Official Report: Tuesday 01 October 2024

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that there will be a second Question Time today at 2.45 pm to include questions to the Minister of Health, which had to be postponed last week. The ballot order for listed and topical questions remains as selected.

Mr Sheehan: Lá Idirnáisiúnta Feasachta ar Chur Amú agus ar Chailliúint an Bhia a bhí ann Dé Domhnaigh. Nuair a chuirtear bia amú nó nuair a chailltear é, is amhlaidh a chailltear na hacmhainní uile go léir a úsáideadh leis an bhia sin a tháirgeadh sa chéad dul síos. Cur amú uisce, talaimh, fuinnimh agus saothair atá ann fosta. Is olc a théann cailleadh agus cur amú an bhia ar an chomhshaol, ar shlándáil bia agus ar infhaighteacht bia, agus is siocair iad leis an bhia a bheith ag éirí níos daoire. Tá líon na ndaoine atá faoi ocras ar fud an domhain ag ardú ó bhí an bhliain 2014 an, agus i rith an ama, cailltear agus cuirtear amú na céadta tonaí bia gach lá.

Cailltear thart ar 13·2% de bhia an domhain idir a bhaint agus a dhíol gach bliain. Déanann teaghlaigh agus miondíoltóirí 19% den bhia a tháirgtear ar domhan a chur amú gach bliain. Níl sin inbhuanaithe, agus, nuair nach bhfuil, níl teacht aniar i gcóras an bhia s’againn. Beidh bearta le déanamh ar bhonn áitiúil agus domhanda le húsáid is fearr a bhaint as an bhia lena shábháil ar a chur amú.

Dar le Friends of the Earth gur féidir cur amú bia a laghdú ach: díriú ar shlabhra an tsoláthair agus an chailliúint bia a laghdú ag an phointe sin; eolas a thabhairt do chustaiméirí faoin dóigh le cur amú bia a sheachaint; agus trí bheith ag obair le carthanais sa chruth go ndéanfar farasbarr bia a roinnt ar na daoine atá ar an ghannchuid.

Thig linn uile go léir ár bpáirt a dhéanamh leis an chur amú a laghdú trí bhéilí na seachtaine a phleanáil, trí bhia a reo de réir mar is gá agus trí bheith eolach ar an difear idir dáta ar fearr roimhe agus dáta dulta ó mhaith. Má dhéanaimid sin, ní hé amháin go mbeimid ag sábháil bia, is amhlaidh a bheimid ag sábháil airgid fosta.

Mr Martin: This morning, I want to highlight community pharmacies in Northern Ireland, their core importance for primary care and some of the challenges that they face. For transparency purposes, I should declare that my wife, Melanie, is a pharmacist. However, these issues were raised by Community Pharmacy NI at a meeting that I recently held with it.

Our local pharmacies are a vital service at the heart of our communities. They are where we go for medicines, advice, vaccinations and a variety of additional services that they now provide through Pharmacy First. If we were to quantify the output of that service, we would find that it procured, financed, stored and dispensed half a billion pounds' worth of medicines in 2023-24 and provided more than 190,000 emergency supply items in the same period. That is a phenomenal achievement.

We know that our health service is under considerable pressure, with growing waiting lists and sometimes frustrating repeated attempts to access appointments with GPs. It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that pharmacies have become critical in alleviating some of the current burden on our healthcare system. The fact that professional advice and support can be accessed in community pharmacies, with no appointment needed, is a very rare commodity in our health service these days. However, I have to point out that some of our local pharmacies are struggling. There have been 17 permanent local pharmacy closures since January 2023, and the health trusts did not intervene to ensure that those pharmacies remained viable.

One of the key challenges that pharmacies face is how they are funded. The fees and payments that they receive often do not fully cover their business costs and overheads, such as wages, insurance, rates and rent. At times, there is a disparity between the actual cost of drugs that the pharmacy dispenses and the drug tariff that regulates the reimbursement price. That has the effect of the pharmacy having to wait to see whether a temporary drug tariff increase will be applied that month and whether it will cover the cost of the drugs that were dispensed.

The Department of Health needs to recognise and value the importance of our community pharmacies. They are, effectively, the front line of primary care in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I urge the Health Minister to, first, provide relatively modest investment to stabilise the sector and, secondly, to provide the platform for development to enable our pharmacies to do more.

Ms Bradshaw: On International Day of Older Persons, I rise to make a statement on the importance of tackling ageism, and I do so after attending an excellent event at Stormont last week run by Age NI where it talked about the results from its lived experience survey.

The World Health Organization notes that ageism can have harmful effects on the well-being of old people and can lead to outright social exclusion. Too many assumptions are being made about how to plan for an ageing demographic without involving older people in that process. Across the UK, older people report feeling sidelined, forgotten about and dismissed by the health service, despite the fact that we are supposed to be transforming the service so that it better meets the needs of that ever-growing share of the population. Most notably perhaps, older people report that they are not given the time that they need to make decisions and that assumptions are made about their capacity to make choices about their care and treatment without adequate consultation.

Members will know that the Committee for the Executive Office is carrying out an inquiry into gaps in equality legislation, looking particularly at what happens here versus what happens in neighbouring jurisdictions. There is a specific issue here regarding ageism. In Northern Ireland, age discrimination law is outdated, as it applies only to employment, training and vocational education. It is already over a decade since the Equality Commission advised that that law must be extended to cover goods, facilities and services. Indeed, over the past year alone, 34 people have contacted the Equality Commission about age discrimination in the provision of goods and services, and they were told that there was nothing that can be done as there are no relevant laws here.

The Equality Commission's functions include not only overseeing equality duties and promoting good relations but, specifically, keeping equality legislation under review. The commission has clearly stated for many years that our current equality legislation is inadequate. Therefore, the gaps in the law are not just technicalities; the failure to modernise equality law creates a significant and particular disadvantage that is directly and specifically felt by older people in Northern Ireland. When we tie that specific disadvantage to the experience that older people feel, we see that action is needed urgently to update our equality laws so that our older people are not placed at a disadvantage versus their peers elsewhere in the UK and Ireland.

Dr Aiken: Members will be aware, first from the media last week and from the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) yesterday, that our Government have confirmed their decision not to proceed with the introduction of UK-wide "Not for EU" labelling from October 2024; today, indeed. Members may or may not be reassured by our Government's commitment to safeguarding the supply of goods within our own country and their intention to protect consumer choice. Obviously, in light of the commitment that was made and then broken to city deals, that is something that we should all monitor closely.

The commitment that was made by the NIO to monitor the UK internal market to track and, if necessary, intervene to protect the availability of goods in Northern Ireland is something that we should also monitor. Frankly, however, we have no details to work to or to allow us to assess the level of trade disruption that that might engender. The NIO has also stated that it will publish statutory guidance to stop public authorities overzealously operationalising the implementation of the Windsor framework to the detriment of the UK's internal market. We have no idea of what is in that guidance, where it applies, whom it applies to or any degree of legal compliance. That is something that you would expect our Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly to monitor.

I have, regrettably, remarked on far too many occasions how remarkably incurious the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee is here on everything from obligatory motions to any desire to horizon-scan the Windsor framework for how it would have any significant impact on life in Northern Ireland. That we should be proactive is something that our constituents, business community, farmers and consumers expect us to be. After several weeks of no notification and examining our travel plans to Brussels, this week, at the Democratic Scrutiny Committee, our Northern Ireland public can watch us examine cats' and dogs' traceability and further details on our visit to the EU Commission. I will write to the Chair of our Committee today to ask, under any other business, for us to, again, stop being incurious and examine all elements of significance of the Windsor framework and how it affects Northern Ireland, but I strongly expect that, yet again, our Sinn Féin and Alliance members will decide that that is outside our remit. As an Assembly that should be dedicated to doing what is best for Northern Ireland, that lack of curiosity should be a matter of concern for us all.

Mr McGrath: I will discuss today the lack of activity to manage the causes of flooding that occurred in Downpatrick last year; flooding that, local people feel, could happen again. Why do we feel that that might happen again? Put simply, it is because nothing much has been done since to address the issues. Our Department for Infrastructure and its Sinn Féin Minister spent massive amounts of public money to produce a comprehensive report that, essentially, told us that the county town flooded last year because there was lots of rain. That will not cut it with local businesses, which faced a difficult time last year. Some of them still have not received the promised financial assistance nearly 10 months on.

I think of the effort that was made last year, when we had no Executive, to raise the issues with the Northern Ireland Office and of how some local political representatives brought NIO officials into the town to seek help and then complained because that help was not forthcoming.

Now that their colleagues are in charge of ministries, however, we hear nothing from them and see nothing of them, and there is no road map to facilitate the necessary help.

Local people often refer to Downpatrick as a forgotten town. The council does not appear to be too interested, and neither are the Executive knocking down the door to provide help and support. With traffic congestion, empty premises and businesses not being properly supported, one cannot help but agree with the locals.

Given the Infrastructure Minister's remarks yesterday, there is, apparently, plenty of activity happening in Newry, but what about Downpatrick? Numerous small things could have been done to try to help. We could have had emergency access set aside for the bales of hay that were used to create a barrier against the water. We could have had emergency access to sandbags. We could have cut the dense and sprawling overgrowth along the River Quoile's edge, and the plank drain could have been desilted. Those small measures could give people peace of mind, a sense of security and a belief that the Executive parties care about them, but do we see that? No. We have a Minister who insists that only his officials can provide him with advice that he will take and that the views of people in Downpatrick do not count. It does not inspire much confidence or instil us with much hope. To keep the Minister happy, let us hope that it does not rain much this winter.

Mr Gildernew: D’fhoilsigh Coiste Saineolaithe Chomhairle na hEorpa a shéú tuarascáil mhonatóireachta ar chomhlíonadh na Cairte Eorpaí do Theangacha Réigiúnacha nó Mionlaigh an tseachtain seo caite. Dhaingnigh Rialtas na Breataine codanna a dó agus a trí den chairt maidir leis an Ghaeilge in 2001 mar thoradh ar ghealltanais a tugadh i gComhaontú Aoine an Chéasta chun gníomh dionghbháilte a dhéanamh leis an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn.

Cuireann muid fáilte roimh an tuarascáil, agus gabhann muid ár mbuíochas leis an Choiste Saineolaithe. Is áis úsáideach í an tuarascáil dúinn chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar mhórcheisteanna na Gaeilge. Ar an drochuair, áfach, tá cáineadh déanta sa tuarascáil agus is léir ón cháineadh chéanna nach bhfuil go leor déanta ó thaobh fhorbairt na teanga de. Tá 12 mholadh sa tuarascáil mhonatóireachta ba chóir dúinn a thabhairt dár n-aire.

Is iad príomh-mholtaí na tuarascála: go dtabharfaí isteach straitéis don Ghaeilge agus go gcuirfí na hacmhainní cuí ar fáil chun gur féidir í a mhaoiniú; go gcuirfí i bhfeidhm ina iomláine an tAcht Féiniúlachta agus Teanga 2022 gan a thuilleadh moille; go bhforbrófaí agus go gcuirfí i bhfeidhm straitéis maidir le hearcú múinteoirí i gcomhairle leis an phobal, go háirithe maidir le soláthar múinteoirí do phaistí a bhfuil riachtanais speisialta oideachais orthu laistigh d’earnáil na Gaelscolaíochta, agus go ndéanfaí Coimisinéir Gaeilge a cheapadh.

Tá Sinn Féin tiomanta stádas na Gaeilge a dhaingniú go buan inár sochaí, agus tá muid tiomanta an tuarascáil a úsáid mar uirlis forbartha teanga agus ár ngealltanais teanga a chomhlíonadh.

Miss McIlveen: I congratulate the Belfast battalion of the Boys' Brigade (BB), as it celebrates 100 years of Ganaway training and activity centre, which is located on the picturesque Ards peninsula in my constituency of Strangford. On Sunday, I was privileged to attend a thanksgiving service to mark that significant milestone.

Camping has been a key part of the BB since its formation in Glasgow in 1881. After the first company was formed in Belfast in 1892 and after its first camp in Ballywalter in 1904, there was a desire to have a battalion campsite. In 1923, 12 acres of land at Ganaway were placed on the market, and the property was purchased by the battalion for £1,250, which is about £75,000 in today's money. The first camp took place in 1924. The land had been purchased using battalion funds, money from anonymous donors, a £500 interest-free loan from Reverend Cooper, who was the battalion president, and a house-to-house collection, which raised a further £200.

The campsite proved incredibly popular, with more than 1,000 boys and officers attending one camp in the 1930s. The boys arrived by train at Donaghadee and paraded through the town towards Millisle. From Millisle, they marched on to Ganaway. From 1977 until the early 1990s, the BB and Belfast Education and Library Board operated a joint usage scheme.

Over the years, there has been continual investment in Ganaway, from the bare fields that were initially purchased in 1923. It is, of course, more than just a campsite. The site includes two modern log cabins, a sports hall, indoor and outdoor climbing towers, abseiling facilities, a zip line, an artificial caving complex, low- and high-level rope courses, an anchor-buoy trail, crazy golf, games facilities and so much more. Importantly, it also celebrates the history and heritage of the BB with a museum and an education centre. It still contains a large campsite for people who love to sleep under canvas, as well as three camping pods for those who need some level of comfort.

The range of people who come to use the facilities at Ganaway has also developed. It is not just BB members who come but young people from a vast variety of organisations and communities. During 2023, around 18,000 young people and adults attended the centre: school groups, the Scouts, Girl Guides, church groups and statutory youth groups.

All that is from a vision of a BB camp started 100 years ago. It is a place that offers so much opportunity. This is a fantastic achievement, and it is a fantastic facility.

Ms Forsythe: In the past year, prisoners in Northern Ireland have received £1,445,283 of tuck money: that is, pocket money for privileges or "sweetie money". To be clear, the Department of Justice, on top of providing meals and facilities, gives prisoners in Northern Ireland one and a half million pounds of pocket money for privileges every year. I find that shocking.

Who does not get one and a half million pounds a year for privileges? The children in our schools. Parents are regularly asked to contribute towards basic school supplies; PTAs are under pressure to fundraise; and teachers are paying for stationery supplies, tissues and other things. One and a half million pounds would go a long way in enhancing our children's schools' budgets. In Health, one and a half million pounds would employ 40 nurses a year. In policing, just recently, the Chief Constable of the PSNI was so exasperated over the lack of policing budget that he appealed to our UK Government and was criticised by the Department of Justice for doing so. I am sure that the £1·5 million pocket money for prisoners would be welcomed in the policing budget by the Chief Constable.

Just a couple of weeks ago, it was established that the Department of Justice was spending more than £13 million on a new prison kitchen and cafe for criminals, whilst, up and down the country, schools struggle with substandard canteen facilities. They are outdated, there are no counters, and children wait outdoors in all weather. Yet, the Justice Department has prisoners in brand new canteen facilities. Criminals are in prison for a reason. I do not believe that many people would appreciate prisoners being treated better than children in our schools.

The Justice Minister was quick to criticise a mobile phone pilot scheme brought into schools by the Education Minister at a cost of £250,000, despite it being a proven issue with need. Yet, here we are exposing the fact that she spends six times as much every year on pocket money for prisoners' privileges. It is shocking. I did not quite believe the scale of this until I uncovered the details. The people of Northern Ireland deserve to know where public funds are being spent, especially in times of such extreme budget pressure, and to challenge the priority of others. The Alliance Party needs to clarify its priorities. Does it prioritise prisoners over the children in our schools, our health workers and even our police? It is outrageous, and that question needs to be answered.

Mr Gaston: I rise to highlight His Majesty's Government's decision to drop plans for UK-wide "Not for EU" labelling. The issue has become a live one today because 1 October is the day when a new aspect of the protocol becomes real in Northern Ireland. The first time that "Not for EU" labelling appeared on the shelves in this part of the UK was 1 October last year. Today sees the beginning of a new phase of that labelling roll-out.

A key aspect of the Command Paper 'Safeguarding the Union', which, I remind the unionists sitting to my right, was the basis on which they attempted to sell to the unionist people their return to this place, was the assurance that such labelling would be introduced UK-wide. The previous Government could have introduced legislation to give force to that following the end of the consultation in March, but they, like the successive Labour Administration, were never serious about it. Consequently, "Not for EU" labelling is being imposed in Northern Ireland by our colonial masters in Brussels while it does not appear anywhere else in the UK.

The DUP promise of UK-wide legislation has proven worthless. The practical consequences are that many manufacturers will simply cease to service Northern Ireland, meaning reduced choice for consumers, and that will result in Northern Ireland becoming even more isolated within the UK.

Significantly, 1 October was also due to see the imposition of a partial border in the Irish Sea. Two weeks ago, that was delayed until the end of March. Why? It was done because the Government were concerned about the impact that it would have on people in the run-up to Christmas. It would not exactly be helpful to the protocol fanatics in the House to have headlines about that when they will be tripping through the Lobbies to give a veneer of democratic legitimacy to Brussels dictating to us to follow 300 areas of law. Additionally, the green lane, which some in the House sought to dress up as the internal market lane to justify their return to ministerial limos, was due to come in today. That has also been postponed until the end of March. Why? It has been done because it would cause such devastation to our links with Great Britain that doing it so soon would simply be unworkable.

A single market for goods is needed within a country. It is one of the basic features of a nation state. The dropping of "Not for EU" labelling on a UK-wide basis severs yet more links between here and the rest of our nation. It also helps build the all-Ireland economy, something, I remind the Chamber, that the DUP claimed that it had removed from the protocol, only for the current Secretary of State to hail its benefits just a few days ago.

I appeal to unionist colleagues in the Chamber. If you believed any of your own words about the Safeguarding the Union deal, you now know that you were sold a false bill of goods by your former leader —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: — the Tories and, now, the Labour Government.

Mr Buckley: In the early hours of Sunday morning, Portadown lost one of its national assets: not a celebrity sports star or a celebrity businessman but a unique, warm and loveable character in Tony Kennoy.

Tony came to Portadown many years ago, through the care system. He brought with him a smile and a laugh that very few people can bring to a community. Following his passing, there has been an outpouring of love and grief over the impact that that special man had on so many people. Protestant, Catholic, neither, young, old: Tony loved them all.

At times like this, I am very proud to be a Portadown man. Tony was a vulnerable adult, and the manner in which the people of Portadown took him in as a member of their family, fed him, looked after him and kept him safe is truly incredible. As we lay him to rest later this week, I, on behalf of the Portadown people, give thanks for his life. It is true that some people do shine too brightly ever to be forgotten. Thank you, Tony Kennoy.

Mr Carroll: One thousand killed and one million displaced over the past few days. I am not talking about Palestine this morning. Once again, Lebanon is being targeted and bombed by Israel. Once again, the biggest proponent of terror in the Middle East — Israel — is blowing up infrastructure and killing civilians on a mass scale. It is worth thinking about and worth posing this question: "If any other state in the Middle East — any other state — engaged in that kind of slaughter, what would happen?". It is nauseating to think that any other state would be met with condemnation from the US, Britain and other Western states, and perhaps even sanctions, but, because it is Israel and because Israel plays a pivotal role for imperialism, particularly for America, in the region, it is hands off and a case of, "Work away, lads. We will find you whatever bombs or weapons you want".

When it comes to discussion about the latest war, it is always "Iran-backed Hezbollah" but never "US-backed-and-supported Israel". Funny that.

Whatever people's views about Hamas or Hezbollah, those groups did not exist for a lifetime. Israel's actions, particularly its occupation of Lebanon, brought about the formation of Hezbollah. The massacres of the PLO and of Palestinians and others in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, backed by Israel, gave an impetus to the rise of Hezbollah. In other words, it is Israel's actions — its provocation and its stirring up of hatred, occupation and launching of war — that are causing more instability, death and destruction in the region.

After coming up to a year of genocide in Palestine, Israel, rather than listening to the peace and anti-war movement across the world and on this island to stop the slaughter and stop the killing, actually wants to expand the wars, if you think about it, in Lebanon, Yemen, Iran and who knows where else. It is up to us in this country to continue to isolate and condemn Israel and its actions and condemn the political ideology that drives and funds the apartheid state. Whilst Israel's actions are, of course, barbaric and devastating, Israel may have bitten off more than it can chew, and it could indeed provoke a region-wide uprising against it and against America's interests in the Middle East.

Mr C Murphy (The Minister for the Economy): Today, I am announcing a new strategic approach to economic development. It is an approach that is locally led and places regional balance at its heart.

The need for greater regional balance is clear. Employment rates range from a high of 79·5% in Mid and East Antrim to a low of 65·4% in Derry City and Strabane. Productivity, a fundamental driver of overall living standards, is 31% higher in Belfast than it is in Derry City and Strabane.

To date, the Department for the Economy has not had a coherent strategy for delivering regional balance. The Department did not set regional targets for its economic development agency, Invest NI. As confirmed by the independent review, Invest NI's decision-making was centralised in Belfast. The review also observed that regional offices were underutilised, not integrated into the organisation and too modestly resourced.

An important shift took place in 2015, when councils assumed greater economic responsibilities. That acknowledged the value of local areas leading their own economic development. However, councils cannot be expected to transform economies on their own. To turn the dial on regional economic performance, we need everyone pulling together as part of a coherent ecosystem, and I intend to establish that ecosystem.

The new approach to economic development starts with local communities identifying their own priorities. Councils will be asked to establish local economic partnerships, bringing together central government, the business community, universities, colleges, local enterprise agencies and civil society. To minimise bureaucracy, existing partnerships can be modified to fulfil that new remit, and councils are free to come together to tackle common concerns and to pool resources and expertise. Partnerships will identify the main barriers to economic development and the priority interventions that will build the region's value proposition. Those priorities will continue to be updated as circumstances change over time. Interventions could involve, for example, support for local clusters; skills programmes tailored to local businesses; preparing more land for business expansion; the development of new start-up and follow-on units; the regeneration of empty buildings for business use; and key infrastructure projects. My Department will recalibrate its programmes and budget to help meet those priorities. For example, my Department is in the process of taking responsibility for the funding provided by the local council to City of Derry Airport.

In addition to recalibrating mainstream funding, I intend to support local economic partnerships with dedicated funding of £45 million over the next three years. Invest NI will put a new focus on regional balance and will be a driving force in local economic partnerships. Staff numbers in regional offices will be increased by an initial 40%. Regional offices will assume responsibility for managing local clusters and businesses with a turnover of up to £2 million.

A lack of available land for commercial and industrial use is a major barrier to development in a number of council areas. Invest NI will therefore deliver and finance a new regional property strategy that will be delivered through regional offices. Property specialists will be recruited to develop land and property for business use. Invest NI's headquarters will support regional offices, providing specialist advice and expertise, and coordinate with key public bodies such as NIE Networks and NI Water to ensure that local needs are articulated and met. Consequently, the whole of Invest NI, not just its regional offices, will be reorientated towards developing local economies.

Crucially, I am setting a clear and ambitious bottom-line target for Invest NI to promote regional balance. Fifty-eight per cent of the population is outside the greater Belfast area, yet the area outside greater Belfast makes up 48% of the economy, as measured by gross valued added (GVA). In order to help redress that imbalance, within three years 65% of the agency's investment should be outside the Belfast metropolitan area. Delivering that target will require changes in organisational structure, decision-making processes, policy, practice and culture. The chief executive of Invest NI has informed me that reaching the target will be challenging, but he, his staff and his board are committed to serving the entire region, and they will do everything in their power to deliver it.

The approach that I have outlined today involves a profound change in how we deliver economic development. It starts with local communities working in partnership to define their priorities. It then builds an ecosystem to deliver those priorities. The new structure will be operational from the start of the next financial year. This is a challenging timeline, given the extent of change involved, so I ask everyone to get behind this approach in the spirit of collaboration, because it is only by working together that we can reverse historical imbalances and deliver prosperity for all.

Mr Durkan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

We very much welcome the statement and the direction of travel outlined in it, particularly the setting of targets for Invest NI to promote regional balance. That is something that my party and people in my city have called for over many years. Something that is not mentioned in the statement but is certainly in the document is recognition of the role of further and higher education. The Magee task force has done sterling work. We need to grow numbers at Magee, not just to or up to 10,000 students but to at least 10,000 students. There should be no ceiling to our ambition.

Will the Minister expand on the process, which he alluded to in his statement but is not in the document, of his Department taking responsibility for the funding of City of Derry Airport, which is currently provided by Derry City and Strabane District Council? Will the Executive take the burden of funding the airport from the ratepayers of that council area?

Mr C Murphy: We have not been overly prescriptive on the make-up of local partnerships, because that is best worked out locally. Of course, that will include not just the university at Magee but other regional colleges across different council areas. As I said, we are not being prescriptive. The one prerequisite is that they are genuine partnerships. It will work only if people genuinely come together to articulate the economic priorities in an area and work to deliver them.

On Derry airport, we have been in dialogue and working through the arrangements with the Department for Infrastructure for some time, and we have been talking to the airport and Derry city council. As the Member will know, there has been a bit of ping-pong on the issue for too many years. That particularly came to light during COVID, when the Department of Finance ended up supporting the airport.

Given the airport's strategic and regional economic presence and what that means for the north-west generally, it is our intention that the Department for the Economy will assume responsibility for it. We need to work through the arrangements for that. That would lift the burden that Derry City and Strabane District Council ratepayers have been carrying on their own, even though the airport serves other council areas and geographical areas. Of course, that will, in turn, allow the council to use that money for other purposes to, hopefully, develop economic prosperity in the Derry city council region.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): As Chair of the Economy Committee, I thank the Minister for meeting me and the Deputy Chair at 10.30 am to give us somewhat advanced notice of his statement. Clearly, this is a significant policy announcement by the Minister. The Committee will take some time to look at the details of what is included.

In the Minister's statement, he was clear that he wants everyone to get behind his approach in the spirit of collaboration. In that regard, I encourage the Minister to bring it to the Executive so that all parties can work together on the important issue of regional balance.

The Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP) is the issue on which the Minister will judge regional balance.

Members will be aware that it includes Belfast City Council, Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, Ards and North Down Borough Council and Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council. According to the Minister's figures, labour productivity and the median wage in Ards and North Down are the second lowest, and subregional economic employment rates in Belfast are the second lowest. Clearly, work needs to be done in those. Will the Minister explain to the House why he has chosen BMAP to judge regional balance in the economy?

Mr C Murphy: I welcome the Chair's statement. I also thank him and the Deputy Chair for the discussion that we had earlier. Of course, the Programme for Government, which the Executive have released in draft form and which is, with Executive agreement, out for consultation, commits us all to work to address regional imbalance. I expect that that will follow through with other Departments' engagement. The BMAP that the Member mentioned was, I think, a 2004 construct, but, obviously, we have talked about the four council areas, including Belfast, in proximity to it.

The BMAP is for the purpose of measurements. There are clear issues of deprivation in that. I have engaged with Belfast City Council and its group leaders on how they would use some of the resource that might come from this to tackle issues of deprivation in some of those urban areas. On the measurement of Invest's activity, which was clearly criticised in the Lyons report for being too Belfast-centric, this is about measuring Invest's actual activity outside that area and increasing its level of activity in supporting businesses to grow. We want to see businesses and economic prosperity grow right across the region, but we have a direct responsibility to try to tackle imbalance. If we do that by measuring it in the way that I described, we can get a sense of how the dial is shifting outside the greater Belfast area.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his statement and, particularly, for his commitment to delivering a coherent strategy to address regional imbalance. Minister, given that that is a commitment in the draft Programme for Government, do you expect other Departments to contribute to achieving greater regional balance?

Mr C Murphy: As the Member said, the Programme for Government says:

That is a clear commitment from the Executive as a whole. It is obviously in draft form, but Executive colleagues support that commitment, so I expect it to be held to. In the outworking of all this, what we have identified around resources is really about supporting local economic voices to come together, articulate their needs and, perhaps, pump-prime specific interventions that they want to be made. All the Departments are spending money in all the areas, and, if there is a very strong voice saying, "These are the key issues in our area that need to be addressed", I expect Departments to respond to that. It would make sense for them to make the most efficient use of their limited resources by spending on what will have the most impact on the areas in which they spend the money.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister. I love the ambition, and I welcome the statement today. The Minister mentioned working across other Departments, and the plan talks about net zero, green energy, inward investment, business growth, development zones and so on, and I welcome all of that. The fundamental problem with all that, however, for our entrepreneurs and business owners and for job creation, is the delays in the current planning system, which is not referenced at all in the document. How can the plan not recognise that planning reform is critical to the delivery of this?

Mr C Murphy: The point is well made. Planning reform is critical. We had a round-table meeting yesterday with the Minister for Communities, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, who is a party colleague of the Member, and the Minister for Infrastructure. We have had this conversation with Infrastructure. The reform of planning will be critical because, if councils want to develop projects, they need to get them through their planning systems. The current bottleneck, particularly in the consultee process, places in jeopardy not only some of the ideas in the plan but, potentially, if we do not get the planning system sorted, all the Executive's infrastructure propositions. In some ways, that is a given. The Minister for Infrastructure has sought transformation funds to try to bring some level of reform. All his Executive colleagues will, I think, support it, because, just as we recognise the need for investment in water and sewerage infrastructure, we recognise that investment in planning reform will be essential to deliver on any of the projects that any Department wants to do.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is comprehensive and definitely allows us to move along the road towards regional balance. Does he agree that local enterprise agencies have a significant contribution to make to local economic partnerships?

Mr C Murphy: Yes. Enterprise agencies have been doing sterling work, often on a shoestring budget, on start-ups and supporting local entrepreneurs. We have a very strong entrepreneurial flair right across the region. Invest NI will now have not only FDI targets but targets for start-up and business growth, which will make more collaboration possible in the space where the enterprise agencies work while trying to ensure that what they do gains more priority in that space. Enterprise agencies have a very strong presence in a lot of areas, and I imagine that they will want to be part of those discussions. They have a significant contribution to make given their significant knowledge of local businesses and of the potential of local start-ups, which will be one of the targets.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement. How can we ensure that investment in such areas will be for the long term rather than a white elephant? As has been mentioned, better infrastructure, not just incentives, is required in order to attract businesses. Does he have evidence from other places where regional balance has been a government policy for overall economic growth?

Mr C Murphy: Significant work on regional balance has been undertaken to good effect in the South. That involved things like a land strategy to make sure that, if people wanted to start or grow businesses, they could do so in their areas, rather than have to relocate to larger, urban areas. There are good examples from other parts of the world and close at hand, south of the border.

Our intention over the next three years is to put in a sum of money that we will identify to allow the programme to get started and to work. It is a commitment in the Programme for Government, and I therefore assume that whoever takes over the Economy Department after I have left will continue with the programme. It is an Executive priority to grow the economy in a regionally balanced way. That is the commitment of the entire Executive in the draft Programme for Government. I therefore expect that to be followed through, as we will want to follow through all the commitments that we make in the Programme for Government.

Ms Nicholl: Minister, I welcome the work on the programme, and I look forward to seeing more detail. We hope that the local economic partnerships will complement, not duplicate, the work of the labour market partnerships. My real questions are these: will all councils have access to the local economic partnership funding? What criteria do you envisage being used to allocate that funding?

Mr C Murphy: We are conscious that there are other structures in councils, and that is why we have not been prescriptive. Councils may look to merge those structures to have labour market plus economic development. That is a matter for dialogue over the next period, when we will do some intense workshops with councils in order to work through it. All councils are included. The amount of funding that may be delivered will be measured by level of need, and that formula will be worked through in the time ahead, but all councils are included.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for the update as a part of the overarching economic strategy. Does he agree that there is a need in Belfast, particularly in socially disadvantaged areas, to continue to support some areas in order to address regional imbalance and to connect that economic development focus to inclusive growth and building community wealth?

Mr C Murphy: Yes. Aside from this plan, I am engaged with the Department for Communities and the Department of Finance on a community wealth plan. We are doing joint work in that area on a couple of pilot schemes that, I hope, will demonstrate real value and will be able to be spread out to other areas. I met Belfast City Council's chief executive and group leaders. It is not my job to dictate what they do, but I suggested that, if there is additional support in the area that we have developed, Belfast may want to look at areas of deprivation and at trying to bring them all up. As she will know well from being a citizen of the city, some areas are doing very well and others very much feel left behind. This is an opportunity for councillors and other partners in the Belfast area to try to work on those areas and to look at levels of economic inactivity, skills and educational opportunities and at a general approach that leads to a stronger community and to more prosperity in those communities.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his statement. If we want Northern Ireland to work, it should mean that all areas of Northern Ireland feel supported. I very much welcome the move to address the regional imbalance. Is the £45 million for the local partnerships new money, or has it been found within the Department? Will it have consequences for other areas of work that you may want to undertake?

Mr C Murphy: It will be financed from within the Department. We have to find the money, and money is tight, but it is about prioritising what we do. If the priority in the Programme for Government is about growing our economy in a regionally balanced way, we have to allocate our money according to the priority. We will find the money, and I hope that, over time, we may be able to develop more money and put more support into the approach, because it will yield benefits. Not having a sense of balanced economic growth has been a stubbornly persistent problem for decades. Yes, we will find the money in the first instance, but, if others are prepared to contribute, we will welcome that as well.

Mr McGuigan: I welcome the new direction and the locally-led, working-together collaborative approach to tackling regional imbalance. Will the Department provide oversight to ensure that the local economic partnerships operate effectively?

Mr C Murphy: Yes. In the first instance, part of it is about recalibrating what the Department does. The Department has not persistently engaged at a local level. Invest NI has been engaged but not to the level or extent that it should have been, and that is why it was criticised in the report. However, the Department also needs to be on the ground more in dealing with councils. We will work closely. There will be a number of workshops with councils about how the partnerships will operate. It is not just a matter of keeping an eye on things; some councils need economic development capacity building. Other councils are very good at it, but some lag further behind. It is about supporting councils by capacity building so that they have a strong economic voice in the area. It is also about ensuring that the structure, as outlined, works according to the plan and that the funding that we want to allocate is delivered according to the plan.

Mr Buckley: FDI is crucial to any local economy. On that point, I pay tribute to the dedicated members of staff at Invest NI who have delivered thousands of jobs and millions of pounds of investment into Northern Ireland over its many years of existence. The aspiration for regional balance is a noble principle, but as it is harder to attract FDI to local economies as the labour markets and production methods have shifted, how can the Minister assure the House that the drive towards regional balance and a targeted approach will not stifle the overall ability to attain FDI?

Mr C Murphy: I concur with the Member's view about the sterling work that Invest NI's people have done over many years. Nonetheless, there were criticisms of the overall approach that we needed to address. We are on a very clear and good pathway with the new team that heads up Invest NI and the staff who are turning to the particular project and direction of travel.

It is not all about FDI. FDI is important, as the Member said, but the failing of Invest NI and, in many ways, perhaps, all of us over the years is that we measured it by how many jobs were brought in. We are not in that space now. FDI will continue to be important, but so will business start-ups and the growth of our businesses by those who come to invest here and, perhaps more importantly, by our indigenous businesses. The measurement of success will now be broader.

To grow prosperity, we also have to tackle economic inactivity and skills. A significant focus for the Department, Invest NI and, I hope, some of the partnerships that will be set up will be to try to get opportunities for young people and others to upskill while they are in jobs and to make sure that we have more prosperous, better jobs and more regional balance in our economic prosperity.

Invest NI will be recalibrated in the sense that it will not just be about FDI, although that will retain some importance. It is not about preventing anyone from setting up a business here. There is the ability to incentivise and encourage people to go to other areas, but it is not about preventing people from setting up in an area if that is what they choose.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is exciting to hear his plans for an attempt to balance the imbalance. The plan references the importance of city and growth deals for subregional economic development. Will the Minister detail his conversations with the UK Government on plans to lift the pause on the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal and the Mid South West growth deal?

Mr C Murphy: The Minister of Finance leads the charge on that work along with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. The pause is completely unacceptable. The decision was not only badly taken but badly communicated. I am glad that the decision on the Belfast region city deal and the Derry city deal was reversed quite quickly, but we need to see a quick reversal of the decision to pause the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal and the Mid South West growth deal. It is not just about the public money from the Executive and from the Government in London that will go into the deals but about the confidence that business partners will have to stay with the deals. The sooner the decision is reversed, the sooner we can continue the momentum that we began to create when the Executive came back into office in February. We injected new momentum into the city and growth deals, and we want to see that continue in order to deliver the really good projects that they have in prospect.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, do you welcome the direction of travel? As the Opposition, we have always been constructive, and my colleague said that this is the right direction to go in for the north-west in particular and for other regions. It is also true, however, as Deirdre Hargey said, that not every street in Belfast is paved with gold. Belfast will continue to be the economic driver of the entire region; it is sometimes worth saying that. People commute from Newry and Ballymena to Belfast, which means that they benefit from jobs created in Belfast too. Will the local economic partnerships also focus on improving connections to Belfast, whether through public transport or education, so that those regions can get a sense of how their citizens and residents will benefit from growth in Belfast, which we also want to see?

Mr C Murphy: The Member is out of Downpatrick too long. He has forgotten his roots.

Belfast will continue to be the economic driver for the region; there is no doubt about that. The priorities will be a matter for partnerships to decide. We will not impose an economic plan on an area. Too often, Departments headquartered in Stormont and elsewhere have developed policies that have been delivered down to people. The new strategic approach is about reversing that. It is about local areas having some resource and having their capacity built so that they can decide their own economic priorities. If people think that the priority for an area is to have transport connections to Belfast, we will be glad to hear it, and I am sure that we and DFI will be prepared to engage with them. I am not being prescriptive; it is for each area to decide its priorities. Of course, as I said, Belfast will be involved. My suggestion is that people focus on areas of greatest economic need in Belfast and the surrounding urban areas, but that will be a matter for them. I sincerely hope that they do so.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your statement, Minister. I will pick up on my South Belfast colleague's point. We know that Belfast Met and the universities play a pivotal role as economic drivers for Belfast city. Will you speak to the role of the universities and further education institutions in delivering the subregional balance?

Mr C Murphy: Clearly, Ulster University has a regional presence with the Magee campus and the Coleraine campus. We also have a strong network of regional colleges that have close links with our universities. We want to see community providers, regional colleges and universities, including the Open University, which I had the opportunity to meet yesterday, working seamlessly together to provide skills and educational opportunities. That will be key, because, whether through a regional balance approach or in general terms, our big challenge in growing the economy is in people and skills. We have priorities, but that is the overarching challenge for all of us. We need to make sure that our skills, our educational facilities, our further and higher educational facilities and our Open University work in tandem to deliver support across the entire region. Whether they have a physical presence outside Belfast, they have a presence through their support for and engagement with the regional colleges and other skills providers. We need to see that working seamlessly.

Mr McGrath: The review of public administration (RPA) was not universally popular, with some areas losing out to others in the new super-council model. Given that the Minister's policy suggests developing subregional partnerships, will he insist on guidelines that ensure that new partnerships provide subregional balance within council areas, so that no area is left behind?

Mr C Murphy: Councils are made up of elected councillors and, obviously, that dictates the balance of power across the council area. I am not sure that we will get too prescriptive: we want to see genuine partnerships that tackle the issues relating to the areas' economic priorities. There is a danger in trying to decide everything and micromanaging this rather than trying to give a steer in a genuine partnership approach across the priorities that we have set. That will be one of the measurements used in respect of how we allocate resources. Regional balance is one of the priorities, and I assume that that means within councils. We have set priorities, and, in that framework, I anticipate that we will get the best and fairest outcome for the people who live in whatever area the partnership is responsible for.

Mr Gaston: In May, I attended the subregional workshop in Ballymena, where I highlighted the vast swathe of grounds currently in the ownership of various Stormont Departments, that could be used to regenerate and re-kick our local economies. Will the Minister confirm whether the subregional action plan will identify all those lands across the various Departments? Furthermore, if a council identifies a need for regeneration, will the lands be transferred to it to take that idea forward?

Mr C Murphy: This is not simply about local councils. Councils have an economic development responsibility. One of the difficulties is that some councils have been much more active in that space than others, so we want Invest and our Departments to make sure that we support people to build that capacity for them. It will be about partnerships. If people decide what their economic priorities are — it could be the acquisition of land for further business development — we will work with them and see ways of supporting them. Invest will have a land strategy to make sure that it has more land available across the region for economic growth, because that has not been the case to date. It is about the partnership deciding what the priorities are. My Department will then provide support and, given our broad commitment in the Programme for Government, invite other Departments to look at what support we can give to make happen the things that people have identified as key issues in their area.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. What work will be commenced or has commenced to ensure that any jobs created outside Belfast will be unionised jobs and not jobs with zero-hours contracts, to which you have already stated your opposition?

Mr C Murphy: In support of good jobs, we will legislate on employment rights. We have already been working through that, and the consultation closed yesterday. We want to make sure that the jobs that we have work well for the people who are in them and that we end the unfortunate exploitation practices in relation to jobs.

We want to see economic growth across the region, but we also have to recognise the persistent problem in that, to date, that growth has been imbalanced. That has been due to a range of historical factors, infrastructure factors and investment decisions. We have to take measures to address that. We also recognise that, in urban areas, there are imbalances and areas of deprivation that need support. They should continue to be supported. This is not a single answer to all those issues. It is about strengthening the local economic voice, allowing areas to articulate their needs and trying to ensure that whatever money Departments spend in an area is spent in the knowledge that it is being invested in priorities that the local community has identified. In that way, we will get a much more efficient spend and a spend that will have much more consequence in lifting areas, particularly areas that have been deprived for too long.

Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the Minister's statement on the subregional action plan. It is a plan that I support, coming, as I do, from an area that requires further regeneration and growth. I welcome the 40% increase in the number of Invest NI regional office staff. Will that mean redeployment of staff from Belfast to regional offices, or will it be a further opportunity for job increases in regional areas?

Mr C Murphy: It will more likely be redeployment, but it is not simply about putting people into offices, because that, in itself, will achieve nothing. This will be about changing the mindset regarding regional presence. The focus of the people who go there will be on working with the people in the area to articulate the local economic need; it will not be on representing Invest NI's views to the area. It is also about the organisation and how its headquarters will recalibrate what it does and how it does it. Teams in Invest's headquarters will work on the issue of regional balance; the responsibility for that will not simply be farmed out to local offices to let them carry it. There will be more staff and a different approach from the organisation itself.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement from the Minister for the Economy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions and that long introductions will not be allowed.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am making a statement on the launch of the public consultation on the hospital reconfiguration framework document, which is entitled 'Hospitals — Creating a Network for Better Outcomes'. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share the framework document with Members today in advance of the imminent launch of a 16-week consultation period. That will commence tomorrow and will run until 21 January 2025.

I am aware that some people tend to promote the belief that there has been no clinical involvement or engagement with health service front-line staff on the development of the framework. That is simply not the case, and I want to set the record straight. It is not something that civil servants have simply cooked up with no outside input. 'Hospitals — Creating A Network For Better Outcomes' has been co-produced with the trusts and the Public Health Agency (PHA), which have involved a wide range of clinicians in the process, as well as senior managers and chief executives. Furthermore, during July and August of this year, my officials carried out an extensive pre-consultation exercise that involved engagement with all the royal colleges, as well as with trade unions and service users. The feedback from that very useful pre-engagement exercise has been incorporated into the final draft of the document, which is presented to the House today.

At its heart, the work is about how we can improve the sustainability of hospital services and, ultimately, provide an assurance that none of our acute hospitals will close. The draft framework aims to describe our acute hospital system. Its underlying principle of local provision where possible and central where necessary is key to the document. A fundamental concept is that of an integrated Northern Ireland hospital network. Within that network, each hospital has been identified as part of a particular tier, combining to form an interdependent network. The types of hospitals described in the framework are local, general, area and regional. That network approach will ensure a brighter and more secure future for all our hospitals.

I want to be clear in the message that this is not about cutting costs or closing hospitals but about managing change in a controlled way and demonstrating the benefits, which have to be better outcomes. We will continue to need every square inch of our hospital estate. It is about showing everyone how each hospital fits into the network, determining what the most valuable role for each one to play is and delivering the best outcomes for patients.

To embed sustainability and resilience, taking account of our workforce, safety considerations and advances in modern medicine, it is simply not possible to deliver all services in every hospital. It is already the case that different hospitals have different services available. The network approach will ensure that people can still get the right treatment in the right place by the right person, even if it is not necessarily in the hospital closest to their home. I recognise that there are difficult judgement calls to make around that. My view is that patient safety must always come first. When hospitals have lower patient numbers, that can create significant issues for professionals working in key specialties. They include the rota and on-call pressures inherent in smaller clinical teams, as well as an insufficient case mix to support specialisation, training and skills development. Those issues inevitably have consequences for recruitment and retention, adding to the challenges of maintaining services. That, then, potentially compromises patient safety and often leads to poorer patient outcomes.

We have seen in recent years a number of examples where changes have been made as a direct result of service collapse rather than planned improvement. Research shows that the vast majority of people — in fact, in the region of 80% — say that they are willing to travel for elective care in order to receive treatment from the best and most skilled experts as quickly as possible. However, I recognise, of course, that there are some for whom any additional travel will be a cause for concern. That is why a section on patient travel is included in the draft framework, setting out the supports available for the public.

It is important to note that 'Hospitals — Creating a Network for Better Outcomes' will not itself reconfigure any specific services; instead, it provides a strategic context and structure for future reconfiguration decisions. It is underpinned by a number of existing service reviews and strategies, which were clinician-led and developed in partnership with those who use the services. Future reconfiguration decisions will continue either to come from regional service reviews or to be trust-led. I am committed to ensuring that such decisions include appropriate engagement with, for example, staff, service users and the local community.

In closing, I encourage Members to take the time to respond to the consultation and make their views known. As I encourage Members to look on our hospitals as a network, in the same way I encourage them to regard this statement as one of a series about reform of healthcare delivery that will come in the coming weeks. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr McGrath: Minister, I acknowledge your statement. We have had Bengoa, 'Developing Better Services', 'Transforming Your Care' and, today, it is 'Hospitals — Creating a Network for Better Outcomes'. The document, in its summary, details the why, how, what, where and when. We already know the why and the what. There are scant details on the how, and, given that the where is controversial, I can understand why you have omitted that.

When will you publish a concrete timescale that will detail the changes and when they will be implemented that is measurable and accountable? Failing to provide that just gives the impression that this will be yet another document that will lie on a shelf and gather dust without delivering any real change.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member of the Opposition for his comments and his question. I can say to him that this will not lie on the shelf and gather dust. Indeed, some Members have suggested that the Bengoa report from 2016 has, over the past eight years, sat on the shelf gathering dust, and that is not the case. There have been some movements on foot of that Bengoa report. I think of day procedures and elective care and how we are trying to separate elective care from emergency operations. That is a sensible way forward. In my closing remark, I asked Members to think about this as one of a series of statements that are coming. Professor Bengoa will be back next week to, as I put it, reboot that report, not to write a new one, because the challenges remain as they were in 2016.
I intend to publish in the forthcoming weeks a three-year plan that will cover the rest of my time as Health Minister, if I am spared to work through to May 2027. I have made it clear that I want to see a regional attitude towards breast screening services. We will continue to deliver that at pace. I have talked about my initiative, which I am calling "Live Better", to tackle health inequalities. That is due to be launched in the forthcoming weeks. In association with that, I will look at some of the social determinants of health inequalities. I think of, for example, tobacco and vaping. We will be hand in glove with the UK legislation on that front. I am considering minimum unit pricing for alcohol, because it is clear that, if you go into the most deprived areas, you see the worst impacts of alcohol abuse.

I say to the Member that a lot is happening. I cannot give you a step-by-step time frame, but I am moving at pace to deliver better outcomes for patients, service users and the staff who deliver healthcare.

Ms Kimmins (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the Minister's statement. As he knows, we have been waiting for it for some time. It is a positive step forward, and I welcome that he has said that there will be engagement with a range of people.

The draft framework states that it will require:

Will the Minister therefore confirm that the key performance targets will be based on patient, clinician and, importantly, nursing and healthcare staff experience as well as focusing on securing better outcomes? We need that breadth of knowledge to deliver the framework properly and ensure that we achieve what it sets out to do.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Chair of the Committee for her welcome and her comments. I am, of course, not a clinician; I have no medical or clinical qualifications. As Minister, I see myself as an enabler of change. Recently, I was in both the Causeway Hospital and the Antrim Area Hospital. As the Member knows, the Northern Health and Social Care Trust is consulting on the future of general emergency surgery provision and the potential that it may move from the Causeway Hospital down to Antrim. In its consultation document, the trust has made clear its preferred option, which is the one that I have just articulated. However, when I met the clinicians at Antrim Area Hospital, they made it clear that it was an imperative for patient safety and delivering better outcomes. So, yes, I will be guided by clinicians, surgeons, allied health professionals (AHPs) and nurses.

There is also a need to consult the local community, because all healthcare is not just personal but local. For example, for most of my adult life, my nearest hospital has been the Ulster Hospital. Of course, I feel an affinity for the Ulster more than I would for the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH), Altnagelvin Area Hospital or Daisy Hill Hospital. I have to get over that affinity and wishing for every service that I need to be delivered at Dundonald and recognise that it is in my best interests, once we have the areas of specialty, to travel a little further for a procedure. Having said that, I know that people who are prepared to travel for a procedure want the aftercare as close to home as possible. That is the principle underlying my thinking.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement. He will be well aware that, as we go out of the Chamber, there will be misinformation about what goes on underneath hospital roofs. I welcome that he has confirmed that no acute hospital will close. Can he confirm, as, I am sure, he will, that the plan will stabilise services and attract workforce to rural hospitals such as the SWAH, where it can be difficult to attract a workforce? Will he reassure the public that transport links, which I have raised with him before, will be developed as part of the programme of work? Missed appointments cost the health service as well.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her comments. No acute hospital is, in any way, in danger; in fact, some of the proposals, such as the one to separate emergency from elective surgery, will secure their future.

On the first point about attracting workforce, interestingly — well, you will be the judge of that, but I found it interesting — I went up to Altnagelvin a few weeks ago to visit some of our international colleagues who have come here. They go into the centre at Altnagelvin to learn about the processes and procedures that we use in hospitals that may be different from what they are used to in India, Afghanistan or wherever their country of origin is. The interesting thing for me was asking them whether they preferred to be at Altnagelvin in Derry/Londonderry or at the South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen. There was a variety of answers. Those who came from big cities in India tended to say that they preferred Altnagelvin because it is in the city of Derry/Londonderry, whereas others whose origins were, perhaps, more rural preferred Enniskillen. It is possible to think about imaginative ways in which to tackle those workforce challenges and not just simply buy into a narrative that a rural hospital will not attract a workforce. It may be more challenging, but I accept and rise to that challenge.

The Member made a very important point about transport. It is all very well for me to say that I am prepared to travel to Antrim, Londonderry or Enniskillen for my procedure when I have many family members with cars who would be more than willing to take me there and bring me back. I have been working with other Ministers — the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs — to look at community transport arrangements and how to provide transport for those who do not have ready access to it. I am also thinking about the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS), which has a voluntary driver scheme. That scheme took a bad hit to its numbers because of COVID. The NIAS is working hard to get the pool of drivers back up. We need to be imaginative. For example, I think of church networks: it strikes me that people who regularly go to church may be the sort of people who have the kind of community interest that might lead them to think about becoming community drivers.

The issues that the Member raised are very much on my radar. They are valid and need to be addressed.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for bringing this long-awaited statement to the House. In the third paragraph of the statement, Minister, you state that you want to put to rest the belief that there was no engagement or clinical involvement. I am glad that that engagement took place, following the Committee session in which we pressed the Health Department on the lack of engagement.

I welcome the reconfiguration framework. Now that we have an overall strategic framework from which all the decisions on this will flow, when will we see more decisions and actions being taken, having evolved from the framework?

Mr Nesbitt: In headline terms, that sequence starts with the announcement in the Chamber today. Professor Bengoa will be at a half-day conference in Belfast next Wednesday afternoon. I will be interested to hear the detail of his remarks on whether he feels that his report from 2016 is still valid — I believe that it is. He will also reference some developments that have taken place globally over the past eight years and perhaps encourage us to take the next steps. After that, as I said, I will publish the three-year plan that will cover the rest of the mandate.

Out of that, we will have to get down into the weeds of what we mean when we talk about which hospitals deliver which services. I assure Members that we will go out to public consultation on every one of the potential moves, because that is the right thing to do. That is why it will not be possible to do it in a year or in the remainder of the mandate, and that is why I am talking about a five-year plan. We have to bring people with us, and I do not mean just the clinicians and everybody who works in healthcare, important as they are. We also want the community to come with us. Sometimes, when we say that we will change services, people think that they are losing a service from their local facility without being reassured that something better will come in its place. For example, you may separate emergency and elective surgery in one hospital in order to make that hospital a centre for excellence in elective surgery, which would be a bit better for securing its future.

Sorry, I wandered off topic a bit. There will be a series of announcements, and, while they might not please the Member, they will certainly give her the opportunity to respond.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his statement to the House. He acknowledged that, in a better-structured network, some patients may have to travel further for their procedure. Following on from Deborah Erskine's question, can the Minister give a commitment that he and his Department will do all that they can to make the case for adequate provision of accessible and reliable public transport for patients who require it?

Mr Nesbitt: An increased focus on centres of excellence for elective care will mean that some patients will be asked to travel further for non-emergency procedures. I refer to the 2023-24 health survey for Northern Ireland, in which approximately 80% of respondents indicated that they would be prepared to travel within Northern Ireland for a routine procedure or operation, if that meant that the waiting time would be reduced. Similar questions were asked by the Age Sector Platform, and over 80% said that they would be willing to travel further if there were benefits such as reduced waiting or procedure times and a lower risk of cancellation.

As the Member suggests and as Mrs Erskine made clear, there needs to be accessible and reliable public transport for patients who do not have access to private vehicles, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable. In that regard, flexible appointments, especially for those who are travelling a greater distance, would also be important.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his statement. Action 7 states:

Can you give us some sense of what those activities might be? Is there an estates plan? As I have outlined before, Craigavon Area Hospital is bursting at the seams. People died during COVID because the hospital did not have the space to keep them separated.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not want to be prescriptive or overly prescriptive at this point in the process. I will stick with what I have said. There is huge logic in trying to separate emergency surgery from elective surgery, because, if you are on a waiting list for planned or elective surgery, the length of the list does not really matter. If you have been given the appointment, it is frustrating to get a phone call early that morning to say, "I am sorry. The theatre is in use for an emergency procedure. The anaesthetist, the surgeon and the theatre nurses have all been taken up, and your surgery is cancelled". Those are the sorts of things that I am talking about. We need a logical redistribution that means that we are more productive and more efficient in what we do.

You asked about Craigavon Area Hospital. My goodness. I was there a couple of weeks ago, and the last area that I visited was the emergency department. It was not edifying to see so many people in the corridors outside the emergency department being fed. When you want to access healthcare, dignity is really important. Far too many patients feel that they lose their dignity because of overcrowding, particularly in emergency departments. That was late August, by the way. One of the emergency department consultants said, "I think this is the start of the winter pressures". We have to box clever and use the whole of the estate.

I am not the expert, I am not a clinician, and I am not a medical professional who can say how we should do that, but we need to look at the network. It is important to get people thinking of networks. People tend to think of the local hospital as being "it". Once we can do that, we can have a good, mature debate about who does what.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Minister for his statement. We have waited a long time for the paper. I am grateful for it, and I take your word that it is the start of a process. However, on reading it last night, I found that it is a series of high-level principles rather than any detail on how we will proceed. A number of questions arise about that. You said this morning that there would be further papers: that is really important, but we need further papers that focus on the principles that you outlined in this one.

You also said that service reviews would be trust-led: I worry about that, because my experience of trusts is that, at the moment, they will not and cannot cooperate with one another. How do you expect them to cooperate on service reviews and sharing resources? Will you ensure that each of those is led by a consultation?

Mr Nesbitt: First of all, I get it. You have waited a long time for the document, and, to a certain extent, perhaps, it is a little frustrating that it has only high-level principles. However, that is the logical sequence by which to roll out the nitty-gritty of reform. It is not just reform of hospitals; it is reform of how we deliver health and social care more generally.

There will be consultations — I can guarantee the Member that — on all the changes, but I said that they will either be trust-led or led regionally by the Department. I note that the Member said that the trusts are struggling to cooperate. I have to say that that is not my sense of things. I know that they were set up under the Thatcherite idea of, if you have competition, you drive down price and get a better bang for your buck, to use that expression. I suppose that there was a temptation, when going into the role, to say, "Why do we need five geographic trusts, and why can we not just have one Northern Ireland-wide body?". I do not think that that is worth the effort, but I said to the chairs, chief executives and financial directors of the trusts that I expect them to cooperate and that, in my mind, they are one trust. I think that they have been increasingly showing an ability to cooperate and collaborate rather than compete, but that is a work in progress, and I will certainly try to keep the pressure on to get further collaboration and cooperation. The big issue for me across those trusts is productivity, and I assure the Member that there have been some frosty enough conversations on that issue.

Mr Donnelly: I welcome the Minister's statement. We all know that reform of the health service is long overdue and has stalled due to the political instability in this place. The Bengoa report was in 2016, and it described a "burning platform". We should have been eight years into a 10-year programme of reform, but, instead, we have let it burn and burn.

The Minister mentioned that there has been clinical involvement in this document and this consultation, and I believe that there was a pre-consultation over the summer involving stakeholders. I ask the Minister to outline some of the feedback that was received from that and how that has fed into the document that will be given to the general public.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. All the royal colleges were involved, and all the chief executives and the trusts were involved. Indeed, a couple of weeks ago, I was at the headquarters of the South Eastern Trust and met the chairs of all the arm's-length bodies that are involved in delivering healthcare. Therefore, extensive consideration has been given to this plan.

The big challenge that has been faced by, for example, the people who represent the five geographic trusts is, "What does it mean for me and my service?". One of the most important exchanges in the feedback has been my sense that they need to collaborate and cooperate more deeply and that they have to address the issue of productivity. If you talk to the clinicians, they will tell you about the barriers that prevent them being more efficient and more productive, and then, when you speak to the management, you maybe get a better sense of what management perceives to be the barriers to delivering that efficiency and productivity.

The one thing about healthcare that I discovered very early in my tenure is that there are so many moving parts. You can see one moving part and say, "Well, if we do something here, that will be really productive and positive", but there will be three or four other moving parts that might say, "Well, if you do that, you will have a negative impact on me". Those are the sorts of conversations that we have been having.

Ultimately, as, I think, I said in my very first remarks in the Chamber as Health Minister, everybody wants reform, but everybody has a different idea of what reform should look like. As we go forward, I know that people will object to this proposal or that proposal, but that is the value of the consultation. I am certainly happy to discuss offline with the Member some more detail, if he is interested in the specifics of the feedback.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, I remind you all about long introductions and that long conclusions should not be used to replace long introductions. [Laughter.]

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for his statement. Can he provide the details of what factors will be considered in the assessment of local hospital sustainability to meet the future needs of our population?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. If I understood her correctly, she is talking about local hospitals. As I said, I think that, by and large — 80% at least — people are willing to travel for a procedure if they feel that they are going to a centre of excellence. I have said before that, if your local hospital does the procedure that you need once a week but that, by travelling a bit further, you can get to somewhere that does it 10 times a day, five days a week, you are more likely to want to go to that centre of excellence. The local hospitals will deliver the aftercare. I want aftercare to be delivered as close to the home as possible. That, primarily, is where I see a role. It is about delivering day-to-day, non-acute services. There is so much that local hospitals can do; they should be in no doubt about their short- and medium-term future.

Mr T Buchanan: I welcome the statement today as well. It is reassuring that none of the acute services is going to be closed during or after the process. Will the Minister assure us that each acute and local hospital will be utilised to its full potential? Far too often, when we see a change coming, we can see the gaps that will be left. That leaves the hospital not being utilised to its full potential, which then creates problems with the retention and recruitment of staff, as we have seen in the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH).

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I can offer that guarantee; we need every square inch of our hospital estate. The next challenge, having put hospitals into four tiers, is to determine exactly what services are offered by which hospital. That is a fairly significant piece of work, but, if it is approached with logic, it should not take that long to get to where we want to be. I assure the Member that I want every hospital to do whatever it is doing to the best of its ability, and to be recognised as such by the community that uses that facility.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement today. I look forward to working with him for the benefit of patients and staff from right across Fermanagh and South Tyrone. As he will recall, I recently joined him on a visit to the South West Acute Hospital. I was glad that he was able to see at first hand the potential that it has. Following on from the comments from the Member who spoke previously, will the Minister give a commitment that today's framework will help to better utilise the capacity that exists in SWAH?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. SWAH is a very good example of separating out emergency and elective care. It has become an elective-care centre of excellence in Enniskillen. That works really well. It gives an assurance to the staff and healthcare workers who are based in the SWAH that they have a really sustainable future and a worthwhile role to play in delivering as part of the network of our Northern Ireland hospitals.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for the statement. I go back to the questions from Colin and Nuala earlier. I know that it is really hard to set specific definitive timelines at this stage because, obviously, it is an early phase of the process, but when do you foresee the proposals for reconfiguration going out to the public? The consultation closes in January 2025. Do you foresee that happening in 2025, or are we talking 2026, or later?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I understand the nature of the question. It is going to be a rolling programme. For example, as I indicated, officials in my Department have been liaising with officials in the Department of Health and Social Care in London about the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. It is our intention that whatever legislation is brought in for England will apply here in Northern Ireland. I would love to see a smoke-free generation as soon as possible. Smoking is one of the social determinants of health inequalities. I am sure that the Member will join me in hoping that we can tackle that.

I have talked about minimum unit pricing of alcohol. We, as a Department, have already consulted on that. I am at the early stages of discussing with officials how we take that forward. It is something that I hope to bring to the Health Committee. I apologise for missing my slot last week due to illness. I think that it is something that the Committee and the Department can work together on. That will not have to wait until January and the end of the consultation. I want to go ahead with trying to see whether we can get agreement on minimum-unit pricing for alcohol.

Officials have been told to press on urgently with work on breast cancer screening. I want to get as soon as possible to the point at which every woman can go online and have control over her own appointment. If she wants the earliest available appointment, wherever that might be in Northern Ireland, she should be able to click a button and book herself in for that. If she would rather go local, even if it means waiting a bit longer, that is her choice, and I want her to have that choice. Those things are part of a continuum. It is not that we will get to the end of January and a whole series of initiatives will come. I am doing every one of those as quickly as I can.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. From the Alliance Party's engagement with the sector, it is clear to us that the Royal children's hospital needs to be a regional hub and funded as such through the proper commissioning of services. Will the Minister confirm that that is his intention, so that it can be a centre of excellence for children across Northern Ireland? Has he engaged with clinicians in the hospital? If not, will he do so?

Mr Nesbitt: Sorry, Deputy Speaker. Which hospital?

Ms Nicholl: The children's hospital.

Mr Nesbitt: Are you asking whether it can be a centre of excellence? Are you talking about the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children?

Ms Nicholl: Yes.

Mr Nesbitt: Sorry, could the Member repeat the question? I did not quite catch it.

Ms Nicholl: Clinicians at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children are telling us that it needs to be a regional hub and funded as such, so that it can be a centre of excellence for children across Northern Ireland. I am trying to ascertain whether the Minister's intention is for it to become that and to be funded accordingly and for services to be commissioned.

Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry that I missed the question the first time.

It is my understanding that, in many ways, it already is a regional hub. Certainly, it is my intention that that is the case going forward. Certain services, like percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) treatment, are only available at the Royal.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, the document is largely made up of principles, and there are lots of principles to commend. One thing that is not mentioned in the statement is the cross-border context. Hospitals such as the South West Acute Hospital are already in a real-life network, but they could be in a theoretical network that includes hospitals in Sligo, Leitrim and Cavan. There is already a cross-border healthcare context. There is also an aspiration and a vision to maximise that. What will you do to properly maximise the cross-border potential for services at, for example, Daisy Hill Hospital, Altnagelvin Area Hospital or SWAH to ensure that those services are best used by people on both sides of the border? What will you do to ensure that we maximise the possibilities of cross-border healthcare provision?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the leader of the Opposition. I think that I have said in the House — I have certainly said it at the North/South Ministerial Council and also at the North/South sectoral forum — that I have no political or ideological objection to cooperation with the Government of Ireland on healthcare delivery. In fact, it makes an awful lot of sense. Indeed, going back 15 years, the development of the breast cancer unit at Altnagelvin was based on a cross-border business model. SWAH was also built on the basis of cooperation across the border.

I have had two meetings, which, to my mind, were very useful, with my counterpart, Stephen Donnelly, the Minister for Health in the Government of Ireland. We talked about certain issues, including the need for a mother-and-baby unit. We discussed paediatric pathology, and we are making great advances on those terms. I know that a lot of Members have made clear in the House that it is far from ideal that we ask parents to fly or transport themselves to Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool. I hope that we will be able to offer an all-island solution on that. There is another initiative, which I will not mention at the moment but about which I am very excited. Mr Donnelly equally sees the benefit of an all-Ireland approach in this area.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you very much, Minister. As someone who lives in and represents a rural constituency, I was glad to hear the rural transport notion being picked up. What other engagement will the Minister have with rural communities to make sure that their issues are heard fully and understood by the Department in the transformation process?

Mr Nesbitt: The consultation that I have had so far has been with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Infrastructure. Officials have gone away to look at community transport and at how we might provide transport for people who do not have ready access to it.

If the Member is asking me whether I have plans at the moment to go out personally and consult in rural areas, that is not the case. However, I encourage Members to encourage people, particularly in rural communities, to respond to the consultation, because I want to know what people's concerns are.

It is all very well saying that 80% of people have said that they are willing to travel for a procedure, but that means that 20% have not responded that positively. In the survey, 16% said that they were not particularly keen on the concept. If we are to deliver a health service for all, which is our obligation, we need to understand why that 16% are not buying into the concept. I am more than willing to engage with the Member on how we might consult in the way that she might intend.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his statement. I very much concur with some of the frustration in the Chamber. We have would appreciated a wee bit more substance. It was my understanding that the co-chaired work streams, looking at the four types of hospitals, were looking at defining what was going where.

My question picks up on that asked by my colleague Sian Mulholland. You talked about the 80% of people who are willing to travel for elective care. We know that there will still be reservations for people with a suspected stroke or heart failure. Will you take forward a communications strategy to look at where there are serious concerns about the time required for travel?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. I will acknowledge her frustration, but I gently suggest that she might be more frustrated had I not brought the statement to the House today.

As for people having to travel, particularly in an emergency situation, I am working to the concept that no type-1 emergency department is going away. Emergency departments will still be there. The principle is stabilising patients as soon as possible and then getting them to the best place for their procedure. That is the way to go, with, as I have said, aftercare being delivered as close to home as possible.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement. A section titled "Patient Travel", setting out supports available for the public, is included in the draft framework. The Minister's predecessor had committed to a review of the hospital travel costs scheme, a review that, in the absence of Ministers, seems to have ended up on a shelf. I have raised the particular problem that the scheme makes no provision for the parents or families of sick children making long and frequent journeys, whose suffering and stress is compounded by financial hardship. Will the Minister update us on the review of the hospital travel costs scheme?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I can only tell him that it is under review. I encourage him to respond to the consultation by making that important and valid point.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for coming to the House today. Over the years, Causeway Hospital has seen a gradual running down of its services. It lost its maternity unit to Antrim Area Hospital and is in the midst of a consultation on future general surgery at the site. There are lots of fine words in your statement, Minister, but what my constituents in the north end of North Antrim really want to know is this: will your proposals result in the removal of any of the cuts made to date? Will you take the opportunity to spell out your future plans for Causeway Hospital?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. Causeway Hospital will remain a key element of the hospital network in Northern Ireland. Separating emergency surgery from elective or planned surgery, as I have said on a number of occasions, makes great sense for the people who access hospitals. The Member should have no fear about the future of Causeway Hospital. When I visited it a few weeks ago, I found there to be hugely positive energy amongst the staff and a great appetite for going forward together.

If we are to reform health service delivery, we will have to make changes. As I have said, I understand that, for many people, the National Health Service — Health and Social Care (HSC) here — is not just personal but deeply local. It is people's local GP surgery and their local hospital. I am as guilty as anybody of thinking that, but we have to think a bit more broadly if we are going to be more productive and more efficient and deliver those better outcomes.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his statement. Can he give an assurance that action point 5 is not a case of his Department putting a proverbial gun to the head of the population of the Causeway region that only when they accept the removal of emergency general surgery at Causeway Hospital will it be designated as an elective hub?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. I encourage him to speak to the clinicians whom I spoke to at Causeway Hospital and at Antrim Area Hospital about the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Justice.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I am pleased to bring my Justice Bill before the Assembly today. On my reappointment as Minister of Justice in February 2024 —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, move the Bill.

Mrs Long: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to do this a second time.

I am pleased to bring the Justice Bill to the Assembly today. On my reappointment as Minister of Justice in February 2024, I agreed my legislative programme to continue reform of our justice system into a better system for everyone concerned. That includes this general justice Bill, a sentencing Bill and a victims Bill. The mixed-content Justice Bill before the Assembly today is another step forward in that reform programme, and I am committed to improving the operation and effectiveness of the justice system through this wide-ranging legislation.

The Bill consists of 34 clauses over five Parts and has four key principles. The first is to amend the retention periods for biometric material. The second is to make changes to bail and custody arrangements for children and young people. The third is to improve services for victims and witnesses. Finally, the fourth is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of aspects of the justice system.

Part 1 of the Bill creates a new framework for the retention and destruction of DNA and fingerprints in Northern Ireland. Article 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (PACE) is the current legislation in Northern Ireland governing that. It provides that the PSNI may retain the DNA and fingerprints of an individual who has been arrested for a recordable offence indefinitely, irrespective of whether they were convicted.

The current legislation has been found in two separate judgements of the European Court of Human Rights to be in contravention of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The first judgement dates back to December 2008, Marper v UK, whilst the latest judgement was delivered in February 2020, Gaughran v UK. The Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 was passed by the House on 25 April 2013 in response to the Marper judgement. However, it was not possible to commence those provisions due to the need to preserve biometric material that may be required for future legacy investigations. The Gaughran judgement has since resulted in elements of the 2013 Act being assessed as not being compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, it is necessary to revisit the legislation and produce amended proposals for consideration by the Assembly.

Part 1 of the Justice Bill will amend the current law by removing indefinite retention and introducing maximum retention periods for biometric material taken in Northern Ireland. The retention period will depend on a number of factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the age of the individual, the individual's criminal history and the disposal given. In general, if the individual is not convicted, their material will not be retained. The Bill will also introduce a regulation-making power that will require the Chief Constable to carry out a meaningful review of long-term retained biometric material. The review process will include an independent complaints process.

The Bill also contains provision for the appointment of a new Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Retention of Biometric Material. That will provide important independent oversight of the operation of the new retention framework and review process. The commissioner will also have responsibility for keeping under review emerging biometric technologies that are being used or may be used by the PSNI. That is a balanced and proportionate approach. It responds to the European Court's rulings and protects the individual's right to privacy. It also recognises the public interest in enabling the police to make effective use of biometric data in protecting the public and in the prevention and detection of crime.

Members will appreciate that this is a complex area. During the recent drafting process, my officials identified some amendments and additions that are needed to provide greater clarity and ensure the effective operation of the provisions. I intend to table those amendments at Consideration Stage. Members will, of course, be aware that the clauses were originally drafted some time ago for inclusion in a mixed-content Bill in the last mandate. It was through the revision of those that we found further room for improvement.

Part 2 contains provisions to amend existing legislation and covers bail, remand and custody for children in order to enhance compliance with article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The provisions ensure compliance by strengthening the existing presumption of bail for children and introducing unconditional bail as standard and a requirement that any conditions applied should be proportionate and necessary. They introduce specific conditions that must be met before a child can be remanded into custody and underpin the current administrative arrangements that exist around the separation of children and adults in custodial settings. The underpinning of current administrative arrangements will be achieved through the replacement of two existing youth-specific custodial orders, which are also location-specific, with a new youth custody and supervision order. The provisions also set it out in statute that, where a court remands or commits a child to custody, the child must be detained in a child-appropriate location — that is a juvenile justice centre.

The amendments to PACE in clauses 20 and 21 will enable videoconferencing technology, referred to as "live links", to be used for a number of custody functions. Those functions include the extension of detention by both the police and the courts and police interviews with the suspect. Additionally, the provisions make minor amendments to PACE to replace any references to "videoconferencing" with "live link", thus ensuring the continuity of terminology throughout PACE legislation.

The provisions are part of the Department's digital strategy, and we are keen to facilitate the use of live links in as wide a range of circumstances as is appropriate. Live links are already used in courts for a wide range of functions, including preliminary hearings, certain sentencing and appeal hearings and the giving of evidence by vulnerable witnesses, defendants and appellants. The prisons and courts also regularly use live links for remand hearings. Operationally, the introduction of live links for police detention and interviews will mean that they can be dealt with more swiftly. That will result in a more efficient use of police resources. The use of live links could also result in efficiencies in travel and escort costs. All of the proposed functions in the use of live links are already available to police forces in England and Wales by virtue of the Policing and Crime Act 2017. I am keen to facilitate similar arrangements in Northern Ireland not only for the reasons that I have outlined but to avoid putting the PSNI at any disadvantage compared with its UK counterparts.

Part 4 has five components that share a common focus on the administration of justice. The first of those provisions, at clause 22, seeks to amend the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to provide the Northern Ireland Policing Board with the power to delegate certain matters to board officials in response to the judgement in the case of McKee and Others v the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. Those include a number of decision-making roles on matters such as pensions forfeiture, ill-health retirement, injury on duty and other miscellaneous benefits. That arrangement is necessary for practical reasons, given the volume of casework involved and the number of decisions required to be made in a timely manner.

Clause 23 will remove section 29 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which requires the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) to audit the Policing Board's performance plan and performance review. The amendment is being made following a recommendation by the former Comptroller and Auditor General and would bring the position in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales. However, the provisions at section 30 of the Act would remain in place should an examination of the board's compliance with section 28 ever be required.

The next three clauses all deal with criminal proceedings. The first of those provisions, at clause 24, amends existing legislation relating to conspiracy to commit offences outside Northern Ireland. The amendment corrects an error in the previous provisions to provide that the consent of the Advocate General for Northern Ireland is required when instituting criminal proceedings in Northern Ireland, as intended.

Clause 25 amends section 7 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to provide that a judge can enter a no bill on a charge such as murder or manslaughter only if the judge also enters a no bill on the related charge under section 5 of the same Act, which relates to causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die. The provision closes a gap in the law that, if not addressed, could see defendants not having to face criminal proceedings in relation to that charge even where the judge is not satisfied that the related section 5 offence — the lesser offence — should also be no-billed.

The final provision in this section is clause 25, which deals with registered intermediaries. Registered intermediaries are communication specialists who assist vulnerable persons with communication difficulties to give evidence during the police investigation and in court. The extension of powers in the use of registered intermediaries will ensure that there is provision not only for the giving of evidence at Magistrates' Court and Crown Court, which is currently provided for in the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, but where there is an appeal from those court tiers to the County Court or the Court of Appeal. That will provide vulnerable defendants who have communication difficulties with the assistance that they need to participate effectively in appeal proceedings as witnesses giving oral evidence in court.

Clauses 28 and 27 deal with legal aid matters. Clause 27 is a technical amendment to schedule 11 to the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 to include legal aid legislation. Schedule 11 allows for the registration of statutory charges in the statutory charge register. Also, the proposed amendment would allow the Legal Services Agency, which administers legal aid in Northern Ireland, to register such charges, created by the legal aid legislation, in the statutory charges register. The purpose of the statutory charge is to ensure that legally aided persons contribute towards the cost of funding their cases insofar as they are able. It provides the Legal Services Agency with revenue that it is allowed to keep and use for the funding of future cases. The person who receives legal aid, known as the assisted person, can become liable for the statutory charge should they gain money or property that they did not own before or keep money or property that someone had tried to take from them.

Clause 28 is an amendment to the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 to reinforce that, where a basis for determination of payment for legal aid work has been set out in a remuneration order made under the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, the taxation process is not available as an alternative basis for that determination. The amendment will allow for the reform of taxation of legal aid costs, the basic principle being that, if the Department is paying, the Department determines the amount.

The penultimate provisions, at clause 29, are concerned with criminal record certificates and the disclosure of spent convictions or other disposal information of a person aged under 18. The provisions of clause 29 extend the powers of the independent reviewer of criminal record certificates under schedule 8A to the Police Act 1997. They extend the scope of automatic review by the independent reviewer to review the criminal record information to be disclosed on all criminal record certificates or enhanced criminal record certificates issued under the 1997 Act where that information relates to any other disposal awarded to a person when they were under 18 years of age. The provisions are required to comply with a ruling made by the UK Supreme Court in January 2019, which determined that blanket disclosure of such offences was a category error and, as such, an error of principle. Clause 29 therefore ensures that the Department continues to operate lawfully in that regard.

Finally, on the provisions of the Bill as drafted for introduction, clause 30 ensures that the exercise of court security officer powers may be extended to other buildings to be specified in regulations. Those must be buildings owned or occupied by the Department where a judicial officer or person exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions sits. The provisions will ensure that those premises are afforded the same security as premises that make up the main courts and tribunals estate.

That concludes my remarks covering the substantive policy content of the Bill at introduction. However, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to provide Members with a short overview of a number of discrete policy areas where I intend to bring forward legislative provisions for inclusion in the Bill, albeit drafting could not be completed before introduction.

The provisions include the following: first, provisions to transfer the powers and functions contained in section 43 of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 from the Secretary of State to the Department of Justice in order to restart the accreditation process for organisations wishing to deliver restorative justice. The second area covers provisions to amend rehabilitation periods under the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to shorten existing rehabilitation periods for convictions that are already capable of becoming spent and to allow more convictions to be able to become spent. It had been hoped that that could be done by regulation. However, that has not been possible, which is why the drafting of primary legislation is under way. There will be provisions to facilitate the wider use of live links in courts and tribunals, thereby allowing the cessation of reliance on similar provisions that are in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which, I think, all Members would welcome. Next are provisions to repeal old and outdated vagrancy legislation under the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847. Next are provisions to streamline arrangements for the maintenance and ease of understanding of the existing list of over 1,200 sexual and violent offences that AccessNI cannot filter from disclosure certificates. Those offences are housed in a number of different pieces of legislation. That is incredibly complex and, we believe, open to particular error. We are therefore keen to streamline those arrangements for transparency and clarity reasons. Finally, we hope to introduce provisions to tackle those who participate in or direct serious organised crime. Those are long-overdue provisions that the Independent Reporting Commission recommended to assist the PSNI and the criminal justice system in responding to organised crime.

My commitment to the Justice Committee is that we will share draft amendments with it at the earliest possible juncture, rather than wait until Consideration Stage. Given the shortened mandate and the discrete nature of the provisions in the different sections of the Bill, proceeding with introduction at this time, as I described, affords the Committee and the House the maximum opportunity for scrutiny without jeopardising progress and the rest of the legislative programme for the mandate.

The Bill, though very technical and dry, will strengthen and improve the operation of our justice system. I am conscious that my first Bill of the mandate is significant in scope and covers a broad range of policy areas, some of which are complex and technical but all of which make an important contribution to the modernisation of justice. In practice, there is a degree of interaction between the aims and provisions of the Bill that will often advance more than one of its core aims. I look forward to working with the Justice Committee and Assembly colleagues to ensure that the Bill is enacted in this mandate. I commend the Bill to the House.

Ms Bunting (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): As Chair of the Committee for Justice, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession. I state from the outset that the Committee and I look forward to scrutinising the Bill and working with key stakeholders and departmental officials in so doing, should it pass Second Stage today.

There is little point in my repeating what the Minister just said in outlining the content of the Bill. It will be referred to the Committee should it pass its Second Stage, which is when the Committee's scrutiny will begin in earnest. However, we have been proactive in preparing for that scrutiny. At our meeting on 19 September, we received an excellent and comprehensive briefing from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe), which covered the main parts of the Bill. That paper has been published on the Committee's web pages, and I encourage anyone with an interest in the Bill to read it.

On Part 1, which is labelled "Biometric data: retention etc", we were informed about the existing legal framework in Northern Ireland. We were also told about how the public interest in collecting and retaining biometric materials needs to be balanced with individual citizens' rights, with particular reference to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is on the right to respect for private and family life. The number of databases across the United Kingdom that hold biometric data and the different retention regimes that are in operation were also outlined to us. There is no doubt whatsoever that that is a highly complex area, especially given the rapid changes in biometric technology, and it was highlighted to us how important it will be to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed in that regard.

On Part 2, which relates to bail and custody for children, we were directed to the Department's strategic framework for youth justice 2022-27 and briefed on the importance of ensuring that the proposed legislative changes align with that framework. The need to consider how aspects of that part of the Bill will be supported by statutory partners, particularly with regard to appropriate accommodation for children when granted bail, was highlighted to us. It is a key consideration and reflects a wider need for cross-departmental working.

Part 3 relates to the use of live links in police interviews and detention, and we were given some useful suggestions for areas to consider: for example, the importance of achieving the appropriate balance between the efficient use of resources on the one hand and the rights of detained persons on the other, as well as the potential need for new arrangements to be monitored, which may well take the form of a review.

Part 4 covers a range of areas: functions relating to the police, criminal proceedings, legal aid, criminal records certificates and court security. Many of the provisions in Part 4 aim to amend other legislation — something that I will return to later in my speech — and, again, it is clear, even from an initial reading of the provisions, just how complex a lot of the issues are.

I put on record the Committee's gratitude for the work produced by the Assembly's researchers, so far, on the Bill. It has provided Committee members with a solid foundation on which to build when conducting our scrutiny.

My remarks thus far have reflected the positive approach that the Committee has demonstrated in conducting its scrutiny role, and I reassure the House that it will continue to do so. However, I need to draw attention to some less-than-positive aspects of the process that the Committee has been considering.

In March, the Committee considered a proposal for a statutory rule to allow courts and statutory tribunals to continue to receive evidence, wholly or in part, through audio or video links using the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee asked for more detail, particularly about the appropriateness of the continued use of the powers in the Act, and whether there were any plans to place such measures on a permanent statutory footing. Departmental officials advised the Committee that it was, indeed, the Minister's intention to include a permanent provision for the use of live links in the first justice Bill of the mandate. However, they also said that the intention was to add those provisions by way of an amendment at Consideration Stage, as opposed to them being included in the Bill as introduced. To say that Committee members were shocked at that revelation would be an understatement. Members immediately expressed their concern at the suggestion, noting its potential implications for effective scrutiny.

At its meeting on 14 March, the Committee considered correspondence from the Department stating that four substantive new areas were to be added to the Bill by way of amendment at Consideration Stage. In addition to those provisions for live links, the amending provisions would include proposals to repeal vagrancy legislation and for the new offences of directing and participating in serious organised crime. The substantive nature of those provisions is evident without further explanation. Departmental officials have since advised the Committee that they will provide the text of the provisions, as and when they are ready. However, as I am sure that the House will agree, scrutinising legislation in that way is far from ideal. At its meeting on 11 April, the Committee agreed to write to the Department to raise "its grave concerns", to ask the Department to note the Committee's view that the Bill should contain all the clauses at introduction, and yet still to emphasise that the Committee wished to work collaboratively with the Minister and the Department to support the effective development and scrutiny of the legislation. I reiterate that our desire to do so as a Committee has not changed.

Unfortunately, that was not the end of the matter. Not only was the Bill introduced without the inclusion of the aforementioned provisions but the Committee has since been made aware that there are, in fact, six areas that the Minister plans to introduce by way of amendments at Consideration Stage. Those include amending rehabilitation periods to shorten existing periods and to allow more convictions to become spent. Again, I emphasise that those are not insignificant provisions. It is the Committee's view that it is — to say the least — far from ideal, especially so in the context of the recent High Court judgement regarding the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, details of which the House will be familiar with. The approach is deeply concerning.

The Committee received a briefing —.

Mrs Long: I thank the Committee Chair for giving way. Will she accept that the provisions of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act were in the Bill as introduced? The relationship between that Act and an amendment is irrelevant.

Ms Bunting: I hear what the Minister says. I will address her point as I come to it. My next paragraph indicates that evidence that was brought to the court was not brought before the Committee.

Last Thursday, the Committee received a briefing from departmental officials on the Bill's content and principles. I put on record the Committee's gratitude to the officials for their candour, patience and explanations. They were clearly experts in their respective areas of responsibility and gave us considerable time to ask questions. During the meeting, we were informed that the need for an amendment to the biometric part of the Bill had been identified a mere nine calendar days after its introduction. We were assured that the amendment does not propose a change to the policy, but that did not fill the Committee with confidence that the Bill was ready to be introduced when it was.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Committee Chairperson for giving way. Does she agree that, contrary to the intervention from the Minister that we have just heard, the experience with the legislation and what subsequently happened in the court and, indeed, in another instance of which I have been made aware regarding the sexual offences Act prove that this Bill really needs to be scrutinised? There were clear unintended consequences, and the Department really needs to take them seriously. There has to be complete confidence that this Bill is being scrutinised properly. I am sure that her Committee will do that.

Ms Bunting: I thank the leader of the Opposition for his intervention. I have no doubt that, when the provisions were brought forward, the Minister, the Committee and all concerned were genuine in their intent. However, there were outworkings, and we must take account of the learning and proceed in accordance with it. We must ensure that what emerges from the Bill's stages and our scrutiny is the best that can be done. That is our endeavour, and I will commit to it. I trust that the Minister understands that, when we come at the Bill from that perspective, it is with positive and constructive intent.

Bear with me for a second, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to make sure that I do not miss any points that need to be made on the Committee's behalf.

As I said, the Committee questioned officials on a number of issues around the Bill during the meeting last week. We asked how the provisions will be delivered primarily within existing resources, as stated in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), given the extremely challenging budget settlement that the Department has received. We raised concerns about the level of consultation that has taken place on some of the provisions and especially about the consultation on DNA and biometric data, which lasted for only eight weeks and was conducted during the initial summer months of the pandemic. We covered human rights compliance; we raised a concern about the Henry VIII powers in clause 31; and we covered a significant number of other issues.

I referred to the recent High Court judgement on the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. That is the key point on which the Minister spoke. One aspect of the judgement that I draw to the House's attention was that Justice Humphreys noted that the rationale given in evidence for certain decisions regarding the provisions in question, while given to the court:

That is significant. I mention it now, because, at last Thursday's meeting, the Committee requested that officials provide further information and papers on several matters, including a delegated powers memorandum and a Keeling schedule, given the considerable number of provisions in the Bill that are contextualised via or amend other legislation. It is felt that the latter document in particular will be necessary to enable the Committee to conduct its scrutiny effectively, particularly given the Bill's extensive amending provisions. I trust that the Minister will support the Committee's request for such information.

I finish this part of my speech on a positive note. As I stated, the Committee has been proactive in preparing to scrutinise the Bill. In addition to the actions that I outlined, the Committee has commissioned the public finance scrutiny unit of the Research and Information Service (RaISe) to conduct research into the Bill's financial aspects; it has commissioned the Examiner of Statutory Rules to scrutinise the Bill's delegated powers; and it has commissioned the Assembly's Legal Services to provide legal advice to support the Committee's scrutiny particularly in relation to compliance with convention rights. The Committee wants to work collaboratively with the Minister and the Department throughout the Bill's passage to ensure that the Bill emerges from the process as an effective, clear and coherent addition to the statute book that improves the administration of justice for all. Therefore, we urge the Department to produce the proposed amendments at the earliest opportunity.

I will speak now in my capacity as an MLA. My party shares the Committee's concerns around the extensive provisions to be brought forward at the amending stage. In practice, it makes the Committee's work extremely difficult, particularly in calling for evidence and hearing from witnesses. As you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, an outline of a policy is one thing, but the text can be quite another, and, realistically, scrutiny of the actual wording is the only proper, conscientious and effective way to proceed. To table such amendments at Consideration Stage is an unusual practice at best and is, moreover, risky, on the basis that there are no guarantees that such amendments would be selected for debate. The fact is that it is bad procedurally; it is bad for scrutiny; and it is unnecessary. If other Ministers were to do likewise, I have no doubt that MLAs from the Minister's party would be howling about it, and they would be right.

As a Committee, we had implored the Minister to hold the Bill until the amendments were ready and to include them in a full Bill at introduction. At that time, she indicated that they would be ready by the autumn, but now we are told that it will be the end of the calendar year, as I stated. Even now, two weeks later, officials are already amending the original provisions on top of all the additions. We have had these conversations, so I have no doubt that the Minister will argue that predecessor Committees accepted such processes. She will state that this is not unusual and has been custom and practice with Justice Committees. That may well be so, but they were not this Committee, and it was prejudgement. I need not remind the House of the scathing judgement that impacted the Minister, her Department, the Committee and the House. We are determined, as I have said, to learn those lessons. Just because it has been done does not mean that it should be done.

Of course, we understand that things arise urgently and that Departments need to address them, but, no matter what way you cut this, six policy areas do not and should not arise like this. We are not unreasonable —

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to highlight again that we would have been in a different position had we not had two years of political impasse in this place and that the Minister and her officials would have been able to progress this more slowly. It should be welcomed that she is bringing this forward today, having had two years of sitting around, waiting for other parties to get their act together.

Ms Bunting: I understand exactly why the Member makes the point. However, the mistake that she makes is that, in the period of hiatus, officials were working on the proposals and had additional time because they did not have other duties to consider.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bunting: I will.

Mrs Long: It is incorrect to say that, in the absence of an Assembly, officials were able to continue to work on proposals. They could work on some proposals, but, as with all Bills, they require ministerial direction on matters that are politically sensitive. Therefore, it was not possible to draft the legislation directions without a Minister present. The myth that the two years wasted has no impact on the mandate needs to be debunked.

Ms Bunting: Nobody indicated that the two years lost did not have an impact; nobody indicated that. That is not the point. The Member raised an issue, and I addressed it. Frankly, there is still no valid reason why those amendments could not have been brought and the Bill could not have been held. We will do our due diligence.

I wish to continue with my remarks.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bunting: I am eager to proceed, but carry on.

Mr Dickson: Thank you. Does the Member accept that this is not a particularly novel approach to how we deal with such Bills and that we have dealt with this before? Certainly, I have had that experience on the Justice Committee and have dealt with Bills in this way. There are members who are new to the Committee who, maybe, feel that they cannot cope with all that is being brought in front of them, but I hope that they will. We have excellent officials in the Committee and in the Department who will bring forward the issues for us, as we progress through it.

When it comes to how we will call for evidence on all this, we know the policy areas that are to be covered. Many of those will be specialist areas, and those who come forward to give evidence will know fully the background to the issues that are being dealt with, even the areas that are not fully fleshed out at this point. The Committee is perhaps over-egging the pudding today about just exactly —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask that we proceed with the debate. I remind Members that interventions should be brief.

Mr Dickson: Thank you.

Ms Bunting: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member was being somewhat pejorative when he said that Committee members who have not considered Bills before may be overwhelmed: that is not the case. We look forward to scrutinising the Bill, but our concern is that that should be done in the right way and in the best way. We know that it has happened in predecessor Committees — had the Member been listening, he would know that I have already pointed that out — but just because it has been done before does not mean that it is the right way. To introduce six significant areas of policy at Consideration Stage is not a good way to proceed, and nobody can deny that. Likewise, if it were a different Minister's Bill, I do not think that the Member would be taking the stance that he is taking now, although I appreciate that he has a duty to do so in Committee.

In his intervention, the Member also said that we had policy direction: yes, we do, but, again, I have said that text and direction are very different things. We raise the issue because it is a matter for the House. The Member may consider it to be being over-egged, but I was raising one of the issues for the Committee and am now speaking as the lead in the policy area for the Democratic Unionist Party. I would like to proceed, if that is OK.

As I said, or as I was trying to say, of course we understand that issues arise urgently and that the Department needs to address them. Nevertheless, no matter which way you cut this, six policy areas do not and should not arise like that. The point that I was coming to is this: we are not unreasonable, and we know that there are issues that must be legislated for as an emergency at Consideration Stage. We are well aware that Departments sometimes may involuntarily find themselves in breach and that loopholes and lacunas must be addressed urgently. That is, however, a far cry from bringing in an additional six policy areas by way of amendment when some of them could have formed stand-alone Bills in and of themselves. A number of said policy areas are technical and, in the Minister's own words, complex, and some involve taking people's liberty for a lengthy period.

I do not intend to comment further or in any detail on the policy areas that are yet to come, as their wording will be key and to do so at this stage would be mere speculation. We welcome the commitment from the Minister and officials to bring the amendments as soon as each is ready. They have given us an approximate timeline but have stated that we should not expect to have everything until the end of the year. We will await the text with anticipation.

The financial aspects of the explanatory and financial memorandum are notably scant, offering little detail. When we probed at this juncture, we were repeatedly advised that, as work is ongoing, it would be imprudent to outline further details. In some cases, we were advised that business cases would follow. Importantly, the EFM indicates that the provisions will be paid for from existing resources. Given the existing pressures in the Department, however, and noting that the Department has advised the Minister of Finance that it may have to consider cuts in service provision, its ability to absorb further cuts as those issues are implemented remains to be seen. We will wish to examine that area further as the Bill progresses. It would also be helpful to know whether the Minister envisages the additional provisions that are due to follow being paid for from existing resources or, indeed, whether she will commit to publishing a revised EFM.

All the issues around costs must be probed further. In previous Bills, finance did not necessarily follow function, and the relevant bodies had to absorb the cost of implementation. Given their present financial state, it is possible, if not likely, that those organisations are at saturation point and can absorb nothing further. Notable additional costs are likely to include those for the proposed Commissioner for the Retention of Biometric Material and for police software systems for same. It is likely that funding for those will form bids in future. I note, however, that officials have indicated that they have submitted a more detailed financial paper to RaISe for the Committee's perusal, but we have not had sight of that yet. We will give due consideration to the financials as we explore the relevant policy areas.

In some areas of the Bill the proposals are extremely broad, with us being asked to legislate with regulations to follow or provisions that will not immediately be commenced. There are references to case-by-case bases that leave questions around consistency. I confess to being slightly ill at ease with some of that until it is explored further.

There is also a Henry VIII clause. Departmental officials indicated that that was included for housekeeping purposes going forward. While that might be the intent now, once it is in statute, the reassurances will potentially matter little, should the powers be invoked in the years down the line. On that, we will await comment from the Examiner of Statutory Rules.

Let me turn briefly to each of the constituent parts. The biometric aspects of the Bill are somewhat technical, are certainly complex and have significant bearing on law enforcement's ability to detect and convict. They are emotive for many and will require extensive consideration and careful handling. We in the Democratic Unionist Party are extremely conscious of both sides of the coin: fundamental personal freedoms and rights, including the right to privacy, and the need to balance those with public protection, the public interest and the right of victims to seek and secure justice.

We are strong advocates of innocence until guilt is proven and of a fair and impartial justice system for defendants. Nevertheless, we also know the lasting impact and damage of crime, so we view proposals through the prism of victims, complainants and their needs. Hence, the timelines involved here, along with the rights and practical outworkings of all the proposals, including the role of the commissioner, will need to be considered further and in great detail. We certainly do not want to get to a situation where unidentified biometric data is deleted, only for it to be later proven that emerging technology was capable of connecting that data and those persons to serious crimes against persons and property. That would be an abdication of the state's obligations to innocent victims. We will want to scope those matters out and ensure that we have a comprehensive understanding, as well as being certain that the proposed way forward is indeed the best way forward.

In Part 2 on children's bail and custody, we note the move from the presumption of bail for children to a statutory right. Our criminal justice system already treats children and young people differently from adults in a range of respects, and many of the proposals in Part 2 flow naturally from that. In general, we are conscious that all efforts must be made to afford children the opportunity to change direction and not become trapped in a revolving door to the justice system and custody for the rest of their life.

We welcome the introduction of the new youth custody and supervision orders. They are preferable to multiple orders, which can be difficult and arduous to manage for all concerned. We want to probe further the options for 10- to 13-year-olds to gain a holistic picture.

Do you need to interrupt me, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes, I do. Perhaps the Member can indicate whether she is about to wind up her speech or whether she needs a couple of moments after suspension.

Ms Bunting: I need a couple of minutes, please.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Continue after suspension, yes? OK.

Members, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue following Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Joanne Bunting.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): The River Foyle, as part of the wider Lough Foyle catchment, is subject to the same routine monitoring and assessment of water quality as all other waterbodies in Northern Ireland. Reports of pollution are investigated by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and the Loughs Agency, with enforcement action undertaken in line with existing policy.

The recently approved environmental improvement plan lays out my commitment to improving water quality in Northern Ireland. That draft plan contains the requirement to publish a third cycle of the river basin management plan for the period 2021-27, taking an integrated approach to the protection, improvement and sustainable use of the water environment. The river basin management plan will contain a programme of measures that set out the actions required to protect and improve all waterbodies and will require collective action across government, the public and private sectors and wider society.

Although I have had a number of conversations with Infrastructure Minister, John O'Dowd, I have not yet met the Minister on this specific issue. As the Member will appreciate, there are many areas of concern in Northern Ireland with regard to water quality and sewage pollution.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer, and I welcome the progress on his environmental improvement plan. On how many occasions, if any, has Northern Ireland Water has been prosecuted or fined for the discharge of untreated sewage into the River Foyle, or into any watercourse for that matter?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. First of all, I am glad that we have got the environmental improvement plan agreed and published. I run marathons and, sometimes, getting things through the Executive is a bit more difficult than completing a marathon, but you train harder and succeed, and I am glad that we got that plan approved.

As the Member knows, prosecutions of Northern Ireland Water do occur, but we also have the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) regime associated with that, and I am on the record as saying that that is not fit for purpose. If the Member wants statistics on previous prosecutions of Northern Ireland Water by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, I am happy to address that in writing or through Assembly questions.

Mr Delargy: Minister, a huge amount of damaging sewage has been put into that stretch of the River Foyle. I am really concerned about the biodiversity impacts of that, particularly the health risks that it potentially poses. Has your Department done any inquiries into the scale of that risk?

Mr Muir: I am very aware of the impact of sewage pollution on our rivers, lakes and loughs in Northern Ireland. I do not think that it is acceptable for us to be pumping sewage into those waterbodies. That needs to be addressed, because it has an impact on our environment. That is why I will continue to support John O'Dowd in his call for investment in waste water infrastructure. We cannot continue with this situation, because it is damaging our environment and holding back economic development and housebuilding. I am very aware of the concerns about the impact on Lough Foyle. I have been assured, from a public health perspective, about the safety of drinking water, but let us be clear: the impact on our environment is severe, not just in the area that the Member represents but across Northern Ireland.

Mr Gaston: Minister, there has been a lot of focus on the farming community when it comes to water pollution in our system, but is it not the truth that, whether it is Lough Foyle, Lough Neagh or any other waterway in Northern Ireland, the Executive, particularly the Department for Infrastructure, and Northern Ireland Water need to get their own houses in order before pointing the blame at farmers?

Mr Muir: I have consistently said on the record that I am not into blame games because it does not get us anywhere. I am also on the record commenting on the statistics on the causations of poor water quality, and about a quarter of that is due to waste water infrastructure. We need to do a lot more in relation to that because, whilst farmers are playing their part, Northern Ireland Water needs to step up to the game.

Mr Muir: Despite the cessation of the rural development programme post EU exit, I would like to reassure you that my Department continues to invest in and support our rural communities through a range of initiatives, including the tackling rural poverty and social isolation programme. Through TRPSI, my Department has invested £54·58 million across a range of initiatives aimed at tackling those issues in rural areas since 2016. That includes the rural micro capital grant scheme, which launched recently. Grants of £1·5 million have been made to over 900 voluntary and community organisations. In addition, I was pleased to renew our support for Rural Support. The charity was recently awarded a three-year funding contract.

Looking ahead, as the TRPSI framework has been in place for over eight years, my Department commissioned an independent review to examine how effectively it has been implemented. The review is engaging with a range of stakeholders, including public authorities and rural community organisations, on addressing poverty and social isolation in rural areas. The review is due to report back in early 2025. The review will help to inform DAERA’s future policy direction, building on the collaboration and partnership working that underpins TRPSI. It will reflect that all Departments have responsibility for exercising their functions in rural and urban areas, and I plan to develop for consultation a new evidence-based rural policy next year.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat.

Minister, I am sure that you are aware that I will host some of the rural support network groups here on 11 November, and I would very much like to invite you to that. What steps will you take to engage local communities and stakeholders to ensure that future financial support for tackling rural poverty and social isolation is targeted effectively at those most in need?

Mr Muir: It is absolutely key that we do that consultation and engagement so that whatever we do going forward is fit for purpose. On the future rural affairs policy, I will meet officials again next Monday, and, the next day, I will engage in a process of co-design with practitioners from community development in rural areas. It is absolutely key not only that we do that and target it to those most in need but that we shape the future policy direction in conjunction with local communities.

I am very happy to consider your invitation and to engage with communities on this, because we need to ensure that policy works for people in rural areas.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister clarify whether he plans to impose cuts to the level of funding for individual tackling rural poverty and social isolation schemes or to reduce the number of TRPSI schemes available?

Mr Muir: I am working with the Finance Minister to roll out funding support to people, and I made a bid for further support through TRPSI, so it is not for the want of trying to roll out funding to people. We are in the financial situation that we are in, but I am lobbying hard on behalf of rural communities for the support that they need.

Mr Muir: I have written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on a number of occasions expressing my deep concerns about the future of the earmarked agriculture budget, with the current funding package coming to a conclusion at the end of March next year. I have stressed to him that any future settlement should, as an absolute minimum, maintain the current budget allocation, uplifted for inflation to allow for delivery of my Department’s policy objectives and ambitions. Most recently, we discussed that in person at the inter-ministerial group for environment, food and rural affairs in London on 16 September. Following that meeting, I wrote again to stress the importance of receiving early clarity on future earmarked agriculture support funding for next year and beyond. In my letter, I also highlighted the significant contribution that the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland makes to UK food security.

I have stressed to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the need for funding decisions to reflect the importance of a just transition. I also made the case that there should be a separate, specific, additional capital fund to support that just transition in agriculture. My Department is engaging with the Department of Finance on raising that with Treasury as part of the broader budgetary processes.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for his response. How will the current funding be used to support farmers through a just transition towards a more sustainable agriculture sector?

Mr Muir: It is absolutely key. I am committed to setting up a just transition fund for agriculture in the months ahead, but, first, I need clarity from the UK Government on the level of funding being made available in the years ahead. We need to ensure that the work that we need to carry out to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reach net zero will be fair and will support people on that journey. That is why we need to provide those incentives and support.

I will consider, in conjunction with Executive colleagues, the best approach to take on that and other requirements placed on us as a result of the Climate Change Act 2022, learning, where appropriate, from the experience of others.

I have already stressed to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the need for funding decisions that reflect the importance of a just transition. I support the EU's approach, which is outlined in the report 'Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture', that says that a temporary just transition fund should be established outside the common agricultural policy. The rest of Europe is moving on the matter. The UK Government need to support us to do likewise.

Mr McAleer: I am glad to note that the Minister continues to lobby the British Government on the budget. May I also suggest, Minister, if you have not already done so, that you include in conversation what was the pillar 2 rural development programme, which was also funded from the EU budget but is no longer available, so that pressure can be taken off the agriculture budget?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. He touches on a key issue that far too many people in Northern Ireland have forgotten . That is the loss to Northern Ireland of that rural development funding. A lot of promises were made during Brexit. Very few were fulfilled. One of those was rural support in our communities, and I lobby the UK Government hard for that support. That is because we should not lose sight of the benefits that it gave to our communities or of the need for that funding to come back to Northern Ireland and into those communities.

Mr Irwin: The Minister is aware that farm incomes fell to 46% in 2023-24 and that the basic farm payments are vital for the viability of many farms. I congratulate and commend his Department on getting basic farm payments out on 1 September; ours was one of the only regions in the UK to do so.

Mr Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr Irwin: Will the Minister undertake to raise with the Government at Westminster an inflationary increase to direct payments to farmers, given that, in recent years, inflation on direct payments has reduced in real terms the amount of money that farmers receive?

Mr Muir: I agree with the Member. An analysis that my Department undertook found that, in real terms and by using the consumer prices index, in 2020, £330 million, which was when the UK left the EU, would have been approximately £390 million at the end of 2023. Therefore, we need to ensure that future payments are indexed in line with inflation. I am glad to see that the basic farm payments went out last month. That follows progress that was made in the previous year. It is important to get the help out to people so that we can support the agri-food business in Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 4 and 14 together.

My Department created the Paws for Thought multi-agency group in 2020 to coordinate the actions of relevant statutory agencies here in order to disrupt the trafficking of low-welfare pups. The group comprises representatives from the police; HMRC; councils; Belfast Harbour Police; ferry companies; and officials from my Department. Through that group, it has been possible to target individuals who are known to move consignments of low-welfare pups to Great Britain through ferry terminals. That joined-up working has resulted in a significant number of seizures of pups and the criminal convictions of those who are involved. In addition to the targeted checks, follow-up activities are carried out to identify potential illegal breeding sites.

As well as pups that have been illegally bred in Northern Ireland, my Department and its partner agencies remain aware that pups are being moved illegally from unlicensed breeding establishments in the Republic of Ireland to domestic premises in Northern Ireland. There is, therefore, regular liaison between DAERA officials and their Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine counterparts to consider the detection of illegal trading of pups in both jurisdictions.

A Paws for Thought public-facing awareness campaign is ongoing to highlight the role that everyone has to play in tackling puppy smuggling. Increased communications are planned in the lead-up to Christmas, a time when there is usually an increased demand, in a bid to raise awareness of that abhorrent, illegal trade and to ensure that potential owners source pups responsibly.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister. It is good that you have recognised the fact that there is a trade coming from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland and then onwards to Great Britain. Lucy's law, which is already being used in a part of the United Kingdom — England — is making a real dent on puppy and kitten trafficking. The Minister said he was going to look into Lucy's law. Will he give us an update on whether we will look at that?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. It is really an abhorrent trade. I was in Larne a few weeks ago to see the work of the multi-agency approach. Some of the stuff that I heard was shocking, including the story of an attempt to smuggle pups that were hidden under garden waste through the port. That is wrong. We need to ensure that the public is made aware of it so that no one ever participates in or facilitates it, because it is absolutely despicable.

I have given a commitment to bring forward Lucy's law, so I will do that. It is key that we bring forward that legislation. What is more, I am engaging with animal welfare stakeholders in the short time ahead to discuss the wider issue of animal welfare and what else we can do on that. One of the key issues that will affect what I can do to tackle animal cruelty is the budget settlement that I get for next year. I need staff resources to bring forward legislation, whether it is secondary or primary legislation, to deal with that issue, which is a stain on our society.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am always very happy to hear about the Minister's going to Larne. Can he give any further details on what impact those actions are having on that cruel trade?

Mr Muir: It was good to be in Larne. I got a warm welcome. I really commend the multi-agency work that is being done on this. It is an example of what we can and should do to deal with those issues. It is absolutely critical. What I have seen is that there has been a real deterrent effect as a result of the work that is being undertaken. It has also given us the information for HMRC, especially, to follow up and take action on that. That has proven to be extremely effective. If people want more information on that or publicity materials that they can share, I encourage them to contact me. I can provide that.

Miss Brogan: Can the Minister outline the role that the Paws for Thought multi-agency group will play in coordinating efforts between stakeholders to address different animal welfare issues?

Mr Muir: It is absolutely key, because it is sharing not only intelligence but ways in which to promote the efforts that it is making on that. That is why I want to engage with animal welfare stakeholders to see how much more we can bring them on board with what we are doing, because we need to be able to work together to tackle those issues. It is not just about puppy smuggling; we need to work together on a number of other issues. As I said, the key issue is how much funding I will get to enable me to support that in the time ahead.

Mr Muir: It is my intention to introduce a dilapidation Bill to the Assembly in the autumn term of the current session, subject, of course, to the agreement of my Executive colleagues. The proposed Bill would provide councils with a modern, fit-for-purpose regime and clear toolkit of powers to tackle dilapidated buildings and neglected sites, including a series of notices, offences, penalties and appeals. Powers would be similar to those that are available to local authorities in other parts of the UK, where low-level dilapidation can be dealt with at a much earlier stage. I am very keen to see that happen. The Bill is nearly ready to go. It is something that I called for before I took up ministerial office. You can be assured that I want to see it happen.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is a welcome update. The issue is causing many difficulties for constituents whom I am dealing with in Strangford. One such scenario is when the owner of a dilapidated property cannot be identified. Will the proposed legislation do anything to tackle that scenario?

Mr Muir: The intended powers will enable councils to act in the absence of an identified owner by extending the range of persons on whom notice could be served to include any person with an interest in any neglected site, such as an owner-occupier, a person with a charge over or other financial interest in the land, or a person who has had responsibility for the management or maintenance of the land. In such a scenario where an owner cannot be established, a council would still be able to take action by serving a notice on an interested person. That is what is key about the legislation, because, often, it is difficult to get hold of whoever is responsible for a building. Even one dilapidated building can have a significant impact on a neighbourhood. It is key that we get that legislation through. It is nearly ready to go.

Mr O'Toole: A number of gradually dilapidating buildings in the middle of Belfast have historic and significant economic impact. One of them is Crumlin Road courthouse. There is a particular issue in the Cathedral Quarter with Tribeca Belfast. Some of the Bill's provisions —

Mr Speaker: Question, please.

Mr O'Toole: — would relate directly to that, but will the Minister work with his colleagues, particularly the Communities Minister, to see what can be done to tackle the scourge of dereliction, including that which is right in the heart of the city of Belfast?

Mr Muir: I will work with anyone to deal with any issues in society around that. Later this week, I will meet Belfast City Council. Obviously, the issue is on its agenda. The strength of the Executive is in how we work together on those issues. The Bill relates particularly to dilapidation powers. Councils have significant responsibilities on that. It is important that they step up. I am prepared to work with them. If the Member wants to meet to discuss those issues, I am happy to do so.

Mr Clarke: I think that we can all agree that some of those buildings are a scourge on our communities. Given the issues with identifying owners, is any consideration being given to the financial difficulties that those who own the buildings may face in trying to bring them back into use? Will you make any finance available to those individuals for bringing those buildings back into use?

Mr Muir: I understand the issue, but it probably extends a bit beyond the Bill. That issue sits largely with the Department for Communities and with your colleague Gordon Lyons. I am happy to work with Gordon on that, as well as with the councils, to see how we can help. Smaller amounts of money can often help towards the regeneration of local communities. We work together on regeneration, and there are opportunities to go forward with that.

I am happy to speak to the Member if there are any particular areas in his constituency where we, together with Communities and the council, can help with regeneration and dealing with dilapidation.

Mr Muir: Increasing the area of forests and woodlands is a key challenge and focus for my Department. Having more woodlands provides greater opportunity to capture carbon, improve water quality, enhance our environment and our important habitats and extend outdoor access to provide health and well-being benefits for our people. It also provides opportunities for rural employment and contributes to the local economy.

The climate action plan will take forward DAERA’s afforestation commitments in line with its legislative obligations to have a balanced pathway to net zero emissions by 2050. Given the cross-cutting nature of the climate action plan, the draft will need to be approved by the Executive prior to its publication for consultation. I am determined that the draft will be published for consultation as soon as possible. I have met other Ministers to expedite the development of the climate action plan.

My Department continues to support woodland creation under its Forests for Our Future programme, seeking to establish 9,000 hectares of new woodland by 2030. Almost 2,000 hectares of new woodland have been planted since the launch of the programme in 2020. However, there needs to be a significant increase in annual planting rates to meet the challenging target. I am pleased to have opened the 2024 forest expansion scheme application period — in September — and I intend to open a small woodland grant scheme for applications in the forthcoming weeks.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for his detailed response; I know that he shares my passion for the issue. What is the Minister's assessment of how critical the plans for afforestation are to meeting the challenges presented by the climate and biodiversity crises?

Mr Muir: Tree planting is critical. Northern Ireland's woodland cover is low: 8·6% of land area. Compared with other UK countries and with the Republic of Ireland, that is extremely low. We have one of the lowest areas of afforestation in western Europe. We need to take action, and I see a lot of thirst and ambition to do that. One of the challenges is land use. I, with my Department, am exploring how to tackle that.

All woodlands are important for biodiversity, but many of them are small, and they are fragmented across the landscape. Tree planting in order to extend forest areas and join up woodlands at landscape scale, creating habitat networks, will contribute to environmental resilience, provide new and more diverse habitats and support wildlife, and I hope that that is something that everyone can get on board with.

Mr Muir: My Department is working to compile results and to work through the process so that it can release the 2024 annual bathing water classification. As the results are an official statistic and subject to the Pre-release Access to Official Statistics Order (Northern Ireland) 2009, I cannot comment further at this point. I hope to be able to release the results during the autumn. I will ensure that they are published promptly and that all Members are made aware of them.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, you will be aware that the use of our beaches is growing and that sea swimming is a growing pastime for many people. Sadly, in Ballygally, in my constituency, the beach was recently closed due to two E. coli spikes. What more can you, as Minister, do to address the issues arising in our waters to make them safer for all users?

Mr Muir: I am aware that open-water swimming and bathing is extremely popular and that there has been an upsurge in those activities in recent years. The situation with water quality is not acceptable, and we need to take action. We need to invest in waste water infrastructure, look at the regulatory regime between NI Water and the Department and look at agricultural run-off. Members will know that I am taking all actions that I can on that. I look forward to receiving Members' support for those interventions, which will improve water quality and address the issues around it in everyone's constituency in Northern Ireland.

We also need to improve reporting. Funding is absolutely critical to that, because the more funding my Department can get, the more sampling and reporting it can do on those issues.

Ms Egan: Minister, what is your Department doing to improve water quality at Ballyholme beach in north Down, given that it has been classified as "poor" for the past two years?

Mr Muir: I know personally about the issue of bathing water quality at Ballyholme. The problem has been going on for far too long, and it needs to be addressed. Ballyholme bathing water had an overall "sufficient" status from 2018 to 2021, but it was "poor" in 2022 and 2023. To address that drop in annual classification, Northern Ireland Water has instigated a thorough investigative programme for the whole catchment, working alongside my Department, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and AFBI. The purpose of the Ballyholme study is to further identify key sources of pollution that are adversely impacting on water quality so that remediation plans can be appropriately targeted. That is an important example of what we need to see: identifying the problem and funding the solution.

Mr McGlone: Minister, I listened carefully to your response. You said that you hope to take actions that will ameliorate and improve the water quality. What actions have the Department or any of its agencies taken to identify the culprits responsible for the pollution? Have any criminal actions or prosecutions been taken against those culprits?

Mr Muir: NIEA has in place an enforcement policy regarding water pollution investigations. It is important that I encourage everyone to report pollution incidents promptly. I have had Members report pollution incidents to me far too late in the day. We need those reports to come through immediately. We have a pollution hotline that operates 24/7. The earlier that we receive the reports, the easier it is for us to investigate them and, hopefully, bring about prosecution. Bringing prosecutions around water pollution that meet an evidential threshold can be difficult. Getting the reports early, with as much information as possible, will help us to bring forward prosecutions.

Mr Gildernew: The hotline operates from Wales at weekends. I have had mixed results with it. Are there any plans to bring that closer or make it more reactive to local need?

Mr Muir: I am happy to speak to the Member afterwards. If there are concerns about the hotline and its responsiveness, we will be happy to address them.

Mr Muir: My Department does not have a statutory duty to undertake dredging in Lough Neagh at the mouth of the Sixmilewater river. That rests with the Department for Infrastructure, which is responsible for the navigation channels and carrying out necessary maintenance work on certain quays in Lough Neagh to provide navigable access. However, as Lough Neagh has been designated as an area of special scientific interest (ASSI) under the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, as amended, public bodies and private individuals are required to give the Department notice and receive permission from NIEA if they wish to dredge within the boundary of the ASSI. As Lough Neagh is also designated as a special protection area (SPA) and is protected under the Ramsar convention, a habitats regulations assessment must be undertaken to ensure that any dredging in the SPA or areas protected by Ramsar is not likely to have a significant effect on site selection features or the achievement of conservation objectives. That responsibility lies with the competent authority responsible for issuing permission for the proposed activity. NIEA officials have had initial discussions with DFI officials on the matter.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that he will appreciate that, beyond all the ecological stuff, there are businesses that, in order to survive, need to access Lough Neagh, whether it be for sand dredging, fishing or even leisure on the Sixmilewater river. Will the Minister update the House on his Department's role in the assent for dredging, which expired earlier this year? What stage is your Department at with preventing DFI from carrying out dredging in those areas?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. I recognise the issues that he outlined. I will write to the Member with specific information. It is quite detailed. We must recognise the importance of protecting our environment. I also recognise the issues that he outlined about, for example, leisure activity and how that is being inhibited. If the Member is happy, I will write to him. If he wants to meet me to discuss the issue, I will be happy to do that.

Mr Blair: I am grateful for the Minister's interest in the rivers that flow into Lough Neagh and their tributaries, including, of course, the Sixmilewater river. Is his engagement with stakeholders in that regard continuing?

Mr Speaker: Briefly, Minister.

Mr Muir: I have had significant engagement with stakeholders, most recently the Antrim and District Angling Association.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mr Muir: That work has been undertaken. It has come across my desk. We have also written to Departments to see whether they want to designate any other bodies under it. I am also undertaking a review of rural affairs policy. Ideally, I want to be able to review the 2016 Act to give it more teeth, but I need the resources to do that. I will consider that during this mandate.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that the 2020 report contained 25 recommendations, 18 of which applied specifically to DAERA and one to AFBI. Will he give us any flavour of actions that have been taken at either DAERA or AFBI in line with the report's recommendations, please?

Mr Muir: I am meeting stakeholders next Tuesday about our future rural affairs policy. The issue that the Member outlined will form part of that consideration. Through the consultation on the future rural affairs policy, we will be able to incorporate the findings and recommendations from the report that the Member mentioned to ensure that what we have reflects both policy and potential legislation and how we can use it.

Mr Muir: I have lead responsibility for climate change in the Executive, but it is also a cross-departmental responsibility. We also need to step together across society, because the only way in which we will address the issues arising from climate change is by doing so together. I take the issue seriously, and I have prioritised it.

One action that arose from the climate change legislation is reporting by public bodies. I took that action forward and made regulations earlier this year. I have tabled proposals on the setting of carbon budgets to the Executive, and I am engaging with my ministerial colleagues. I am also preparing to table the first climate action plan for Executive approval. This month, I will commence consultation on establishing a just transition commission. I am also looking at setting up a citizens' assembly on climate change for young people. Lastly, I am glad to see the issues raised and commitments made on climate change reflected in the environmental improvement plan (EIP) and the draft Programme for Government.

There is a lot that we need to do, and time is not on our side. We lost two years of the mandate, during which we were not able to progress such issues, but I am working hard and at pace with my ministerial colleagues and the rest of society to take forward the necessary actions to address climate change and to take advantage of the opportunities that arise.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for his response, his commitment to looking at the issues and his actions taken. Will he provide an update on his Department's work on the green growth strategy?

Mr Muir: The green growth strategy was developed by officials. A draft was consulted on. We hope to bring the final document to the Executive very soon, because the strategy makes it clear that there are opportunities ahead for us from decarbonisation and taking the road to net zero. I am very keen to do that. I met the Green Growth Forum recently, and there was a lot of positivity in the room. We also met members of Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry to discuss the road to net zero, and there was a real aspiration for us to move forward on that journey.

There is a real risk that Northern Ireland could be left behind, if we do not get on board with the road to net zero. There are real risks that we could lose investments to other parts of the UK, Ireland and Europe, if we do not grasp the opportunities that exist for us as a result of green growth and green jobs. I met my counterparts from Scotland and Wales recently, and there was a real zeal for working with the UK Government on the issue. There are real benefits and an opportunity for a green new deal not only for Northern Ireland but for the rest of the UK. It is important that we grasp that opportunity.

Mr Muir: It is fantastic that the environmental improvement plan was agreed. It was a long time coming, but we got it agreed. It is a key framework for us for the actions that we need to take to protect our environment and to address environmental degradation. It is not the ceiling of my ambition, but it is a key framework for us. Funding is critical to allow us to take forward many of the actions and strategies in the plan. It is also really important for environmental governance in Northern Ireland, because the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), which arose from the Environment Act 2021, will use it as a tool to measure performance.

There are many objectives — six — in the environmental improvement plan. The first is

The second is

The third is

The fourth is

The fifth is

and the sixth is

It is good that the plan has been agreed, and I look forward to working with everyone across Northern Ireland, in this place and in the Executive, as we deliver the ambition set out in the environmental improvement plan, which is our first environmental strategy for Northern Ireland.

Mrs Guy: I commend the Minister on the significant step of getting the plan over the line. It will be of great benefit to us all.

What actions in the environmental improvement plan will help to protect pollinators, and would the Minister be open to a meeting in my constituency with some beekeepers in Lagan Valley?

Mr Muir: I would be delighted to take up that invite. I am busy, but it is important to get along to it. In the plan, there is a strategic outcome that is

and a commitment to a nature recovery strategy. A lot of this is absolutely key to the actions that need to be taken forward. Hopefully, you are buzzing after that answer.

Mr Muir: The cost of TB is significant to my Department but also, more particularly, to farmers in Northern Ireland. I recognise that, while there is a cost to compensation, that does not reflect the full cost to farmers in terms of the loss that is felt on the farm and, to be honest, the mental health impacts. I have spoken to farmers, and it is devastating.

The costs are not sustainable, but I have made it clear that I desire to continue the level of compensation at 100% as long as I can and have the budget to cover that. I will do as much as I can. To be fair to the Finance Minister, support has been given around that, and it is recognised that this is a pressure that arises that we cannot sometimes forecast. However, I am taking action on this. We need to get the cost down, not just because of the cost to the Department but to farmers across Northern Ireland. The Chief Veterinary Officer was tasked, on taking up office in April, to take forward actions in relation to this and review where we are. I hope to announce, over the next number of weeks, the way forward on this. I consider it to be a key issue not just in the cost to the Department but to farmers in Northern Ireland.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for that and welcome his commitment to reducing the TB outbreaks in Northern Ireland.

Given the worrying bluetongue developments on a Welsh farm, can the Minister provide an update on Northern Ireland's preparations for that?

Mr Muir: I am concerned about the bluetongue situation. I had a meeting with the president and officers of the Ulster Farmers' Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association yesterday, alongside the Chief Veterinary Officer and officials. I emphasise to the House, because we all have a role to play as MLAs, the importance of vigilance and early reporting of any concerns. If bluetongue arrives on our shores, we need to be able to do whatever we can quickly to stamp it out.

The fact that bluetongue has arrived in north Wales is a concern. Previously, it has been isolated in the eastern end of England. It is really important that we have vigilance on this. Further efforts will be made to put out messaging on the issue. I am also engaging with my southern counterpart later this week around the issue, because we need to work North/South on the matter. The Chief Veterinary Officer in my Department meets regularly — a number of times each week — with his counterparts across the rest of the UK so that we can keep an eye on it. The situation is extremely concerning, and it could have a significant impact on our agri-food economy in Northern Ireland. We need to take it extremely seriously, and it needs to go much further up everyone's agenda.

People may feel that bluetongue will not arrive on our shores. Let us hope that it does not, but, if it does, we need to take action as quickly as possible. We are putting in place plans for a response to it, and that response will be swift. However, let us make sure that it does not happen in the first place and that we have vigilance across Northern Ireland on the issue.

Mr Muir: My Department is taking forward a number of actions to improve recycling. We recently closed a consultation on proposals on recycling, and we are evaluating responses to that. In the climate change legislation there is an ambition that we reach 70% by 2030. That is a good target, and I want to exceed it. I have that desire because others can exceed it. Wales has the second highest level of recycling in the world, so let us not have Wales outshining us. There are benefits not just for our environment but for district councils in the costs of waste management in Northern Ireland.

I have real ambition in the area and hope to get over to Wales to see what is being done there to allow them to have such high levels of recycling. We should not consider it inevitable that we will keep sending the same volumes of waste to landfill and for incineration. We need to drive those volumes down, and we need to drive up recycling levels in Northern Ireland.

Mr Blair: I am grateful to the Minister for the detail in that answer. Further to his answer, can any further information be given on the timeline for the conclusion of the consultation that he referenced?

Mr Muir: Officials are working through the responses to that consultation. Hopefully, I will be able to set out a way forward in the next number of months. I am engaging with stakeholders on the consultation. I am meeting a number of chief executives from district councils tomorrow, so I am attuned to some of the concerns that exist and am happy to engage and listen. Alongside that, we will bring forward a waste management strategy. It is really important that we embrace the issue and look towards a future where we reduce, reuse and recycle.

Mr Speaker: Question 6 has been withdrawn

Mr Muir: A strategy is already in place, as the Speaker will be aware. We are not about creating new documents; the Chief Veterinary Officer has been doing a short and sharp review of what is and what is not working and what more we can do. The results will be announced in the next number of weeks. It is fair to say that there has been a lot of stakeholder engagement on the issue and a lot of review of the science and evidence, and we need to take forward actions. It is clear that there is more that we can do, particularly on biosecurity. We need to pay much more attention to that, and we need to take action to drive the levels down. The current situation is not sustainable, and I will outline a path ahead in the next number of weeks.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for his response. Given that 10% of herds here have TB when the rate in the South is half that, I completely agree that it is unacceptable. Will the Minister provide an update on the status of the TB eradication partnership's (TBEP) report? Will the tweaking that he is talking about be based on expert and scientific advice?

Mr Muir: The answer is yes. The Strategic Investment Board (SIB) did a review of the partnership. The outcome of that has been shared with the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. There is a role for the TBEP, and we have to decide what the format of that is, but it is important that whatever we do is based on science and evidence.

Mr Muir: The Programme for Government is necessarily focused on strategic priorities for the Executive. There are many areas in my Department's remit that I would like to see in the Programme for Government, but I have to be honest that there are only so many things that we can put in one document if it is to remain strategic.

The Mobuoy site is a concern for me. It is an example of a cost that could be significant to the Executive, and it would be resource rather than capital. No final option for Mobuoy has been finalised because we have not yet undertaken the consultation and considered the way forward. That is what will dictate the potential costs. I recognise the issues around waste management and the need for us to address those. That is contained in the environmental improvement plan, which is reflected in the Programme for Government.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he outline a time frame on the next steps for that remediation? There is a lot of concern among local constituents in that respect.

Mr Muir: I met the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency this morning, and we discussed the issue. I am seeking definitive timelines to take forward the consultation because we need to get started so that we can engage with the public and move towards finalisation of our preferred option. On the Programme for Government — another Minister is in the Chamber — the financial challenges facing our Executive are very substantial. We need to be honest with the public that we need to work with the UK Government so that they can support us.

The potential cost of Mobuoy is about £700 million, which is one example of a cost that the Executive just could not bear. We need support from the UK Government to take that forward. It is absolutely critical, therefore, that we as an Executive work as one to support the Finance Minister, who is taking the lead in the negotiations that are under way with the UK Government.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease for a moment before we move to questions to the Minister of Health.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Questions 7 and 11 have been withdrawn.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I thank Mr Buchanan for his question. He may be aware that I have campaigned on mental health since I was first elected in 2011. I can celebrate some of the achievements — the mental health champion, the mental health strategy and enhanced awareness — but when it comes to waiting lists, it is not so good. I am keenly aware that all trusts are experiencing significant pressures as a consequence of increased demands on mental health services, including increased numbers of new referrals. It is not just about the numbers but about the increased complexity and acuity of the people who are presenting. Of course, there are also the well-publicised financial constraints and the significant workforce pressures as a result of increased vacancy levels.

The trusts report that they are dealing with more complex presentations. As a result, people need longer treatments before discharge, and that is impacting on throughput and waiting times. There have been some improvements in the waiting times for child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). However, the overall picture is that, although activity levels are increasing, the levels of demand are increasing more quickly. In addition, I know that trusts are currently involved in a number of innovative modernisation projects that, it is hoped, will deliver greater capacity for new patient appointments and swifter responses to referrals. It is of note that those projects are being taken forward in the absence of additional funding.

In adult mental health services more generally, initiatives introduced across the region include the South Eastern Trust's recent implementation of a mental health liaison service at the Ulster Hospital, which provides rapid assessment and early intervention to people who present at the hospital with mental health problems. In the Southern Trust, referrals deemed to be of mild to moderate complexity are triaged through to the Steps to Wellness service that was established in October 2022.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. You delivered a statement this morning on the reconfiguration framework for better outcomes. Will that have any impact on current waiting times? Do you see it having any advantage in reducing waiting times?

Mr Nesbitt: I hope that that will be a product of the reconfiguration of hospitals. What I am talking about is a network for better outcomes. Part of that is about recognising that, while not every hospital will deliver every service, some hospitals will become centres of excellence for certain specialities. That should apply to mental health and well-being as much as it applies to physical health.

Ms Flynn: I know that the Minister is due to speak at an event on Thursday morning on infant mental health and well-being. Will the Minister consider investing in a child and adolescent psychotherapy service, because, at the minute, we do not have a fully commissioned service for that?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the comment and the question. I have to say gently that the irony klaxon is sounding on that one, because the nature of the Department of Health's budget for this year means that we are trying to consolidate and preserve existing services. Many additional services are brought to me, pretty much on a daily basis, that I know would help deliver better outcomes and take us into areas where we are not but should be. That sounds like one of them. I am afraid that, on the current budget, I can make no promises, but I am very happy to listen to the Member offline about the advantages and benefits of that service.

Mr Donnelly: Following yesterday's debates, we know that mental health service provision across Northern Ireland is very inconsistent. Will the Minister commit to ensuring consistency across all trusts or enabling patients to access trusts, no matter where they live?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member's comment strikes a chord with what I am trying to achieve on delivering better outcomes. I have said previously that there was perhaps a temptation to look at the five geographic trusts and say, "Should we not have one single trust for the whole of Northern Ireland?" That would almost be like the equivalent of a cosmic black hole absorbing all the resource and focus of staff in not just the Department but the trusts. In my mind and as I have said to the trusts, "You are one trust". The outworking of and the definition of the success of that is to have regional services that mean that we can look at which trust is delivering best practice and then turn that into common practice across the other four trusts.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank Ms Brownlee for the question. My Department's ambitions for the development of our workforce are outlined in the 'Health and Social Care Workforce Strategy 2026', which was published in May 2018 and covers 2018 to 2026. That is an ambitious programme of work. It reflects the multifaceted approach that is required to develop our workforce, with the aim of ensuring that the right numbers of staff with the right skills are in place to deliver effective treatment and care.

Since the publication of the strategy, the Department and Health and Social Care (HSC) employers have invested significant time and resource in stabilising and growing our workforce. That has involved the delivery of a comprehensive programme of strategic workforce planning; increasing the number of commissioned training places across healthcare professions; introducing more effective processes for recruitment; complementing our locally trained workforce with our highly valued international recruits; and developing initiatives to support staff retention. That strategic approach to workforce development has supported a 16% increase in the number of whole-time equivalent staff who have been employed directly by the HSC since 2018. While that increase is welcome, my Department's strategic workforce planning has identified a requirement to further expand the number of training places that we commission in order to secure the continued local supply of staff that we know is needed to meet fully our workforce needs.

Unfortunately, my Department is not in a position to do that, and that is because current levels of funding are wholly inadequate. The one-year departmental funding cycle seriously constrains the assessment of affordability and frustrates the long-term investment in education and training, which we need in order to deliver the right number of staff with the skills that are required to meet current and future demands for our services.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his answer. As the Minister will know, the number of children with special educational needs (SEN) has risen sharply in recent years, exceeding the capacity of the health and social care workforce. Minister, what action will your Department take to ensure that it is taking into account all the relevant data from Departments so that it can make sure that every child with special educational needs is receiving the care that they need from the most appropriate person and at the most appropriate time?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. It is very important that we recognise that this is a cross-departmental issue, which is not to shirk the role that the Department of Health, the various trusts and the arm's-length bodies have to play in it. I know personally of a young man who has special educational needs. I do not think that his needs or those of his family have been particularly well met across a number of Departments. I assure the Member that I very much wish to see improvement on special educational needs for our young people, and I will play my part in that as Minister of Health.

Ms Kimmins: Minister, you will be aware of a very serious situation that occurred over the weekend of 21 September, when Daisy Hill Hospital maternity unit was forced to divert all admissions to Craigavon Area Hospital until the Monday morning. The Southern Trust cited staff shortages as the reason. What urgent steps will the Minister's Department take to ensure that the maternity service workforce at both Daisy Hill and Craigavon is stabilised and secured for the long term to ensure that that situation does not arise again?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. I am aware of what happened. Staff were transferred from Daisy Hill to Craigavon Area and from Craigavon Area to Daisy Hill because of workforce pressures due in large part, I understand, to absences through ill health and for other reasons. These things happen, of course, and to try to have a workforce robust enough to withstand every emergency is probably a challenge beyond the capacity of the health and social care system in Northern Ireland, given the current constraints on resources, workforce and budgets. I would struggle to give an absolute assurance that that would never happen again, but I give the assurance that it is my expectation that trusts will try to manage unforeseen issues as they arise, to the best benefit of patients and service users.

Mr McNulty: We are hearing reports of more healthcare staff moving to the South due to the benefits of Sláintecare, and why wouldn't they? Minister, what steps is your Department undertaking to better retain our staff so that we do not have repeats of what happened last weekend, when admissions were diverted from Daisy Hill maternity unit to Craigavon?

Minister, your answer does not really stack up, because a bank of midwives was asked to retire and return. There are enough midwives to sustain services —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have asked your question.

Mr McNulty: — so how on earth can it be justifiable to close Daisy Hill's maternity suite to emergencies —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question, please.

Mr McNulty: — at the weekend?

Mr Nesbitt: I will answer two of the multiple questions that the Member put to me. In trying to retain staff who are being attracted by Sláintecare, the fact is that we simply cannot compete on salary, so we have to compete on terms and conditions. We have to try to make sure that ours is such an attractive health and social care system to work in that the money does not become the decisive factor in where staff ply their wares. Part of that is about improving outcomes. I have always said that better outcomes are not just for patients and service users: I am talking about better outcomes for the tens of thousands who deliver healthcare in Northern Ireland. Creating a network of hospitals, for example, in which some are centres of excellence and specialism may help to retain staff, because it increasingly seems that doctors and nurses want to specialise in particular areas, and working in centres of excellence would give them those opportunities.

When it comes to staff shortages and the workforce, as the Member mentioned nursing and midwifery, I say this to him about vacancies in the HSC: on 30 June this year, there were 1,211 vacant registered nursing and midwifery places, which is 5·8% of that workforce, and, while there were 464 fewer nursing and midwifery support vacancies than the previous figure, that represents 8·4% of that workforce. The issues do exist.

Miss McAllister: I will go back to the substantive question. What difference will safe staffing legislation make without the staff required to fulfil it?

Mr Nesbitt: The legislation gives us the framework, a set of principles and the matrix by which to judge how well we are doing, but, if the actual numbers do not exist, all that does is say that we have a problem. The question is this: what is the solution? It goes back to making working in our health and social care system as attractive as possible. To an extent, of course, that is about salary, but that is not the be-all and end-all in a profession that many people look on as not just a career but a vocation.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank Mr Dunne. As was made clear in the elective care framework published in June 2021 and again in the update of June this year, the demand for first consultant-led outpatient appointments in the South Eastern Trust continues to exceed capacity. Regrettably, patients are experiencing excessive waits for appointments and treatment, which is not the service the trust would wish to be providing. The Member will be aware that my predecessor and I submitted an ambitious ask to the Executive earlier this year to reduce our waiting lists, and there was a particular focus on outpatients who had waited the longest time. Unfortunately, the Budget that was agreed by the Executive and a majority of MLAs in the Chamber provided zero targeted funding. As a result of the continuing Budget position, we are losing opportunities to see and treat more people each and every day.

Nevertheless, the trust continues to seek alternative ways to provide outpatient consultations to help reduce waiting times through initiatives such as virtual or telephone appointments that provide advice and guidance. The trust also seeks to implement a patient-initiated follow-up and enhanced triage clinics to further reform the outpatient service.

Last year, over 22,000 patients did not attend their allocated appointment. Without timely prior notice, those appointments cannot be offered to other patients on the waiting lists, and each missed appointment not only wastes a consultation slot but can cost between £250 and £2,500. To address the matter, the trust has already implemented text reminders for all its consultant-led clinics.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. I appreciate the challenges with outpatient waiting lists, but it goes beyond outpatient appointments. Last week, one of my constituents attended the Ulster Hospital's emergency department (ED) at 11 pm on Wednesday. It was nine hours before they were seen by a doctor at 8 am. Will the Minister agree that, in a brand new emergency department, something is not right with those waiting times, particularly alongside the demands on our GPs and pharmacies and in light of the trust's decision to close the Ards and Bangor minor injuries units (MIUs) in recent years?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his follow-up. I supported moving the minor injuries units from Newtownards to the Ulster Hospital on the basis of the clinical evidence that the trust presented at a meeting that I attended as a constituency MLA. Part of the reasoning was that it put the MIU beside the emergency department, the MRI scanners, the X-ray machines and all the facilities of an acute hospital. It seemed to me that, on clinical need, that was the right decision. Let us remember that we are talking about a move of 4·6 miles along a dual carriageway.

I am well aware of the pressures in the emergency department. A family member of mine was admitted to the ED at the Ulster Hospital on a Monday evening, which is the worst time for pressures, and it was remarkable to watch the nursing and clinical staff delivering with unrelenting professionalism in the face of endless pressure.

The trust hopes to have a third unit — a critical care unit — alongside the minor injuries and emergency departments to relieve the pressure in the ED. The long-term plan is for GPs to refer patients directly to the critical care unit, bypassing the emergency department and thus relieving a lot of the pressure. I have seen that in hospitals elsewhere across Northern Ireland, and it seems to work well. It is part of the future of reform of health service delivery.

Mr Chambers: One speciality that is, unfortunately, experiencing lengthy waits for outpatient appointments is dermatology assessments. What efforts have you made to help those patients, especially those who have waited the longest times?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. The disappointment and frustration felt by dermatology outpatients is the same as that felt by the many patients who are on long waiting lists. It comes from the failure to secure our bid for £135 million to be ring-fenced to tackle waiting lists. Take new assessments for dermatology outpatients: at a cost of £2·8 million, we could have seen 6,000 patients who had been waiting for over four years for an appointment. The Member may be interested to know that, in other categories, such as cataracts, we could have seen 2,800 patients for £5 million. We bid for £10 million for mega clinics, because we have the evidence not just locally but internationally that mega clinics work. Had we got it, we could have seen 20,000 patients across a range of specialities.

Many Members are interested in cross-border work and the reimbursement scheme and have asked whether it will ever come back. The answer, currently, is no. Had we got the £135 million for waiting lists, we would have spent £31 million on the reimbursement scheme, which would have meant that 4,000 patients who have been waiting for over one year, largely for orthopaedics, would have been seen.

Ms Egan: I am glad to hear that the Minister recognises the clinical evidence that was presented to all elected representatives about the Bangor and Ards minor injuries units. Do your party colleagues support the move?

Mr Nesbitt: Sorry, I missed that. Did you say that you supported the move?

Ms Egan: Yes.

Mr Nesbitt: Right. I acknowledge that. Let me correct myself: I think that a majority of elected representatives were against the move. I apologise if I misrepresented you.

Mr Nesbitt: Earlier this year, my Department increased funding to community pharmacy, bringing its opening position to £147 million this year. That is an increase of £19 million from the 2023-24 financial year. It is also the highest level of funding to date in Northern Ireland and compares favourably with that in the rest of the United Kingdom, representing a 40% increase in funding over the past six years.

My Department has repeatedly acknowledged the concerns raised by Community Pharmacy NI (CPNI) and by individual contractors about drug price increases and differences due to inflationary and cost-of-living increases generally. There are significant difficulties in financial planning across HSC, and my officials continue to work closely to review the position as we move forward. However, whilst we have the aim of keeping that under review, containing costs as much as possible is a priority. The Member will appreciate that significant changes may give rise to further pressures having to be managed in the year.

My Department recognises the valuable role that community pharmacy has in health and social care, and I am happy to report that a strategic plan for community pharmacy 2030 was launched in May. The strategic plan for community pharmacy aims to fully realise the potential of community pharmacy services to support better health outcomes from medicines and in preventing illness. Implementation of the strategy will support not only the elderly and vulnerable but the whole population. My Department will continue to work with CPNI and the pharmacy profession in order to progress a phased approach to implementation of the strategic plan over the coming years, subject, of course, to appropriate funding.

Ms Á Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer. I have spoken to a lot of community pharmacies in my local community over recent months. One thing that they constantly raise is drug tariffs. Has any progress been made on developing a tailored drug tariff for the North, given the difficulties that many pharmacies experience?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. Northern Ireland has its own drug tariff. Following the 2010 judicial review and subsequent consultation on improving arrangements, the then Health Minister decided that the English drug tariff should be used as the basis for reimbursement of medicines supplied, with modifications for Northern Ireland circumstances such as the services that we provide here. Former Minister Swann reaffirmed that policy position in May 2024, and, at this stage, I have not heard a robust argument for moving away from it.

Mr McGlone: I support the observation about drug tariffs and the pressures on pharmacies, particularly in rural areas. Is the Minister considering the expansion of the Pharmacy First service across the pharmacy network to help address access difficulties that many people are experiencing in the primary care sector this winter?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I am certainly open to looking at that. My entire ambition as Health Minister is to "shift left", as it is called; in other words, I want to get away from hospital care and as close as possible to community and primary care. That is not just about GP services: pharmacies have a critical role to play. I tend to go to a pharmacy first, if at all possible, and to a GP next. My last resort is to go to a hospital. I have said on many occasions when I have been out and about as Health Minister that, in an ideal world, I would want everybody to get their healthcare at home, and, if not at home, as close to home as possible. The second-worst outcome is to have to go to an acute hospital, and the worst outcome is to have to go to an acute hospital and stay overnight. Pharmacy First is very much on the left side of the field, which is where I want to be playing healthcare.

Dr Aiken: There have been public references in the media in recent weeks to a number of community pharmacies closing. Does the Minister have confidence that there remains good access to community pharmacies across Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I believe — the evidence supports this — that Northern Ireland is well provided for in respect of access to community pharmacy services. As of 31 March 2024, there were 511 community pharmacies in Northern Ireland, which was a reduction of 14 — 2·7% — compared with the 12 months previously. I should, however, note that two pharmacies have closed since then, so, as of 1 September 2024, we are at 509 on the pharmaceutical list.

We do not always know the reason that pharmacies close, as contractors do not have to give the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) a reason for closing, but we are aware that some of the branch closures of Boots UK were a result of a consolidation exercise by Boots in Northern Ireland. The number of community pharmacies per head of population in Northern Ireland is 30% higher than in England, 16% higher than in Scotland and the same in Wales, so, yes, there remains good access to community pharmacies across Northern Ireland. Some 99% of the population live within 5 miles of a community pharmacy. After adjusting for the higher rate of prescribing in Northern Ireland, it still results in a higher rate of provision compared with that in the rest of the UK, with 6% more pharmacies per item dispensed than in England.

Mr Nesbitt: The GP out-of-hours service is a core element of health and social care provision and of primary care. The service is available from Monday to Friday from 6.00 pm to 8.00 am, as well as for 24 hours at weekends and on public holidays. The majority of patients who contact out-of-hours services across the region do not require to be seen face to face. The percentage of patients who contact the out-of-hours service and need to be seen in an out-of-hours centre — known as "base visits" — has changed dramatically over the years. In 2015-16, for example, base visits accounted for 40% of Dalriada Urgent Care's patient contacts; in 2019-2020, base visits had reduced to 30% of contacts. In 2023-24, 76% of Dalriada's patient contacts were managed by telephone or video call with a clinician; home visits accounted for 5% of its contacts; and patients seen face to face accounted for 19% of contacts.

Owing to workforce challenges, Dalriada does not currently have the capacity to provide a service across four centres, with the service being delivered from its main hub in Ballymena and the new out-of-hours centre at Antrim Area Hospital. That, though, is constantly under review.

Those workforce challenges are common to all GP out-of-hours services across the region. The consolidation of services to a smaller number of larger centres has improved the recruitment and retention of staff due to the benefits associated with collaboration, peer support and equitable workload distribution. All GP out-of-hours providers are expected to review activity levels and capacity challenges in order to ensure the efficient use of resources and the provision of an effective service within the allocated budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As we started a minute or two late, I am going to allow a quick supplementary question, Mr Brett, and a quick reply, please, Minister.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not quite sure that the Minister answered the listed question as to when Dalriada Urgent Care will reopen. I want to put on the record that it serves some of the most deprived communities in Northern Ireland, which have no access to public transport, either to Antrim Area Hospital or Ballymena. Will the Minister commit in his reconfiguration plans that public transport is an Executive-wide strategy and that those who are least well-off in society should have access to much-needed community support?

Mr Nesbitt: I draw a distinction between access to services and face-to-face access.

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

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question, which, I take it, he intended to be rather topical indeed.

To a certain extent, part of this is about legislation — I am trying to get myself to the correct part of the law — but it is also about common sense and what is the right thing to do. Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 outlines penalties for concealing offences. These provisions can be applied in the case of an individual who has knowledge of an offence and fails to report it.

Of course, health and social care trusts have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Although there is currently no mandatory duty to ensure that employees in the public, private or voluntary sectors report safeguarding concerns, I think that all employees should comply with their employer's safeguarding policies — they should have policies, of course — including reporting processes in relation to safeguarding and protection concerns. There is a legal duty, but there is also a moral duty on everybody to ensure that children and vulnerable adults are safeguarded and to report any concerns to the relevant authorities.

My Department intends to introduce an adult protection Bill during the current mandate. Drafting is largely complete, and the business case is being considered in the Department. The draft Bill will place a statutory duty on the health and social care trusts, the PSNI, the Public Health Agency, the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority and independent providers of health and social care services to report to the relevant trusts any cases where they believe that there is a reasonable cause to suspect that a person is an adult at risk and in need of protection.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr McGrath: I hope that that same protection can be provided for children if we are going to provide it for adults. As the Minister responsible, are you concerned by reports today that the British Heart Foundation was not informed by a political party that a member of staff was being investigated by the police for child exploitation?

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware of those reports and I am concerned by them. It takes me back over 20 years to my time at Ulster Television when we produced a documentary for the 'Counterpoint' series about a man who had spent time in prison for child sex abuse offences. We discovered that he had got a job with a charity that owned a residential activity centre in the Mournes. Children were staying there at weekends under his supervision. The point was that the charity did not know about the man's record, and it became very messy. Here we are over 20 years later, and I do think that common sense needs to prevail. People need to recognise that there are occasions when these things need to be reported and put up front. I am not sure whether the Safeguarding Board, which kind of comes under the remit of my Department, has a critical role to play in this because it is more about giving a voice to children than ensuring that adults are reporting on people they know who, perhaps, should not be going into roles and certainly should not be if the employer does not understand the full nature of their background.

We are calling for a duty of candour in Health and Social Care. As I have said before, you have to strike a balance between avoiding the chill factor, which puts people off coming forward to say that certain things have happened, and ensuring that you have an atmosphere where people feel that they can come forward, and say, "You need to know about this". I am very disturbed by this news.

Mr Nesbitt: Sorry, did the Member say "nurses" or "nurseries"?

Mr Mathison: Nurses.

Mr Nesbitt: I am not aware of the detail on that. I am more than happy to write to the Member. Maybe in his supplementary, the Member will define the areas that he would like me to address.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Minister. I am happy to provide more detail. Today, I met a group of special school principals from the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust area, along with the Education Minister and officials from the Education Department. They informed us about a very difficult situation that they are facing, whereby nursing provision is being withdrawn from their schools, and, indeed, from other special schools across Northern Ireland.

Will the Minister commit to meeting those principals to hear about their concerns and the impact that that is having on the ability of those schools to deal with some of the most complex medical needs of children in the education system and will he commit to working with the Education Minister to address that issue?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I very much commit to such a meeting. As with many of the issues that we face as a devolved Executive and Assembly, the answers do not lie with a single Department. In this case, cooperation between Health and Education is critical. I have enjoyed working with officials from the Department of Education as I have enjoyed working with Justice officials and the Minister of Justice. A lot of these things are cross-departmental. If we are going to be a mature, devolved set of institutions that really deliver for people, that is the sort of road that we have to go down.

I apologise that I have no detail on the issue but I look forward to learning.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank Mr Crawford for his question. I very much welcome the appointments, which, in the case of Ballymoney Health Centre, take effect this very day.

The positive outcome for both practices followed extensive work to identify new GP contractors to take them over. That followed the handing back of contracts by the previous contractors. I wish the new contract holders the very best with their new responsibilities. I look forward to working with them. In fact, I would also very much welcome the opportunity to visit. On my mother's side, I have family from Ballymoney and Portstewart, so it would not be a chore. It would be a pleasure.

Mr Crawford: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I agree that it is good news. Will the Minister provide an update on the GP fellowship scheme, please?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, the fellowship scheme is an important scheme that is designed to support recently qualified GPs in the crucial early stages of their careers. Fellowships offer young GPs an opportunity to transition from a training environment to an independent practice by providing them with a supportive workplace and opportunities for personal and professional development. I commend that to my good friend Mr McNulty because he asked how we will retain staff in the face of pressure from Sláintecare, and I said that it was not about just salaries but about working environments. The fellowship scheme is very much a part of that initiative.

The scheme runs for 12 months. During that time, fellows have access to a broad range of experience in primary care, covering three main areas: clinical work in a supported environment; experience in a specialist field of their choice; and taught and practical learning in areas such as leadership, confident communication and quality improvement. My Department very much values the fellowship scheme and the chance that it provides for recently qualified GPs to have access to an attractive portfolio of opportunities.

Looking to the future, my Department is considering the potential for how the scheme might be further developed, subject, of course, to available funding, to extend the range and scope of fellowship placement opportunities and provide for educational bursaries to be available for all fellows. The GP Federations have recently launched a fellowship scheme in the Southern Trust that is designed to attract salaried GPs to work in practices that they have taken over due to contract hand-backs. The first round of recruitment is complete, with three offers being made to candidates. The GP Federation Contracts Management CIC has now launched a second round of recruitment, which is ongoing. I suggest that that is a good news story.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question and acknowledge his interest in that broad area.

I think that I said before that it is my intention to introduce a regional service for breast cancer. The objective is to allow each and every individual to go online and book a screening: they can book the first available one, wherever that is across Northern Ireland, or, if they prefer to go local, they can book themselves in and wait, perhaps, a little longer. Waiting times are just not acceptable. The Member has experience of cancer. I bow to his knowledge and interest in that area. I have made it clear that, in my time as Minister, one of the most difficult areas that I want to tackle is cancer, along with waiting lists and mental health, and I would certainly welcome, in his supplementary question, any observations that he has about improving the service.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. My question is less about waiting lists than the expansion of breast cancer screening programmes, specifically to enable earlier, more frequent access for those who are at higher risk, especially those with a genetic predisposition or other elevated risk factors.

Mr Nesbitt: The Member will be aware that waiting lists are just terrible. It is easy to say that they are the worst in the UK, but we have to remember that the statistics reflect people who are in pain, who are suffering and who need help. The fact is that, given the budgetary constraints, what we are doing is trying to consolidate services. When it comes to cancer, we are trying to prioritise red-flag and life-threatening conditions. Really, given the current budget and the limited ability to reform health service delivery at pace, I am afraid that I cannot promise the House that we can do a lot better over the rest of the financial year, except to assure the Member that, when I meet officials and talk to clinicians, we all recognise that we have to try harder and do better. I cannot promise the Member any sort of promised land in the near future.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. No: I did not consider withdrawing the consultation. Let me be clear: at the moment, we have the protections of the Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967, which is all well and good if we are dealing with a named infectious disease.

Beyond that, we do not have any protections, so, whether the disease is biological, chemical or radiological, if we are in that unfortunate position, much as we did during COVID-19, we will have to make it up as we go along.

The objective of the Bill is to offer the opportunity to bring in legislation that would give us protection on an all-hazard basis. It seems to me that, if you are doing that, it is logical to put all options on the table. It is not for me as Health Minister to take certain options off the table before we even allow the public to have their say. That is the basis on which some of the proposals are in the consultation. It is quite right that the public be encouraged to respond and make their views known.

After that, a Bill will be drafted and brought to the House. It will go through the full and proper consultation, discussion, debate, amendment and approval process.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. We now return to —.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you use your offices to raise this issue? Although we have just had 45 minutes of questions for oral answer to the Minister of Health, we have managed only to make it to question number 5 of the listed questions. Members on all sides of the House who have been balloted and are in the Chamber have a rightful expectation that they will have an opportunity to have their question answered. Will you seek to have the Speaker make a ruling on ministerial answers and Members' questions so that we can make progress through the list and all Members who have been elected to the House have an opportunity to question Ministers?

Mr Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify whether I overstepped my time limits at any point in those 45 minutes?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Minister did not take any longer than the time that is permitted under Standing Orders. Members were reminded a few times from the Chair about long introductions and long conclusions. We can take that away for discussion. The Committee on Procedures also has a role in some of this. That can be looked at, but, from what I can see at this point, no Standing Orders were broken.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We will resume the debate on the Second Stage of the Justice Bill. I call Joanne Bunting to continue with her remarks.

Ms Bunting: Thank you. I will resume the remarks that I was making in my capacity as a private Member on Part 2 of the Bill, which is on children's bail and custody. I will refer to the accommodation situation —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before you do, I ask Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quietly.

Ms Bunting: I will move to issues on accommodation when a child is granted bail. Whilst the aim may be to keep children from custody except as a last resort, we are familiar with the practical difficulties that can arise around accommodation for children and young people who are afforded bail. We note that the intended provision of accommodation has had to be shelved as a result of budgetary constraints. That is a very difficult policy area in which safety, rights and practicalities are all in play and are sometimes competing. We are aware of the need for proportionality and appropriateness in bail conditions but are cautious about unconditional bail being standard, as proposed in the Bill, because we recognise that some conditions can be as simple as a direction to remain out of or to stay within a given area, or even the imposition of a curfew, and that those conditions are often welcomed by parents.

Again, we are conscious of the impact of those provisions on the child, the victim and the complainant. While custody is not ideal or preferred, it is sometimes, regrettably, the safest option for a child. Where social services decline to take a child because of previous violence to peers or staff, the alternatives may involve B&Bs or other accommodation where they could be subject to predators. None of those issues is necessarily easy and will merit due consideration, including around safeguarding. We wish to develop our knowledge of current practice, understand the distinctions that the proposals bring and further tease out, in practical terms, some of the areas that are contained herein as we progress and hear from interested parties.

Part 3 relates to live links, specifically for police interviews, extension of detention, warrants for further detention and provisions around consent for those who are under 18 or for vulnerable adults. We anticipate further provisions to cover live links in courts by way of amendment. We have been advised by the Department that considerable work is under way in that regard. We have no objections to the provisions embedding live links technology, albeit we have always said that innovation in the administration of criminal court proceedings must be weighed against ensuring the integrity of the wider process and ensuring that the quality of evidence and witness testimony is upheld. In principle, we support the use of live links, but we will want to see the full set of proposals and to consider the outworkings.

There are a number of distinct policy areas in Part 4. Some are tidying up exercises, while others are technical and/or more complicated to grasp. Although some areas initially appear to be straightforward, such as the inclusions around the Policing Board, we will wish to examine in more detail all the proposals, including, but not limited to, the no bill provisions and those around legal aid and criminal records certificates.

My colleagues will cover some of those topics in more detail in the rest of the debate as the House has already heard plenty from me. Suffice it to say that, thus far, each briefing that we have had has been reasonably high level, and we will need to delve into the issues throughout each part of the Bill much more deeply to fully appreciate the implications and consequences of all that is before us. As it stands, we are already in receipt of briefing papers from stakeholders and interested third parties. We look forward to engaging with them further as we take and consider their evidence and submissions.

It is important to state that the Department has had years and, in some cases, months to work up the policies. Therefore, the Committee will absolutely need to take its time to ensure that we have all that we need to fully understand and effectively scrutinise all that comes before us and the consequences — unintended or otherwise — as best we can. We are charged with effective and thorough scrutiny, and that is our intention. In presumption of the progression of the Bill today, I assure the House and the Department of the DUP's due diligence in as constructive a manner as possible for the betterment of the justice system as we move to the next stage.

Mr McNulty: I speak in my capacity as the SDLP member of the Justice Committee. Yesterday, the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, Geraldine Hanna, presented us with statistics about our justice system that, frankly, the Department of Justice and the Executive should be ashamed of. Of the respondents to the victims' survey, 63% said that the police did not investigate their crimes properly, and 50% were dissatisfied with how they were treated by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). Only 9% of respondents believed that they received enough support during the court process. Only 7% of respondents were confident that the criminal justice system could deliver for victims of crime. That is only scratching the surface of the stark reality of our justice system that is portrayed in the survey results. The commissioner designate described the results as:

It is in the context of that abysmal picture that we must examine the Justice Bill.

With respect to retention periods for DNA and biometric material, I note that the definition of those materials is vague. I am concerned that it does not provide sufficient protections for victims of sexual crimes; nor does it take into consideration the number of legacy issues ongoing in the North as a result of our violent history. We must also question whether sufficient provisions exist to protect children under that section of the law. It is vital that our children are adequately protected. I welcome the many provisions in the Bill that seek to improve the experience of children in our justice system, in line with the strategic framework for youth justice. The Youth Justice Agency, however, has raised questions about the retention and recruitment of adequately trained staff and general resourcing in the youth justice sector, so I wonder how the Bill will be fully implemented without adequate funding. I also question why there is no provision for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised from 10, given that, as it stands, the age is not considered to be internationally acceptable by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. I would be interested to know how the experiences of children and young people were taken into account during the drafting of the Bill.

I am pleased about the inclusion of the no bill provisions, which are a step towards ensuring that victims get full justice. At the same time, however, we are still suffering from serious delays in the system, which harm victims. How can victims even be sure that their cases will get to trial in the first place? I say that with huge concern. The Department of Justice's policy of payment delays currently most impacts on people from marginalised and deprived backgrounds and their access to justice.

The Chairperson of the Justice Committee has already highlighted concern about the Department's intention to introduce additional provisions by way of amendments at Consideration Stage. I am particularly concerned about the possibility of such provisions amending rehabilitation periods in order to shorten the existing rehabilitation periods and to allow more convictions to become spent. Criminal Justice Inspection has repeatedly told us that, owing to the high numbers of prisoners serving short-term sentences and the inconsistent quality of and access to rehabilitation services, prisoners are losing out on employment, housing or family contact. Prisoners serving short-term sentences — we have high numbers of those — are also not subject to post-custody supervision, and the support services available to help them transition to community life are seriously limited. We know that that directly increases the risk of reoffending, which poses a serious problem for victims of crime and, yet again, breaches their trust.

I will come back to the victims' survey results that I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution. The commissioner designate said:

I ask the Chamber this: when is the Department of Justice going to wake up? When is the Justice Minister going to wake up? Why is the Minister bringing late amendments to the Justice Bill? Why do the Justice Minister and the Department —.

Mrs Long: I am pleased that the Member has given way. How can the amendments be late, given the fact that Bills are amended at Consideration Stage and that this is the Second Stage of the process?

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her points, but why do the Justice Minister and the Department of Justice feel it is appropriate to employ Henry VIII powers? Is it the Justice Minister's modus operandi to legislate via royal proclamation?

We must consider the Bill's provisions while fully acknowledging the trauma that the system inflicts on victims who have bravely come forward to report a crime and thinking of those who have not come forward because they know that the system is not adequately resourced to help them. The question that we must ask ourselves today and at every stage of the Bill is this: how will it directly, tangibly and positively impact on the experience of every victim who comes into contact with any part of our justice system? Victims are begging the Department of Justice and the Justice Minister to wake up.

Miss Hargey: I welcome the Second Stage of the Justice Bill. It is good to see legislation passing through the Assembly again. I declare an interest, as I have an immediate family member who works in the Courts and Tribunals Service.

As previous contributors have said, the Bill is sizable and far-ranging. It has, broadly, four main aims, as the Justice Minister outlined. Those relate to retention periods for DNA and biometric material; changes to bail and custody arrangements for children and young people; improvements to services for victims and witnesses, including live links — we heard from the Research and Information Service yesterday that it is imperative that we move forward on those areas of work— and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of aspects of the justice system.

The Bill could have been two or three separate Bills. For that reason, there is a series of important issues and changes in the legislation that the Bill proposes. It proposes a number of delegated powers that need proper scrutiny, including a detailed assessment of the EFM. The Committee's ability to properly scrutinise the Bill will be important, particularly, as has been said, given the recent High Court judgements on legislation. One of those related to justice legislation that was passed in the Assembly during the previous mandate. Parts of that legislation were found to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). That was touched on earlier, as was Justice Humphreys's judgement on the previous Justice legislation. I will draw out two key areas from that judgement that highlight the concerns that are being raised in the Chamber about the Bill.

First, the summary judgement stated:

As the Chair said, that summary also stated:

— by the Department's head of criminal policy unit —

For those reasons, it is important that we learn from that judgement but also from the more recent judgement looking at issues pertaining to Brexit and the Windsor framework.

It is important that, in considering the legislation, we look carefully at the human rights impacts and how the proposed changes in law interact and engage with ECHR law. Significant changes in the Bill interact with the convention. Biometrics and DNA retention are one of those areas. That was, as the Minister said, the result of two legal challenges that resulted in judgements at the European Court of Human Rights on the retention of data that it infringed on people's rights due to the indefinite retention periods and the absence of a meaningful review process. The amendments here need proper scrutiny. Whilst I welcome them being reviewed on the back of the European Court judgements, there still needs to be close scrutiny of other corresponding legislation, any new provisions and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.

There is also the issue, which was raised earlier, of future-proofing, particularly of biometrics and DNA, against developing technology. We want to pass good legislation, but, if it is already out of date when it is passed given technological advances, it will not serve much purpose. We need to look at that as an evolving space.

Children's bail and custody is another important area. Whilst I agree with the broad principles in that section, further in-depth scrutiny is needed to ensure that it achieves the desired outcomes that we all want to see: changes that are proportionate and necessary. The use of live links is another area that needs close attention. Whilst it is recognised that their use can be effective, it is important that that use is balanced and proportionate to proper access to justice and due process and, importantly, that safeguards are in place.

Part 4 covers the administration of justice, including powers delegated to the Policing Board, addressing gaps in existing legislation and technical amendments and the role of the Taxing Master on legal aid. Those will all need close scrutiny to ensure that the outworkings of the legislative changes are accountable, effective and, importantly, fit for purpose.

It is concerning to note — as the Chair said, the Committee has already communicated this to the Department — that up to six additional areas of legislative change will not come forward until near Consideration Stage, as the legislation progresses. Those are six important areas: accreditation for restorative justice; provisions to amend rehabilitation periods; wider use of video and audio conferencing systems; streamlining of arrangements for Access NI certificates pertaining to sexual and violent offences; repeal of vagrancy legislation; and provisions to tackle serious and organised crime. Those are all critical areas of legislation that, of course, need to be progressed. Our serious concern is that they were not included at the start of the Bill process. They are too important to leave until Consideration Stage, when we will have a more constrained period in which to properly scrutinise them, call witnesses and go through the legislation in greater detail. We need to ensure that the Committee has the time and ability to properly scrutinise those provisions, call for evidence and assess them against the European Convention on Human Rights. That is essential, given the High Court judgement that I highlighted and that the Committee has highlighted to departmental officials.

I welcome it that the Assembly is progressing the legislation. I look forward to working with the Minister and her officials and, indeed, with all my Committee colleagues. We must, however, ensure that the process is not rushed; that we balance the human rights provisions in the Bill with a focus on how those provisions and further legislation engage with the European Convention on Human Rights; and that, as we move through the process, there is proper engagement on and oversight of all aspects of the Bill, including the additions to be made and, of course, the financial implications.

Mr Dickson: We are considering the Second Stage of the Justice Bill, which is crucial and wide-ranging legislation that seeks to address some of the more significant challenges in our justice system. First, I take the opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and dedication not only of the Minister of Justice but of all her officials who have worked and are working on the Bill and will continue to work with us in Committee by bringing us information on the Bill. An amazing amount of effort has gone into the Bill so far to ensure that each of its aspects is carefully considered, and that is a task that we will continue to do in Committee.

As a member of the Committee, I look forward to fully engaging in scrutiny of the Bill at Committee Stage to ensure that each of its provisions operates as intended. To ensure the delivery of all necessary justice Bills in this mandate, however, that scrutiny has to be done in a proper and timely fashion. By way of comparison with my previous experience of navigating a justice Bill through the House, I will say that, while it presents its challenges, the Bill is compact, and we will be able to work our way through all its provisions.

I now turn to those provisions, the first of which is biometric data retention. What is being proposed in the —.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I hear everything that he says about the additional material that the Minister will bring forward at Consideration Stage, but is the very fact that he cannot talk about it at Second Stage not a weakness in democracy and accountability?

Mr Dickson: No. Every Member who has spoken has listed the six additional areas that, the Minister has indicated to the Committee through her officials, she will bring forward. All six areas are within the Bill's policy intent. When the Committee goes out to consultation to stakeholders, who will want to come before the Committee, they will have an opportunity to address those areas. As the departmental officials indicated strongly and strenuously no later than last week to the Committee, they will bring forward the dedicated amendments as soon and as practically as possible so that they are available to us. There will be no holding back, certainly not as far as Consideration Stage.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I rise in a spirit of goodwill. The Member mentioned the policy intent of the Bill: the scope of the Bill includes — I am scanning over the other bits at the start that talk about fingerprints, DNA and live links — making

The Bill is deliberately designed to have an extraordinarily wide scope so that the Minister and others can table amendments to it. That is hardly a reason for us to be reassured about potential amendments, given that we need to read and understand their detail.

Mr Dickson: The Minister will undoubtedly address the Member's comments in her summing-up of the Second Stage debate, but I am certainly reassured by the actions of the Minister and her officials who presented the case for doing it that way to the Committee. We will work diligently through all the things that have been given to us. I will be honest and say this as well: where there are things that we wish to challenge or that I wish to challenge, that will happen. That is the role of a Committee of the Assembly.

One of the Bill's key components is a new framework for the retention a biometric data, a subject that has generated a great deal of discussion already not just in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom. We will hopefully end up with a creative solution that pays close attention to Northern Ireland's unique needs and that also builds on the lessons learned from Scotland and on insights from England and Wales. The Bill recognises the importance of balancing the use of biometric data in tackling crime with the protection of individual rights, as highlighted by the European Court of Human Rights. The Bill steps away from indefinite retention periods, which were ruled problematic in a number of court judgements, and instead adopts a more proportionate approach, allowing for varying retention periods based on factors such as age and criminal history. That model strikes an appropriate balance between the need to use biometric data effectively and the individual's right to privacy. I wholeheartedly believe that it is a good fit for Northern Ireland. We look forward to hearing, during the call for evidence, from the organisations that will help us to ensure that it stands the test of time.

The Bill also addresses areas of youth justice reform. Beyond biometrics, it introduces significant reform in how we treat young people in our criminal justice system. It strengthens the presumption of bail for children, ensuring that they are detained only as a last appropriate resort. Importantly, it removes the troubling practice of detaining children due to a lack of suitable accommodation. We look forward to seeing how a number of the pilot schemes that are already under way can be developed. In Committee, we heard about how some of those new, innovative pilot schemes are operating to address the matter. We look forward to finding out more about that. I care deeply about prioritising the rehabilitation and welfare of young people in our youth justice system, and the Bill certainly takes an important step forward in that direction.

The Bill also addresses some technological advances and efficiencies. It reflects the reality of our increasingly digitalised world by introducing provisions for the use of live links, as others have said, not only in police interviews but in court proceedings. That is a practical step forward and will make our justice system more efficient by reducing the need for physical presence in courtrooms or custody suites. However, I am glad that the Bill acknowledges the need for safeguards, particularly for vulnerable individuals. Indeed, the Committee has already had an excellent opportunity to visit one of the live link centres in Belfast. Following that visit, all members had a good opportunity to get an understanding of the background to the technology. We look forward to exploring that issue further.

The Bill also helps to close some gaps in the law. It addresses several important legal gaps, including amendments to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. That will prevent charges of murder or manslaughter from being prematurely dismissed under the "no bill" procedure when they are linked to the death of a child or a vulnerable adult. That change is crucial to ensuring that the justice system remains robust. Likewise, it addresses the need for reforms to the legal aid system and establishes long-overdue effective financial controls over payments, which were outlined as far back as 2011 and by the Assembly's Public Accounts Committee in 2016. As the Minister said, if the Department is paying, it should be responsible for scrutinising those payments.

The Bill balances the public rights of individuals and the demands of modern justice. It is has been shaped by careful thought, the lessons of the past and a clear vision for the future of our justice system in Northern Ireland. As a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to engaging fully, scrutinising the Bill and listening to those who come forward during the call for evidence to ensure that each provision in the Bill operates as intended. Just to reflect on the comments about the areas that we have not fully fleshed out at this point, I say strongly today that we will take every opportunity in the Committee to not only work through that when it comes to the call for evidence but scrutinise, line by line, the text of the legislation as presented. I urge all Members in the Chamber to support the Bill's Second Stage and its core principles, as set out by the Minister. I look forward to subsequent debates on the Bill as it progresses through its further stages.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. Second Stage allows us to debate the Bill's high-level aims and wave-topping issues. I support the Justice Committee Chair in her expansive words, which were fair and challenging. They set the tone for the way in which we have to go forward on this, and that is scrutiny and challenge. I know that, over the coming weeks and months, my party will look at and scrutinise the Bill and the detailed evidence that we will get from a variety of stakeholders.

I have confidence. I have confidence that the Justice Committee will be able to work with the Justice Department and the Minister to deal with any issues that come down the road, and there will be some. I will try to be brief, but I want to raise a couple of points because scrutiny is key. The Bill is large and, at times, quite complicated.

Part 1 is on the retention of biometric material. That was brought about, as we have been told, by the Marper and Gaughran judgements that indefinite retention of biometric and DNA material is incompatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Going back in time, one of the issues with implementing the findings of the Marper judgement — in 2013, 2014 or maybe 2015; I was not about at the time — was the Stormont House Agreement. The provision in the Stormont House Agreement for the retention of biometric material in legacy cases made it really complicated.

There are two issues that I want to raise on the retention of biometric material. First, through scrutiny and working with the Justice Committee, I want to see how it stacks up with the very different rules on the retention of biometric material in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, particularly in the investigations that will be conducted by the ICRIR. I do not want two-tier investigations. I do not want to have a situation where DNA is retained for the legacy investigation of someone who was murdered in 1975 in the Troubles but the murder of someone else in 1975, which had nothing to do with the Troubles, does not get the same level of investigation because we have destroyed the biometric material for that case. I am not saying that that is going to be the case, but it is certainly something in the Bill that I want to look at. I have no concern that we will be able to look at that.

I also note that a consultation was already been done on this in 2020. I want to look at that consultation to see whether the changes to the retention of biometrics in legacy cases, which were not there in 2020, change its effect. So, there are a couple of things that I want to look at, but, broadly, I am pretty comfortable with the 75, 50 and 25-year rule that we are talking about for qualified recordable, non-custodial and less-than-five-year offences. However, I want to see the detail.

Part 2 is on bail, remand and custody for children. I and others have been lobbied hard about that. Far too many of our children are being held in the Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre over a long period of time, not all at once. Custody must always be viewed as the last resort, but we must accept that custody under PACE is the only option in some cases. We should not shy away from that. In 2022-23, 176 admissions to the Woodland Juvenile Justice Centre were related to PACE, with just three of those under sentence. The issue is that 45 people, over the same period, went in on remand. We really need to look at remand and have an acceptance, in part, that we should always make sure that children are bailed without condition. That is what we want to do but, again, we have to look at that in detail. I accept that the case that we saw in Wolverhampton, with the sentencing of two 13-year-olds for murder, will feed into the general discourse about this, but we should not allow it to. This is something very different, but it is something that we will have to think about. I will keep saying it: I have confidence that the Committee will be able to work with the Justice Minister and the Justice Department to make sure that we can look at this.

In principle, I support the use of live links, which is covered in Part 3. Again, the devil will be in the detail.

Part 4 is on the administration of justice. There is a clause on legal aid and the role of the taxing master, who is an independent judicial office holder. The Bar of Northern Ireland has an issue with that. I find it extremely complicated, if I am being honest; it is something that I will have to sit down and look at. That is clause 28. Again, we can look at that.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Yes, of course.

Mrs Long: There are two separate issues, and it is important to disentangle them. One is the wider review of criminal and civil legal aid, which is ongoing. Judge Burgess has provided a report on that, and it will look at the taxing master as one issue. There is a slightly separate issue on where the taxing master, as currently constructed, can use their powers. I have to say that you are not the only person who finds what the taxing master does confusing. It is one of the most opaque processes that I have come across, and one of my reasons for looking at its reform is my belief that all public money should be transparently and openly accounted for.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for that. You are probably right — of course you are — but, if the Northern Ireland Bar has a concern, it is only right and proper that we look at it in detail; and that is what I am talking about.

The no bill piece in the Bill makes absolute sense, and we have no issue with that.

There has been a lot of discourse about what will be added to the Bill at a later stage. I have my concerns, as will we all. The Chair of the Committee outlined them. It is important that we do, and nobody should be afraid of people being critical of something. I have looked at the things that will be added to the Bill, and they are all really important, but the last one struck me: provisions to tackle those who participate in or direct serious organised crime. The reality of that — we do not have the wording — goes all the way back to Part 2, because organised crime uses children. If we do not have the details of that clause, how can we consider Part 2, which is all about children?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for being so generous in giving way. The specific issue is about creating two new offences. One is the direction of organised crime, which has been defined in policy terms and which you will see in the legislation. The other is a separate offence of participating in organised crime, which is where, although it cannot be proven that somebody was directing the crime, they were a participant in it. The reason for the two offences is that there are two different capacities in which people act.

The issue of coercion and child criminal exploitation is being addressed through a policy that was launched jointly on Monday by me, your colleague, the Health Minister, and the Minister of Education. We recognise that as an issue, but it is not impinged upon by those two new offences.

Mr Beattie: I absolutely accept that, but the point that I am trying to make is this: if we do not have the wording of that clause, we do not know how it speaks to Part 2. That is all that I am talking about. You could well be right that it is covered elsewhere, but I do not want to end up not seeing something, going through the whole scrutiny phase of Part 2 and then having to revisit it all when we suddenly get the wording of the clause, and that feeds into the Bill in a way that is slightly different from what we expected. The point that I am making is not a criticism. I would just like to have all the details so that I can see how they speak to each other in the wider sense.

Mrs Long: The Member is being very generous. It is important that we put some of those points to rest during the debate. I do not want my speech at the end to be so long that everybody has fallen asleep, and Justin has to tell them to wake up. The policy intent of each of the six areas has been laid out before the Committee, so you know what we intend to do. It is for the Committee to decide whether to go ahead with a call for evidence. If you wish, you will be able to do that on the basis of policy; Committees have done that before. Once that call for evidence concludes, you will have all the written clauses. By the time you start clause-by-clause scrutiny and take evidence from witnesses, you will have the written clauses. I reassure the Committee that there will be no duplication of effort in that regard.

Mr Beattie: I am coming to a conclusion, so you will not have to jump in again. I have no issue with that, but, again, as with everything, sometimes you just want to see it in your hand; you want to see it in black and white; you want to see it written down so that you understand how it all works together. I will be honest. I am somebody who would say, "Do not take evidence until we have all the information", because I do not want to bring a stakeholder in to give evidence, then get another clause and have to bring them back to say, "This now feeds into that clause".

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: I would rather have something in front of me. I fully accept what the Minister said earlier about her reasons for introducing the Bill when she did, and I have no issue with that. However, that is not to say that it will go through more quickly. We may have to delay taking evidence to ensure that we have all the text.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member. He was too optimistic in thinking that he would get to the end of his speech without me interrupting him again. I will explain what I was suggesting about how I might approach this were I a member of the Committee. It is a long time since I was a member of a Committee, so I will defer to others on this point. It is possible to have a call for evidence, but before witnesses come to give evidence to the Committee, members will have the text, as will the witnesses. The Committee will not take evidence twice or call witnesses back unnecessarily. The call for evidence is based on policy, and that is where you can proceed. As I said, other Committees have done that successfully in the past, but it is a matter for the Committee to resolve in due course.

Mr Beattie: Thanks, Minister. You are absolutely right. It is a matter for the Committee, and it has not had that discussion yet. I am probably pre-empting it slightly, but I have given an open, personal thought on the matter, but the Committee will discuss it and decide the best way forward.

I will go back to the start of my contribution. I have every confidence in ability of the Chair, the Deputy Chairperson and the Committee to scrutinise the Bill, to work with the Justice Minister and the Department of Justice and to make sure that we produce a Bill that is fit for purpose.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the Justice Bill, which the Minister has introduced. It is a large Bill, which many other representatives stated. We look forward to taking our time to ensure that we scrutinise it to the best of our ability. I echo my party colleague's views on how the Bill has been brought forward. We acknowledge that that is not how legislation should be introduced, and it is important to put that on the record, especially after the High Court judgement.

I will not go into the details of the Bill at this stage, as we will have ample time to discuss it at its other stages. As has been mentioned, Part 1 is about retention periods for DNA and biometric material. Part 2 is about proposed changes to bail and custody arrangements for children and young people. I want to make a few comments about Parts 3 and 4.

Part 3 relates to the use of live video links by the police for various custody functions, including the extension of police detention, court extensions of detention and suspect interviews, which would amend the Police and Criminal Evidence (NI) Order 1989, or PACE. That is our primary legislation that provides the framework and powers for the PSNI to combat crime. We are all fully aware of the live link services, and they have been in operation for a number of years in a range of court processes, including the court for preliminary hearings, certain sentencing and appeal hearings, the giving of evidence by vulnerable witnesses, defendants and applicants, and between courts and hospitals in certain types of cases. The prisons and courts regularly use live links for remand hearings.

We accept the need for and see the benefits of live links for most cases. They may help reduce delays and deal with travel and waiting times, thus speeding up the justice system. However, it is important to note that, when dealing with live links, it is imperative that we have safeguards in place to ensure that the most vulnerable understand at all times their use during interviews and are supported where and when required. The Northern Ireland Children's Commissioner highlighted that point about live links and about how children and young people could be impacted on. Therefore, we must ensure that safeguarding measures and consent are fully addressed when looking at that Part of the Bill alongside speeding up justice. We all have a duty to protect our most vulnerable, and the Bill must play its part in that.

As mentioned, Part 4 looks at various matters to help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of aspects of our justice system. The first area includes functions that relate to the police, such as amending the Police Act 2000 to provide the Policing Board with explicit delegation in areas such as pension forfeiture and ill health retirement etc following the 2019 case of McKee & Hughes (and others) v The Charity Commission and the removal of the Comptroller and Auditor General's duty to assess the Policing Board's performance or performance summaries, thus reducing potential overlap and duplication in oversight activity. We welcome that those provisions are in that Part of the Bill.

Under criminal proceedings, the Bill corrects a drafting error in the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy Order 1983, transferring responsibility for consenting to conspiracies outside the North from the Public Prosecution Service to the Advocate General. It also addresses a legal gap in criminal proceedings by amending section 7 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to prevent the charge of murder and manslaughter from being no billed when linked to an offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult.

Likewise, as the Chair of the Committee said, it is difficult to get our head round legislation involving terms such as "no bill". We welcome the fact that a paper was produced to help us understand more fully what "no bill" means.

As Members have said, legal aid is a key area. It is great that the Minister has clarified that there will be a review of civil and criminal legal aid. That is different and unique in the area of legal aid. We have heard comments that we should wait until the reviews are complete before legislating on legal aid, so the clarification on legal aid and taxation is welcome. I note that the Department has written to stakeholders about further consultation on it. It is important to understand the impacts, if any, that the changes to legal aid and taxation may have by improving clarity, predictability and, in particular, payments to legal professionals and how they will have an impact on access to justice. It is also important to understand the compelling reasons why the changes need to happen, particularly when we are utilising Henry VIII powers.

It is important to mention the clause on criminal records certificates in Part 4. It will update schedule 8A to the Police Act 1997 to comply with the 2019 Supreme Court ruling on the disclosure of non-court disposals for under-18s. That will entail filtering out old and minor convictions, and other disposals should be introduced. We welcome the specific safeguards that have been built in through the role of the independent reviewer, and we look forward to exploring its effectiveness. We also welcome the extension of court security powers to all buildings in which tribunals take place.

It is important to note the clause on examinations in criminal proceedings through registered intermediaries or, put more simply, communication specialists. The clause aims to extend the service to the County Court and Court of Appeal, which would offer great support for the most vulnerable who have communication difficulties and need support to participate effectively as witnesses when giving oral evidence in court. We welcome that too.

I welcome the Justice Bill. I look forward to working with the Chair, the Deputy Chair, the Committee and the Minister in taking it forward. I look forward to further engagement with our stakeholders and to the next stage of the Bill.

Mr Bradley: The Bill introduces significant reforms across various areas of justice and law enforcement in Northern Ireland. Part 1 refers to the retention of biometric data. It implements a 75/50/25-year model for biometric data retention based on age, offence severity and case outcome, replacing indefinite retention; it establishes a review mechanism for long-term retained material; and it seeks the appointment of a Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Retention of Biometric Material. Part 2 relates to children. It introduces new considerations for custody officers in courts when dealing with children, emphasising age, maturity and understanding. It also mandates that children under 18 serve detention in juvenile centres and introduces a new youth custody and supervision order for less serious offences. Part 3 looks at the use of live links and allows remote interviewing and videoconferencing for police investigations and pre-charge detention extensions. Part 4 looks at the administration of justice. It grants the Policing Board delegation powers, modifies auditing requirements and introduces measures to improve the administration of justice, including support for vulnerable defendants and regulation-making powers for court security. To avoid duplication, I will speak broadly about Part 2. Part 3 is self-explanatory, and my Justice Committee colleague Stephen Dunne will address Part 1 and Part 4.

We are cautious of the proposed changes to the Bill in general and of the potential amendments, perhaps, falling short of crucial scrutiny time. We are also cautious of changes to bail and custody arrangements for children and young people in Part 2 of the Bill. Our criminal justice system already treats children and young people differently from adults in various respects, and many proposals in Part 2 naturally follow that approach. There has been a significant decline in the number of children entering the formal criminal justice system in Northern Ireland over the past decade. Prosecutions and custodial sentences are increasingly deemed to be inappropriate unless youth offending is persistent, serious or violent. We may be prepared to look at a single youth custody order, with various restrictions and conditions, to end the confusion caused by multiple orders. However, this is not about removing criminal liability; the interests of victims must remain central to the debate and legislation. It is in the best interests of victims and communities to work with offending children to address the root causes of their behaviour and ensure that they receive the necessary support to turn their lives around. The current system often responds to youth offending differently from how it responds to adults, and it is crucial to build on that approach with regard to bail, detention or diversion.

Clause 7 requires officers to consider the seriousness of any breach or likely breach of bail conditions before deciding to arrest a child. Has the Minister engaged with the PSNI in drafting that clause? Does giving police officers discretion to overlook bail breaches conflict with the judiciary? Perhaps the Minister could outline any engagement that there has been with the Police Service of Northern Ireland to ensure that it is prepared for the changes.

I am keen to hear how discretion on judicial alignment will be aligned with judicial expectations to avoid potential conflicts. What support systems will be in place to assist officers in making those discretionary decisions? Clause 7 also aims to create a more balanced and rehabilitative approach to youth offending, but its success will depend on careful implementation and support for police officers in exercising their discretion effectively.

Clause 8 prevents bail from being refused to a child due solely to a lack of adequate accommodation. Has the capital project for accommodation stalled through lack of finances? If so, what are the plans in the interim on whether it will ever be built, as it is a joint initiative with Health?

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Bradley: Yes.

Mrs Long: The Member will be aware that Professor Ray Jones did a report on the amalgamation, essentially, of children's services, including youth justice. The foundation element of that was to bring forward a children's services agency and then there would be a transition, and the hope is that we will be able to do that. There is no issue with accommodation in Woodlands; in fact, I encourage Members to go to see the Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre. It is being well maintained, but there are small numbers of children in the facility for the very reasons that the Member outlines. It is not good practice to keep children in custody if, instead, you can achieve more through community engagement, particularly engagement with victims, and reparations.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for her clarification. Her points are well made.

Clauses 9, 10 and 13 relate to a juvenile justice centre. Will those clauses enshrine in law that no young person under 18 will be held anywhere other than a juvenile justice centre? While that has been the practice since 2012, there may be cases where the juvenile justice centre is not the most appropriate placement due to the risk posed to the individual or peers. What flexibility do justice agencies have to vary accommodation on a case-by-case basis?

Clause 14 requires courts to consider the length of custodial sentence that a child might serve, if convicted, when deciding on remand periods exceeding three months. Will courts still have the discretion to refuse bail on the grounds of reoffending risk or public safety? It is crucial to maintain that discretion for complex cases where remand is in the mutual interests of the child and the public.

In summary, the Bill may introduce some short-term challenges regarding decision-making and consistency. Its long-term benefits could enhance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of policing procedures and foster a more focused and rehabilitative approach to youth offending.

I will speak briefly to Part 4, particularly clauses 22 and 23. Again, we will look closely at the technical changes to the functions of the Policing Board. However, it is crucial that delegated functions, particularly in such areas as injury on duty and ill-health retirement cases, do not dilute the potential for scrutiny and oversight.

I conclude by stating my caution about the Bill. I look forward to hearing evidence from stakeholders and witnesses as the Bill progresses and to the Committee getting down to scrutinising the various aspects of the Bill's journey and taking time to scrutinise any late amendments. In short, I welcome the Bill.

Mr Frew: As I do with all legislation in this place nowadays, I give the Bill a cautious welcome. We are legislators, and we are here to do a job. That job, however, should be measured not by the amount of legislation that we scrutinise but by the quality.

We all know where the biometrics, the DNA and the data retention elements of the Bill come from. They have come about after a number of court cases and breaches of European rights — the Marper and Gaughran cases — and I get that. Therefore, the Department must act and do something in that regard. Where I come from with regard to the retention of DNA and biometrics is the balance between human rights and the principles of proportionality, necessity and the presumption of innocence.

There should be strict limits on data retention. I ask this question, even at this stage: why have the Minister and the Department adopted those specific periods? Why have those been chosen? I get that there is a balance and that, at this stage, there will not be a right or a wrong answer. Nevertheless, it would be good to tease that out a wee bit more at Second Reading, which is an important stage of any legislation. I am concerned about some of the time periods. I am not saying that they are right or wrong. I am just asking this question: what is the Minister's mindset around this stuff?

In clause 1, new article 63G states:

Is that the balance that the Minister is trying to strike? Is that the right balance? The new article continues:

I also note new article 63H:

Why just two years? Those are valid and appropriate questions. Then, of course, scattered throughout the Bill are periods of 75 years and 50 years. I have no doubt that, somewhere in the Bill, there will be a period of 25 years too: I just have not found it yet.

That brings me to my point that the House has to reassure itself that the balance in the Bill is right. We all know why we have to deal with biometrics and DNA and data retention: article 8 contravention. We cannot have it indefinitely; I think that we all understand and acknowledge that at this stage. There are rights and freedoms that the House and the Department must take into account. I look forward to knowing the Minister's mindset and that of the Department around the periods that they have adopted in the Bill and how that could progress through the Committee, Consideration and Further Consideration Stages.

One of the issues that concerns me is fixed penalty notices. New article 63Q applies where a person:

Penalty notices are serious enough, but retention of DNA for two years? Where is the balance? Is it being struck appropriately and correctly? I simply pose that question to the House at Second Reading.

What really perplexes me, however, is that, when I first saw the Bill and saw that there was a Part on the use of live links, I thought, "Happy days. This is now the Department moving away from a reliance on coronavirus legislation". When I read Part 3, however, I learned that it is nothing of the sort. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, when we have had legislation in place for up to four years, with a practice that has been operating quite successfully, you would not slot that legislation into the Bill first off. Why would you not have it in the Bill as introduced? It seems to me to be a striking omission.

Although I have nothing against the use of live links for interview purposes, there are concerns about the context and about getting people's consent to take part in live links. There is the fact that people are not in a court. Do they understand exactly the process in which they are involved? Are they tutored on this stuff? Are they supported to use live links? Those are grey areas that I have concerns about at this point, especially when we are talking about children and vulnerable adults. Are they aware of the process that they are involved in when speaking via a live link? Courts cannot —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mrs Long: It is interesting that the Member raises the issue of children and vulnerable adults, because it is precisely for children and vulnerable adults that live links have proven to be essential. They have allowed us, for example, to have domestic violence contest cases heard via live link so that the person who was abused does not have to appear in court or risk cross-examination by the person who is accused of the abuse. The remote evidence centre (REC) relies entirely on live links. That facility will be lost if we do not retain them.

Mr Frew: The Minister knows full well my support for all of that, especially for the legislation that we passed in the previous mandate on domestic violence and stalking. The Minister knows my form on this. I am simply relaying concerns that I have about live links being used for interviews. I am not saying that their use is wrong. Rather, I am saying that I would like to see a wee bit more detail on how those people will be served when they use a live link for interview purposes.

My point, however, still stands, Minister, and it is this: why on earth have you not included in the Bill the live links provision that you enjoyed under the Coronavirus Act? I just do not understand why it is not in the Bill as introduced. I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: It is because there is a distinct difference between drafting regulations and drafting primary legislation. The coronavirus regulations as drafted could not simply be transplanted into primary legislation. Moreover, some changes will be made as a result of the experience of working through live links. The provision is therefore not in the Bill, but it will be tabled as an amendment, which is still under development. The policy intent is clear, but the detailed clauses have yet to be completed.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her intervention, but I just do not get that the provision is under development. You know what it is designed to do and have been operating it for the past three years, yet you cannot even put it in a blue Bill that you introduced when you would, I suspect, have universal support for continuing with the practice.

Minister, I do not really understand your reasoning about the difference between regulations and a Bill. Both are examples of legislation. There is nothing impossible about legislation, and I just do not understand — I will accept clarification if the Minister wants to give it — why the provision was not included in the Bill as introduced.

Mrs Long: I am not sure how much clearer I can be. No one is quibbling about the intent or about what we are trying to achieve. It takes time to draft the primary legislation in the context of it being primary legislation, which is considerably different to the drafting of regulations. Therefore, until it is drafted by legislative counsel, we cannot place it in the Bill, though the policy intent has not changed. We did look at whether there were other options, but there is no other supporting legislation under which we could simply transpose regulations. Therefore, it has to be as primary legislation, and the drafting takes time. While the Member may not understand it, those are simply the facts. I do not draft the Bill; the Office of the Legislative Counsel does, and it needs time to do it.

Mr Frew: I understand what the Minister is saying about primary legislation. I understand that the provisions must come through primary legislation, but what she is basically saying is that OLC has a capacity issue — that is basically what she is saying — and that she has not waited for her Bill to be completed before pushing it through to First Reading and Second Reading. That is an affront to accountability and democracy in this place. It is as simple as that.

Not only that. That is only the live links piece, which has been in operation for the past three years. What about the other five out of six areas that she has failed to put in the Bill at Second Reading for every single MLA to look at — MLAs who are not on the Justice Committee but who have to make a decision on this Bill today? The Minister has come to the House and said: "By the way, this Bill is only half completed. This Bill is only half completed." That is not good accountability. That is not good democracy. That is not good scrutiny.

I will give way again.

Mrs Long: It would be unfair to say that I arrived in the Chamber today and announced that we were bringing six additional areas of policy through. That is not the case. We have been in continual contact with the Committee. We have had briefings on the policy intent of those six areas and we have provided that detail to the Committee. I also set it out in my speech to the House at the first opportunity to do so. So, with respect, the idea that I came in today and lobbed six new things into the Bill is simply untrue. It is a fiction, and that needs to be clarified.

Mr Frew: Mr Deputy Speaker, I question the Minister on her choice of wording in the House. The Committee has not seen the text, and we are legislators. If MLAs cannot see the text on these blue pages, we cannot do our job properly. It has been said in the House today that it is normal for Departments to clamour to bring amendments to their own Bills. That is unprecedented. At Committee Stage —.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member has claimed — I think that this is the second occasion in the House — that it is unprecedented for a Minister to bring amendments to their own Bill. I ask the Deputy Speaker to reflect on that, because that is factually inaccurate. In fact, every mixed-content justice Bill has been amended at Consideration Stage, as have many other Bills. The word "unprecedented", if people are going to lecture about the use of language, has a particular meaning, and the threshold for it is not met in this debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you —. Steady, Mr Frew. Steady, steady. [Laughter.]

Minister, we will reflect on that and we will look at whether that has been used as a precedent before. We will also look at the issue of amendments and the amendments to Bills coming forward. Can I ask — you are both seasoned Members of the Assembly — that we keep it civil? Thank you. Mr Frew, would you like to continue?

Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yes, that proves to me that the Minister has not learned anything post judgement, and I worry about that. Why I say that it is unprecedented is this — I was going to explain what I meant. A Committee Stage is very important in the life of a Bill. That is when the Committee scrutinises everything in the Bill, every line, every clause, every Part, even the schedules. It is usually at that point that the Committee communicates with the Department and the Minister and talks to the Department about amendments that the Committee would like to see. At that point, if the Minister is so minded, the Minister and Department will table amendments.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will finish my point and then I will give way.

That is a point of principled negotiation and agreement between the Committee and the Department. It is not the Minister and the Department saying that they are only going to launch half the Bill at Second Reading and that they will max it out at Consideration Stage. To have that intent at the start of a process is completely and utterly undemocratic and unaccountable, and it does not lend itself to good scrutiny. I will give way.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. As my colleague the Justice Minister has outlined, it is not unprecedented and has been the case for previous justice Bills. When the Committee Chair, your colleague who is sitting beside you, and members go out with their call for evidence, they can ask for an extended period. If you feel that you need more time in which to consult so that there is full scrutiny, that is within your gift.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her contribution, because she leads me on to a valid question: if the Minister cannot give us reasonable notice of when she will table her amendments, what time period should the Committee suggest? You have left the Committee in a very bad place, where it will be unable to get a time frame to scrutinise the new amendments — the amendments that the Minister intends to table at a later stage. That is what is unique about this process and Bill.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not want to keep going over old ground, but the Minister has laid out the policy intent. I imagine that all members of the Justice Committee have researchers who can look into the potential implications of the changes in law. The fact that the wording is not yet in the Bill is actually of secondary importance. If the policy intent is there, it is within your gift as a Committee, and that of the people who support you, to start looking into how that could work in practice.

Mr Frew: It all sounds very reasonable, but what would be the position of the Alliance Party if any other Department tried to do that? I am standing up for every other Department because it is bad practice, bad law, bad scrutiny, undemocratic and unaccountable.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. To dismiss something that is not even an Act as bad law indicates to me that the Member is not across the detail of what we are doing here. What we have are proposals for legislation. What we do not have is law, good or bad.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I thank the Minister for her remarks. Given the mood of the debate and how we are raising these issues, we can all consider that statement as we go forward.

Mr Frew: Again, I remind the Minister of the position in which she and her Department find themselves with regard to the judgement that was previously laid down on a previous Act. I give this warning about how we proceed: it is not good enough for any Minister to say that they will table a multitude of amendments, covering six areas of policy, to a Bill at Consideration Stage. It is not good practice. I will not support that practice. I will call it out at every opportunity I get. I warn the House today.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will give way again, yes.

Mrs Long: On the processes of the House, the Member will be aware that any Member can table an amendment at Consideration Stage. There is no opportunity whatsoever for the Committee to consider those amendments, yet it is entirely appropriate and normal for that to happen. That is the right of every person in the Chamber. My intent is to have the amendments presented to the Committee this year before any formal line-by-line scrutiny has begun. I fail to understand how a Member who claims to be a champion of the House can argue that it is not in order for someone to amend the Bill at any stage after Second Reading.

Mr Frew: Oh aye, the Minister is putting words into my mouth, Mr Deputy Speaker. I love a good Consideration Stage. I table as many amendments as I possibly can. It is the Minister who criticises me at every opportunity.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Make your remarks through the Chair, Mr Frew.

Mr Frew: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is the Minister who criticises me for doing that on most occasions. She criticises me because my amendment has not been consulted on and because the Department has not formed a view on it. Those are two reasons why you would not support an amendment at Consideration Stage. It is different this time, however, because it is the Minister who is doing it without there being any indication from the Committee that it supports the amendments, that it wants them or that it wants to table anything itself. If I am minded to table an amendment at Consideration Stage, I will do that, but I will also have the good courtesy to show it to the Minister and ask her to adopt it so that she can table it at Consideration Stage. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that practice or that concept.

This is about there being six areas of policy that are not in the Bill at the time of Second Reading. That is what worries me, and I warn the House that we will need to be extra vigilant, given that there have been judgements on previous legislation from this Department. [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, please do not make remarks from a sedentary position.

Mr O'Toole: I am not a member of the Justice Committee, but I take an interest in these matters. There is lots of important stuff here, and we should all be able and willing to speak on legislation that is not in our Committee's purview.

I have consistently said that I am disappointed by the rather scant volume of substantive legislation that has come before the Assembly since it returned and by the fact that we have not seen very much of the Executive's legislative programme, which is relatively slimline. In the spirit of being constructive, therefore, it would be remiss of me not to say, "Fair play," to the Justice Minister for bringing forward substantive legislation. It is an omnibus Bill with lots of things in it, and we have been told today that there will be lots more things in it. It sounds like some of the most substantive, novel and possibly controversial bits of the legislation will come through amendments to be tabled by the Minister.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in a second. The Minister is seeking to correct me, of course. Since I have not seen the text of the amendments, I have no idea whether they are controversial, but I am going on what she has told me today. I am happy to give way.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I realise that he has not seen the draft text, but he has heard the policy intent, which I set out in my speech, and therefore knows exactly what we intend to do. They are not controversial issues. They are issues that have been on the agenda for a long time, such as, as Mr Frew mentioned, normalising the use of live links in the court service. That is not controversial. In fact, I think that Mr Frew said — possibly uniquely — that that would probably get universal support.

We are not trying to bury bad news or to hold back things that may be controversial. We are simply trying to do this in a timely fashion and make the best use of the three short years that are left in the mandate.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate that useful clarification from the Justice Minister. We heard about measures around serious and organised crime, which is clearly not an insignificant matter. We also heard about measures to reform or change restorative justice. That can be a positive practice, but there has been controversy in Northern Ireland in the past around organisations that used restorative justice, so one's ears tend to prick up when one hears terms like that and is told that amendments will be tabled by the Department in relation to that.

I will run through a few specific elements of the Bill and give my views. My colleague Justin McNulty, who is on the Justice Committee, gave a fulsome read-across, but there are a few specific bits that I want to address. Clearly, as touched on extensively by others, there was litigation in relation to biometric material. It is important that the legislation be updated in a way that, yes, is consistent with legacy concerns but that also meets our human rights obligations. Our failure in the past to meet human rights obligations is clearly a theme in the Bill. I commend the Minister for seeking to improve the statute book, particularly on the rights of the child in the criminal justice system. Lots of the measures are about simplifying things, such as improving the consistency of the assumption of bail for young offenders. That is all sensible. It would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify in her closing remarks whether she intends to bring forward a specific amendment to increase the age of criminal responsibility, which is a consistent ask of not only children's rights organisations but international organisations. Why is that not in the Bill? I am aware that it was in her party's manifesto, so it would be helpful to understand whether it is going to be included, and, if not, why not.

I have a couple of specific questions about more technical bits. One of the provisions relates to how we go about prosecuting for offences or conspiracy to commit offences in Northern Ireland those individuals who are not in Northern Ireland, that is, they are outside the jurisdiction. That provision changes the person who has to sign off on that from the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, who, obviously, is the legal adviser to the Executive, to the Advocate General, who is the legal adviser on Northern Ireland to the UK Government and is, by default, the Attorney General for England and Wales. I do not know enough to know whether I should be concerned by that, but it would be helpful if the Minister were fulsome in explaining why that responsibility is being moved from a legal adviser to a devolved Government — policing and justice powers are devolved — to the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, who is also the Attorney General for England and Wales. If I am misunderstanding it, I am happy to be corrected.

Mrs Long: It is the Advocate General.

Mr O'Toole: As I understand it, the Advocate General is the legal adviser to the UK Government rather than to the devolved Government. I believe that the current Advocate General is Lord Hermer, who is an adviser to the UK Government. International affairs are an excepted matter, but the Attorney General is legal adviser to the devolved Government, and policing and justice is devolved, so it would be helpful to understand why that change is being made. It sounds, on the face of it —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

Mrs Long: The Attorney General does not have international responsibility, because international issues are not devolved. It is important that that person is the Advocate General where the matter is cross-jurisdictional. It was an error that it was laid out that the Attorney General, rather than the Advocate General, was named. We are seeking to correct that.

Mr O'Toole: That is most helpful. I appreciate the Minister's clarifying that.

It is certainly the case that we can challenge and ask those questions, and we will continue to do so. It will be helpful to understand the full background to that. I am sure that Committee members will investigate and interrogate that. It will also be helpful to understand whether the Attorney General for Northern Ireland's having that power has created any specific challenges, what those challenges are and why that matter needs to be addressed. I appreciate that clarification.

There are also some concerns, or, at least, questions, that some in the legal fraternity have raised about the update to clause 28, which is on ordering taxation of legal aid costs. It would be helpful to understand that. The Minister has a slight smile on her face. Interest groups will always make representations on behalf of their own interests. I am sure that she will make that argument. However, it is important to understand that, particularly given concerns about the squeezing of the legal aid budget and particularly as it affects people who do not have the means. Access to justice is a consistent challenge, and she has made the argument about the squeezing of her budget, so it would be helpful to understand that. It may well be that I am not in possession of information that would immediately clarify my question, so I will give way to the Justice Minister.

Mrs Long: Thank you. I appreciate that. That point was raised by, I think, Doug Beattie in an intervention. First of all, the reform of legal aid is not the subject of that particular amendment. The amendment is simply a technical change to say how the fees are counted. It is not on, for example, the reform of the taxing master's role more widely. That is part of a wider piece of work that the Department is doing on civil and legal aid. That will come separately in policy to the Committee and the House for further scrutiny down the line.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate that clarification from the Justice Minister. Again, I am sure that the Committee will find that useful in its deliberations and will seek to understand it on its own account.

I point to an anomaly not for the sake of being facetious but because I think that it is worth reflecting on. Clearly, the Bill legislates on the civil legal aid system, but there is an anomaly in that civil justice is not the responsibility of the Department of Justice. It is the responsibility of the Department of Finance. To be fair to the Minister of Finance, she has a lot on her plate. That anomaly points to the slightly strange situation in which the Department of Justice legislates for changes to the civil legal aid system but the Minister of Finance, who has other things on her proverbial plate, has to deal with the substance of civil law reform, whether it is in relation to defamation law, marital law or a whole other range of civil law matters. I do not see any logical reason for that anomaly to continue, particularly when the Department of Justice is literally bringing forward reforms to civil legal aid. It is worth reflecting on that point, and, perhaps, the deliberation on the legislation is an opportunity to do that.

I will not go through absolutely every clause in the Bill. Though I am not a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to continuing scrutiny of and deliberation on the Bill. I look forward to seeing the substance of the amendments. I do not want to labour the point, because others have made it, but it is reasonable to question a Minister about indicating at Second Stage an intention to amend the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister is not particularly enamoured with that challenge or criticism, but that is our job.

I do not completely buy the argument made by her colleague Ms Bradshaw that not seeing the text of the legislation should be fine because we have heard the policy intent. That, with the greatest respect, is completely nonsensical. Legislation is literally about the text that is in front of you. That is what they scrutinise in court.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one second. It is all well and good talking about policy intent. We have largely debated nothing but policy intent since we returned here. It has been policy intent after policy intent. We have all tabled motions about our intent to do things, but this is law. It will have to be tested in court. We heard from Mr Justice Humphreys that the text of a piece of Justice legislation that we passed in the previous mandate was not sufficiently scrutinised. No highly paid KC can go in front of a judge and say, "Ah, but the policy intent was this". In fact, some of those arguments were defeated in court. I am happy to give way to either the Member or the Minister.

Mrs Long: When it comes to the scrutiny of the policy intent, I brought to the House my concerns about the ruling by Justice Humphreys. The Supreme Court previously said that it is flawed to look at the consideration of any clause on the basis of the length of its entry in Hansard. Obviously, people will consider matters at other times and in other ways. There will be political consideration and debate that will not be reflected in Hansard. I therefore argue that, contrary to the ruling, the Committee did its scrutiny in that case. It simply did not see the particular issue with the Bill. That is entirely reasonable. The judgement stands as it stands, but, to be fair, the lack of scrutiny was not down to the Committee not having the Bill. The Committee had the Bill. It had every opportunity to explore those issues, and no one raised them, including the parties to the litigation proceedings on the Bill.

Mr O'Toole: The Minister makes some reasonable points, but the simple fact is this: the question of whether the Committee or every MLA did their job properly, given that the Bill, which is now an Act, passed by acclamation — there was not even a Division — only adds to the argument that we should do our job in this case even more assiduously and carefully and scrutinise the text of the amendments, which we should see as early as possible. That is why legitimate concern has been raised around that.

Policy intent and the way that it interacts with the Bill text is always an argument that is made in court, and, obviously, it was subject to some discussion in that case.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in a second. There has to be some draft legislation. You have to see the text of an amendment or a clause. It would be difficult for a judge to surmise that a piece of policy intent was properly considered in relation to the Bill text until there is Bill text.

I give way.

Ms Bradshaw: I hope that you will reflect on the Hansard report of the Minister's interventions.

Just to be absolutely clear, I was not saying that this was a good substitute; I was saying that there is an opportunity for the Committee to extend its consultation phase until the Minister and her officials bring this forward and that they can get on with this work in the meantime and ask for responses in this space. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Mr O'Toole: My constituency colleague has robustly clarified her position. I do not think that I put words in her mouth. I think it was relatively clear because I took a note of what she said. We are —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, let us keep it civil. Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: I have been talking about civil law and the importance of civil law and criminal law, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have not been in any way uncivil, and I would not seek to be uncivil.

There is lots of important stuff in the Bill, and I commend the Justice Minister for bringing — frankly, unlike other members of the Executive so far — a piece of significant legislation. However, we have a precedent to go back to, that other vexed word that has a legal meaning too. There is a precedent, which is that, in the previous mandate, we passed legislation that had a significant unintended consequence. Perhaps it was not an unintended consequence; perhaps it was intended, but it was not fully understood and thought through by the Members of the Assembly. We should be humble about that and should be serious about our jobs.

I have also been made aware of another outstanding issue in relation to that legislation about which I will correspond with the Minister and ask her to clarify. It is about the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act 2022. All it does is reinforce the need for us to scrutinise this Bill properly, and I hope that what emerges will be a significant piece of justice reform that will be to the credit of the Minister.

I know that sometimes the Minister enjoys robust exchanges in the Chamber; perhaps she does not always enjoy them. However, there is an important point here. This is about challenge — sometimes it is about difficult exchange — to get to a place that is better. It will be better and substantial legislation that actually works, if we do our jobs properly and scrutinise it.

Clearly, we will support the passage of the Bill at Second Stage. We look forward to the text of the amendments and to scrutinising the important subjects contained therein.

Mr Dunne: I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak at Second Stage of the Justice Bill as a new member of the Justice Committee. We look forward to the work ahead of us on the Bill. Given the scale of the challenges facing the Police Service, courts, victims and witnesses of crime, it is imperative that every effort is made to improve and strengthen the operation and effectiveness of our justice system. That is something that we can all unite around in the House today.

We are cognisant of the well-known pressures facing the departmental budget. That has been mentioned by some Members already this afternoon.

It is of some concern that the Minister intends to bring forward the reforms in this format, as has been widely covered, with several major and significant policy areas coming forward by way of six additional amendments. However, it is an opportunity for us all to play our part, and there must be full scrutiny at every stage, including the full exploration of any unintended consequences. The interest shown today around the House is a positive sign for engagement and scrutiny of the Bill both from Committee members and non-Committee Members, who have shown quite a bit of interest. That is a positive sign for everybody, including the Minister.

The explanatory and financial memorandum suggests that the Bill's provisions will primarily be delivered within existing resources. That is an example of where there needs to be a lot more detail given and more exploration done in the weeks and months ahead. We all have a part to play in that and look forward to it and to listening to the various stakeholders, which has been emphasised by the Chair and the Deputy Chair, through engagement with the officials and taking evidence in the right time and in the right way. Everybody — the different cohorts — will be impacted differently, and it is important that we assess the framework and make sure that it is fair and workable.

I turn to Part 1 of the Bill, in particular the retention of biometric data. As a party, we recognise the need to strike a fair balance between upholding the rights, freedoms and liberties of those who come into contact with the police as regards the retention of their DNA and data and, importantly, ensuring that the PSNI, legal authorities and agencies have the wherewithal, capacity and tools to keep the flame of truth and justice alive for victims of crime.

Biometric data, as has been mentioned, is a matter that is ever-evolving as technology advances, and it is important that legislation is agile enough to reflect those changes. As technology advances so quickly, it is important to have that flexibility built in to reflect the advances that there have been even since the work started. We do not want to ever get into a situation where unidentified biometric data is deleted only for it to be later proven that emerging technology would, in fact, have been capable of connecting that data and persons to serious crimes against persons and property. That would be an abdication of the state's obligations to innocent victims. We are not satisfied either that data pertaining to those who have been arrested but are innocent and later acquitted of wrongdoing should be retained in perpetuity. We agree that material obtained by consent should be retained only until it is no longer needed and will not be added to a DNA or fingerprint database. It is undoubtedly a complex area, and we will need to see more detail on the Bill come forward in the weeks and months ahead at Committee Stage and the stages that will follow that.

Clause 1 outlines distinct arrangements governing the retention of data that is held in connection with different persons' offences and the various lengths and types of sentence. We need to hear more on how confident the Minister is that the PSNI will be able to embed the proposed changes into the current software system, calculating biometric retention periods under different legislative frameworks. The proposed 75/50/25-year model will require much more scrutiny. That work started with officials last week, and it was helpful for all the Committee members who were present, particularly as that model is not in operation in any other part of the UK. That will be interesting, and there is a lot more work to be done on it. The role and remit of the commissioner will be another important consideration, building on the experience of Scotland in 2021 when their commissioner's work began. There are lessons to be learned from our neighbours in Scotland, and I am sure that that work will continue.

Part 4 covers the administration of justice. It is positive that clause 25 will cut off any route to serious charges related to the death of a child or vulnerable adult being dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence, without lesser charges of allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die having been determined. It is important to ensure that opportunities for prosecution are not lost if new evidence, in fact, comes to light in trial proceedings flowing from the new section 5 domestic offence.

Overall, there is a lot more information to come. We all look forward to more detail coming to the Committee in the weeks and months ahead. I concur with my colleague Joanne Bunting, the Committee Chair, who spelt out clearly our party's position on these wide-ranging matters and the importance of focusing on the right way and best way and not just the way that is most convenient for the Minister or any other Member.

Mr Gaston: I will begin by noting the long title of the Bill. We are told that it is a Bill to:

Given those parameters, I press the Minister to reassure the House by confirming that she has no plans to attempt to raise the criminal age of responsibility either by way of amendment or by secondary legislation. I note that Mr O'Toole had concerns in that regard, coming from a different angle. I am happy for the Minister to take the opportunity through an intervention now or in her summing up to confirm her intentions. I caution Members against any attempt to amend the Bill to raise the age of criminal responsibility. I remind the Chamber of the horrendous murder of two-year-old James Bulger by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables.

Miss McAllister: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought that, particularly at the Second Stage of a Bill, Members should speak to the principles of the Bill. I do not believe that we have such an amendment in front of us, nor is that issue in the Bill to be discussed. Is it proper, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Member discusses that item rather than relating his comments to the Bill that is front of us?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I thank the Member for raising that point of order. A degree of latitude has, however, been shown across the piece today. I invite Mr Gaston to continue his remarks.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will move on.

Those two 10-year-olds displayed a degree of premeditated viciousness that is hard to credit.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Absolutely.

Mrs Long: Perhaps I can cut this short by setting out the position. The Member suggested that I may want to make amendments by way of secondary legislation: I am not sure how that would happen. Primary legislation would be needed in order to change the minimum age of criminal responsibility. To do that, I would have to get Executive approval, and, so far, that Executive approval has not been forthcoming. I am happy to deal with the issue in more detail in my winding-up speech, but I reassure the Member in that regard.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the Minister's intervention.

I will move on to clause 1. I trust that the Committee will give the provisions on the retention of biometric data particularly close scrutiny. Members will note that clause 1 amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1989. That complex legislation deals with DNA and fingerprint evidence and how long it can be retained. I trust that the Committee will satisfy itself beyond doubt that no steps are being taken that would impede future prosecutions arising from the hundreds of unsolved murders resulting from the terrorist campaign. All the contributions to date have focused on the rights of people; I want to introduce to the debate the rights of victims. We know that there is slim hope of prosecutions, but we also know that developments in DNA have produced breakthroughs decades later, as in the case of the murder of John Proctor, an RUC reservist who was gunned down as he visited his wife and newborn at Magherafelt hospital in 1981. Thirty years later, IRA man Seamus Kearney was convicted of that heinous murder because his DNA was discovered on a cigarette butt at the scene. Shamefully, because of the immoral Belfast Agreement on which this House is built, he served only two years of the life sentence that he should have faced for murdering a father who had just visited his newborn. Having their day in court and the guilty verdict, even after so many years, meant a lot to the family, however.

Nothing should be done with the Bill that snuffs out hope for such victims, and it should not deliver aid to terrorists like Seamus Kearney, who was convicted in the Proctor case. Again, perhaps the Minister would like to give me her assurance on that point, either now or at the end when she is summing up.

Clause 22 also raises interesting issues. While I appreciate that there have been serious problems and delays in the Policing Board reaching tenable decisions on ill-health retirement and injury on duty awards, the delegating of those functions to board officials, as proposed in clause 22 does not strike me as being any guarantee of a better outcome, as it is often those very officials who make the dubious recommendations. Giving officials the power to do largely as they please is not a solution.

I want to flag my early opposition to clause 23. The clause, in repealing section 29 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003, removes the Audit Office's oversight role when it comes to the PSNI. That would be fine if we were to assume that the Policing Board is up to the job. It is important to remember, however, that the Audit Office is not just about finances. Recently, we had an example of that in my constituency when the Audit Office conducted an extraordinary audit of Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council that was primarily about performance. The Audit Office can therefore perform a useful role. With the Policing Board boasting a terrorist such as Mr Kelly in its current membership, it requires all the oversight that is available to it. Perhaps the Minister can explain to the House why she seeks to remove the confidence-building measure —.

Miss Hargey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you remind the Member that, when he talks about other Members who have been elected to the Chamber, he should do so with respect?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Miss Hargey. I was about to do that.

Mr Gaston, please stand. In the Assembly, we treat other Members with respect. That is a process that your predecessor, despite many of the things that he said, always followed. I expect you to follow the same process. I have given you a degree of latitude, but that latitude has now stopped. Do you understand?

Mr Gaston: Certainly. I will bear that in mind moving forward, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Once again, I encourage the Minister to explain to the House why she seeks to remove the confidence-building measure of the Audit Office having an oversight role.

Moving to clause 25, perhaps the Minister will explain —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes, go on ahead.

Mrs Long: I can clarify that I am not.

Mr Gaston: The Bill tells me differently, from my reading of it. I know that I have not been here for long, but that is certainly not the way that I read it.

Moving on to clause 25, perhaps the Minister will explain why it is thought necessary to amend section 7 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.

Finally, clause 28 removes the long-standing supervisory and review role for taxing masters, whereby the quantum of legal aid payments can be independently reviewed upon an order for taxation by the court. Clause 28 makes the Department the judge of its own cause. Is that fair, Minister?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Nuala McAllister.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for letting me in at this late stage. I was at an Assembly Commission meeting. I did not hear all the comments from all the Members, but I gather that everyone stayed mostly within the principles of the Bill at Second Stage. I also want to comment on a number of aspects within the clauses.

First of all, I welcome the Bill's coming through its Second Stage in the House. I commend the Justice Minister for bringing forward the sixth piece of legislation in her time as Minister. It is clear that victims are a priority and that the team in the Department has been working on the many miscellaneous items provided within the Bill. I want to speak specifically on a number of those. First, I should declare — or maybe I should not, but I will — that I am a member of the Policing Board, so I will speak to some of the elements that are a concern for it.

First, for some moments, I will focus on the retention of biometric material specifically, because, in my role as a member of the Policing Board, I have come across this issue many times, from requests from members of the public, officials within the board and asking the PSNI. One of the aspects of that is the most recent high-profile case of Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney. I understand that a hearing is going on, so I will not touch on many aspects of that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Be cautious.

Miss McAllister: Yes, but I want to touch on the fact that there is retention of fingerprints when it comes to individuals such as Barry and Trevor. They have both spoken to me on many occasions about what the PSNI is doing with the retention of that data. It is not just about them, it is about the many others in question. I believe that we should be proud of the human rights-based approach that we take to our criminal justice system in its entirety — not just the policing aspect, but as people move through the court system. That should be applied to everyone, so I welcome the process that is set out in the Bill on the retention of biometric material.

I also want to discuss the issue of children specifically, which is contained within the Bill, and the focus from the Minister around the human rights compliance. I have already mentioned that I am proud — we should all be — of our human rights-based approach to the criminal justice process. Again, as a member of the Policing Board, I often visit this issue when it comes to children, and not only at the forefront of the criminal justice process in their engagement with the police. We hear from victims and stakeholders as they make their way through the system, and one of those aspects is bail. I also want to highlight one of the positives about cross-departmental work with the Department of Justice and the Department of Health, which my colleague may have raised earlier, around bail fostering. Hopefully, that is something that we can see explored further.

Going back to the specific elements of the Bill, there are many occasions in Northern Ireland where we see children come before the courts due not to the actions of the children but to the actions of adults, who have catapulted them into certain behaviours. In the summer, we saw some of the most recent aspects of that. It is important that the presumption of bail in all circumstances for children is actually looked at and is being dealt with within the Bill.

As a member of the Policing Board, I think that it is very important that the Department of Justice, the PPS, the PSNI and the Policing Board respond at every opportunity with a human rights-based approach. That is what the Bill intends to do when it comes to children and young people. On Thursday, the Policing Board will approve a report on the human rights of children and young people. It is important that all agencies work in harmony to ensure that all processes are human-rights compliant, and the Bill is a further step to ensure that that takes place.

Ill-health retirement was a focus of the previous Member who spoke. I point that Member to a recent court judgement. I believe that it was Justice Scoffield — I may be corrected — who made the judgement in February 2023 that, in the decision-making process for ill-health retirement, members of the Policing Board and officials cannot change the decision of a senior medical practitioner (SMP). Some elements of the Member's speech on the provisions of the Bill that relate to ill-health retirement and scrutinising decisions therefore do not have effect. I have a great deal of sympathy on the issue, because we all have many officers coming to us regarding ill-health retirement. The Minister has been taking that seriously and is ensuring that we get more SMPs on board. The argument that there is a process of taking away scrutiny does not really stack up when we have the High Court judgement that we cannot change the decision of the person who has the evidence in their hand. I am glad to see that the Bill will delegate some responsibility, because we are seeing more delays at board level, not through the fault of any officers or individuals but because of the backlog of work and the way that the timings and diaries work. That is another aspect that should be welcomed.

With regard to the generalities of the scrutiny of the Bill, I was in the Chamber at the start of the debate and I am here at the end of it, and I have heard many times about the tabling of amendments at Consideration Stage. For how many mandates has that been done for many Bills that were introduced by Justice, Finance and all Ministers? I cannot answer that because I have not been around for that long, but I can ask this: how many Ministers have been as forthcoming about the policy intent of such amendments? I understand that a call for evidence and clause-by-clause scrutiny may be being conflated, but what I am hearing from members of the Justice Committee is not a constructive way of scrutinising legislation. You can still work in parallel. You can have your call for evidence when it comes to policy intent. You would not have the wording in front of you, but how many stakeholders would be unwilling to engage? They would be willing to engage at every opportunity when it comes to amendments before a Committee. Clause-by-clause scrutiny can also happen in parallel. I am happy to take an intervention, but it is important to highlight whether the Committee is going to be destructive or constructive in its scrutiny of the Bill.

It is very important that the Bill progresses and that we do not have any further delay. Many of my colleagues have highlighted this, but it would be silly of me not to highlight again the delay that was due to there being no sitting Assembly. Civil servants cannot simply draft legislation without a Minister in place to direct them to do so. I understand that the Minister and the Department wanted to introduce a further justice Bill in the previous mandate but could not do so, and then there was the delay of two years. There is a bit of confusion about scrutiny of the Bill, but there is also some information being put out disingenuously. It is the intention of the Department and the Minister to be very forthcoming on the policy intent. To conflate that with a lack of scrutiny is just wrong, but there may be further things at play in how the Bill will move through the Committee. I am open to any intervention that anyone wants to make.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Member for giving way.

We have debated this at length, and I was very clear when I spoke as Chair of the Committee and as an individual Member that we are coming to the Bill with the best of intentions: to produce an Act that has been through the proper processes and has been effectively scrutinised. We will do that in as generous and as constructive a way that we can. I have been very clear about that, and the remarks that I made as Chair were made on behalf of the entire Committee. We stated our concern from the outset — it has been an ongoing issue — and we met the Minister to discuss the matter. The Minister is well aware of our views, and it would be inherently wrong to move through Second Stage without voicing the Committee's concerns. I have put on record that the Committee intends to work constructively through the issues as best it can and to collaborate with the Department for the betterment of justice and better law. How many more times does it need to be said?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member will realise that she may not have been present for the entirety of the debate.

Miss McAllister: I was here for the Chair's remarks at the start. I listened to her, but the remarks that I heard then were not constructive. I understand that the Chair of any Committee must bring forward the Committee's remarks, but I had no confirmation that any such parallel process — a call for evidence and clause-by-clause scrutiny — would take place.

Ms Bunting: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Ms Bunting: The reason why I did not specify that is that, thus far, the Committee has neither had a conversation about it nor made its decision. Until such times as the Committee has a comprehensive conversation about how it wishes to proceed, I will not stand up and make remarks on behalf of the Committee when I do not know the Committee's position.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for her intervention. That is fair enough, but, therefore, it is equally fair to highlight the contradiction that, if you are not aware of the Committee's views on how and when you will scrutinise the entirety of the policy intent of this or any Bill, how can you claim that proper scrutiny will not take place or that the proper processes are not being used? I understand that many Members are not happy with amendments being tabled at Consideration Stage. I also understand that, sometimes, there are political elements to that rather than other elements.

Ms Bunting: Will the Member give way?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Excuse me. Will the Member take her seat? Nuala, will you also take your seat? So far, there has been a particular set of arguments. Nuala, you have made your point; the Chair has made her point. We are not getting beyond tit for tat and back and forth. We all appreciate a good debate in the Chamber, and I am glad that we have had one today, but, please, move on.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Deputy Speaker. I do not want to go against what he has said.

I take on board the comments that have been made, and, therefore, I look forward to constructive scrutiny of the Bill as it moves through Committee Stage. Hopefully, we will see that happen at a faster pace than has been the case in the past. I raise the issue, Mr Deputy Speaker, because of Bills stalling at Committee Stage in the past because some people were not happy with what was moving through. I get your point about moving on, but I want to highlight the point that we must be constructive where we need to be, and I respect that every Committee Chair has a place to criticise and to bring forward the Committee's views on the Bill. I look forward to discussing it in more detail at Consideration Stage when we discuss those further elements.

I will reflect further on a number of aspects that were referred to by a number of Members today. Throughout the debate, a number of Members specifically mentioned the removal of liberty. Will the Minister comment on that? I am sure that she will do so in her response. The Bill is not intended to remove any liberty.

In fact, the Bill is about ensuring confidence and human rights compliance in the entire criminal justice process.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mr Frew: How confident can the Member be of her statement that there will be no loss of liberty when she has not seen any of the amendments on serious crime?

Miss McAllister: As I said, we do not have any amendments in front of us, but the Minister has been clear about the policy intent of the amendments since she introduced the Bill. The Member may know something that I do not know about the Minister's intentions, but I can read them clearly. I am sure that the Minister will address them in her conclusion.

I recognise the hard work that many officials in the Department of Justice have put into the Bill. As I mentioned, the hope was that the legislation could have been passed before this mandate. That did not happen, but we have to reflect on the fact that there are many justice Bills and those that come before the House have many provisions. In order for them to move swiftly through in a process that allows scrutiny, they need to be in a justice Bill that has miscellaneous provisions, not through primary legislation. I wanted to touch on that, because many Members spoke about the fact that the Bill covers a wide range of issues. I respect the Minister's acknowledgement that some of the details are specific. She has provided a lot of information, and the Department has been forthcoming in that regard.

The Minister can correct me, if I am wrong, but I was reading the Bill and doing a calculation while other Members were speaking, and, if the Assembly moved to a process of bringing through primary legislation every time, particularly legislation involving the Department of Justice, we would need 11 pieces of primary legislation for this Bill. That would not be the right course of action to take to ensure that we have confidence in criminal justice and our justice system overall. We need to ensure that, where we can make legislation to close gaps, we do it in the way that best suits the purpose of a swift justice process.

I will bring my comments to a close by saying that I welcome the Bill's Second Stage and look forward to working in my capacity as a Policing Board member on its passage. It will have an effect on children in particular and on the retention of data, which I spoke about. I have a priority focus on those two areas, and I look forward to seeing them enabled in law and seeing positive outcomes.

Mr Carroll: As has been said, our job is to sift through legislation, scrutinise it and ask questions. There are a lot of outstanding questions on the Bill that I will come to in a moment, and I hope to have some clarity from the Minister on them.

I recognise that large parts of the Bill relate to children and young people. Following issues that NICCY raised in correspondence to all MLAs, it appears that the Bill, whilst, no doubt, complex, does not seem to be fully cognisant of a children's rights framework. It is also worth mentioning that the legislation may impact on other groups, including asylum seekers and migrants — people who are often othered and marginalised in our society.

The aspects of the Bill that deal with biometric data require further focus and scrutiny. To be honest, I was completely astounded to find out that the state can hold data indefinitely for people who have been convicted of crime. There are serious questions to ask about that practice and how it can be allowed to continue. Doing away with the indefinite holding of data is obviously welcome, but I do not honestly know whether the 75/50/25-year model is either reasonable or required. I remain to be convinced of that. NICCY also stated that it is unsure why the model should be part of the Bill. I ask the Minister this: where is the right to privacy and a personal life, especially for children and young people?

I move now to the retention of data for 25 years for two or more juvenile non-serious convictions that do not involve a custodial sentence of more than five years. Someone under 18 who has a conviction for a non-serious offence involving a custodial sentence of more than five years will attract a 50-year retention period. At first look, that flies in the face of rehabilitation and a second chance, which is crucial for young people, and it seems excessive. You can serve your time, but the state will still have your data and info. It is blanket treatment, it is indiscriminate and it allows the state to hold information against people whom it deems to be undesirable. Who would seriously suggest that it would not be used for political purposes? I would have such concerns generally, at any time, but they have been amplified by the recent PSNI data leak. There is also no mechanism for people to contest the retention of their data.

Another omission that Members mentioned is the criminal age of responsibility. It is not dealt with. It should be raised to 16. It is a missed opportunity. The Minister may have explained her rationale for that earlier, and I might have missed it; I am not sure.

The Bill does not deal with the social or economic factors relating to crime. It should include looking at social and financial measures to support those dealing with the issues that lead people to criminal activity.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Mrs Long: The Member makes a valid point on the socio-economic implications and consequences of offending. However, those are not matters for the Department of Justice; they are matters for other Departments, and they would be required to bring forward their own legislation to deal with those socio-economic issues. It is not something that falls within my remit, nor could it be part of the Bill.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for that. Obviously, it is a wider point. You need to look at the issues relating to crime if you want to stop it. We are told that the Executive collaborate on many issues and, I believe, on this Bill as well. The point stands, but I take her point.

I move now to live links. I have a concern about clause 23 removing the requirement for the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit the Policing Board's performance plan. Again, I might have missed it earlier, but I am not sure why that is in the Bill or what the political rationale for it is.

The changes to legal aid require further exploration. The Minister's argument for the Department of Justice having more control over determining payments for legal aid work is that it will streamline the process and the work, but it will also limit independent oversight.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Mrs Long: That is not the argument. The argument here is that, at the minute, the process for anything that goes through the Taxing Master is opaque, and there is not transparency and accountability. That is something that we are looking at as part of wider reform. This is a specific amendment that is not related to that wider reform around the Taxing Master's power, how that should work and how it should operate in future. That will be brought forward as part of further policy development work that the Department is taking forward. This is narrow in scope, and it is not meant to impinge on that wider issue. The entire premise of what we are trying to do is to replace an opaque process that, most people, including some who work in the justice system, have confessed, they do not understand with one that is accountable, transparent and easily auditable, because all public money ought to be held to full and open account.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for that. I agree with her last point especially, and I welcome the other legislation that she is going to bring through on the issue. However, I have an overriding concern about payments being potentially limited, late or not forthcoming with this legislation or, potentially, the new legislation that the Minister mentioned. Access to justice should be for all, not just those who are able to pay.

Clause 29 focuses on criminal records, youth justice and the need for transparency with the rights of children. There is no mention in the Bill of a clean slate policy for young people when they turn 18 and giving them a second chance — a chance to start their life again. That should be considered by the Minister. I look forward to some clarity on the other points that I have made.

Mrs Long: As I mentioned at the beginning of the debate, progressing this legislation to improve the effectiveness and operation of the justice system is a priority for me. I thank all the Members for their mainly constructive, positive and always lively engagements in the Chamber today. As the Bill moves through its stages in the Assembly, I hope that we can continue in that spirit in order to ensure that this important legislation reaches the statute book as soon as possible and starts to deliver for those who enter the justice system across Northern Ireland. I know that many of you support the provisions of the Bill as introduced and those that I intend to bring forward as amendments at Consideration Stage. I want to turn now, however, to some of the issues that were raised during the debate.

The Chair of the Justice Committee initially raised an issue in respect of what she perceives to be a rushed introduction and the Committee's preference that we should have deferred introduction of the Bill until all of the drafting was complete. A number of Members echoed those sentiments. This Justice Bill is, however, only one of three Bills that I intend to bring forward during the mandate. In line with the advice of the Executive Office, we have been advised that we should limit legislation to one Bill a year. As I have said in the Chamber before, there are indeed restrictions in terms of capacity in the Office of the Legislative Council. That is not news, and I have said it in the Chamber before when discussing my legislative programme. That is to ensure sufficient time for each Bill to complete its full Assembly journey. Therefore, it was important that the Justice Bill was introduced at the soonest possible opportunity, not least because some of the content is required to address court judgements that the Department remains in default of and therefore remains at risk of court action.

If the Justice Bill were the only Bill that I intended to progress, it would make perfect sense to simply delay its introduction until the additional planned content was drafted so that it could be included in the Bill from the outset. It has to be said, however, that, given the scope of the Bill, it is likely that on its passage through the Chamber and Committee, there may be other issues that the Committee and other Members of the House would wish to add to the Bill. It seems that we were never going to know what the fully formed outcome of the Bill would be until it had passed through the Assembly. For those who throw their head in their hands in despair at the idea that Members or, indeed, the Minister might amend the Bill, it is worth remembering that that is the purpose of the Chamber. That is what we are here to do. It is right that people should be able to do that within the scope of the Bill.

There is a growing backlog of primary legislation requirements across the justice system that are critical for my Department and for the delivery of justice. Indeed, a great amount of the content of this Bill is a hangover from the previous, truncated mandate, when I had to adjust the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill from being a miscellaneous provisions Bill because some of those were put on pause. It is important that we maximise the use of the time that we have available in this mandate.

We cannot always lag behind other jurisdictions. I spent most of the previous mandate doing catch-up on basic issues such as domestic abuse, stalking and other legislation, but I am now in a position where I have to play catch-up around these technical issues. The drafting of all the planned additions to the Bill has commenced, and, while some are at an advanced stage of preparedness, it will take until the end of the year before the final additional provisions are drafted in full. However, the policy intent is clear, and that, therefore, provides no barrier to the Committee's call for evidence, as the legislative drafting will be complete when that concludes, allowing the Committee and witnesses to proceed with full scrutiny of each clause.

It is also important to say that I am not waiting until all the additional provisions are fully drafted. I have undertaken with the Committee directly and via my officials that we will share the drafted clauses as soon as they become available. Nothing will be retained in the Department that the Committee does not have sight of once it is completed.

Allowing for the time that is necessary to complete all of the pre-introduction clearances for a revised Bill and to secure Executive approval for introduction, had I decided to delay introduction, it would most likely have been February or March 2025 before a Bill could have been introduced in the Assembly. There would then be a corresponding delay in the remaining stages of the Bill, and it would not complete its passage until early 2026 at the earliest. That would, of course, delay the time frame for the implementation of the Bill's provisions and would extend the period during which we would need to continue to rely, for example, on the temporary live links provision in the Coronavirus Act 2020 for considerably longer than any of us would wish.

The extended timetable for the completion of the Justice Bill's progress through the Assembly would also have had an impact on Committee scrutiny of the sentencing and victims Bills in this mandate, as it would then be necessary to overlap Bills. That is something that we have sought to minimise throughout, having learned from previous experience.

There are significant issues and public commitments to victims who have worked hard with my Department on provisions in the sentencing Bill and have extended the scope of what was to be a stand-alone hate crime Bill, so that we have further provisions and protections for victims of crime, including hate crime, in the latter Bill.

I would not be able to maintain a clear gap between each of the Bills at Committee Stage — something that was actively seeking to deliver — in order to avoid overburdening the Committee and Assembly with overlapping Bills. Whilst a mixed-content Bill is, by definition, broad in scope, this Bill is by no means unusually so. Previous miscellaneous provisions Bills have routinely had in excess of 80 clauses and more than five schedules.

On the Committee scrutiny issue that was raised, I reference the Keeling schedule to which the Chair of the Committee drew our attention. That has never been provided by any Department or the OLC as part of the Committee scrutiny process in the House. It is not part of TEO guidance on the legislative process either, and it has no legal standing. In effect, it has no standing because it cannot be verified until the Bill is complete. I consulted with the OLC, and it indicated that it has never produced such a schedule. However, I know that the Committee will seek to engage with first legislative counsel directly on that point. If a Keeling schedule is thought to be of assistance to the Committee, it can commission that from the Bill Office, but that is not a matter for me or the Department to take forward.

On why so much additional content is being proposed for Consideration Stage, that is not unusual for the Department of Justice either. It has always been the practice of my Department to bring forward additional policy areas for inclusion at Consideration Stage of mixed-content Bills. They are the only broad-based vehicles for reform. However, that breadth of scope is balanced by the very narrow technical nature of the individual sections. Whilst the provisions are narrow, there are many of them. Therefore, it is broad-based only in the sense that it covers a lot of ground — the provisions are quite narrowly focused.

I would prefer to have a series of smaller Bills. However, I have been advised that it would not be good practice for me to bring through, for example, eight or nine Bills with maybe one or two clauses in each. Also, with two shortened Assembly mandates, we have limited time to progress a significant programme of legislation, including reforms that we could not process during the previous mandate. Many of the provisions would not warrant a separate Bill. Others would be delayed until the next mandate were they not in this Bill, and that, as I say, could leave us at risk of legal challenge.

The amendments also address court judgements. Somebody said that they should not be brought forward at the convenience of the Department or the Minister. I can assure you that we are not bringing those amendments forward for my convenience. It is because there are court judgements hanging over us that need to be addressed. We aim to have those amendments drafted around the end of the calendar year but some of the content will be ready sooner, and we will share that with the Committee as soon as it is available.

It is odd that Members who have criticised my Department and me for not bringing forward enough legislation more quickly now complain that we are moving too quickly. That irony will not be lost on anyone listening to the debate.

I want to address the Henry VIII powers now because they relate directly to the breadth and scope of a miscellaneous provisions Bill such as this, and a number of Members raised concerns about them. The provisions of clause 31 may look wide, but the clause needs to be read carefully in legislative terms. It is not a power for me, as Justice Minister, to do whatever I like. I cannot use it to alter policy or to dilute or disturb policy that I may not support. The provisions in clause 31 are not standard, so they need to be seen in context. Not all Bills will need a provision of that nature, but it is an important safeguard in appropriate circumstances.

Where a Bill is complex, wide-ranging and amends or repeals other statutes to a large degree, such as this Bill, a provision of that sort is wise and proportionate. Given my own observations on the complexities of drafting needed to give effect to the policy objectives in the Bill, which the Committee has commented on, I am firmly of the view that clause 31 is appropriate on this occasion. As I said, the powers in clause 31 do not allow me to amend the legislation for any purpose. The powers are limited to making supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving provisions for the sole purpose of giving full effect to the intended policy provisions of the Bill and nothing more. The clause is necessary to manage a small and particular risk, which arises from the complexities of mixed-content Bills such as this. Although every effort is made by officials, departmental legal advisers, legislative drafters and the Committee to ensure that all legislation is error-free, there is always a possibility that an amendment or a repeal is missed that will render the policy objective impossible to implement or that will create a gap in the law. The provisions in clause 31 enable me to offer the Assembly a fix — I stress the word "fix" — without which it would be necessary to await the next primary vehicle, which may be well over a year away, thus creating an unhelpful lacuna in the law. Those powers are therefore important in mixed-content Bills but are used by exception only.

I will now move on to the issue of resources, which, again, a number of Members explored. It is true to say that my Department is undoubtedly facing significant budgetary challenges. Those challenges have been very well rehearsed in the Chamber, so I will not rehearse them again today. Many of the Bill's provisions, however, relate to matters where we are seeking to meet our obligations under the ECHR and international law. As such, we will have to make their implementation a priority so that we can fulfil our statutory duties in a lawful manner. We will continue to manage very carefully the resources that are made available to us and continue to take the difficult decisions that are required to allow us to remain within budget, as we always do. The majority of the provisions in the Bill, unlike with previous Bills that were heavy in policy content, attract no additional cost at all, however. Some, such as live links, have the ability to reduce costs.

I think that it was the Committee Chair who said that the financial information was to be passed on to RaISe. That was done by my Department on 18 September and was also copied to the Committee Clerk at the same time. I am therefore not clear as to why the Committee has not had sight of it, but the Department has provided that information. If there are any issues with it, however, I am more than happy to engage with the Chair directly and resolve them.

The Chair also raised the issue of cooperation with other Departments, especially on the release of children on bail and the availability of suitable accommodation. First, it is important to note that that is not instituting a change in practice but merely creating a legislative underpinning for existing best practice. That is an important consideration. We all have a duty to keep people safe, but the use of custody when their offending behaviour does not require it is in breach of children's rights and our UN commitments. We cannot continue to hold children, or, indeed, anyone, in custody simply because we do not have the means to secure safe accommodation for them in an alternative location. To do so would be unjust and wrong. The purpose of custody is clearly set out in law.

We recognise, however, that, in order to prevent that happening, we need to increase the provision of alternative accommodation in the community. My Department will continue to explore options with the Department of Health and, indeed, the Department for Communities in order to address the issue. Only once that additional community provision is available will my Department commence the relevant provision preventing lack of accommodation from being used as a reason to refuse bail.

The new provisions introduce two tests, both of which must be met in order for the court to remand a child in custody. The idea that children can never be remanded in custody is, again, flawed analysis. They can, but there are two tests that must first be met. The first test requires the court to consider whether it is very likely that a custodial sentence will be handed down for the offence for which the child is charged. Where the court concludes that it is not likely, it must grant bail — that is good practice — regardless of any other circumstances of the case. That test must be applied each time that a child appears before the court throughout the remand period to ensure that the remand in custody is still appropriate. Furthermore, the inclusion of the second test means that the court may still release a child on bail despite the strong likelihood that a custodial sentence could be applied if the court believes that remand in custody is not essential.

My officials have met representatives from a range of stakeholders, including the PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service, the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service and Office of the Lady Chief Justice to discuss any concerns that they have about those new provisions. They have also ensured that relevant colleagues in the Department of Health have been kept apprised of issues that may have an impact on them. That work provided the opportunity to discuss potential issues before the draft provisions were finalised. In addition, the work has been discussed with children's sector organisations. I know that Mr Carroll, who is not in his place, raised that particular issue. Those organisations are keen to see those changes be implemented.

Further concerns were raised about the notion of unconditional bail for children. Children can spend long periods on bail while they are waiting for their case to be dealt with, and complying with a raft of complex bail conditions over a prolonged period can be difficult for them. A breach of those conditions can lead to their coming back into court and being drawn further into the justice system, which is something that we try to avoid. Ironically, once their case is dealt with, if found guilty, they are often subject to far fewer conditions under a court order than they were while they were on bail and were technically innocent. Recommendations from a number of reports have advocated unconditional bail as standard for children. That is the baseline that we are introducing in the new provisions. It is important to note that the right to bail — in particular, unconditional bail — as standard is not absolute: it is a qualified right. We are not saying that conditions cannot be applied but that any decision to do so should be considered carefully, taking into account a range of factors, including the child's age, circumstances and their understanding of, and ability to comply with, any conditions imposed.

It is also important to say that, where parents wish to, for example, apply a curfew, they are, of course, as parents, at liberty to do so. It does not require a court order to tell your child where they can go or that they cannot go out at certain times of the day or night. Parents will also be involved in the consultation. A large-scale consultation by the Law Commission identified four grounds on which a court can consider refusing bail or imposing bail conditions: to prevent the child failing to surrender to custody; to prevent the child committing an offence while on bail; to prevent the child interfering with witnesses or otherwise obstructing the course of justice; or to prevent the child's release causing a serious threat to public order. Any bail conditions that are set should be the minimum needed to prevent one or more of those things from happening. Anecdotally, we have heard that parents request certain bail conditions, such as curfews, to help them to manage their child and keep them out of trouble. Although I understand that and empathise with parents who are trying to do their best for their children, the justice system and the use of bail conditions is not a parenting tool. It simply has to be used for the court's benefit for public interest, and it has to be in the interests of the law. If it means that we are going to be in breach of children's rights and our international obligations, it is not something that we can simply continue to do.

A number of issues have been raised about the biometrics section of the Bill, but I will first address the need for amendments to the biometrics provisions and why amendments are needed so soon after the Bill's introduction. As part of the stress testing of the legislation with the PSNI, we identified the need for some amendments to further improve it. It was not possible to make those change prior to the introduction of the Bill, and, therefore, I intend to bring those forward at Consideration Stage. The proposed amendments will include a power to photograph individuals in specified circumstances at a police station. That will align the power to take photographs with the powers to take fingerprints and non-intimate samples. A power to specify a date of attendance at a police station for fingerprinting samples and photographs will simplify the process and ensure the better management and provision of policing resources. The replacement of the term "reported" with the term:

in Part VI of PACE NI is to reflect operational procedures across the biometric provisions and avoid any confusion with the various meanings of the term "reported" in the criminal justice system. Clarification regarding the retention periods for biometrics on foot of community-based restorative justice schemes; the protection of biometric material that would normally fall for deletion but is subject to a decision pending by the Biometrics Commissioner regarding applications made under article 63G; and an amendment to ensure that biometrics held under article 63F, which concerns material pending investigation or proceedings, can be retained by the PSNI for up to 28 days. It is incorrect to suggest that those are unorthodox amendments. Those provisions were originally drafted in 2020, which speaks to how long it takes for us to develop legislation and take it through the House, and yet most people's biggest fear today seems to be about undue haste. These were drafted in 2020. It was through continuous engagement that we recognised where amendments were required. It is not unusual for changes to be identified during a period of four years, and those changes can be handled through simple amendments.

The handling of the biometrics consultation was also raised. The Department initially intended to include those provisions in a justice Bill that was being drafted during the previous mandate. At that time, there was a time constraint to complete that consultation and have the provisions included in the Bill. However, I direct Members who were concerned about the eight-week consultation to paragraph 65 of the Fresh Start Agreement, to which their parties were signatories, which reduced standard consultation periods to eight weeks from 12.

I appreciate the difficulties with consulting over the summer and the challenges associated with COVID, but we were up against a time barrier. Therefore, we had to continue with that. It was also a specific piece of legislation, and most of the respondents to the consultation were from very technical fields and dealt with it in a very technical way.

The Department has continued to engage with key stakeholders as the work has progressed, whether it is the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the PSNI or others. I hope that Members are reassured by the fact that subordinate legislation and updates to the PACE codes that are required to support the implementation of the legislation will also be subject to public consultation in due course. There will be further opportunity for scrutiny of the measures. The Department will ensure that there is good time for those future consultations to enable stakeholders to contribute fully. That subordinate legislation requires separate consultation, and, by the end of the process, it will have been fully considered.

The Department is also progressing work to assess the financial impacts of implementing the provisions on biometric data, some of which can only be determined when the full detail of the legislation is finalised, as we do not know what amendments will be tabled by Members or the Committee. There are likely to be costs associated with a number of the elements, such as the setting up of a commissioner to deal with the retention of biometric data. We are progressing work to assess the costs, including the development of potential staffing models, which will require consultation in due course with the commissioner, once they are appointed. There may also be costs to the PSNI in developing or updating IT systems to support the implementation of the legislation. We will engage with the PSNI further on that as it takes the work forward. However, it is court-ordered. It is not something that we can put on the long finger. Not doing that work would leave us in breach of human-rights obligations and the law. We have to proceed, but we will work with our partners to ensure that we do so in a proportionate way.

A number of Members said that they were concerned about the provisions on biometric data, in the sense that the less data you retain, the lower the chance of obtaining a speculative match and solving a crime. However, it is not the size of the database that is important but, rather, the data from the right people being retained and the number of crime scene profiles that are held. For example, when the Home Office commenced new legislation on biometric data in England and Wales in October 2013, over 1·7 million profiles and fingerprints were removed from the national DNA and fingerprint databases. Contrary to expectation, its introduction had no demonstrably adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the databases. In fact, the overall subject-to-crime-scene match rate on loading from the national DNA database increased.

There is, however, another train of thought, which I understand, that deletions will result in the loss of forensic identifications that would otherwise have been made. That is a natural consequence of removing fingerprints and DNA profiles from searchable databases. However, it should be noted that those revisions are not optional: they are required in order to comply with court judgements. A number of benefits have to be weighed against that disbenefit. A balanced and proportionate approach to the retention of DNA and fingerprints that respects the European Court's judgements and ensures that our domestic legislation complies with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is key. It will also remove the blanket and indefinite nature of the retention of material under the current law.

A regulation-making power for a new review mechanism to determine the necessity for the continued retention of biometric data, which can address Members' concerns and will, crucially, future-proof the provisions, is important. Independent oversight of the retention of DNA and fingerprints and the use or potential use of new biometric technology by the police in Northern Ireland also future-proofs the provisions and ensures that proper independent scrutiny and assurance is provided.

Doug Beattie, amongst others, raised a specific point about the interplay between retention and legacy investigations. I am aware that my officials have written in detail to the Committee about how the provisions will interface with the ICRIR. Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2013 contained a new biometric retention framework for Northern Ireland. If that had been commenced, a large volume of material would have fallen for deletion from police databases at that time. In 2015, prior to the proposed commencement of the legislation, the Department was alerted by the then Chief Constable to the potential impact that those deletions might have on legacy investigations. Minister Ford took the decision to delay commencement until a solution could be identified to lawfully mitigate that risk. That is the situation that we are now in. The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery was established following the introduction of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and has been operational since May 2024. The Act included a power to make regulations to permit the retention of designated collections of biometric material that would otherwise be destroyed under certain statutory destruction provisions. Remember, some of that material will have been collected in places other than Northern Ireland. The provision ensures that this is preserved material and that it is available for use by the ICRIR as and when required.

The independent commission regulations have now come into force, and we continue to liaise closely with the NIO and the PSNI to ensure that we align with their processes and procedures. For non-Troubles-related legacy cases, which the Member also expressed some concern around, the legislation enables the PSNI to continue to hold material taken from anyone in relation to an ongoing case. Provided that the case is ongoing, that data can be retained.

The balance to which I referred in my opening speech is essential and will, of course, be subject to Committee scrutiny. The Bill reflects the judgement, and the balance took account of, for example, Sunita Mason's review of the retention of criminal records and practice elsewhere. Experts have advised that the provisions are reasonable. They reflect my views and those of the Department, but the Committee is free to take further evidence at Committee Stage and, indeed, to discuss further with my officials whether it believes that we have reached the correct balance.

On the impact of live links, I assure Members that their use is always subject to the "in the interests of justice" test. Under article 44, a district judge in a Magistrates' Court may extend detention for up to a period of 96 hours with the requirement of the detainee and a police officer to appear in person before the court. The new provisions will enable a detainee and a police officer to participate in those proceedings before the court via a live link, without the need to travel to court in person. The PACE legislation sets out the responsibilities of officers to individuals in detention. Article 40 of PACE (NI) will be amended to enable the PSNI to carry out a police interview via live links, including provisions to ensure that compliance with PACE and the associated codes is appropriately transferred between the officer at the station and the officers conducting the live link interview.

Operationally introducing live links for reviews of police detention and interviews will provide much greater flexibility for the PSNI and will mean that reviews and interviews will, potentially, be dealt with more swiftly, meaning more efficient use of its scarce resources. For example, the current legislation requires a superintendent carrying out an interview to authorise, in person, an increase in the continued detention of a person in police custody from 24 hours to 36 hours. The new provisions provide an opportunity for a superintendent to undertake a review of the extension of detention via a live link, provided that the appropriate safeguards have been met, from a different station to that in which the detainee is held. The use of live links also has the potential to result in further efficiencies, particularly in travel and escort costs. The proposed provisions would also ensure that the Department was continuing to deliver on its digital strategy.

Maurice Bradley raised the issue of breaches of bail, covered in clause 7. I confirm that the PSNI has confirmed that it is content and that, in many cases, the provision is reflective of what happens in practice anyway. He also raised a point about whether accommodation can be varied where there is a risk of high-risk juveniles coming into contact with lower-risk individuals. We are confident that the current layout of the Juvenile Justice Centre is adequate to manage that successfully, and, indeed, the staff do so day-to-day. Live links in interviews will be governed by PACE, as I said, so there is guidance and safeguards around that. Those were the main issues raised.

I was asked why the live links legislation and a draft of the replacements for the live links used in court during COVID have not been brought forward. Mr Frew said that this was straightforward. He said that, because we had COVID regulations, it should not be that difficult. However, that misses the point. We have not been transposing the COVID regulations, which were done at pace and without consultation, an issue that, I know, caused the Member concern. We have gone back to first principles. The legislative drafting instructions to the Office of Legislative Counsel are 138 pages long. They are far from simple or straightforward. We are not simply replicating the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CVA). That legislation was brought forward to deal with a health emergency. The current wider provision sits very uneasily alongside a number of pre-existing pieces of primary criminal and secondary civil legislation that deal with live links but do not entirely align with the CVA. Having gone back to first principles to ensure that what we put in place for the future will meet our longer-term needs, we found that we can cope both with criminal and civil proceedings and do that in a nuanced way. The previous approach to primary legislation stretches back 20 years, and it was piecemeal and more cautious about when and for whom live links could be used — for example, with the defendant's consent. We are attempting to consolidate processes into a single approach that will not need to be constantly revisited in primary legislation but that has some flexibility in secondary legislation for some of the factors that influence the decision. It is important that we ensure that there is no diminution in access to special measures and that we get the balance right with human rights considerations and access to justice. The model that we have ended up with is set out in the way-forward document that was published earlier this month, and it is quite similar to the CVA but is much more comprehensive.

The policy approach is based on extensive stakeholder engagement and consultation as well as on learning from experience here and in other jurisdictions. We have also had to continue making extension orders, which has proved to be quite time-consuming, since they can cover only a maximum of six months. On each occasion, as well as drafting the order, we have had to document the justification for continuing to use live links via emergency legislation, undertake an equality screening exercise and complete a rural needs assessment and so on. That is onerous for a Department that is carrying around 10% to 12% vacancies because of a lack of funds. It is not in the Bill because, again, it was impossible for the Department to publish the results of the consultation and to brief a Minister when it did not have a Minister. Once I was in post, I was able to make the decisions that were required in order that the legislative drafting could proceed, and that is now happening.

Mr Gaston raised a number of points. First, he asked why the amendment was being made to give the Policing Board the power to delegate functions to its staff in respect of certain duties under the Act and whether the board thought that that would be helpful to it. The judgement that I referred to is the driver for that, and it is the case of McKee & Hughes (and others) v The Charity Commission of May 2019. It made clear the need to ensure that a body such as the board has express powers in legislation to enable it to delegate any of its functions. Therefore, I want to make sure that the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 is very clear on that point and that there is no ambiguity. In response to the case of McKee & Hughes (and others) v The Charity Commission in May 2019, the board revisited its procedures to ensure that they were compliant with the legislation, and those procedures are working well. There will be no need for the board to revise its procedures as a result of the amendment. The amendment will simply provide a power of delegation that will be available should the board wish to use it. It is not automatic that the board will choose to do so.

Mr Gaston also raised a slight misapprehension, I think, about the amendment to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 regarding the repeal of section 29. That amendment will repeal section 29 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which relates to the requirement of the Comptroller and Auditor General to perform various duties in respect of the Northern Ireland Policing Board's policing and performance plans. The provisions require the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit, certify, make recommendations where appropriate, comment on the plan's compliance against section 28 of the Act and comply with some other administrative aspects on furnishing reports. The amendment will repeal all the requirements that are in that section. The repeal of the provisions will reduce duplication of oversight arrangements for policing, and anyone who has worked in the policing sphere, engaged with the Policing Board or spoken with the Chief Constable will know that duplication of oversight is a major issue and burden, financially and in other ways, to policing.

The amendment will, however, also free up resources of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which primarily is responsible for the financial and value-for-money audits of public bodies. The amendment will also bring Northern Ireland into line with arrangements of its UK counterparts and ensure that best value arrangements are adopted, and I hope that Mr Gaston will welcome that. In the 2017 Northern Ireland Audit Office report on continuous improvement in arrangements in policing, with continued recommendations in the 2018 and 2019 audits, the Comptroller and Auditor General concluded that it was time for the Department to review that legislative requirement for auditing policing plans. In light of that, we did a preliminary review and found that, due to amendments of legislation across other jurisdictions, we were now the only jurisdiction that had that kind of audit. The Department consulted on that as part of a wider consultation on policing oversight and accountability arrangements.

The findings of that consultation were presented to me, as Minister of Justice, in October 2022, and I agreed to the recommendations to repeal section 29 of the Act.

Mr McNulty and, from a slightly different perspective, Mr Gaston raised concerns that the minimum age of criminal responsibility is not included in the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am aware that we should be talking about only those things that are included in the Bill, but I think that it is important that I explain the reasons for exclusions from the Bill. I have been clear about my commitment to raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) to bring Northern Ireland more into line with international standards, including directives from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Increasing MACR would reinforce the message that young children who offend need support, guidance and help, not criminalisation and punishment. Evidence also clearly demonstrates that early formal contact with the justice system often results in poorer outcomes for individuals in the long term, which, of course, impacts negatively not only on them but on their victims, their families and their wider community. To change the law in that area, Executive support would be required, but that has not previously been forthcoming, though I have addressed it with Executive colleagues in the past.

To further inform the discussion, my Department carried out a public consultation to seek views on increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility from the current age of 10 years, which is the lowest in Europe. That consultation took place between October and December 2022, with responses demonstrating overwhelming public support for an increase. Over 83% of respondents agreed that the age should be increased beyond 10 years, with the majority supporting an increase to 14 years. My officials have developed several options for progressing the issue based on views expressed during the consultation, and I shared a paper with Executive colleagues on 8 July to seek their views on my proposals. Those included, but were not limited to, exemptions for serious offending such as, for example, serious sexual offences or murder. Any increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility that requires legislative change will require me to get Executive approval. To date, I have had one response to the letter that I sent on 8 July, and that was from my colleague Andrew Muir. I have had no response from other Ministers either in favour of or against the proposals, and it is also fair to say that I have issued a number of reminders to make sure that my letter had not simply fallen out of those other Ministers' in trays.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will, yes.

Mr McNulty: To clarify, Minister, are you saying that the minimum age of criminal responsibility being raised from 10 is not included in the provisions of the Bill because you have not had responses from your Executive colleagues on that crucial issue?

Mrs Long: Well, I think that I have been very clear in what I am saying. It would require the Executive to approve any amendment to the Bill. The Executive have not responded to my letter asking them whether they wish me to bring forward such an amendment, so, yes, that is exactly what I have just said.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: Yes, of course.

Mr McNulty: Minister, is that not extraordinary?

Mrs Long: Unfortunately, no.

Any increase would require legislative change. However, in the meantime, as a Department, we will continue to implement our successful policy to divert children of all ages, but particularly younger children, away from the formal criminal justice system and deal with them through early intervention and community support in line with the actions set out in my Department's strategic framework for youth justice.

In conclusion — I guess that everybody will be delighted to hear those words, if not all the others — I am encouraged by the support shown by Members today.

Ms Bunting: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will, of course.

Ms Bunting: Thanks, Minister, for giving way. I want to seek clarification on a point. Earlier, your colleague raised the issue of people mentioning deprivation of liberty. You will be aware that, in the proposals that are to follow, there is the creation of two offences: one of directing serious and organised crime and another of participating in it. For purposes of clarification, could the Minister indicate whether she envisages that each of those will carry a prison sentence?

Mrs Long: Irrespective of whether they carry a prison sentence, they do not fall under deprivation of liberty because a prison sentence is a custodial sentence and will be set out in law. Deprivation of liberty generally involves issues where somebody, for other reasons, has their liberty removed from them, either for public protection or for their own protection, so there is no intention in that. Of course, if the Member wishes to have non-custodial sentences for those offences, she will be free to look at bringing that forward, if she is concerned about deprivation of liberty for those who are engaged in directing or participating in serious organised crime.

Ms Bunting: I think the Minister knows well what I intended.

Mrs Long: Does the Member want to intervene?

Ms Bunting: The Minister knows well that I was seeking clarification on a point about whether those offences would invite a prison sentence. I sought clarification, and the Minister chose to twist the meaning of what I asked.

Mrs Long: In fairness and with all due respect to the Committee Chair, I did not twist what she asked. I was very clear that custodial sentencing is not part of deprivation of liberty. It is part of the criminal justice system. With respect, the Member chose to intervene on this issue to twist what my colleague said and misrepresent the point that she made. To be clear, there are no issues with respect to human rights and deprivation of liberty in the Bill. There will be, of course, custodial sentences that relate to offences created by the Bill. Those are two different and distinct things.

In drawing my remarks to a close, I thank everyone who contributed today to what was, I hope, a useful and constructive discussion. It is plain that the Committee will have an interesting and challenging time considering the issues. I commend the Bill to the Chamber for approval and wish the Committee every success in the task ahead.

As we modernise our justice system, as with any other part of government, it is important that we do so with due diligence and with some speed, because the protracted delays that we see in our system are not reflected in other jurisdictions. People in Northern Ireland deserve no less of a justice system than people in any other part of these islands.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. Thank you all for taking part in this interesting debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Second Stage of the Justice Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Justice. Ladies and gentlemen, take your ease for a few seconds.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Colin McGrath to raise the matter of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and waste management issues in Warrenpoint. I call Colin McGrath. You will have up to 15 minutes. Over to you, Colin.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to open the Adjournment debate today on the NIEA and waste management issues in Warrenpoint. Today's debate has been a long time coming. At the outset, I will say that, as part of our debates in this place, we use our words to paint the most illuminating picture of the specific issue. We articulate a position so as to convince one another of the veracity of our arguments, but to properly paint a picture of the SDLP's argument for today's debate would require an assault on the senses of those represented in the Chamber. I say that because, for too long, residents and businesses across Warrenpoint and visitors to the town have been assaulted by rotten and nauseating smells, with brown and yellow liquids and flies and bluebottles on their streets, in their homes and even in their cars. All of that has stemmed from waste disposal, waste management and the operation of the NIEA in how that waste disposal is licensed and managed.

It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute, at the outset of the debate, to the residents of Warrenpoint and the community organisations, such as Rotten to the Point and Rostrevor Action Respecting the Environment (RARE), who have ensured that the matter has remained firmly on the public agenda.

It is also important, at the outset, to detail what today is not about. We are not here to call for the expulsion of a private company from Warrenpoint. Every elected representative knows that to do so would not be feasible, practical or possible. To the best of my knowledge, it is not even within the gift of the Minister to do that. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that in his response. We are here today to discuss a lasting political solution.

Warrenpoint is a beautiful, historic and significant town. Tourism is an essential part of the town's identity. Pride in the local surroundings will feature in any local resident's value system. A sense of welcome and hospitality is at the heart of Warrenpoint. Next year, Warrenpoint will welcome a number of cruise ships to the town, with the local port already almost fully booked to cruise ship capacity.

In 2013, the NIEA received an application for the storage and disposal of waste from Warrenpoint harbour. The request was for the storage of waste that is then exported, burned and turned into energy known as refuse-derived fuel (RDF). The NIEA consulted with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, the Planning Service, the Loughs Agency, NI Water, the council's environmental health team, the NIEA's water management unit, the NIEA's environmental crime unit and the landowner. The NIEA determined that the licence-holder could have a maximum waste storage of 10,000 tons.

All seemed to be going well. Waste was collected, stored and exported. However, as the level of waste exported began to increase, nauseating smells began to present in the local area. Depending on what way the wind was blowing, those smells could carry into local homes and businesses. How did the NIEA respond to that? It responded by increasing the level that could be stored at any one time, not just by a little but by double. As a result, more smells began to present, and they became more persistent. Local residents became increasingly concerned about the levels of waste being stored and the length of time for which they were being stored.

In response to my question for written answer a few weeks ago, the Minister stated:

Will the Minister consider that now? Will he detail why, in response to a number of breaches, the maximum level of waste that can be exported from Warrenpoint in any year has increased from 116,000 tons to 500,000 tons?

When there are complaints of non-compliance and the NIEA is made aware of it, what does it do? It engages with the licence-holder, makes directives about what practices need to change and issues notices. Does it engage with the landowner, when the licence-holder is a tenant, and make them aware of the breaches and complaints? No, it does not. Yet, as soon as the landowner at Warrenpoint harbour became aware of those breaches, they immediately began a process of engagement with the licence-holder and local residents and produced an independent report to try to prevent it from happening again. One would think that, had NIEA made the landowner aware of the breaches, engagement with the licence-holder could have begun much sooner, and the issue would not have gone on for so long. Yet, the Minister has told me, in writing, that the NIEA has no plans to change this practice. Will the Minister now consider that?

As I mentioned, when the NIEA became aware of those breaches of the licence, inspections took place. I was made aware that, last year alone, 12 visits took place and 11 breaches of compliance were detailed, including breaches of control procedures, permitted waste quantities, monitoring of odours and pest control.

The inspection reports make for interesting reading and raise further questions about the NIEA's competence. One inspection lasted two minutes: two minutes. Did that inspection identify any issues with staffing or supervision? Did it flag any issues with understanding of the licence? Was there a technically competent person on-site? Was a site diary kept? We do not know, because, by the NIEA's own admission, those matters were not inspected: they were recorded as "NI" in its report.

As more complaints were made about the foul smell, flies and leachate, further inspections were completed, during which those carrying out the inspection recognised the smells. Flies were noted, including in the inspector's car when leaving the site. As time progressed, the smells got worse, and it was identified that the bales of waste were squashed and had holes in them. Bales were identified as having been there for more than five months, and a brown-yellow liquid was leaking out of them. The NIEA conducted a follow-up meeting a number of weeks later, when the bales had been removed. Did that inspection flag any issues with permitted waste quantities, staffing, understanding of the licence, availability of a technically competent person, a site identification board, fires on-site, a waste quantity measurement system, security and availability of records or a site diary? We do not know, because, by the NIEA's own admission, those matters were not inspected.

I ask the Minister to clarify exactly what constitutes a full inspection. All those inspections were carried out during the day, yet the licence-holder operates throughout the night. Perhaps the Minister can detail how many of the 1,140 NIEA inspections across the North last year were conducted at night. Many of the issues that we are discussing have been resolved to a certain extent as a result of public pressure and engagements held by the licence-holder and the landlord. It was certainly not as a result of the NIEA's work.

As I said at the outset, Warrenpoint is a beautiful area. It has a thriving tourism industry at the port. It is hoped that the historic Warrenpoint Baths will be restored to their former glory. With the cross-border benefits that the construction of the Narrow Water bridge will bring, the last thing that we want is a repeat of the issue.

All of that leads to questions for the Minister. Can he order a business to leave the town? Why was the level of waste able to be stored at any one time increased to 20,000 tons? Why, after a number of breaches, was the licensee permitted an increase from 116,000 tons to 500,000 tons a year? Will the NIEA change its practice of not notifying a landowner who is not the licence-holder of breaches of compliance? Will the NIEA change its practice so that, when it undertakes a full inspection, it actually undertakes a full inspection? Will it conduct investigations at night? Is the NIEA fit for purpose?

Finally, will the Minister undertake to work with the NIEA to reduce the level of waste that can be stored at any given time to the level that it was at when no smells were present? Will he address the question of whether it is appropriate for the NIEA to grant a licence for the storage of thousands of tons of household waste so close to a town centre? Would it not be more appropriate for all concerned to have only a transit site? Would that be possible?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members have a maximum of six minutes.

Ms Ennis: I welcome today's Adjournment debate. The Member who secured it has raised some interesting questions, many of which I have raised in the House. As I said, I have raised the issue numerous times in the Chamber, and Sinn Féin locally has been working alongside the community to resolve it.

MLAs across the House will have received communication from the residents of Warrenpoint in the lead-up to the debate, so they will have some sense of the issue, but no email can truly convey what the people of Warrenpoint have had to put up with owing to the presence of that oppressive odour for over a year. It is not an issue that can simply be ignored but one that has had a huge impact on the lives of residents, including on the life of a young child with autism. Over a year ago, when the foul odour first emerged, Sinn Féin called for an urgent meeting with Warrenpoint Harbour Authority. Bringing the voice of the local community to the table, we made it clear that the situation was unacceptable and that a solution must be found. We have met the Minister responsible for the environment, the NIEA, Warrenpoint Harbour Authority and Re-Gen, and we have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with residents at public demonstrations.

While we pressed for investigation, transparency and, most importantly, action, regrettably the smell returned this year, despite assurances that the issue would be resolved. There has been another summer when our town was held to ransom and suffered as the foul smell engulfed the air. Sinn Féin is clear: enough is enough. Temporary fixes or assurances will not cut it, because we have heard all that before. The people of Warrenpoint deserve a long-term sustainable solution.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Member for giving way and the Member who brought this Adjournment debate to the House. It is such an important area. Members will know that there are companies producing odours in Cabragh and Granville in my constituency. Does the Member agree that we need a robust response from the NIEA to the companies to stop the unpleasant odours emanating from their operations?

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for his intervention. I know that other areas across the North suffer the same issue. It goes back to a point raised by Mr McGrath about the appropriateness of placing those businesses and operations close to people's homes and the centre of towns.

Over the last few weeks, we met Re-Gen once again and made it clear that it must get serious about tackling the problem if it wishes to continue operating in Warrenpoint, because the status quo will no longer be accepted by the community. We need to see Re-Gen assess its current practice and seriously ask itself whether it operates in the best interests of the surrounding community. I suggest that perhaps the Minister and the Department will also seriously consider that question as well. All options must be on the table to bring about a final solution.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member will be aware that we have all received communication from local residents about the erection of new buildings at the port and whether they have anything to do with the Re-Gen operation. Has the Member received any communication from Warrenpoint Harbour Authority about the use and purpose of the buildings?

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for her intervention. It is an appropriate intervention, because we all have a duty to ensure there is no misinformation, as that would only add to the stress and concern of the local community. It is my understanding from contacting Warrenpoint Harbour Authority that the building being erected is a post-Brexit checking facility for sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) products. The British Government are constructing the building — more specifically the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) — but perhaps the Minister can confirm that in his response to the debate.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Will the Member give way?

Ms Ennis: I will.

Mr Muir: I can confirm that.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Minister for that.

We understand the importance of economic activity at the port, and the local community understands the importance of economic activity at the port, but it cannot come at the cost of the community's well-being, health and right to clean air. If Re-Gen cannot manage its current operation in a way that does not negatively impact on the local community, something will have to change.

Sinn Féin is ambitious for Warrenpoint and the Carlingford lough region. We live in an area of unrivalled natural beauty, with the potential to further grow our tourism offering now that the construction of the Narrow Water bridge is progressing at pace. We want to make Warrenpoint a great place to live, work and holiday in, and that cannot happen while thousands of tons of household waste continue to ferment at Warrenpoint port, mere metres from people's homes and the town centre. Sinn Féin will continue to work tirelessly for the people of Warrenpoint to bring about a solution that prioritises their health, well-being and quality of life. We will not stop until the issue is finally resolved.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member who secured the debate on an issue that is important to our area, South Down. It is good to see all the South Down MLAs in the Chamber. I welcome the opportunity to hear directly from the Minister to get clarity on the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's position on and consideration of waste management in Warrenpoint.

Warrenpoint Harbour Authority is based in our constituency and supports 60 jobs directly and 400 jobs indirectly. It is an important economic driver for South Down and the wider region. It is a complex organisation, and a wide range of activities occur throughout the port. With those come a range of regulations, monitoring bodies, reporting requirements and compliance issues. The harbour authority has a legal responsibility to comply with all of those things and to manage them professionally.

In my time as an MLA, the harbour authority has provided regular updates, been informative about its work, been involved in community engagement and made itself available to discuss any concerns. In fact, it was the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority that first brought it to my attention that local people had been raising concern about odours in the area. I appreciate that other Members' offices are closer to this in Warrenpoint and that they had more direct and quicker contact with individuals, but it was the harbour authority that brought the issue to my attention.

The use of the port by a significant waste management contractor to transport its waste comes with its own levels of compliance and licensing. Warrenpoint Harbour Authority has continually engaged with that company and the contractors that use the port. It has commissioned independent reviews, making it clear that it does not want to accept any odour from the operations on its site. My understanding is that the waste contractor has also commissioned independent consultants to complete a review; that it has implemented recommendations to go above and beyond industry best practice; that its NIEA licence remains in place; and that Warrenpoint Harbour Authority has an independent monitoring team that regularly assesses the waste management at the port.

I do not want to see anyone subject to pollution or inappropriate actions that result in severe odours. It is awful to hear the stories of what individuals and businesses have suffered. I have received a lot of correspondence this week, and I appreciate all who have reached out on the subject; it is important to hear the stories first-hand. It is important that we investigate and gather evidence to conclude on the way forward.

I welcome the AERA Minister's action in response to the issue. He requested a multi-agency review in August. I ask him for clarity on his response to the conclusion of the review and for his recommendations on the way forward.

Much has been said on the issue. There has been information and misinformation, as has been mentioned, particularly on social media. The online vilification of elected representatives, harbour board members and private individuals throughout the process has not been helpful. Our local MLAs and councillors all want to see a resolution of the issue and are focused on the best interests of the constituents and the South Down area, but we need to see a strong and clear response. As we gather in the Chamber in the best interests of our constituents, I welcome the Minister's commitment to respond to put an end to speculation. Hopefully, he will advise on a constructive way forward for Warrenpoint, in line with his track record of seeking solutions, and deliver a healthy environment for Warrenpoint.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Member who secured the Adjournment debate for raising this vexing issue in the Assembly. I am well aware of the ongoing problems that are affecting residents in Warrenpoint. Indeed, they have been raised with me and Alliance representatives before me. Like other Members, I thank the people who have contacted me.

Residents in Warrenpoint are tired of the foul odour and flies in the area. The impact on residents' quality of life has regularly been relayed to me. People are unable to enjoy their gardens or open their windows due to the smell and the flies. Some have been embarrassed to have visitors because of the situation.

I have also heard concerns about the chemical sprays that are used to control the odour and flies. There are worries that the chemicals might leach into Carlingford Lough and cause environmental damage, and residents have also voiced health and safety concerns about that. Residents have asked why planning permission was granted to build the facilities so close to residential properties in the first place. I cannot speak to the reason for the decisions that were taken in 2013 by the Department of the Environment. Since then, obviously, responsibility for planning has been devolved to councils.

Similar questions have been raised in relation to the waste management licence, which, again, was first granted by the Department of the Environment in 2013 and was renewed twice, in 2018 and 2023, in both instances with no Minister in place.

That shows that the issues have been building up for quite a while.

I want to take this opportunity to echo my constituents' concerns. The issues around the facility and its operating practices preceded this summer. Clearly, they have had a detrimental effect on those living and working nearby. They have also been a wider economic issue for the hospitality sector and traders in the town. Business development opportunities were missed or passed by because of not only the environmental impact but the media impact that the story has had. Indeed, the businesses and residents of Warrenpoint and the wider area want us to be discussing the potential economic driver that the Narrow Water bridge will be in attracting tourists, rather than having to deal with the subject of this evening's Adjournment debate.

From the outset, Alliance has worked on advocating on behalf of local residents who have raised the issues with us. Alliance representatives have also sought to engage with Re-Gen and the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority on the issue. In the summer, other elected representatives and I met the Minister and officials from DAERA and the NIEA to discuss concerns around the odour, flies and chemicals, and to explore solutions. At that meeting, I raised concerns about pollution from the use of insecticides and anti-odour sprays. As a result, it was agreed that the NIEA would conduct water sampling in the area to assess any leachate generation or contamination. The multi-agency review, led by the NIEA, is about to conclude, and I look forward to hearing its findings at a future meeting. All agencies, including the NIEA, the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority, Re-Gen and Newry, Mourne and Down District Council must work together to ensure that all licences and regulations are adhered to and that industrial operations are not causing a nuisance to the wider community.

Regardless of the terms of licence, the operating procedures have caused issues. That is undeniable. The issues have clearly had a detrimental effect on relations between the residents and industry of Warrenpoint. Previous efforts have not been enough to fully eliminate the problem in the town and address residents' concerns. However, we have seen some improvements over recent months. Those efforts must be continued. Unfortunately, relationships have broken down to the point where there will probably not be an outcome to which all groups are amenable. I know that the Minister is acting within the means that he has to address the matter.

On the bigger picture of waste management in Northern Ireland, the Alliance Party is focused on waste prevention, reducing plastic use and carbon emissions and improving recycling rates. Those are essential for protecting our environment. That is where we should be focusing our efforts in the interests of society, climate and the environment.

Mr Butler: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to speak in the Adjournment debate. As someone from Lagan Valley, I am somewhat of an interloper in matters regarding South Down, but, obviously, as changes have been made, I might be in for a few more AERA Adjournment debates, as long as tomorrow comes.

This is an important matter, and Members have displayed how passionately they feel about it. Like others, I have received many emails from people who have been affected in Warrenpoint. I have friends who work and live there, so I have some evidence of it, but I have to declare that I have not been to Warrenpoint for a number of years. I will speak from the perspective of the communications that I have had and the experience that we had in Lisburn. In an area bordering Belfast, a number of years ago, constituents of mine had similar concerns about the Mullaghglass refuse site.

The reality is that recycling and dealing with refuse remains one of the biggest challenges that we will face as a legislature. I have been looking forward to working with the Minister as we go forward in this mandate to tackle that emerging problem. However, we have to deal with the day that we are in, and, today, people in Warrenpoint are faced with the same challenges that my constituents faced: the reduction of and detriment to their residential facility; the detriment to their leisure facility and use of their properties; and the potential detriment, which was raised with me, to their property value. Those are the realities that people face if trying to do business or sell a property when something is putting people off. Many years ago, Lisburn had a burn house. To be fair, the smell from it probably travelled about 10 miles: it was an equitable pollutant, but you would not put up with it today. Whilst I do not blame the Minister, and, in this instance, I do not blame Re-Gen, in particular, we need to face into the problems, and we need solutions.

Without prejudice to anything that is going on — perhaps the Minister will update us — at the time, the residents of Mullaghglass tried — unsuccessfully — to find a remedy before the dump was closed. However, at the start of this year, the Supreme Court picked up the case. We never want to get to the point where our constituents have to take matters like this into their own hands in order to get recourse.

When I was listening to Colin, I was trying to think of any questions that I could ask the Minister. Colin rhymed some off, and they were excellent questions. I have two questions in particular that the Minister could perhaps pick up. The first one is on the powers that exist when you are in inspection and those that exist post-inspection for bringing the remedy. Secondly, what standards should people who neighbour those facilities expect to be entitled to? We should all be good neighbours, and I have no doubt that Re-Gen is trying to be a good neighbour. What can we do to ensure that, wherever those facilities exist or wherever we are placing our landfill, the people who neighbour those facilities have a clear understanding of what they should be entitled to? What can we do, as legislators and through our local government, to ensure that those things are made clear?

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Absolutely.

Mr McGrath: I appreciate your reiterating those points. Given the positive nature of the debate, I was hoping that we could get to these questions: what can we do, and what do we intend to do? It is only fair for the residents of Warrenpoint that those questions are their measurement for this place. What is it that you actually have the power to do? Do the Minister, the Department and NIEA have the power to reduce the levels of waste that are permitted to be stored? Do they have the powers to direct it as a transit site only? The question, then, is this: will the Minister and the Department exercise those powers? That is the clarity that residents need.

Mr Butler: I do not think that I get an extra minute, even though the Deputy Speaker is from my party, so I am going to finish. That is absolutely right. It is really important that we get this right today. The Minister will speak about the facts, but the issue speaks to a wider pressure that we have with our climate credentials. We are still shipping off too much waste, and we have not been brave enough to step in to the methods that we could use to reduce our own refuse. This has been a very interesting debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that I am not jumping the gun too much, but I congratulate Robbie Butler on his selection as Chair of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. I am looking forward to working with you, Robbie, on what is a wide range of issues in the Department. Collectively, we can achieve an awful lot together, as I did with your predecessor, and, hopefully, we can also do that.

I am aware of and understand the local objections and concerns regarding the wider Warrenpoint harbour area, specifically those on waste management activities by Re-Gen Waste Ltd, which operates under a waste management licence that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency issued. At the outset, I will say that I am conscious that there are legal proceedings in relation to this matter, so I will have to be relatively cautious in how I proceed. I also have to make it clear to Members and to everyone that, in everything that I do as Minister, I have to act in accordance with the law. It is really important that we do that. I outlined that in my first Question Time in this place back in February, and I will continue to do that.

I am also aware of the concerns that have been expressed in emails that come through our Department and of social media commentary on the matter. I am aware of how people feel about it. I appreciate that and take it on board. I have noticed that some of the social media commentary is a bit regrettable, and I ask people to reflect on that. It is important that we are respectful to each other, to the officials with whom I am privileged to work in DAERA and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and to people more widely.

On 9 July 2024, I met a number of local elected representatives for the Warrenpoint harbour area in order to hear their concerns and those of their constituents. As I said at the outset, I am constrained in my response by the fact that, in November 2023, an application for a judicial review was lodged against my Department in respect of the waste management licence relating to the facility. I confirm that those litigation proceedings remain ongoing.

The Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 governs the granting and regulation by my Department of waste management licence activities in Northern Ireland. In accordance with article 8 of that order, a waste management licence cannot be granted by my Department unless prior planning permission is in place. I am advised that the operator in question obtained appropriate planning approval on 10 May 2013 and subsequently was granted a waste management licence from my Department on 28 October 2013. The operator's waste management licence allows for the transfer, prior to shipment, of no more than 500,000 tons of refuse-derived fuel waste per annum and the storage of up to 20,000 tons at any one time. The waste may not be stored for longer than three months. So far, in the 2024-25 year, my officials have inspected the operator's facility on nine occasions: 9 May, 17 May, 13 June, 26 June, 9 July, 23 July, 6 August, 28 August and 17 September. I am advised that, at the most-recent inspection of the facility by my officials, on 17 September 2024, it was deemed to be in compliance with its licence conditions.

My officials undertake extensive and regular odour monitoring assessments of the facility. Similar assessments are undertaken by other stakeholders — for example, Warrenpoint Harbour Authority, environmental consultants on behalf of the operator and Newry, Mourne and Down District Council's environmental health department. The odour monitoring assessments by my officials are undertaken in line with odour technical guidance and are completed using olfactory sense-of-smell monitoring at several set locations in the locality. However, evidence of odour beyond a site boundary may not mean that a facility is in breach of its licence conditions. I go back to my opening remarks in saying that whatever I do has to be in line with the law. A breach depends on the scale, intensity and duration of the odour in line with the odour technical guidance.

In August and September 2023, my officials identified some minor non-compliances with the conditions of the operator's licence. Those included matters relating to waste storage, the control of odour and the control of pests. Following intervention by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the operator put in place measures to address those issues and to come back into compliance. The measures included but were not limited to increased waste shipments, odour suppression techniques and increased bale wrapping at the RDF production point.

Following my meeting with local representatives on 9 July 2024, I instructed my officials to arrange a multi-agency meeting to ensure that all relevant authorities with potential involvement in the issue are engaged with each other on a collaborative basis in seeking to identify and address any remaining issues. A multi-agency meeting, which included a site inspection, was held by my officials on Wednesday 28 August 2024 and was attended by relevant officials from the Public Health Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and the environmental health department of Newry, Mourne and Down District Council. I am advised that no major concerns about the facility were raised by any of the agencies that were at the site inspection and meeting. However, all agencies have agreed to share relevant information and intend to meet again before the end of 2024 to continue to monitor the situation. I wish to thank all the other agencies for their input and their engagement on the matter.

My officials conduct and will continue to conduct regular and extensive monitoring of the facility at Warrenpoint harbour in line with regulatory requirements, including carrying out unannounced site inspections and odour assessments, and, if needed, will take any further necessary and proportionate enforcement action in line with the DAERA enforcement policy. In recent weeks, the stock levels of RDF waste stored by the operator at Warrenpoint harbour have greatly reduced. I am advised that the control of RDF waste bale stock levels at Warrenpoint harbour is a logistical matter for the operator.

I will make a few points in response to some of the issues that were raised in the debate. On the sharing of information with the landowner, which is Warrenpoint Harbour Authority, the Member will be aware of the Data Protection Act and the legal obligations that it imposes. That would inhibit some of the issues that the Member outlined. Other Members have engaged with Warrenpoint Harbour Authority on this issue, and I encourage them to continue to do so. Night inspections would require us to do a trawl through previous inspections to learn what happened. The inspections vary in scope and depend on the circumstances. The two-minute inspection that was mentioned was a digital recording error, and people have been informed about why that was a short period. We take those responsibilities seriously.

The key issue is that Re-Gen, as an operator, has an obligation to the wider community. I encourage it to listen to and engage with the wider community and to act on that, because it is absolutely key that that occurs.

I am aware that there are issues in other parts of Northern Ireland. That has been referenced in the debate. We need to work collectively to resolve the issues. People know that I have engaged with elected representatives, a number of whom are in the Chamber, on the issues, but we have to work collectively. I have to act within the law. I also have to engage with site operators. Where there are litigation proceedings, that can make life a bit more difficult when it comes to engagement. I am determined to work together with people on that. I would also reiterate that I understand the concerns —.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Minister for giving way. I just want to go back to his point about Re-Gen's obligation to act responsibly. We have met Re-Gen on numerous occasions, and, as other Members who have engaged with it will understand, that is simply not happening and is not going to happen. We are looking for a more solid approach and something set in legislation that will compel Re-Gen to act more responsibly, because, if we leave it to Re-Gen, it will just continue to store irresponsibly, as it has been doing for the past two years. We are looking for the responsibility to be taken out of Re-Gen's hands and for something more concrete to be put in place that will compel it to act more responsibly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, I will give you an extra minute.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much. I understand the point that the Member makes. I am constrained by current law and the litigation proceedings that are under way at the moment, but I make a general appeal to all businesses in Northern Ireland to act responsibly. I will continue to do that. Whilst I totally appreciate the concerns that have been expressed, I urge people to appreciate the situation that I am in with regard to the law that is available to me. I also encourage people to promptly report concerns to the Northern Ireland Environment Agency through our pollution hotline, because it is important that those issues are recorded.

I am also committed to working in conjunction with the MLAs and the MP for the area. If the MLAs and the MP are happy to meet officials and me in the next number of weeks to discuss the issue further, I am happy to do that so that we can have that engagement. [Interruption.]

Colin, I am trying to be constructive on this. That is what I am trying to do. I am trying to work through —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you must make your remarks through the Chair.

Mr Muir: I am trying to be constructive and work through the issues.

Mr McGrath: You have not answered any of the questions.

Mr Muir: I am focused on solutions to the issues. I have offered to engage with the local MLAs and the MP. I get the concerns about this. I am determined to do whatever we can in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to act on this.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for a constructive debate. We have now reached the end of today's proceedings.