelerated passage through the Assembly. It is vital that we do not miss the opportunity to enact the change, given that, unfortunately, it did not quite make it in 2014.

The issue, as other Members have articulated well, is that the compulsory school starting age in the North is one of the earliest in Europe. Issues arise with the legal requirement that children who turn four between 1 September and 1 July the following year start primary school at the beginning of the September following their fourth birthday. That means that children who are born prematurely or who have their birthday in April, May or June — the so-called young of the year — are disadvantaged. The Bill allows flexibility for deferred children, meaning that they do not have to start school until the September after their fifth birthday.

In assessing the need for the legislation, it is important that we consider that the research into the area undertaken internationally and in the UK has indicated that, on average, the academic attainment of pupils born later in the academic year is lower than those born at the start of the academic year. Given that poor outcomes often persist throughout a child's educational progression, it is clear that flexibility is needed in the school starting age. That flexibility already exists to a certain extent in England, Scotland and Wales, and it is only right that we catch up.

When looking at today's proposed legislation, it is important to highlight the 755 consultation responses. Some 93% of respondents agreed that there is a need for more flexibility for some children to defer the school starting date, and 90% of respondents agreed that deferral should be available on parental request to any young-of-the-year child born between 1 April and 1 July. There is clearly significant support for the proposals, which is encouraging.

One issue that was outlined in the consultation responses is the need for an assurance that parents will have adequate support and information available to them when making a decision to defer their child's school starting age. That needs to be addressed, and I would welcome the Minister's views on how she will ensure that that is the case.

After years of campaigning, concerns and failure to address the issue, I am delighted that we are now in a position to finally put an end to the severe disadvantage that some children who are starting school have faced. For that, I thank the Minister for taking action and, indeed, her predecessor, who reassured me that the matter would be prioritised in the mandate. Like other MLAs in the Chamber, I have been contacted by numerous parents and other lobby groups on the issue. I have listened to their first-hand accounts of the challenges that they have faced under the current system. They have been told that the only option that is realistically available to them is homeschooling, which does not suit many families, especially those who are working and do not have the resources to homeschool. I have also had a parent of a child with special educational needs come to me. The child was born prematurely at the end of the academic year and did not have a statement in place to ensure that he got the necessary support in school. The family wanted to defer his school starting date, which the primary school was in support of, but they were told that the current legislation would not allow it. Again, that reinforces the argument for greater flexibility and an understanding and appreciation of such circumstances.

Today's legislation rights those wrongs. It is a massive step in the right direction and a win for the many parents, families and organisations, as referenced in the Assembly today, that have been calling for the law change for well over a decade now. The SDLP, like the advocacy groups campaigning to make the change happen, wants to see it happen in this mandate, is happy to support it today and, as previously stated, supports the accelerated passage.

On a more positive note, I reinforce, as previously mentioned, the importance of recognising that, when MLAs come together on a piece of legislation where there is consensus, vast improvements can be made to the lives of our citizens. The Bill is symptomatic of that. It is hugely encouraging and necessary. I would have liked to see it come at an earlier stage, but I am encouraged to see it progress to ensure that it is delivered before the end of the mandate. The same can be said of the Bill that passed earlier today on organ donation, as well as for bereaved parents who are going through and have gone through difficult circumstances, as they will receive that necessary leave. It is not always negative in the House. I just wish that, at earlier stages throughout the mandate, we had had the opportunity to address legislation in such a positive fashion. Maybe the public would have greater faith in the institutions and in what we can do when we work together in the greater interests of our people.

I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to the House. I also thank the Chair and my other colleagues on the Committee for the work that has been done to bring the matter to this stage.

Mrs Barton: Minister, thank you very much for bringing the Bill to the House. My party and I are very encouraged by it.

There are many reasons why our young people may not quite be at the stage of considering starting primary school at the allotted age. It may be health problems, developmental problems or other issues. Therefore, it is important that a young person whose parents consider that they are not quite at the developmental stage to start school have an option to defer. A flexible school starting age is needed and is very important. That has been reiterated time and again through educational research. It is only correct that, as they develop, young people are given the best opportunity to commence and enhance their educational experience.

As the Minister stated, the proposal for a flexible school starting age received the support of over 90% of respondents. While being able to defer the school starting age is to be welcomed, many issues will arise that will, perhaps, need to be addressed in the future. For example, will children be entitled to two years at preschool? At what age will a child who defers be expected to transfer to a post-primary school? Perhaps a little further consideration could also be given to providing flexibility in the school starting age for children with special educational needs.

Minister, the Ulster Unionist Party thanks you for the School Age Bill.

Mr Harvey: I echo the remarks made by other Members in thanking the Minister for bringing the Bill before the House. I am glad that the Education Committee agreed to recommend accelerated passage for it. Hopefully, that will ensure that greater flexibility will exist for the children who are due to start primary 1 next year. Legislation on the matter has been talked about for some time. I am glad that we are finally progressing to the stage of the necessary changes being made to the statute book. Having spoken to many parents, I know that the legislation will be welcomed across the board.

We all know from our experiences that children develop differently. That has never been adequately reflected in the age that children enter the education system. I firmly believe that the parents of younger children are best placed to decide whether their child is ready for school at the age of 4 or whether there would be greater benefit in holding their child back to commence school the following year. I am delighted that the legislation will strengthen the pillar of parental choice on that specific issue. It is a shame that parental choice cannot be upheld in choosing which education sector a child attends, a choice that would be severely hampered by the Integrated Education Bill, for instance. However, I hope that the School Age Bill will receive support from across the Chamber.

It is important that we make the educational experience of our children and young people as suitable and as individualised as possible. That should, in turn, allow them to receive the greatest benefit from the education system. As it has been proven that some children would benefit from a deferral of their commencement of primary education, that should be facilitated. I fully support the objectives of the Bill and commend the Minister for bringing it to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I call Robin Newton.

Mr Newton: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not think that I would be called immediately after my party colleague, but I will speak now nonetheless.

As other Members have done, I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister for bringing it to the House.

She has done so a short time after taking up her post. As other Members have said, I welcome the fact that we got agreement on the Bill's accelerated passage. That was very much the Committee's attitude, with all members appreciating the need for it.

As Members have referred to, deferring the school starting age has a history of being sought. Reference was made to 2014, and there was the three-year period during which matters could not be progressed. There was a bit of a hiatus then. In his remarks, the Chair paid tribute, quite rightly, to the many organisations that have lobbied on the matter and raised the question, time and time again, in a very professional manner.

I pay tribute to one of those lobbyists in particular, who operates under the Twitter name of Belfast Mum. I was lobbied by Belfast Mum. She came to my office, and I can only describe her attitude as heartfelt. Hers was a heartfelt approach on behalf of her child, but, in doing so, Belfast Mum recognised that it was not only her child who was negatively impacted on because of the date of his birthday. The child's birthdate was of concern to her. I pay tribute to Belfast Mum in particular and to the professional charitable organisations that have lobbied me.

The Bill, which will hopefully pass in this mandate, will make a difference, and, in making a difference, is it not good that we can say that it should have very limited financial implications? It will make a big difference, but we will achieve that at a low cost. It will make a big difference to children and to parents.

The Bill provides the best of both worlds for children and parents. It provides the option that will allow parents, as my colleagues Mrs Dodds and Mr Harvey said, to make decisions about the age at which they would like their child to undertake education. I am pleased that the Minister confirmed in her remarks that she not only is looking to this Bill but is willing to look forward. That is good. Others around the Chamber made the point that it is good that we do not see the Bill as being the end result and that the Minister will look forward.

The Bill provides children born between 1 April and 1 July and their parents with the option of beginning preschool education in the September following their fourth birthday, if the parents make the decision to defer their child's entry into education by 12 months. Accordingly, their child will then begin primary school in the September following their fifth birthday. That approach will allow parents to continue to receive a full year of government-funded preschool education. The child's early years education will continue.

Although the Bill provides parents and children with an option to defer education for 12 months, that will have no implication for the child's longer-term compulsory education: they will get the 12 years of compulsory education. That is made clear by the stipulation in the Bill that the full 12 years of education are compulsory and that deferred children who start their education at the later date will be required to complete the academic year after their 17th birthday, thereby preventing their removal from education midway through the examination courses.

There is a unity of purpose to the Bill. That unity of purpose can see us taking a step forward that has been lobbied for by parents over a number of years. As has been stated on the financial implications of the Bill, we can take that step forward at a very limited cost. That is win-win for everyone.

Mrs Erskine: A hat-trick of DUP MLAs.

I commend the Minister, and Mr Weir before her, for bringing the deferral of school age legislation forward. Therefore, I express my support for the legislation.

As has been stated, parental choice is so important. Parents know their children best, and from the parents who have been in touch with me, I know the concerns that they have about their children heading off to school. That is compounded for some families when their children are young in the school year. Parents, rightly, have concerns for the development and educational attainment of their children.

The Bill will have a very positive impact on mental health and well-being. It will remove undue stress from children, and, indeed, their families. I do not need to go into the problems that we already have in our mental health services, and the sad reality is that children are presenting to trusts at younger ages with mental health issues.

Early years are so important in the development of children's lives, and bringing ourselves in line with other jurisdictions where there is good practice is vital. We must always strive to give our children the best start possible in life.

There is public support for the legislation. Many parents have expressed their delight to me at the announcement of the legislation. Following the public consultation, it is clear from evidence from campaigners such as TinyLife that the legislation is long overdue, so I commend the Minister for prioritising it.

A range of research, internationally and in the UK, has consistently indicated that, on average, the attainment levels of pupils born late in the academic year is lower than that of those born at the start of the academic year. I appreciate the fact that the Department has stated that it will continue to review its position with regard to children who are born prematurely or other groups of children who are at risk of underachievement, such as children with special educational needs.

I welcome that the Department is aware of the additional support and intervention in the education system that premature children frequently require. I also welcome that the Department recognises the need to increase awareness, understanding and support across the education system for those children. We must always do better when it comes to identifying specific needs and ensuring that adequate support is in place for our children and young people. This legislation is a step in doing that.

Today is an example of us overcoming an issue in the education system to provide the best start possible in life for our children. Therefore, I support the Minister's action in bringing forward this important and much-needed policy change.

Mr Weir: I am delighted to be able to speak in today's debate, and I am also delighted that this legislation has been brought forward. I am strongly in support of it.

The legislation has not simply come out of the ether. From a policy point of view, it has been well researched. Indeed, all the policy options have been considered in a thorough and timely manner, and there has been proper consultation and strong engagement. We know from what the Minister and others have said that that engagement and consultation has shown that there is overwhelming support for this Bill. That bedrock of strong policy consideration and consultation is the proper way that legislation should be brought forward. Towards the end of the mandate, some of us, perhaps, have a wider concern that, sometimes, a range of legislation appears in the form of private Member's Bills that have been drafted in a much greater hurry.

Mr Lyttle: Will the Member give way?

Mr Weir: I will give way briefly, yes.

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way. He acknowledges that this is going through by accelerated passage, and I presume that he is not suggesting that we take eight years to deliver every piece of legislation in Northern Ireland.

Mr Weir: No. I was going to welcome the Chair's general commitment. If the Chair is having a little bit of a dig, maybe I will withdraw such generous remarks.

It is important to put in context the genesis of the Bill. While the vast majority of parents are broadly content with the process of their children going to school in the time frames that have been set to date, for many families, this will be a major benefit and something for which they have been crying out for a long time. Whether Members are here in the capacity of a Minister, a Committee member or an MLA, they will be aware of constituents who have been in touch with them about very good, genuine examples of the impact that a premature start to school has had on their child, particularly in the early years of learning. Today's legislation is a tribute to the organisations and to those individual parents.

During this mandate, there was pressure, and, in the Department, there was understandably an overwhelming focus on dealing with the immediate crisis of COVID. However, when there was a little bit of space to look at legislation, it was clear to me and departmental officials that the key priority for the Department, and the biggest difference that could be made from a legislative point of view, would be tackling the school starting age and delivering for families on the issue.

Consideration was given, probably a little over a year ago, to a range of other educational issues, and there was the opportunity for this to be a component part of a wider piece of legislation dealing with a range of miscellaneous provisions in education. However, a decision was taken to prioritise this above all else, and that was the right decision, because had this been brought forward in a different format as simply one component of a wider education Bill, I doubt that we would be here today. Even with accelerated passage, it is extremely doubtful, if not impossible, that those issues could have been tackled in such a way that they could have made it onto the statute book in this mandate.

I trust in the bona fides of others. I know that one of the previous Ministers, Mr O'Dowd, tried to bring this provision forward in a previous mandate and, effectively, ran out of time. Allowing that to happen again was a risk that was simply not worth taking. Therefore, the priority that has been given to this issue to try to make sure that there is delivery — I particularly welcome the Minister's remarks today — will ensure that this will not simply be on the statute book before the end of the mandate but its implementation will begin as well. That means that there is the opportunity for parents to avail themselves of this at the earliest possible opportunity, effectively for next year's entry to school.

That focus enabled me, as the then Minister, to make a direct commitment that this piece of legislation would be brought forward and to do so with a level of confidence and a realistic hope that it could hit the statute book. However, making a commitment is not the same as being able to reach the final stage of delivery. When the current Minister came into office, one of her earliest statements was to accept and support this as her first priority. That was one of the earliest things that she said as Minister, and she has been absolutely true to her word and has made sure that this has moved forward. That has required drive from the Minister and also hard work from her officials, which is important to place on the record. That means that, even with the restriction that is there with accelerated passage, it will be delivered within this mandate. This is not simply a case, as it sometimes is in other cases, of having good intentions. It is about ensuring delivery, and the Minister's being able to build on that commitment and to deliver today and in the weeks to come is critical for those families.

As for the direct merits of the Bill, I believe that the contents have been got right. There is a wider debate — I know that this has been raised by the Chair and others — to be had about the appropriate overall school starting age and the flexibility around that. It is clear from what the Minister said that, on a broader level, that will always be kept under review. I suspect that we will come back to it at a later stage. I support the Minister's remarks that the evidence so far draws a clear distinction between what is a clear-cut, proven case of the potential impact on the young-in-year pupils and other groups who would potentially be impacted by a much wider change to the school starting age. Again, as I said, we will come back to that debate at a later stage.

Important safeguards have been put in the Bill. First, it is appropriate and correct that the Bill provides, through its formula, for a guaranteed year of preschool education for all pupils and that no one will lose out on that because of a later deferral. Also, every pupil will be guaranteed a minimum of 12 years' statutory education. That is right from an equity point of view and also from the point of view of ensuring that the correct level of educational provision is made.

It is clear that, in taking this forward — again, the Minister has chosen the right pathway — three different pathways could have been chosen. As the Minister mentioned, you could have had an automatic deferral that would have pushed the school age back. I think that that would have been wrong and difficult to implement, and it would have taken choice away from parents because, at the heart of this, we must ensure that it is what is right for individual families that is put in place, therefore that would have been the wrong route.

The other alternative would have been to have some form of tribunal system through which an application for deferral was made. That would have been fraught with difficulties on at least three grounds. First, we know that, whether or not it is an educational needs tribunal — indeed, all of us have been involved in a range of tribunals — it is very difficult to get from one tribunal to the next in a way which, while they are supposed to be as objective as possible, does not involve a level of subjectivity in its decisions. The route taken in the Bill of an automatic opportunity for parents to make that choice for those children born between 1 April and the end of June is the correct one, because it removes the risk that different cases of a similar nature will be treated very differently.

Secondly, those who have been involved with tribunals, many of which are often necessary, whether on education or other things, will know that they create a high level of uncertainty and worry for the families and individuals concerned. Sometimes, that is an unavoidable route. The Bill creates a situation in which everyone who falls within the category of being able to apply is treated equally, and it removes the period in which the parent or representative has to make a special case for why it should impact their child, or plead for that to be the case, and then endure that uncertainty until they find out whether they are successful.

Thirdly, in an education system in which resources are always scarce, and where we ensure that we have the maximum delivery at the front line for our pupils, it means that we are not adding a layer of bureaucracy or cost to the system. The Minister is right to highlight the need to move ahead on educational underachievement, for example. It is a bit rich to get criticism on that from some who are supporting a Budget that would take money out of the education system, but I appreciate that we do not want to move into wider matters today.

The automatic position that has been put in place, and which is clear, straightforward, fair to everyone and equitable to all families, is the way forward. This is an important Bill, and it will be greatly welcomed by the many families who will benefit from it. Due to the Bill's progression, so far, and the accelerated passage, it will be able to be delivered so that parents can benefit from it straight away. I support the Bill.

Miss Woods: On behalf of the Green Party, I welcome this long-overdue legislation, but I do so with caveats. It is unfortunate that so many families and children have had to go through unnecessary stress and anguish as a result of the failure to implement a very common-sense policy and the fact that our system of government is so inefficient and ineffective at dealing with these sorts of decisions. The Bill was first considered in 2013. It is 2022. It has taken far too long, but I am glad that it is finally here. It opens up the space to have a proper debate about our school starting age.

As we have heard, Northern Ireland has one of the lowest school starting ages in Europe, at four years old. In England, Scotland and Wales, it is five, and most children elsewhere start school at six. Some Scandinavian and eastern European countries do not start compulsory schooling until the age of seven. Our current system is clearly inflexible, and it is not serving children and their families. Many Members have discussed international research that dates back as far as 1997 and which highlights the differences that adding in some flexibility could have for our children and young people's outcomes.

As other Members have mentioned, working with constituents on this issue has been extremely frustrating, because the flexibility that families need is not there. I welcome the fact that the recent consultation demonstrated overwhelming support for getting this fixed. As other Members and the Minister have noted, nine out of 10 responses to that consultation were in favour of giving families the flexibility to defer their child's starting school for a year. That is significant. It will be a huge benefit for those who are born prematurely, for example, or who are very young for their year. It will give them a chance to catch up when it comes to their development. Parents have been crying out for that for years.

However, we share the concerns of many key stakeholders that children aged four and five may not be ready for formal schooling and that it will depend on their circumstances. Some stakeholders also highlighted the fact that children who start formal schooling at any age significantly younger than their classmates may have poor educational and social outcomes, which can persist over the course of a child's education. We agree that having a flexible school starting age would meet the requirements under article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which states that:

We had the opportunity to introduce this legislation in 2014. We should have brought it forward much sooner than now. I may have missed it earlier, but I would welcome an assurance from the Minister — I am happy to take an intervention — that the option to defer will be available for those who need it when it comes to this September's intake. The Bill's commencement clause mentions "the day after Royal Assent". I would welcome clarification on what that means for this year.

Miss McIlveen: Will the Member give way?

Miss Woods: Yes, I will happily give way.

Miss McIlveen: Absolutely. It was my intention that it should be available to parents wishing to defer their children from this year. That has been a priority because great concern has been expressed by parents. I was mindful of the fact that I did not want to miss another cohort, hence the need to move this forward in the way in which we have done so that children can access it from 2022 and 2023.

Miss Woods: I thank the Minister for her intervention. I welcome that. As a number of Members have said, a lot of our constituents are fighting for their children to have this provision, but it might not be applicable to them or it has passed. Going forward, I welcome that clarification.

It might not be an appropriate time to raise this, given that we are discussing a specific Bill, but we need to have a wider debate around school starting ages. The old arguments that starting school early improves attainment or somehow addresses socio-economic disadvantages are not borne out in the research. We need to ask ourselves why other jurisdictions have moved forward and increased their starting age. We need to look at the whole package of preschool provision, the interrelationship between learning and play and holistic models of development rather than just measuring outcomes in a restrictive way.

I will make some brief observations about the Bill. Aside from — [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Members, if you wish to conduct conversations, please do so outside. It is interfering with the contributions of other Members. Please continue, Miss Woods.

Miss Woods: Thank you. The Bill is limited in the flexibility that it provides. As others have said, it is narrow in scope and will apply only to children born between 1 April and 1 July when it comes to deferring entry to primary school until the September following their fifth birthday. In our response to the consultation, we noted that there was no mention of providing flexibility when, say, it comes to a child who has been ill, a child who has a disability or in the case of a child where, overall, starting school is not in their best interests. We raised an example of a child who is premature but ill and has to spend time in hospital, perhaps for a significant part of their early years, or who is subject to long-term treatment for their health, or children with a disability who may be disadvantaged in starting school at the current compulsory age. Those circumstances are not covered in the Bill, which is disappointing.

We support the continuity of early years education and fully support the fact that all children, including those whose parents choose to defer, will continue to receive government-funded preschool provision in their immediate preschool year. That is essential, but I ask for more clarity on the application process. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:

Will they face any barriers when it comes to a school's enrolment numbers? Will they be guaranteed a place in the following year when they have already applied to defer? Those are absolutely critical issues that are not explicitly addressed in the Bill. I understand that they are not in primary legislation and that they are a matter of administration, but they will be key to ensuring that flexibility works properly for those who need it.

This Bill is better late than never. It is not acceptable that families have had to wait so long, but it is a missed opportunity when it comes to assisting premature children and those with other issues around illness and disability. I urge the Minister to amend this, perhaps at Further Consideration Stage, if not in the future. It is also time that we had a proper debate on school starting age more generally. I conclude my comments there.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I call the Minister of Education, Michelle McIlveen, to conclude and make a winding-up speech.

Miss McIlveen: I thank all Members for their comments and observations on the Bill. While there may be some difference of opinion on the scope of the Bill, we are all agreed that the core of the Bill, which is to permit deferral for all young-for-year children on the basis of parental preference, is the right approach for our children. I note that the Chair of the Committee and others talked about the narrow nature of the Bill, and I hope that, by saying that, they are not undermining the significance of the Bill and the incredible difference that it will make to so many young people and their families and, particularly, the life chances of the young people who feel at the moment that they will be disadvantaged by being young for year.

A number of Members referenced the previous Bill. Its scope was somewhat different from that of the Bill that I bring forward today. That Bill was introduced by Mr O'Dowd, and I was supportive of it at the time. No doubt he will agree that it was not without its critics and challenges. It was the only show in town to be discussed, but the proposals were limited in that they permitted deferral in exceptional circumstances only. Parents would have had to provide evidence to an educational panel for why deferral was necessary, whereas the proposals that I put forward today are much more wide-ranging. They permit deferral for all young-for-year children on the basis of parental preference. Parents should not be required to provide evidence. Such an approach is incredibly bureaucratic, and my colleague from Strangford talked about the issues with panels and the difficulties, pressures and stress that they can create for parents.

While what we bring forward today may be regarded as narrow, it is significant. It takes away any barriers, particularly those relating to assessment, and makes the process much easier for parents. That is why it is critical for us to ensure that there is guidance in place, that that is easy and accessible for parents to understand and that they get the correct support to make the right decisions for their children.

A number of Members referenced the issue of deferral of preschool and whether there would be any disadvantage from it. I want to clarify that. For parents who decide later in the process to defer primary school — during their child's time at preschool — there will be an opportunity to apply for a second funded preschool year. That will be very much dependent on locality and accessibility, of course, but it means that a decision in the final year before their child enters school is not precluded. I acknowledge that Members will have had concerns about that, because the pre-preschool year may be a bit early to make that determination, but the option is still available to parents.

The Chair of the Committee referenced the need for the Bill to include a review of the current approach. I have made a commitment to that. I have given a commitment in the House, and it is in the policy documents associated with the Bill, but, if the Member is content to discuss the matter, I will be happy to talk after the debate about what a review may look like and the timescales associated with it.

Mrs Barton raised concerns about transfer. The young people who defer should not be disadvantaged in any way. When they move into P1, they go with their cohort, and they will progress through the school with that cohort, so they will not be disadvantaged by their age. She will be aware that, in one clause, I allow an extension to the years in which their schooling concludes, so they will not need to leave in year 11 in the middle of their examinations, which are incredibly important. She also talked about the need for deferral for children with special educational needs. The research tells us and, as a former teacher, Mrs Barton will understand that it is important that early interventions in those children's lives are made as quickly as possible. It may not be advantageous for them to be deferred at that stage. It may be better for them to progress with their age group to ensure that they have support.

Finally, I am heartened by the consensus on the need for greater flexibility, particularly for young-for-year children. I know that the Bill will provide reassurance and optimism to parents who have concerns about their young child starting school shortly after their fourth birthday. I pay tribute, as others have, to all those who have campaigned for many years for flexibility in the school starting age. They include TinyLife, Early Years and the many parents who have campaigned very hard, the majority of whom will not be able to take advantage of the legislation for their children but will, I know, very much welcome the progress that we have made today.

Other Members have said that the Bill is long overdue, and I absolutely agree. I have made the matter a priority, however, and it has not taken me eight years to bring it forward. I have been Minister for only eight months, but, in that time, I have ensured that it has been my priority. I have driven forward a rapid policy review, which has brought about the Bill. For the first time, we will have real and practical change for families across Northern Ireland.

I would like to thank the majority of Members — there is always one — for their constructive and supportive contributions. I ask Members across the House to support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): That concludes the Second Stage of the School Age Bill. As the Bill is proceeding by accelerated passage, there will be no Committee Stage and the Bill stands referred to the Speaker. I draw to Members' attention that the Consideration Stage of the Bill is scheduled for Monday 14 February. Therefore, the deadline for tabling amendments is 9.30 am tomorrow. I want Members to realise that point.

I invite Members to take their ease while we move to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Before we proceed, I inform Members that it is my intention to have a short suspension for half an hour after we conclude the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Glaoim ar an Aire Pobal, Deirdre Hargey, leis an Bhille a rith. I call the Minister for Communities to move the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group of eight amendments, which deals with the end date for qualifying payments. I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debate on the single group of amendments, they should address all the amendments in the group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate is completed, any further amendments in the group will be formally moved as we go through the Bill and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we will proceed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): We now come to the group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 8. In the group, amendment No 2 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 1; amendment Nos 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive to amendment Nos 1 and 2; amendment No 6 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 3; and amendment No 8 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 1.

Ms Ferguson: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Ms Ferguson: I will speak in favour of amendment Nos 1, 5 and 7.

The purpose of amendment No 1 is to remove the end date from the Bill. Members will be aware that I expressed my concern about the inclusion of an end date during the previous debate on the matter and again earlier today, when I spoke on the motion to close the loopholes.

The stated end date is March 2025: that is only three years away. Do we honestly feel that families should have to continue to worry about the bedroom tax? Energy costs are soaring, and that is predicted to continue over the next three years. The cost of living continues to rise. We are still trying to work through the challenges of the pandemic. People do not need this hanging over their heads. Many of those things may be out of our control but, where we can provide support for people, this is the time to do it. People do not need any more uncertainty. We must change it for the better.

The Tory policy that we know as the bedroom tax is unfair and unjust. In previous discussions, many of my colleagues have spoken about the number of one- and two-bedroom properties here that would allow people to live where they want to live and to go to work, attend school or undertake caring responsibilities: those properties barely even exist here. People in the North would fall foul of the tax. It is important that we focus on the health and well-being of our people and our families, not on how many bedrooms they have in their home.

As Members know, the Executive agreed in 2015 that the mitigation was required. That was the right thing to do. Some 36,000 people are protected because of the mitigation and, hopefully, with the loopholes being closed today, even more will benefit. I welcome that a consensus on continuing the mitigation remains, but it is not right or necessary to create another cliff-edge scenario.

I understand the Minister's position in taking forward the Bill in its current form. She has been more than clear, since she came into post, that her intention is to effectively bin the bedroom tax. However, as we are all aware, that requires Executive support. With the ongoing delay, it was not sustainable. People needed and deserved assurance that the payments would continue. However, we are where we are now. Given the time constraints, I fully support the Minister's decision to proceed with the Bill with an end date included. However, here and now, there is an opportunity, through amendment No 1, to give people on low incomes the security of knowing that they will continue to be protected from this Tory tax.

From the amendments submitted by other Members, it seems that they also have issues with the end date, though they offer different alternatives as to what it could be. The SDLP alternative, in particular, is a bit bizarre. It proposes an end date of 2030, which, as Members are well aware, would bring us to another cliff edge. I urge all Members to unite behind amendment No 1, which will remove the end date for all. It will give security to the people who depend on this support.

I will speak very briefly on amendment Nos 5 and 7, which, in short, retain the requirement for a review in 12 months, leading up to March 2025. Of course, it is always important to monitor and review all aspects of mitigations. It is via that mechanism that changes and improvements can continue to be identified and addressed.

I urge all Members to support amendment Nos 1, 5 and 7.

Ms P Bradley: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the amendments at Consideration Stage. I think that I am right in saying that I am the only Member in the Chamber — I am certainly the only member of our Committee — who sat through the initial Welfare Reform Bill, as drafted, when it landed on the old Committee for Social Development. I remember the many hours, days and nights spent in the Chamber discussing the Welfare Reform Bill. I remember that, when that Bill landed on the table of the Committee for Social Development, I was horrified at some of the decisions that we were being asked to look at and agree.

I remember speaking in that Committee on many occasions about how I felt that we were taking a step backwards, particularly with single payments, by taking money, especially child benefit, away from a female and paying it into the wallet instead of the purse. I thought, "We are going back in time here". That Bill was like a baby to me during that Assembly term, because it was the one Bill that I scrutinised from the very beginning until the very end. It was therefore precious to me.

I also remember that, when we saw the welfare reform mitigations, I lobbied Nelson McCausland, my party's Minister for Social Development at the time. I lobbied him greatly, because I put myself in the position of those people. I was a single parent from when my second child was very young, so I knew what it was like to struggle financially and to have to decide between heating my home and feeding my children. I remember all those struggles, so I was very clear that I wanted to see mitigations put in place. I was also very aware that I represent North Belfast, a constituency with really high deprivation, where people do struggle. We know that those struggles will only continue and increase, especially through fuel poverty. I absolutely get that.

I remember another thing: the many church halls, community centres and everywhere else that I went to back in 2015 to listen to people and hear about their experiences. I also remember that only two other Members ever attended those events with me: Mickey Brady and Fra McCann. The three of us were like lambs to the slaughter at times, and sometimes it was very upsetting, so I am glad that we got to where we got to with the welfare mitigations. Other Members will talk about the mitigations and say how awful welfare reform in general is, and doing it was absolutely awful, but there was no other show in town. There was nothing. Nothing was costed by any other party in the Assembly to show how we should take forward welfare reform, or welfare benefits in general. We were left with it, and we are where we are.

I also know about the cliff edge. I sat in many hustings and debates with Members from various parties across the Assembly during the 2016 and 2017 elections and then while the Assembly was down. We sat and listened to the people who were affected directly by the cliff edge explain to us how it would affect them. I therefore understand, 100%, that we do not want to face another cliff edge. We do not want to put those people in jeopardy.

It has been and will be said in the Chamber that there will be uncertainty after the next Assembly election. I hope that that is not the case. I believe, with all my heart, that the best place in which to make legislation for Northern Ireland is this Chamber, because we are the people who know, at first hand, what the effects are on our constituents of anything that we discuss. If anything can show us that the Assembly works, it is the welfare mitigations that were delivered by the parties that worked together, went over to Westminster and had the conversations to bring about what we have today. That shows just how well the Assembly works.

We have got to the stage that we have today. My party wanted to see an end date put on the mitigations for various reasons, including the fact that we do not know who will hold the Department for Communities portfolio in the next mandate. We do not know which Member from which party it will be. We will absolutely not divide the House on the matter today, however, because it is far too important. We are dealing with people's lives. I feel so passionately about the entire subject, but I want to make sure that whoever takes on the portfolio in the next mandate has their feet held to the fire.

We cannot let the mitigations continue for ever and a day. I am not saying that because I think that we should stop them. I do not think that we should, because we do not have the housing or anything else in place to allow us take them away. Things need to happen, however. A review needs to take place, and we certainly need the results of the current review in order to see what else we can do, whether we are doing things right and whether we can put anything else in place. As time goes on, the House will have really serious decisions to make about how we can add further to welfare mitigations. Those are difficult decisions to make when we are trying to balance finances and work out whether to take finances from the Department of Health, the Department of Education or anywhere else. We have to pay for all these mitigations.

I have always been very aware of the fiscal responsibility that we have in the Assembly. As I said, that is certainly something to look at in the next mandate. I want those guarantees, and I know that one of the amendments stipulates that a report has to be done prior to 2025. I welcome that, because that will be debated again by whoever comes back here after the next election; they will debate how we go forward with welfare reform and the mitigations.

Welfare reform was like my baby; I felt so passionately about it. I come from a working-class background and a working-class family. I know what it is like to have hard times, I know what it is like to do without and I know what it is like to struggle. I know my constituents and the struggles that they have. I would say that 70% of my workload in North Belfast is around housing and housing stress: people who cannot get the housing that they need. We need these mitigations to cover the bedroom tax until we have that housing in place.

I get it and I agree with it. Even if the will of the House had been to leave 2025 as the end date, it would have gone beyond that: there is no doubt that the mitigations would not have stopped then. We need to compel whoever the next Minister is to look at a whole raft of mitigations, because we may need to add to them or to do things differently.

In return for not splitting the House, I ask that a date is put down. Maybe that will come forward at the Further Consideration Stage. We will not divide the House. I support the people who are in receipt of the mitigations, and my party supports them. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Mr Durkan: I recognise the urgency of the matter before us today and the incalculable harm — the increased household poverty and the financial impact — that not extending mitigation payments would undoubtedly cause. As has been highlighted at previous stages of the Bill, the unique position that the North finds itself in, with our growing housing crisis, low-wage economy and high numbers of people living with a disability, means that welfare reform would have hit harder here than anywhere else in the UK, had we not moved collectively to mitigate it when and how we did. As Ms Bradley said, that is clear evidence of the value of these institutions and the need for them to be up and running and working for people.

The repercussions have still been pretty severe, and the consequences of not extending the mitigations do not bear thinking about. I have spoken at length on how this policy change has come to pass and on the inherently flawed system that is welfare reform. I will spare you most of that verbiage today. However, I will say that the number of proposed amendments to the legislation before us is indisputable recognition or acknowledgement that the Bill is not perfect. The Minister would be the first to agree with that.

Turning briefly to the amendments, we support amendment No 1, which was moved by Ms Ferguson. We submitted our own amendment, which had a similar desired effect and essentially looked at either leaving the end date in clause 1 open-ended or abolishing it altogether. Indeed, the Minister has expressed her desire to scrap the end date for mitigations. My amendment was not accepted, but I am glad that Ms Ferguson's amendment and amendment No 2, which have a similar effect, were accepted. In tabling those amendments, Sinn Féin and Alliance are acknowledging the unsatisfactory nature of the process, which requires constant renewal. In essence, we are righting a wrong and retrospectively mending the damage that was inflicted on people when parties here voted for the then Welfare Reform Bill.

I listened carefully to the Chair of the Committee. Having served with her in the early days of the Social Development Committee — I got along to a few of the events that she mentioned with her, Fra and Mickey before I escaped to another role — I know how much effort she puts into protecting people and her steadfastness in doing so.

Those reparatory attempts now stand as a realisation of how limited the guarantees that people were given at that time really were. The housing crisis that I touched on earlier means that households that would have been subject to bedroom tax are trapped in a catch-22 situation; they are unable to downsize due to the lack of suitable housing stock across the North. Therefore, extending those mitigations from January 2017 onwards was the only logical and fair conclusion. There will, sadly, remain the opportunity for the mitigations to be stopped, removed or truncated at the whim of or, more than likely, in the absence of an Executive here in the future.

Ms Ferguson referred to my amendment, which sought to extend the end date to 2030. It is important to note that that was submitted as an insurance policy or safety net in the event that any amendment to do away with the end date was not accepted. Mine was not accepted, but yours was, and I am delighted that it was. I am genuinely pleased to be in a position in which I hope that we do not have to move my amendment. I will be supporting yours.

The Bill will, undoubtedly, help those who need it. I welcome that the pleas from the Cliff Edge Coalition and others have been heard and noted in the amendments today. I lament that it has taken so long for us to reach this point and that prioritising the needs of vulnerable households was not treated with greater urgency. Nevertheless, we are very happy to support the Bill.

Mr Allen: Unlike the Member for North Belfast, I was not involved in the long and protracted conversations about welfare reform at that time — I first entered the Assembly in September 2015 — but, as a constituency MLA who sees at first hand, as do many other Members, the effects of welfare reform on many of my constituents, I place on record my thanks to the Members who came together on this. I know that it was difficult. There were many disagreements, and many long hours were spent trying to come up with the mitigation package that we ended up with.

I will not rehearse all of the arguments around the housing crisis that Northern Ireland faces. It is well documented and noted. We need a change in how we deliver housing, including in relation to one- and two-bed properties in order to support families and households to be able to downsize if they so wish. They should not be forced to downsize where they do not wish to do so. We need to continue to build sustainable communities, as the Minister has said before, in that regard.

We tabled amendment No 4, which would have given a future Minister the power, through regulation, subject to the affirmative resolution of the House, to change the end date as necessary or appropriate, but we cannot ignore the uncertainty around these institutions when considering the amendments. Therefore, we will support amendment Nos 1, 5 and 7. Had we not had the uncertainty around these institutions, or the fanfare as to whether we will have institutions post-election, we would have been pressing Members to support amendment No 4 to provide that agility to a future Minister.

It is right, proper and important that the review mechanism is in place. I commend the Members who have put forward amendments. During our various discussions at Committee, these issues were raised many times, and the passion and enthusiasm of each member was notable. Nobody denied that we needed to extend the mitigations. The disagreement was about the period of time for which the mitigations should be extended. I am on record as having tried to come up with a plan to end the deadlock that we had at the Executive by suggesting a period of 10 years, but we are all cognisant of the fact that the mitigations will need to be in place for decades. That is the fundamental reality. I have not spoken to anyone, either outside the House or in it, who believes that we will not need the bedroom tax mitigations for many years to come. It is right and proper that we support amendment Nos 1, 5 and 7.

Ms Armstrong: Today, we have variations of the same theme with the amendments that have been proposed. I think that we can all say that there has been a move away from a cut-off date to the welfare reform mitigations in Northern Ireland. Those mitigations have protected people in Northern Ireland from some of the worst impacts of welfare reform. We see, across the rest of the United Kingdom, that people in other areas wish that they had the same mitigation powers that we have and the same mitigations in place.

During Second Stage, I raised the Alliance Party's concern about a cut-off date for welfare reform mitigations. During that debate, I said that I would propose an amendment, and amendment No 2 has been presented to deal with that. It is in three parts that are listed as Nos 2, 6 and 8. The key amendment for me is my amendment No 2. I have proposed that, instead of a cut-off date, the legislation requires that there be a review of welfare mitigations and a report published by 31 March 2025. That will provide the Department with an opportunity to review welfare mitigations and provide a report in advance of the next, hopefully, three-year Budget. The date of 2025 is key, because it is the end of this three-year Budget, so it would bring that forward. The review is not necessarily to cut it off, but could bring forward improvements and new mitigation options to allow recommendations from the independent welfare mitigation review advisory panel to be brought forward. Of course, it could remove mitigations, should DWP update its policies and bring forward solutions to poverty and actually pay for the mitigations that we are currently taking out of our core budgets here in Northern Ireland.

I have provided the House with an option to enable updates to our mitigations package rather than having a cliff-edge cut-off. Alliance is committed to alleviating and removing poverty in Northern Ireland, but we are also pragmatic, and we understand that the Bill has significant financial implications. That is why I proposed the amendments that provide an alternative to a cliff edge, but also give the opportunity to amend future mitigations based on a review and published report. Given the number of amendments that have been presented today that all seek to move away from a cut-off date, the House will decide. I have looked at the Sinn Féin amendment. We have ones where we are almost exactly there. I did not put forward an amendment to take out the end date, because I thought that it would not be within competence and would not be allowed. However, we are seeking the same thing.

Perhaps, in her summation, the proposer of amendment No 1 will just clarify for me 100% that her other amendments, Nos 5 and 7 — is that right? — will actually allow the review that we need, which will allow the House to sit down and consider what we need — what we might need to improve, what is actually helping people, and maybe what needs to be set aside — so that we can move away from just the bedroom tax and benefit cap and start to talk about things that are helping people in Northern Ireland.

In Northern Ireland, we spend an awful lot of money trying to put right some of the worst impacts of welfare reform. I think that we are all on the same page here: there is no fight today. Perhaps the Member can just outline whether we are absolutely sure that we have that. We can, of course, come back at Further Consideration Stage with the Minister and look at whether we need to tighten up something under clause 3:

to allow us the flexibility that others in the House have talked about. However, we are all on the same page. We need to protect people here in Northern Ireland. We have done it already today. It has been one of those days in the House when we have actually had some really good legislation. We have had the organ donation Bill. Dáithí was out there yelling and screaming; it was lovely to hear in this place. We have had some really good things, such as the school starting age Bill and welfare reform extensions. We can bring this forward. I think that we will be able to do what the Minister would like us to do, which is wipe out the awful bedroom tax. However, we need to be able to review. To be honest, I am almost there with you, Ms Ferguson, and may be minded to vote with you, just as long as you can give me some clarification that clause 3 will allow the review that I talk about in my amendments.

Ms Hargey: Thanks to everybody who has taken the time to contribute, and to all those on the Committee who have supported me in trying to bring forward those mitigations as quickly as possible.

As was said, from the very start, I did not want an end date. That is clear, and I am thankful that, hopefully, at the end of this session, we will avoid those cliff edges.

I have always said that there has been a commitment from me and the Department to carry out a review. Kellie raised that when speaking to the amendments. I have been willing to do that since I first put the proposals to the Executive in January 2020; indeed, we are currently reviewing the mitigations. That is ongoing, and that will be presented to the Department before the end of the mandate. Les Allamby, former human rights commissioner, is chairing that review and working with those who come from the sectors that represent people on the ground. That was a commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA) for the restoration of the Executive, and I wanted to make sure that that was done. Amendment No 7 will commit to a review being done before the end of the mandate in 2025.

I agree with some comments that have been made that the review is about additional mitigations and protections. Other Members have reflected that we should not penalise families financially and put them in predicaments. We have seen the impacts of the bedroom tax in England. Families have been forced to leave their homes, communities, towns and cities to look for housing elsewhere. Given the conversation here tonight, I am hopeful that we can say to those who would be impacted — more than 36,000 people — that we will not make those decisions and will work as a House to protect them.

I want to reiterate that I am glad about how the debate is going. I am glad about the amendments, and I hope that we will agree to amendment No 1. As long as I am Minister, I will commit to doing that review and looking at future needs and mitigations.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Glaoim ar Ciara Ferguson le críoch a chur leis an díospóireacht. I call Ciara Ferguson to complete the debate.

Ms Ferguson: First and foremost, I thank all Members for their support tonight for my amendments. Just to reiterate, my clear intention with the amendments is that there will be a detailed review. As Kellie mentioned, in short, it is always important to monitor and review all aspects of legislation. We must review everything so that we can constantly evolve, change and improve. I reiterate that.

In response to Paula, I will say that, like Andy, I was not here five or six years ago, but I was working in the heart of the community when the Tory Government brought that forward. I listened to the Member say how horrified she was and how passionately she followed through with her commitment to ensure that the mitigations were there for those she represents and for all other constituents. It was fought for by her and by Sinn Féin to ensure that the mitigation packages were there to support our most vulnerable people at that time and to continue to support people. I thank her for reminding us all.We all need to be reminded of that. It was hard fought, but it was a good win with regard to implementing the mitigations and continuing the mitigations.

It was not last year or the year before; it was nearly six years ago. People have had this hanging over their head for a long time wondering whether we are going to take more money out of their pocket. As we have heard, people are going through so much at the minute, with the cost-of living crisis and energy costs. This is about trying to keep money in people's pockets so that they can feed their families and heat their homes. That is why it is critical. Hopefully, we agree the amendments and today is a good day.

Mark mentioned that we have unique circumstances in the North, and, as Andy mentioned, our housing needs are not like elsewhere. It will not take a decade; it will take decades. I have been a Member of the Assembly only for the last three or four months, but I am excited about the future of social housing and the new types of housing that the Department, the Minister and the Committee have been working on.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mr Allen: Will the Member agree that our current housing selection scheme is not fit for purpose? While I appreciate that amendments have been tabled, the selection scheme does not currently afford those who wish to downsize the ability to do so.

Ms Ferguson: Yes. I agree with the Member, and it is pertinent that the common selection scheme be reviewed. We must constantly review housing schemes as things have been stale for the past 10, 20 or 30 years. We must evolve and change, and housing is critical. We all know that having a home provides security and safety for individuals and families in order for them to survive and thrive in their communities and to access jobs. As Kellie mentioned, it is not just a little tweak; it is about constant review in order to improve and change. Yes, I very much agree with Andy.

I thank the Cliff Edge Coalition and the 130 plus organisations that it represents, which have tirelessly concentrated on welfare mitigations and brought presentations to the Committee. I was keen to meet the Cliff Edge Coalition to discuss welfare reform mitigations. The coalition has lobbied hard, and it is a good day for it. I am sure that its members are watching the debate tonight and are delighted that Members from across the parties are very much in agreement about the amendments and making improvements.

It is great that we can bring certainty to the people and families who have had this issue hanging over their heads for such a long time. We can protect those families from Tory cuts once and for all.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I will not call amendment No 2 as it is mutually exclusive to amendment No 1, which has been made.

I will not call amendment No 3 as it is mutually exclusive to amendment Nos 1 and 2, one of which has been made.

I will not call amendment No 4 as it is mutually exclusive to amendment Nos 1 and 2, one of which has been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I will not call amendment No 8 as it is mutually exclusive to amendment No 1, which has been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Thank you.

Members, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 6.50 pm.

Ms Á Murphy: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit for the overall debate, but it has agreed a limit on individual contributions. The sponsor of the Bill will have up to 20 minutes to open the debate and a further 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. The Minister will have up to 20 minutes to contribute, and the Committee Chair will have 15 minutes. All other Members who are called to speak will have 10 minutes.

Ms Á Murphy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Stage of the Onshore Fracking (Prohibition) Bill. The Bill has one very clear objective, and that is to ban fracking in the North of Ireland. In effect, that would realise a ban on fracking throughout the island of Ireland. Ultimately, what we need is a ban on all petroleum licensing. We must ensure that there is no exploration, drilling for or extraction of petroleum here in the North.

While consecutive DUP Economy Ministers delayed making decisions on the future of petroleum licensing, my predecessor, Seán Lynch, began to develop legislation to outlaw the particularly harmful method of fracking. On numerous occasions in the House, the current DUP Minister, Gordon Lyons, committed to bringing petroleum licensing to the Executive before the end of 2021. That was not delivered.

Last month, in response to a topical question for oral answer from my Sinn Féin colleague Philip McGuigan on why a ban on petroleum licensing was not included in the energy strategy, Minister Lyons stated that he planned to bring it to the Executive "in the coming weeks". Unfortunately, the DUP's decision last week to collapse the Executive means that, once again, we will not see any progress on a ban on petroleum licensing in this mandate. That makes the need to ban fracking all the more urgent.

As someone who was born and raised in County Fermanagh and who has been active in the community for a number of years, I know at first hand the impact that the threat of fracking has had on my local community for over a decade. Several attempts have been made to commence fracking in Fermanagh, but the people of Fermanagh and our local communities in Leitrim have been resolute in opposing such moves. The same must be said about communities that have been affected by other attempts to explore for oil and gas, particularly around the Lough Neagh area. That is because our communities know what natural beauty they have, and they value it and their environment. They value it for themselves and their children. Sinn Féin has stood with our communities throughout. We have been consistently and vociferously opposed to fracking. That is why we have worked to introduce this important Bill.

It is important to set out the policy context of fracking applications in the North. In 2011, the then Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Arlene Foster, granted a number of licences to companies to permit them to frack, including one in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. As I said, that was opposed by our local community, who were deeply concerned by the potential impact of fracking on the locality. In 2015, the 'Strategic Planning Policy Statement' stated that in relation to fracking or:

While the statement dealt with the imminent threat of fracking, it was by no means a permanent solution.

More recently, in 2019, two new applications for petroleum licences were submitted to the Department for the Economy. The applications concerned areas in County Fermanagh and near Lough Neagh and, if granted, could allow fracking to commence. Those applications are still being considered by the Economy Minister, although he has indicated that he will not take any action on them until a new petroleum licensing policy is agreed by the Executive. As I said, we now know that we will not have any new policy on petroleum licensing in this mandate. The existence of those two applications shows that the threat of fracking is still with us, that it is serious and that we need a permanent ban on fracking if we are to deal with it once and for all.

The evidence shows that fracking is particularly invasive and damaging in its exploration and extraction. It is an unconventional method of drilling for oil and gas. In the process of fracking, a horizontal borehole is drilled into subterranean rock. Fracking fluid is pumped into the borehole at extremely high pressures, with the aim of fracturing the rock. When the rock fractures, it releases oil and gas deposits, which can then be extracted. Large volumes of fracking fluid, which is a mixture of water, sand and chemicals, are required in order to create the fractures in the rock.

Fracking became widespread in America, particularly in places like North Dakota and Pennsylvania. It has a negative impact on nearby communities, having been shown to cause groundwater contamination, soil corruption, earthquakes, noise pollution and significant increases in airborne radioactivity as well as increased greenhouse gas emissions. The air emissions are particularly worrying as they are formed primarily of methane, which is more than 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide. It has also been linked to a host of health problems, including birth defects, cancer and asthma.

Fracking has serious consequences for biodiversity in affected areas, with many wildlife habitats and areas of conservation impacted by industrialisation or destroyed due to contamination. Like any industry that is based on a finite resource, it is prone to a boom and bust economic model. Once a well has been tapped dry, fracking companies simply pack up and leave.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy): I appreciate the Member giving way. She has given a little bit of background to hydraulic fracturing. First, will she confirm whether her definition of "hydraulic fracturing" in the Bill means high-volume hydraulic fracturing? Secondly, does it relate only to petroleum, or will the Bill also outlaw fracking when it is used for water boreholes?

Ms Á Murphy: I thank the Minister for his intervention. I will not answer it at this time. We are discussing the broad principles of the Bill. I have lost my place; bear with me.

Of course, communities are still left with the environmental impact of fracking long after the companies are gone. Fermanagh is renowned for its beautiful countryside and freshwater lakes, to which thousands of tourists and anglers flock every year. Even the public perception of the air, soil and water contamination caused by fracking could cause serious damage to areas that rely on those industries.

Beyond its local implications, banning the practice of fracking is also important in the context of our fight against climate change. Fracking would increase our greenhouse gas emissions. The Assembly is currently considering the Climate Change Bill, which will set ambitious, fair and deliverable targets for net zero emissions. It would also be unfair, as fracking companies, which would be responsible for increased emissions, would be the ones profiting at the expense of local communities. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to leave the door open to fracking or other means of petroleum extraction whilst we are still setting targets to reduce our own carbon emissions.

The opposition to fracking is not limited to Ireland and the United States, with many jurisdictions around the world having already introduced legislative bans or policy moratoriums on fracking. That is the case in the rest of Ireland and in England, Scotland and Wales. Again, the North is trailing behind others. We are the only part of these islands without such provisions to defend against fracking. That is despite the fact that the Assembly voted by a large majority in October 2020 for an immediate moratorium on fracking.

The DUP, as the party that has had policy responsibility for it in the Department for the Economy since 2007, has failed to protect our communities against the threat of fracking. The Bill, however, will realise a ban on fracking and bring us more into line with other jurisdictions.

The previous Economy Minister, Diane Dodds, commissioned the Hatch Regeneris report to examine the impact of fracking, as well as conventional oil and gas drilling, on our communities. That report was completed in May of last year but has still not been released to the public.

I will now turn to the Bill itself. First, I thank my predecessor, Seán Lynch, who began the process of developing the legislation over a year ago. I also extend my gratitude and thanks to the Assembly Bill Office for its work and advice, as well as for the assistance that it provided to Seán, me and our staff over the past number of months.

The Bill is short, with only one substantive clause, which amends the Petroleum (Production) Act 1964. The Bill states: "Onshore hydraulic fracturing is unlawful." It means that the Department would have no right to search for or get petroleum by way of onshore fracking, that it would not have any right to grant any licence for the same purpose and that any existing licences that permitted fracking were to have no effect.

The Bill pertains to only onshore fracking, where "onshore" includes everything apart from the foreshore, the internal waters adjacent to the North and the territorial sea of the North. It was my intention that the Bill would prohibit onshore and offshore fracking, but I was advised that the seabed and underlying natural resources are reserved matters. I wrote to the British Secretary of State about whether the Bill could legislate for offshore as well as onshore fracking. I did not, however, receive the necessary confirmation. That having been said, the intention of the Bill is firmly to ban all forms of onshore fracking and to shut the door tightly on the prospect of any fracking on the island of Ireland.

I look forward to the debate, and, in my closing remarks, I am happy to deal with any queries that Members may have.

Dr Archibald (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly as Chair of the Economy Committee to outline the Committee's consideration of the Bill to date, before speaking in my party capacity, also briefly.

As the Bill sponsor outlined, the Bill aims to secure a ban on the issuing of licences in the North for the onshore exploration, extraction and production of fossil fuels by means of fracking. The Committee's current extensive legislative workload means that it was unable to invite the sponsor to brief members on the Bill in advance of Second Stage. The Committee will aim to do so if the Bill passes Second Stage today.

The Committee acknowledges that a review of petroleum licensing is ongoing in the Department for the Economy. That review has not yet been published, however. Although the Committee has not yet discussed the Bill itself, it has already consulted anti-fracking groups during informal Committee meetings. We also wrote to the then Minister outlining concerns, such as the impact of fracking on public health.

To conclude, the Committee welcomes the Second Stage of the Bill. However, there is obviously limited time left in this Assembly mandate, and, with the Committee's current legislative workload, it will be limited in its ability to give the Bill the attention and scrutiny that it deserves and requires.

On behalf of Sinn Féin, I will make some brief remarks. Sinn Féin's position on fracking is unambiguous. We are completely opposed to fracking and want to see the ban on fracking extended across this island, which is why this legislation has been brought forward. In the context of the climate crisis, and given that, just yesterday, the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill passed its Consideration Stage, it is clear that we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels. Therefore, our policy attention and investment should be focused on developing our renewable energy capacity. The energy strategy published by the Department for the Economy is clear on that matter.

Sinn Féin has repeatedly stated on the public record its opposition to petroleum licensing through exploration, drilling or extraction in the North and has called for a ban on petroleum licensing. In that context, I was disappointed that the Minister did not bring forward proposals to ban petroleum licensing when he published the energy strategy. As I referred to in my earlier remarks, the Department has undertaken a review of petroleum licensing and has been in possession of the Hatch Regeneris report on the matter since last summer. The Minister responded to questions about future petroleum licensing policy by saying that he planned to bring options to the Executive soon. In December, a Department spokesperson said:

The Minister indicated at the Economy Committee a couple of weeks ago that he was finalising a document to go out to consultation and that he would have to take that to the Executive. He said:

Given that Sinn Féin is on record, along with other parties, in stating that we would not support policy proposals at the Executive unless they include a ban on petroleum licensing, perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity during his remarks to outline his preferred option for the future of petroleum licensing.

Given the discussion that we have had over the past week on the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill and the overwhelming rate of scientific evidence, including the IPCC sixth assessment report published in August past, which was described as a "code red for humanity", it is clear to me that there is no place for any new fossil fuel exploration in the North. Fossil fuels should remain in the ground. Therefore, I hope that all parties and MLAs will be able to support the principles of this straightforward Bill to ban fracking at its Second Stage, and I look forward to further scrutinising it at Committee Stage.

Mr Speaker: I call Peter Weir. The Member has up to 10 minutes.

Mr Weir: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I suspect that I will not need the full 10 minutes; I just want to make a few brief remarks.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bill. There is a potential criticism when a Bill comes to its Second Stage in February before the dissolution of the Assembly, especially given that, only a few days ago, the party opposite was actually calling for the election to be brought forward, which would have curtailed any further business. There is a danger that people could see this as virtue signalling without any effect. That would be a very harsh criticism of the proposals that are in front of us today, because we are at least taking a benign look at this.

The Bill gives us the opportunity to debate the issue, and it gives the Committee the opportunity to explore it. As the Committee Chair highlighted, because of the passage of time, there has not been the opportunity for the Committee to explore the issue or, indeed, to question the Bill sponsor. There is at least an opportunity for us to explore what the scope of the Bill actually is, because I am still somewhat confused. The Minister sought to make an intervention — the Member may deal with this in her summing-up — to get clarification from the Member on whether the Bill purely covers petroleum licensing or whether it covers, for instance, boreholes when it comes to water. The Bill sponsor, who, one would assume, should be the person who is most over the scope of the Bill, essentially said, "Well, I am refusing to answer that". I do not know whether that means that she will deal with it in her summing-up, but, if the Member is refusing to detail the scope of Bill, it is very difficult for the rest of us to have absolute certainty. Perhaps the passage of the Bill at Second Stage will give the Committee an opportunity to explore those sorts of issues.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member giving way. Does that not speak to a wider point about why we need to take our time with legislation in order to make sure that we understand what impact it will have? That is very important for definitions, in particular. The Bill sponsor may understand, in her own mind, what she is trying to do. We have to make the definitions themselves very clear. That is what I was trying to tease out, because it will have further implications.

Mr Weir: It comes down to the fact that legislation needs to have a clear-cut policy intent, and clear-cut consultation needs to take place. Embracing any legislation should be done on the basis of full knowledge. By way of comparison, there was some criticism of the School Age Bill that we dealt with earlier on the basis that it should have come forward sooner. It came forward when it did because there had been clear-cut development of the policy and consideration of the policy options, and, indeed, consultation had taken place. While some Members wished that the legislation had been brought forward sooner or that it had a wider context than the confines of the Bill, it was absolutely clear what the policy position was and what we were voting on. If there is merit in all of this, it is that it at least gives the Committee the opportunity to tease out the detail of the proposed legislation, but it is clear, given the time frame, that the legislation is not in a position to get on the statute book.

Let me make it absolutely clear: we, as a party, support the phasing out of fossil fuels. That has been highlighted in, for instance, the energy strategy brought forward by the Minister, and it is clearly the direction of travel. It is undoubtedly the case that, across the Executive, there is not any enthusiasm or support for fracking. From that point of view, an assurance has been given that, if there were any attempt to change that, the Executive as a whole would have to endorse that, because it is clearly controversial and cross-cutting. We will not shift from the current position unless there is that level of endorsement, which clearly is not going to happen. There is therefore a question mark over the pure necessity of the legislation in the first place.

The energy strategy is now out for consultation, and there is a clear direction of travel in that proposal. However, rather than reaching the point at which that consultation concludes, the Bill seems to be pre-empting it. Mention was made of the fact that one of the reasons for its necessity is that, essentially, over a 15-year period since 2007, despite some interruptions to devolution, the only political party that has had control over this issue, from a departmental point of view, is the DUP. It would appear that the suggestion was that the DUP could not be relied upon to stop fracking. The fact that, in the space of 15 years, there has been no fracking perhaps suggests that there is not a danger coming from our party or, indeed, the Assembly as a whole. I simply mention those caveats. It is fairly clear from the parties in the Executive that there is a unanimous view on the subject.

The only other caveat that I would add is that we need to exercise a little bit of caution on the wider issue of petroleum licensing, for which there are two applications. From a legal point of view, due process has to be followed. We have to be careful that we do not reach a situation in which a potential decision is judicially reviewed, given that there is unanimity of approach from the Assembly.

I look forward to the opportunity to at least tease out some of the issues. Hopefully, we will get a more forthcoming approach from the Bill sponsor than we have had thus far in the debate. Perhaps that can be addressed, as well some of the issues with the scope of the Bill, in the Member's summing-up of the debate.

If not, there will be the opportunity in Committee to tease out the issues, because the Assembly needs to move forward on the basis of a level of certainty with any legislation, even this Bill, which, I suspect, will not reach the statute books in this mandate. As legislators, we need to know precisely what is being voted on. I am glad that there will be that opportunity to tease that out as the days move ahead.

Mr O'Toole: I rise, as others have done, to speak briefly on the Onshore Fracking (Prohibition) Bill. I do not wish to be facetious — in some ways, I hate to do this — but, before I go on to the Bill, I want to correct some of what Mr Weir has just said. He said that the DUP had not posed a danger with regard to introducing fracking and that, in a sense, the DUP had not tried to introduce it. The first Minister to properly stand in the way of fracking in Northern Ireland was my colleague Mark H Durkan, who effectively introduced a moratorium here on fracking in 2015. When he did that, none other than Sammy Wilson, MP for East Antrim — former boss of the Minister — in the context of the DUP apparently never having advocated fracking, said that Mark Durkan:

I am sorry; there is always a Sammy Wilson quotation to be quoted back. I say that not to be facetious but to correct the record. We have always been kind of incomplete

— I am happy to give way to the Minister or to someone who thinks I am insulting them.

Mr Weir: I thank the Member for giving way. I was making the point that there was an accusation that, because the DUP had held the Economy portfolio — previously ETI — there was a threat of fracking. I simply ask if the Member can point to anywhere in Northern Ireland where fracking has taken place in the 15 years in which this party has held those posts, and I will be more than happy to cover the cost of the petrol for both of us to go there, but I suspect that he may not be able to point to any example of where fracking has taken place in Northern Ireland.

Mr O'Toole: I am merely pointing out the words of his party colleague. I do not want to get into this borehole.

Mr Lyons: Yes, you do.

Mr O'Toole: I do in the sense that, sometimes, the Members opposite are quick to clutch their pearls when the words of their colleagues are spoken back to them. I am afraid that it is on the record, so some of the Members' colleagues will be held accountable for some of the things that they have said and some of the policies on this that they have advocated in recent years. I am sorry if that causes a problem for members of the Democratic Unionist Party.

I will move on to the substance of the Bill. The Onshore Fracking (Prohibition) Bill will not make it to the statute book before we break up for recess; Mr Weir is right about that. Therefore, we are not just debating the general principles of the Bill; we are really having, effectively, a debate on a motion rather than progressing legislation. Nevertheless, we will, of course, support the Bill at Second Stage. My party is strongly opposed to fracking here and to any new extraction of fossil fuels in Northern Ireland, not just in the context of a global climate emergency but in the context of strong and vociferous local opposition in all parts of this region where fracking has been mooted.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I have tried to seek clarity from the Bill sponsor; perhaps the Member will be able to give his view. Is he opposed to fracking of all kinds or only for petroleum? If it is the case that he believes that fracking of all kinds should be prevented, does he think that the Bill reflects that?

Mr O'Toole: The Bill is clear, and it says "petroleum". I am not the Bill sponsor, so it is not for me to explain what is or is not in the Bill. When it comes to fracking more broadly, I will not get into a debate about specific applications that may be in front of the Minister. There are serious issues and questions around other types of fracking — that is, fracking not specifically to extract oil or gas — including issues around the potential corruption of the water supply and the seismic effects that can happen. Indeed, the potential seismic risks are the reason why the UK Oil and Gas Authority, when it was asked by the UK Government to investigate this in 2019, came back and said that it could not rule out future seismic activity as a result of fracking exploration. That is one of the reasons why the UK Government, who, for the previous decade, had hitherto been extremely enthusiastic about fracking in opposition to local opinion and broader environmental sentiment —

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one minute. They had been enthusiastic about it for that decade, and even they are not any more. As we have heard, other jurisdictions on these islands either have a legal ban on fracking or an effective moratorium.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much to the Member for giving way. During the Economy Committee's consideration, did the Committee have an opportunity to look at what the UK Oil and Gas Authority was saying? It is clear from the UK Oil and Gas Authority that fracking will not be permitted anywhere across the United Kingdom. Even though there is a moratorium in England, the clear intent of the UK Oil and Gas Authority is to make sure that there is no use of fracking anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr O'Toole: The answer to that question is, "No, we have not", because we have not had the chance to do any detailed scrutiny of the Bill yet. I am the Deputy Chair of the Committee, but I am not speaking formally in that role. We have not heard from the Bill sponsor yet because of scheduling, and I hope that we are able to take some evidence on this before we break up. I am sure that that will be one of the things that we look at.

I welcome the fact that we will be able to scrutinise the Bill, assuming that it passes Second Stage today. There are substantive questions that we will need to examine. It is a short, one-clause Bill, but our party position is clear. We do not want to see fracking in Northern Ireland, and we do not want to see the extraction of fossil fuels. That is not just our party position but the clear position, I think, of most people in this society and that of the communities where it has been mooted. There really is no excuse and no justification for us having any doubt about wanting to countenance fracking.

It would be good to hear later from the Minister some clarity about his position on petroleum licensing. The truth is that we are not a big player in petroleum licensing or fracking, but, in one sense, that is not really the point. It kind of comes back to some of what we were debating the other day around the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill. It would, in a sense, be forever possible for a small region to say, "Sure, we are small when compared with China or India or even when compared with the rest of the UK or Europe". That is not good enough when it comes to the climate emergency. It is not good enough, because the scale of what we will have to do over the next century will involve literally every person on the planet. It will involve substantive, practical and political decisions being taken by those of us who have the power, and it will involve ethical, serious decisions being taken by all of us. This will be one part of it.

I am happy to support the Bill proceeding today at Second Reading, even though there is, obviously, no chance of it now getting any further and certainly no chance of it getting on the statute book before the end of the mandate. I hope that it is something that we can pursue in a new Assembly, assuming that those of us who are responsible enough to want to actually sit in an Assembly and make decisions, including on the climate emergency, can come back here and do that in the months ahead.

Mr Nesbitt: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. Let me front-load my remarks with all the good news for the Bill sponsor: we will support the Bill going through its Second Stage. The Ulster Unionist Party does not support onshore exploration for gas or oil. As Members have made clear or referenced, we have spent considerable time in recent sessions in the Chamber talking about the climate and appropriate targets for reducing our dependence on carbon and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, drilling for hydrocarbons would be totally counterproductive and counter-intuitive to that aim. The Ulster Unionist Party will not support licensing, either in the Executive or on the Floor of the Assembly, and we hope that others will join us in adopting that position.

That said, it is my impression, from discussions with MLAs, many of whom are in the Chamber, and advisers to MLAs who are in the Building, that there is no chance of the Bill progressing through all its stages before dissolution. That raises a question for the Bill sponsor: why are we here tonight? It is 7.25 pm. There are many Members here from your constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone who want to get home tonight and who have other business to do, so why are we here?

Mr O'Dowd: Will the Member give way?

Mr Nesbitt: I will in a second, because the other point that I want to make is the contrast with Mr O'Dowd, who has been passionate about his private Member's Bill on small-scale green energy generation. He told the Committee last Wednesday that he was pulling it. The Member will explain, but my impression was that, with the publication of the energy strategy, he needed more time to reflect and, perhaps, reshape his Bill. That is a very mature attitude to take. I give way to Mr O'Dowd.

Mr O'Dowd: I suspect that a number of private Members' Bills will come through the Assembly in the next number of weeks. In fairness to the Bill sponsor, the Business Committee will schedule private Members' Bills when there is a free slot. We have been encouraging Members to bring them forward. The Bill sponsor got a slot, and we scheduled it.

When I withdrew my Bill, I said that the deliberations of the Committee would be useful in the next mandate, if it is necessary to bring that Bill back. I suspect that the deliberations on this Bill will be useful in the next mandate, when we will need a fracking Bill.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I accept that that is exactly what he said when he decided to pull his Bill. What he said about this Bill may be what the Bill sponsor wants to say, but that will be up to the Bill sponsor in her concluding remarks. I conclude here. Dr Aiken will have a lot more to say when it is his turn to contribute.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Bill sponsor for bringing the Bill to us this evening. It is one that the Alliance Party will support at this stage, but it raises a wide range of questions, and I have to express disappointment in the scope of the Bill. As others said, surely the objective of the Assembly, or at least that of the vast majority of those in the Assembly, is to see a permanent end to all fossil fuel exploration in Northern Ireland, both onshore and offshore. I appreciate that there are difficulties with offshore, but, given that the United Kingdom is inexorably moving towards that goal, offshore exploration is unlikely to proceed.

Here, however, we have a Bill that is narrow in definition and does not, for the Alliance Party, meet wider needs or the objective of demonstrating that there will be no further fossil fuel exploration in Northern Ireland. I do not want to delay the Assembly for long, but perhaps those are some of the areas that would be explored at Committee Stage. Indeed, if the Bill comes back in the next mandate, they will have to be further explored.

For example, it is a short Bill, and it only makes reference to:

I understand that part of the argument for taking the Bill forward, apart from, obviously, the wider matter of environmental protection for the whole of Northern Ireland, is the Member's specific interest in her constituency. The type of fracking that she proposes to ban in the legislation, however, probably does not match much of the geology of her constituency, which has been calling out because the area has been earmarked for exploration. I wonder exactly what is going on, and I hope that the Bill sponsor will explain some of the narrow language in her Bill that seems to fail to hit the mark on its whole purpose of dealing not only with fracking but with the wider issue of fossil fuel exploration.

I have direct experience of that in my constituency of East Antrim — indeed, it is also the Minister's constituency — where we saw the ultimate failure, thank goodness, of an ill-thought-out oil exploration escapade at North Woodburn reservoir. That was a very regrettable situation. Had that escapade been successful, if that is the right word to use, it had the potential to damage the water supply for the whole city of Belfast and beyond. Had it come to fruition, there was the potential for devastating impacts.

At a cost of some £70,000, the Minister sought and procured a report on the whole issue of fossil fuel exploration. I guess that the excuse for not bringing it forward will be that there is no Executive. I implore the Minister to bring that report forward. As others have said, the whole issue of how we tackle climate change is important to many citizens across Northern Ireland. Intrinsically linked to that is fossil fuel exploration and, not least of all, fracking, wherever that may be and, indeed, whatever the scope of the Bill may allow us to do.

The energy strategy has also been mentioned. I am sure that the Bill sponsor will want to explain to the House how this legislation fits in with the overall aims of the strategy, which has its good points but has many areas of grave concern for the Alliance Party, not least its references to and praise for the potential to deliver blue hydrogen — a fossil fuel if ever there was one.

Ultimately, it is unfortunate that the legislation has come late to the Assembly. With others, I have criticised the Bill sponsor for the narrowness of the Bill. We would like an explanation as to why she brought it at this stage, having had so much time, as did her predecessor, to flesh out a Bill in this particularly strong area. Regardless of that criticism, it is important that we hear from the Bill sponsor why it is so narrow in its scope and why it seems to fall far short of achieving very much at all, given its few short lines.

Failing to ban fracking and petroleum licences in this mandate will have a dire consequence for our country's future. The Minister has failed to make a clear recommendation based on the Hatch report. Despite all the national agreements and the fair belief that we all have that it would be very difficult to see fracking or petroleum exploration, clearly, we cannot know that, once and for all, until the Minister and others — ultimately, the House — legislate to say that no more fossil fuels will be extracted from the ground or from under the ground in Northern Ireland. Tonight, many across Northern Ireland are concerned and worried about their health, the environment and how we are ever to tackle climate change in this community.

Failing to ban not only fracking but a wide range of exploration methods does not cut it, as far as the Alliance Party is concerned. We need to send a very clear message from the Chamber to the industry, fossil fuel supporters and those still investing in that type of technology: we do not want you, we do not need you, and your time is up.

Mr K Buchanan: I will keep my remarks brief because the Bill is short. That is no reflection on the Bill sponsor. We all need to consider a clean, green recovery and clean energy. The status quo of importing and consuming fossil fuels at current levels is unsustainable. I have heard Members complaining about fossil fuels tonight and in many debates, but I would be interested to know what is in their tank or fireplace. You have to put your money where your mouth is. I currently use a fossil fuel. Of course, I will look at that when other options become affordable. It is important for everybody to lead by example.

The Economy Minister has brought forward an energy strategy that contains a range of ambitious targets and policies to support the transition to safe, affordable and clean energy solutions. The draft energy strategy, 'The Path to Net Zero Energy', includes the following goals:

The draft strategy continues:

Any change to petroleum licensing in Northern Ireland would need to be decided by the entire Executive. I recognise the concerns about carbon emissions, global warming and the environmental impacts of petroleum extraction. Those concerns have been raised to me and, no doubt, to others in the Chamber. There needs to be further public consultation, but it is clear that fracking would not lend itself to the vision that has been put forward, and, due to public opposition, it has been banned, or more or less banned, in the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales, because of environmental and public health impacts.

Independent research was carried out in England and Wales, and it is vital that such research is completed in this part of the United Kingdom. Ministers have made it clear that a ban on fracking may present legal obstacles and, in particular, the potential for challenge in the courts by those whose applications for licences are pending or are rescinded as a result of any Bill. That, no doubt, will be explored if the Bill reaches Committee Stage.

As with all Bills and laws that come forward, it is important that there is a fuller explanation of the practical and legal ramifications of a Bill's clause 1. I am content, at present, with the objectives of the Bill. I will wait to see whether it will pass this stage, and then we can carry out relevant work in the Committee. As my colleague said to the Bill sponsor, fracking will have to be defined. In my previous life, I drilled for water and made boreholes etc. What implications did that have, given that it was purely to provide water for livestock?

Miss Woods: I thank the Member for giving way. The Bill sponsor will, I am sure, address this point in her summing up, but my understanding of the Bill is that it is to amend and will insert a new clause into the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. Can the Member tell me whether that is where any permissions for fracking for water come from?

Mr K Buchanan: Perhaps that question is better answered by the Bill sponsor than by me, to be honest. When you drill to explore for water, it depends on what method you use to get it out. You can put in air or water at high pressure. So the definition —

Mr Lyons: I appreciate why the Member raised that question, and, yes, the Bill would amend the Petroleum Act. However, it says, "Onshore hydraulic fracturing is unlawful". That is the effect that the Bill would have. Further down, the Bill says that that is:

However, we need that clarified. That is all that I was asking. Also, we would need to know whether that is for high-volume extraction. However, I let the Member resume his speech.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you for that intervention. At least the Bill sponsor knows that we have a few queries. Obviously, we can drill into that, if you will excuse the term, a bit deeper if the Bill reaches Committee Stage.

That is all I want to say at this point. I thank the Bill sponsor.

Mr McGuigan: This is a short Bill, and I will, hopefully, keep my remarks equally short. There are many reasons to be opposed to fracking. My colleague Áine Murphy has outlined them all: damage to our environment, water systems, soil, air and health and much more. Fracking destroys our land, countryside and communities. Sinn Féin stands with those communities that are rightly opposed to fracking. No community should have that threat hanging over it.

As others have said, there is no public demand or support for fracking, and it is a practice that should not be countenanced by any Member. For that reason, and in the absence of various DUP Ministers bringing forward policies or legislation, I thank my colleague Áine Murphy for introducing the Bill.

Yesterday, progressive MLAs across most political parties in the Chamber came together, after three long days of debate and voting, to shape ambitious climate legislation for the North. I hope that, once all the stages in the legislative process are complete, that Bill will become law before the dissolution of the Assembly. The Climate Change (No. 2) Bill will set out a new, green, environmentally proofed path for the North. There is no place in that pathway for petroleum licences and petroleum extraction, and there is certainly no place for fracking. Sinn Féin is vehemently opposed to that practice, and I support and commend the Bill.

Mrs Erskine: I welcome the opportunity, as a Fermanagh and South Tyrone MLA, to speak on the subject this evening. The concerns about fracking centre on my beautiful constituency and are well rehearsed. The Minister will know that I am incredibly proud to come from that part of the world. From the outset, I want to make clear that I am opposed to the practice of fracking, given the environmental concerns associated with it.

At the start of the debate, the Minister raised a vital point about the Bill's scope. I hope that the Bill sponsor will deal with that in her summing up, as it may help to give further understanding of the Bill. The energy strategy taken forward by our Economy Minister sets out a range of ambitious targets and policies to support the transition to safe, affordable and clean energy solutions and to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. It is safe to say that the practice of fracking does not lend itself to the vision set out in the Minister's energy strategy.

I am pleased that my party is committed to phasing out fossil fuels. As representatives, we have a responsibility to ensure the protection of the environment and to seek to promote renewable energy sources. The status quo of importing and consuming fossil fuels at current levels is unsustainable. To see that commitment, all you have to do is to look at the Minister's energy strategy, 'The Path to Net Zero Energy', which includes the following goals:

and

How would fracking tie in to any of that? Does it sound like support for fracking?

It is important that we listen to the strength of public opinion on fracking and act accordingly. There has been a step change in public opposition to it, and I am glad that the Minister has been listening to that. I want to set the record straight: from what I can see and hear, no party in the Chamber is actively advocating petroleum licensing. Indeed, no fracking is happening in Fermanagh. It is very important that we send out that message from the Chamber tonight. To land the blame at my party's door is slightly mischievous in the run-up to an election.

We need to have environmental and independent reviews to provide evidence. The importance of consultation and wide-ranging DFE reports must not be diminished either. They empower us by giving us the evidence to do what we should be doing in this place: proper scrutiny of legislation. As an aside on that point, it concerns me when I hear phrases such as, "We hope to have the opportunity for proper scrutiny of legislation in Committee". We must ensure that legislation has proper, robust scrutiny. I see that scrutiny in the Health Committee, on which I sit. The Chair of the Health Committee is here. The time constraints that we are under at the minute make that scrutiny difficult, but we are legislators. Laws should not be used just for election literature, because they have real impact on the ground.

I return to the Bill and to fracking. From the discussions that I have had with him, I know that the Minister cares about Northern Ireland and will carefully review all the facts presented to him through any independent reviews, public consultations and environmental and economic studies. Politicking on the issue is not an option; it is too great a concern for my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas le hÁine Murphy as an Bhille seo a thabhairt os ár gcomhair. I thank Áine Murphy for bringing the Bill before us. The SDLP supports the Onshore Fracking (Prohibition) Bill. There is a compelling case for a ban on the issuing of licences for onshore exploration, extraction and production of fossil fuels by means of fracking here in the North.

It was an SDLP Environment Minister who, in 2015, introduced what was, in effect, a moratorium on fracking until scientific evidence could demonstrate that it could be carried out safely, without risk to the environment and public health. There is still no such evidence. Indeed, there is more evidence than ever that fracking can have a significant negative impact on the environment and on the health and well-being of nearby populations.

Reference was made to Lough Neagh's being one of the potential target areas for frackers. It is well known, having been well established, that there are high levels, possibly higher than elsewhere, of asthma and related chest illnesses around the shores of the lough. It is a fact that coughs, shortness of breath and wheezing are the most common complaints of residents living near fracked wells. An epidemiological study of more than 400,000 patients of the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, carried out by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health — for Members' interest, it is the largest school of public health in the United States, if not the largest in the world — found a significant association between fracking and chest and related problems and increases in mild, moderate and severe cases of asthma. Another Hopkins-Geisinger study looked at the records of almost 11,000 women with newborns who live near fracking sites and found that they had a 40% increased chance of having a premature baby.

Those are just some of the things that we have to consider. I listened very carefully to the Fermanagh and South Tyrone representative Mrs Deborah Erskine. I have no doubt about her sincerity. As a co-signatory, on behalf of the SDLP, to the private Member's motion in 2020, I welcomed the Assembly's decision that:

Indeed, Mr McGuigan referred to our lengthy periods of listening to evidence and voting last night. On the occasion of the 2020 motion, the Assembly called for Executive action and legislation to ban in the North:

Even before the latest DUP election stunt, the Executive had failed to bring forward legislation to ban fracking. The Minister announced a review of petroleum licensing, but that has not been published yet. Perhaps he can respond about that later. It is the Minister's responsibility to introduce a ban on fracking. Although it is a cross-cutting issue, affecting a number of Departments, it is for his Department to initiate the ban, and I genuinely hope that that ban comes.

There are no active petroleum licences, but two applications for licences remain under consideration by the Department. The existence of those applications and the possibility that a Minister might award a licence in the future — perhaps the Minister will give us some indication about that tonight — will continue to undermine our target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and mock efforts to reduce the use of hydrocarbons as an energy source, locally and globally.

We have heard that the evidence on fracking has been considered by Administrations across these islands, all of which came to the same conclusion. They recognised that regulation of fracking is not enough. It is time that we closed down that option here too. The future is one of a decarbonised energy system. We can demonstrate our commitment to that greener, cleaner vision — for tonight, anyway — by supporting the Bill.

Our young people are demanding a climate reset for the sake of their future. An Executive ban on fracking would be a small step towards convincing them that we are listening and that we hear them. It would send a clear message to companies that we do not want fracking here, with the constituent health and environmental risks that it brings. The SDLP supports the Bill.

Dr Aiken: As my friend Mike Nesbitt pointed out, the Ulster Unionist Party will support the Bill as it goes through the Assembly. It is good that we have had the opportunity to listen to all sides of the argument during the debate. I do not detect anybody, anywhere in the Assembly who is for fracking in Northern Ireland. If we look at what is happening across the rest of our nation, particularly the report from the United Kingdom Oil and Gas Authority, it is very clear that there is no attempt to introduce fracking onshore anywhere in the United Kingdom. That is a very appropriate place from which to continue our discussion this evening.

Mr Dickson: I very much appreciate the Member giving way and the comment that he made about there being no appetite or intention to see fracking anywhere across the United Kingdom. Does he agree that it is vital that, in considering the Bill, we define fracking? Will he comment on the very narrow description of fracking in the Bill?

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed. I do not wish to go in to one of my normal, extremely long scientific definitions.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, fellow Members.

However, some significant and important questions have been raised by the Minister. When we talk about hydraulic fracturing, one of the issues is what else it is used for. One of the issues that is quite important when we are looking at the future energy mix is the use of geothermal energy. The fact is that, sometimes, drilling will be required for that. It is important that we delineate how fracking is specifically used, because it may be used for things such as water boring. One of the most significant areas that we need to look at is carbon capture and the use of underground storage facilities for that purpose. My friend from east Antrim and many of us from that area have raised issues about the implications of gas caverns. The fracking process might not be used specifically for that, but we must keep it in mind.

The Bill is very narrow in its focus, but it is very important that we send a strong message from the Assembly that we do not wish to see any form of petroleum or gas drilling going on in Northern Ireland. There is another reason for that. Many people will be aware of the way in which oil and gas companies now look at their accounts. Many of them look to what they call "distressed assets", or assets that are left specifically in the ground.

Oil and gas companies across the world are expending an awful lot of effort on drilling and are using hydraulic fracturing to do their drilling processes, but they are leaving those assets in the ground and then using them as tradable assets in the energy markets. Those of us who noted the profits that were announced by Shell and BP today will know that that is something that the major hydrocarbon companies are doing. The last thing that we want in Northern Ireland is a situation in which somebody uses fracking to drill, thereby creating problems with the environment, and finds some form of resource that they leave in the ground to exploit at some indeterminate time in the future. That would desecrate the environment and have no net economic impact whatsoever. As we move towards decarbonisation, we very clearly need to be led by the science.

In the Assembly, we have had a lot of debate about the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill and the climate emergency. We in the Ulster Unionist Party have said that we listen very closely to the science from the Climate Change Committee (CCC). For us, that means that we need to get to the 82% solution, or better, by 2050. The science is very clear. Indeed, when the UK Oil and Gas Authority saw the issues that were being caused in Lancashire, including microquakes, it put a halt to fracking.

I declare an interest: some of my family live in Oklahoma in the United States. The area around Shawnee in Oklahoma, where they live, has been very much affected by fracking. It has had an impact on the water table and supplies, and there have been other issues, which has not been much of a benefit.

The Assembly has an opportunity. That is why we should all join together and support the Bill.

Miss Woods: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this long-awaited Bill. My thanks go to all of the campaigners and activists for their tireless work and lobbying to introduce a comprehensive ban on fracking and hydrocarbon extraction in Northern Ireland and to keep the pressure on the Executive parties.

We are making progress, but there is still much to do.

The Green Party will obviously support the Bill at Second Stage because we support the principles of it. However, I, like others, want to raise serious concerns about its detail and limited scope. I am extremely disappointed and concerned that the Executive have failed to implement the clear and unambiguous call of the motion that I brought to the Assembly in 2020, which was agreed to, to implement an immediate moratorium on petroleum licensing until legislation is brought forward that bans all exploration and drilling for and extraction of hydrocarbons in Northern Ireland.

The Executive speak regularly of a commitment to phasing out fossil fuels yet have failed to take that critical step. The onus remains on Ministers to bring forward a comprehensive and unequivocal ban if they want to be taken seriously. Worryingly, the proposed energy strategy includes proposals for blue hydrogen production, a fuel source that has been shown to produce emissions that are up to 20% higher than those of gas.

Last Thursday, I attended a virtual event with a long-standing campaigner and actor whom many of you will know as the Hulk. Mark Ruffalo has been deeply involved in anti-fracking campaigns ever since proposals came to light for shale gas extraction in his home state of New York. Perhaps he will be listened to. His view, which is one that I share, is that the gas industry still has Northern Ireland in its sights, and the Executive's proposed energy strategy leaves the door open for fracking under the guise of so-called renewable gas and blue hydrogen production. We cannot allow that to happen.

In 2014, Tamboran Resources, one of the companies that is being considered for a petroleum licence by the Economy Department, stated that it was:

It said that people:

Tamboran has suggested that there are potential benefits through investment, jobs and, bizarrely, energy security. That argument is full of holes. The same argument was made by Arlene Foster, the previous Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who said:

and

It would appear that that is no longer the DUP's position on shale gas, which is welcome.

The carrot of potential investment and economic returns that is dangled in front of our noses is nothing more than a false promise. Even the Hatch Regeneris report — I have not seen it, and I do not think that anybody has — that was talked up so much by the previous Minister, and has yet, as I said, to see the light of day, despite being passed to the Department last summer, appears to be absolutely conclusive in that respect, if what we have read on social media is accurate. If the leaks that emerged at the end of last year are genuine, the report undermines the central argument in favour of drilling, saying that the economic and employment benefits for Northern Ireland would be relatively low.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Miss Woods: I will give way.

Mr O'Toole: Does the Member agree that, putting aside the potential for environmental devastation, a lot of the studies into the economic impacts have found that, given the work that would need to be done around fracking, which requires specialist staff who are, quite often, if you like, migrant labour — people who come in from outside to do that work — the added economic benefit in particular areas in terms of the multiplier effect for specific regions is, as was found in large parts of the United States, actually quite low? Of course, the environmental cost can also be devastating.

Miss Woods: I thank the Member for his intervention. I do agree. I would also make similar comments about any potential for gold-mining.

That research was commissioned by the previous Minister for the Economy. We were told that it would form the basis for the Executive's adopting an evidence-based policy going forward. However, the evidence is clear that the arguments in favour of fracking do not add up. The report has been quoted online as saying that Northern Ireland is unlikely to achieve the economies of scale and low production costs that would provide a major benefit from lower energy prices. Perhaps, the Minister, in his summing up, will confirm whether that leaked report is, in fact, the correct one.

We also know that large multinational corporations that profit from environmental destruction are adept as shielding themselves from tax obligations and other regulations, and they are remarkably good at funneling profits into the hands of shareholders via offshore accounts. Drilling for fossil fuels is not the way in which to achieve energy security: renewables are.

The only real energy security is from renewable resources that can generate sustainable green jobs and solve the complex crisis of rising fuel prices that we now find ourselves in the middle of.

Our citizens should not be at the mercy of the market for fossil fuels when it comes to something as essential and significant as transport, energy and the ability to heat and light our homes. Continuing to rely on fossil fuels will mean that we will never come close to meeting our Paris commitments, including the targets being considered under the climate Bills, nor would we be able to meet the huge challenges that climate change will bring.

Returning to the specifics of the Bill, it is clearly not enough, but it is a start. I recognise that legislating for offshore exploration and extraction requires the Secretary of State's consent, and I am keen to hear more detail from the Bill's sponsor about the communications and efforts to secure that. It is shameful, again, that the Executive have not sought the relevant consent and brought forward comprehensive legislative proposals that reflect what the House agreed in 2020. I do not need to list the potential harms to public health that fracking brings. We know about the chemicals, the noise, the pollution, the dangers of releasing certain substances and the detrimental impacts that all those things can have on people's health, not to mention wildlife habitats and our natural environment.

As I have stated before in the Chamber, our entire petroleum licensing regime is flawed. The absence of meaningful consultation under the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, the failure to uphold the rights enshrined in the Aarhus convention, the absence of strategic environmental impact assessments and the absence of management plans for special areas of conservation and other protected areas mean that there are no ecological baselines for the assessment of environmental impacts with the scientific certainty that is a legal requirement under the habitats directive. The former Minister has already accepted that our laws are seriously out of date, yet we still wait for action and for the promised consultation and policy direction.

The Green Party will continue to strongly oppose fracking, drilling, extraction of fossil fuels from mining and putting people's public health at risk for commercial gain. You cannot be in favour of climate action and fossil fuel extraction at the same time. As I say, while the Bill is a start, it falls short, and we have much more to do. The Executive must act, and I plead with the Minister to please release publicly the full Hatch Regeneris report. Ministers must implement the immediate moratorium and bring forward a comprehensive ban on all exploration of, drilling for and extraction of hydrocarbons.

Mr Carroll: It is important that there be a ban on fracking of any kind in communities here. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Member's Bill this evening. As environmental activists and campaigners have stated, such a ban would be ineffective if the Executive did not take a clear position on the need to ban exploration licences for petroleum and other fossil fuels. The current Minister and two previous DUP Ministers have had applications on their desks for PLA1/16, which would allow for exploration for petroleum in the area running from Lough Neagh across to Belfast lough. It would impact on the drinking water of people in my constituency and way beyond, so, before the Minister is out of office, whenever that is, I ask him to make sure that the application is thrown out and that EHA Exploration Limited, which is trying to engage in that extractive and dangerous action, is told that it is not welcome to do so. For more than two years, activists have campaigned against the application and submitted a record number of opposition letters and petitions, but the Minister has not acted. It is time for the Minister to do the right thing and bin the application.

The truth is that the DUP has allowed Tamboran and Dalradian to operate and given them the green light for works to extract and explore. The Minister's energy strategy, which has been announced and discussed, falls way short of what is needed at this time. It allows for the continuation of fossil fuels. It is a policy dictated by the current petroleum policy, which dates back to the 1960s and shows and states a clear addiction to and support for the petroleum industry and the fossil fuel industry. Oil and gas are bad not only for the planet but for the pocket. People pay over £1,000 a year extra on their bills to fund the profits of the likes of Shell and its shareholders.

On the issue of petroleum licences and the Executive, it is worth stating, as the previous Member did, that it was late in the day when Sinn Féin indicated that it would vote against any such policy being brought to the Executive. It was pressure from activists across the North and from the aforementioned Mark Ruffalo and others that made Sinn Féin commit to blocking it at the Executive. Before that, there was silence on the Sinn Féin strategy in the Executive. That shows activists that their pressure and campaigning can bear fruit.

I share the concerns that other Members have about blue hydrogen. Despite what the fossil fuel industry would have some believe, methane gas has no role in decarbonising our energy system. The hype about blue hydrogen from fossil gas is just a hydrogen horror story. As others have said, evidence has indicated that it is worse than gas.

Mr Buchanan's comment that the polluters — the big companies — might challenge the current Bill or future Bills in the courts signifies the problem. The polluters have had their way for decades, for far too long. We need to turn the tables on the polluters and to put them on the back foot in court, if necessary. We need to go further than the Bill currently allows. We need to ensure that there is no fracking whatever, no fossil extraction or exploration for oil or gas. Throw all current applications in the bin. No more drilling. Keep it all in the ground.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister for the Economy, Gordon Lyons. The Minister will have up to 20 minutes to respond to the debate.

Mr Lyons: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate on the private Member's Bill. I value the interest shown by the House in this important and current issue.

I note with interest the Member's desire to prohibit onshore hydraulic fracturing. However, that is only one element of the much broader and more complex policy area of petroleum licensing. As Members debate the Bill today, I ask that they reflect on the steps taken and the progress made by my Department in formulating policy proposals on the future of all onshore petroleum activities in Northern Ireland.

Recognising the changing strategic policy context for energy supply, carbon emissions and climate change, my Department has recently undertaken a review of our petroleum licensing regime. An important step in that review was the completion of independent, Northern Ireland-specific research on the economic, environmental and social impacts of petroleum exploration and development activity. My officials have fully considered the research findings, along with other international studies, and I can confirm that my Department's policy review has now concluded.

I have also considered this complex policy area carefully and given due consideration to the expert advice received. As it is a cross-cutting and controversial policy area, on 31 January, I circulated a paper to Executive colleagues outlining the position not just on fracking but on all onshore petroleum licensing activity. My paper recommended that the Executive agree a preferred policy option of a moratorium on all forms of exploration and extraction of oil and gas, to be followed by the introduction of a legislative ban. That would not only bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the United Kingdom on the issue of fracking but go further by legislating for all other types of petroleum exploration or extraction.

The position of my party is, therefore, clear, now and in any future Executive. Of course, my proposed way forward will now require the agreement of a future Executive, and, following that, the preferred option will be subject to public consultation. It is important, therefore, for Members to consider the Bill before them in the context of those developments, as well as with an understanding of the context of petroleum licensing in Northern Ireland, presuming, of course, that the other parties in the Executive share my view. To date, only the Finance Minister has responded to my paper. The Ministers from the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the UUP have not responded. The question for those other parties to answer is why they did not respond.

It may be useful to provide some general context for this evening's debate. Onshore exploration for petroleum in Northern Ireland has been taking place on a small scale since the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 was introduced. Over that time, although small amounts of oil and gas have been found, no commercial extraction has taken place. Companies explore for and seek to extract both conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons. Conventional hydrocarbons are found in porous rocks and are easily accessed by vertical wells and standard production techniques. Unconventional hydrocarbons, by contrast, are found in less porous rocks such as shale and are less easy to access. That is when techniques such as long horizontal drilling combined with high-volume hydraulic fracturing are used.

This Bill is focused solely on one testing and production technique: the use of fracking to access hydrocarbons in shale. There are currently no petroleum licences in Northern Ireland. The last active licence was relinquished on 28 April 2020. Members will also be aware that my Department is considering two petroleum licence applications. Both applications were subject to a public consultation process that closed in July 2019. My Department received over 5,700 responses, which were published at the end of October 2019. PLA1/16 by EHA Exploration Limited proposes exploring for oil and gas in the porous sandstones in the area to the south and east of Lough Neagh using conventional drilling techniques. PLA2/16 by Tamboran Resources (UK) Limited proposes exploring for gas in County Fermanagh. Initially, the application sought approval for the use of high-volume hydraulic fracturing. However, Tamboran subsequently made a request to revise its application in March 2020. The proposed revision will remove the need for fracking.

In summary, therefore, across Northern Ireland at this time, we have no petroleum licences in place, and neither of the two existing applications currently propose the application of high-volume hydraulic fracturing. I have repeatedly stated that decisions on both licence applications will be made by an Executive as a whole following the agreement of Northern Ireland's future petroleum licensing policy, informed by my Department's policy review. I reiterate that commitment today and sincerely hope that those responsible for the misinformation on social media are listening.

The number and range of concerns raised in the responses to my Department's consultations on the two applications brought into sharp focus the urgent need to review and update Northern Ireland's petroleum licensing policy. On that basis, my officials commenced a review in late 2019, in accordance with the Executive's policy development toolkit, of Northern Ireland's current onshore petroleum licensing system. The aim was to establish a robust evidence base from which to develop policy options for any future licensing regime. Initial considerations highlighted the lack of Northern Ireland-specific information on the impacts of petroleum licensing and the need for independent research. In October 2020, my Department commissioned Hatch Regeneris to undertake independent research on the economic, societal and environmental impacts of onshore petroleum exploration and production in Northern Ireland. In addition to analysing up-to-date peer-reviewed research and considering the policy context in Northern Ireland and further afield, Hatch engaged extensively with stakeholders, including government, councils, industry, environmental organisations and community groups.

The final Hatch report was delivered to my Department in July last year. My officials have given careful consideration to its findings as well as other relevant international studies in order to develop evidence-based policy options. That report was circulated to my Executive colleagues, but I am now prepared to publish it so that all interested parties can read it. As I have already set out, my January paper to Executive colleagues presented the outputs of the research and the options for the future of not just fracking but all petroleum licensing in Northern Ireland.

My paper also recommended my preferred option of introducing a moratorium and eventual legislative ban on all forms of onshore petroleum exploration and production. That was based on a number of factors. First, a moratorium and ban on all forms of onshore petroleum exploration and production would not disadvantage the local economy. As I said, in the last 50 years, there has been no commercial production of oil or gas in Northern Ireland. Hence there is no reliance on the sector. Specifically, the Hatch Regeneris research concluded that the potential positive economic impacts of petroleum exploration and production would be relatively minor. The preferred option would therefore ensure a focus on the growth of the low-carbon renewable energy sector, which would use a secure indigenous resource and support people into secure, well-paid jobs. Secondly, a moratorium and ban on all forms of onshore petroleum exploration and production would remove the possibility of potential adverse societal and environmental impacts on local communities and the rural environment, as no further exploration or development would be permitted.

I turn to the specifics of the proposed Bill. From the outset, I note my disappointment and surprise that the Member at no point sought to engage with my officials or me on what is proposed in this cross-cutting, controversial and complex area. It would have been useful for us both if she had. It is also unclear what level of consultation took place with those who may be impacted by the Bill's passage. I note that there is limited detail in the explanatory and financial memorandum on the extent of engagement that took place during the Member's eight-week consultation.

The Bill is very limited, as it deals with just one of a number of potential oil and gas extraction techniques — hydraulic fracturing. As I set out earlier, that technique is used to extract hydrocarbons from non-porous shale rocks. In Northern Ireland, such rocks are located largely in the Fermanagh area. The enactment of the Bill would not, however, address future petroleum exploration or production activities by any other means in Fermanagh or in other areas of Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is the Sinn Féin position, but it is not mine.

The Bill also includes a limited definition of hydraulic fracturing. Unlike the definition in the Petroleum Act 1998, which covers the rest of the United Kingdom, it does not define high-volume hydraulic fracturing by the large volumes of water used. Other types of fracturing with much lower volumes of water are used for purposes other than extracting shale gas: for example, as I said earlier, water boreholes may be fractured to increase their yield. That type of fracturing is different from the process involved in shale gas exploration and production. Therefore, the Bill needs careful scrutiny to ensure that it does not have unintended consequences. The definition may require an amendment to specify the volumes of water used and so clarify the types of fracking that would fall within the remit of the Bill.

I also note that the Bill attempts to have retrospective effect in the proposed new section 2A(2)(c) that it seeks to insert into the Petroleum (Production) Act (NI) 1964. The explanatory and financial memorandum does not provide any assessment of the legal or financial implications of such retrospective action. That also requires careful consideration. That is why I repeatedly feel the need to remind the House that legislation requires sober and careful consideration. That is often not possible when private Members' Bills address such major policy areas.

Miss Woods: I thank the Minister for giving way. The legal costs of judicial action came up during the discussion on the moratorium and were raised by a few Members this evening. Will the Minister confirm whether his Department has had any indication of whether there would be any legal challenge if the Bill, or any moratorium or banning of fracking in Northern Ireland in subsequent legislation, were to come in?

Mr Lyons: That is why I stated previously, perhaps even in response to questions for written answer from the Member, that, if there were outstanding fracking applications or the potential for that to happen, we would bring in our policy, put that through in the proper way with consultation and then make sure that the legislation was in place. Ultimately, it is for the Executive to decide on those other applications. That was always going to be the case. It is a little bit disingenuous for some Members to say this evening that the threat of fracking has always existed and that it would have been decided solely at the whim of a DUP Minister. Of course, that is not the case, as I have always made it clear that, because those applications and licensing applications are controversial, cross-cutting and significant, I always would refer them to the Executive.

Mr Dickson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: Yes.

Mr Dickson: I appreciate the legal requirements that are on a Minister and a Department in dealing with licensing applications when they come in. The reality is that you are suggesting that you are willing to move Northern Ireland to the point where there would be a moratorium, which would still allow licensing applications to come along, because those people may think that they can still persuade change, but, ultimately, you indicated that you are willing to legislate to end all exploration. In those circumstances, do you not agree that we need to get to that point quickly in order to ensure that we send out a clear signal that there is no longer any point in making a licensing application in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I certainly understand that the Member wants to ensure that the Assembly legislates on that as soon as possible. I hope that he will understand that I wanted to carefully consider what was a significant report. I am sure that, when I release it in the coming days, he will take a lot of time to look at it as well. It is only right that, as a Department, we took the time to consider the matter. A lot of work was being done on the energy strategy and other issues in that part of the Department. I sought to bring it as quickly as I could. I sought agreement. Certainly, we can recognise that we are in the position tonight where there is unity around that issue. We now have a solid basis for making that decision based on the independent research that my Department commissioned and on the other international studies that we looked at.

Mr Dickson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: Yes.

Mr Dickson: For absolute clarity, is the Minister making it clear this evening that the reality is that the day is up for licences that are currently being sought?

Mr Lyons: First, the reality is that any licences will require cross-community support in the Executive. It is fairly clear that that will not happen any time soon, for a number of reasons. Secondly, the policy in front of us this evening, as I set out, commands support across the Executive. That should not come as a surprise; I made that clear at the Economy Committee last week or the week before, as the Chair set out a few moments ago. I hope that I made my position clear when I said that I did not believe that there would be any issue getting agreement at the Executive on what I was bringing forward.

I recognise that petroleum exploration and hydraulic fracturing in particular is an emotive subject. For that reason, I recognise that, despite the Bill's narrow scope and shortcomings, Members may feel that they have to support it today. I warn Members that this is a complex policy area that cannot and should not be addressed on a piecemeal basis. For that reason, I am still of the view that the appropriate way forward remains the implementation of my recommended option, which has been informed by expert advice from independent research and which will be subject to full public scrutiny through a consultation process. Subject to a future Executive's agreement and to public consultation, the introduction of a moratorium and the implementation of a legislative ban in the next mandate will address all types of petroleum exploration and production for all of Northern Ireland. My preferred approach is more comprehensive, and I believe that it will be welcomed by those who are so concerned about the issue.

I do not want to rehearse what everybody said during the debate, but I want to touch on a couple of issues. The first point is on some of the comments that have been made on the energy strategy. Some Members said that the energy strategy does not go far enough. I believe that it is appropriate and right for Northern Ireland, given that it was endorsed unanimously at the Executive and that so many stakeholders in the renewable sector, the business sector and others said that it is the strategy that we need.

Comments have been made about blue hydrogen. My focus is on green hydrogen: that is where we have incredible potential in Northern Ireland because of our wind resource. I want to harness that, and green hydrogen is the way in which we can do it. There has been some scaremongering out there and, quite frankly, nonsense spouted by those who say that it is a pro-fossil fuel energy strategy. That is certainly not the case. You can clearly see the direction of travel that we are headed in.

I will touch on some of the comments that have been made. I do not want to be hypocritical or say that this will be a win on climate change, because we will certainly have to continue to depend on fossil fuels for some time. We are being dishonest with the public, and with ourselves, if we say that we will not have any need for fossil fuels in the short term. As of 15 minutes ago, 45% of our own electricity was generated from fossil fuels. We have to be honest and recognise that fossil fuels will continue to play a necessary role as part of our fuel supply. Let me make it clear, however: I want us to head as quickly as we can towards renewables. The Chair of the Committee said:

If that happens, we will find ourselves in trouble very soon. I based my decision on the economic and societal impacts that hydraulic fracking and petroleum licensing may have in Northern Ireland. I understand that we will still need fossil fuels. We will still be dependent on them for a time. We are being dishonest with ourselves if we say —

Mr Speaker: Time is up, Minister.

Mr Lyons: — otherwise, but the transition is very clear.

I thank Members for their contributions. I remain committed to working with stakeholders in this policy area.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister for that response. I call Áine Murphy, the sponsor of the Bill, to make a winding-up speech and conclude the debate. The Member has 10 minutes.

Ms Á Murphy: I thank Members for their contributions to what has been an interesting and colourful debate. I will keep my closing remarks brief and respond to some of the issues raised in due course.

This is a cross-border issue as the impact of fracking that may happen in County Fermanagh would be felt in County Leitrim and many other parts of the north-west. The discussion that we are having must be seen in the context of the overall climate emergency, which has been mentioned throughout the debate. The Bill sits alongside other important draft legislation, such as that on climate change, in bringing us into line with the rest of Europe in playing our part in the fight against the climate disaster.

Our goal as a society needs to be to reduce carbon emissions and protect future generations. As well as its climate implications, fracking has a direct and long-term impact on local environments and, ultimately, local communities. It is heartening to hear from many in the Chamber that they do not support fracking.

I will now address some of the issues raised by Members, starting with Miss Woods's contribution. I originally emailed the Secretary of State essentially to gain permission to legislate on offshore fracking. He did reply, and requested additional information, which we provided at the time. The only issue was that, after we provided that information, he never got back to us. We were under serious time constraints, and, as a result, we decided to press on with the Bill to legislate on onshore fracking.

A number of Members referred to the ins and outs and ups and downs of the definition. To put it simply, the aim of the Bill is to ban all fracking for petroleum. The definition's wording was drafted on the basis of delivering robust legislation to ban all petroleum licensing in the North. The Bill would amend the Petroleum (Production) Act 1964, so we have to be clear in the terminology that we use to amend that existing legislation.

I am absolutely committed to working with any and all Members, the Economy Committee and the Bill Office and to following the correct legislative processes to ensure that the Bill can be as robust as possible. I am open to Committee scrutiny of it. I very much look forward to reading the Hatch Regeneris report, and I am glad to hear that the Minister's preferred option is to introduce —

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Ms Á Murphy: No, I will not give way. I want to get back home this evening. [Laughter.]

Dr Aiken: I was going to be nice to you.

A Member: Go on. He was going to be nice.

Ms Á Murphy: Sorry. Where was I? I am glad to hear that the Minister will release the Hatch Regeneris report in the coming days, and I am heartened to hear that his preferred option is to introduce a moratorium and a ban.

That concludes my remarks for this evening. As I have stated, I am more than willing to work with Members, parties, the Bill Office and the Committee to scrutinise the legislation robustly.

Mr Speaker: Thanks very much. Safe home. Oíche mhaith.