Official Report: Monday 07 October 2024

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Just one moment, Mr Buckley. I want to make some brief remarks at the start of business. There are requests from five parties today in relation to statements made by the First Minister over the past week. There is clearly a demand in the House to hear from the First Minister. Before I go on to deal with the procedural issues, let us all acknowledge that there are victims involved. We should remember that.

Members will be aware that I have selected a question for urgent oral answer, which I am satisfied is within the remit of the Executive Office's responsibilities and which is broad enough to give the Assembly the opportunity to ask questions of the Executive Office. I will ensure that other Members who tabled questions for urgent oral answer are called to ask a supplementary question. Therefore, the Assembly will have the opportunity to hear from the Executive Office. I will also ensure that the Minister has the opportunity to give her perspective. I know that Members may have other questions, but I suggest that the question for urgent oral answer is the time to ask them.

Mr Buckley: I wish to raise a point of order under Standing Order 65, following last week's disturbing developments regarding child safeguarding and the former Sinn Féin press officer Mr Michael McMonagle. We have been made aware of his continued access to this very Building. Every answer that has been given so far raises further questions. In the interests of full transparency, will the Speaker confirm when Sinn Féin notified the Assembly and terminated Mr McMonagle's Stormont access pass? Has the Assembly's safeguarding policy been compromised as a result of Sinn Féin's not notifying the Assembly? Further to that point of order, will the Assembly confirm which Sinn Féin MLAs employed Mr McMonagle, and whether they include the First Minister, Michelle O'Neill?

Mr Gaston: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: I will deal with this one first. There are a number of aspects to the issues being raised. I am conscious that matters within the responsibility of the Assembly Commission are not, in fact, points of order.

I will say, however, that I understand the issues that Members are raising. The situation that has arisen is concerning. We had a number of discussions with the Clerk/Chief Executive last week, and officials have been active in looking at issues that have arisen to do with the Assembly Commission's processes and procedures. Members and parties ultimately have responsibility for the staff whom they employ, however. I take this opportunity to remind all Members of the importance of complying with those responsibilities, including responsibilities on the issuing and returning of staff passes to the Building and the sharing of information with the Assembly Commission when such serious situations arise.

A number of questions for written answer have been submitted to the Assembly Commission, and if Members have any other issues to raise about Assembly Commission issues, that is the route to go down.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you, Mr Speaker. During last Wednesday's meeting of the Executive Committee, the First Minister launched a grotesquely offensive attack on my character. The attack, shamefully but not surprisingly, went unchallenged by the Chair, Ms Bradshaw, who afforded me just one minute and nine seconds to speak during an hour-long evidence session.

Back to the matter in hand, however. On Wednesday, the First Minister addressed me and said:

If that remark had been made outside the House, my solicitor would have already been in touch with Mrs O'Neill. Is it in order, Mr Speaker, for a Minister to launch such an outrageous and groundless attack on the reputation of a Member while protected by the privilege afforded to her when appearing before a Committee of the House?

Furthermore, will you require the First Minister to appear before the Assembly to apologise publicly and withdraw her scurrilous accusation? Finally, is it in order for the Chair of a Committee actively to shield witnesses from proper scrutiny in Committee?

Mr Speaker: There are a number of issues there. I thank the Member for giving me prior notice of his intention to raise a point of order. He has placed his remarks on the record, but he is aware that I do not have a role to play in the business of individual Committees and therefore cannot rule on the proceedings there.

Whether in a Committee or in the Chamber, the Chair has a number of different factors to manage, and, for my part, I will direct the Member, and, indeed, all Members, to remarks that I made in the Chair on 8 April 2024. I spoke then about the balance of operating within the confines of our standards of debate by demonstrating courtesy, good temper, moderation and respect, while also recognising that Members have a legal right to freedom of expression that sometimes means that a Member chooses to express views in terms with which others may disagree.

I may vehemently disagree with many of the views expressed in the Chamber, but I will fight for the right of each Member to express those views, provided that they are within the confines that I have outlined. The House is responsible for holding Ministers to account —

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: — be it in the Chamber or in Committee. The House does that on behalf of the people who elect Members to the House.

Every Member should have the opportunity to be heard, within reason and proportionately. That is something on which we should all reflect, whether we are in this Chair or in other Chairs.

If the Member has particular issues about standards in a Committee, he can refer those matters to the Commissioner for Standards, who has the authority to deal with them, as opposed to me as Speaker.

Mr Gildernew: I draw attention to and praise St Ciaran's College in Ballygawley for its role in campaigning for the A5 road upgrade. The school originally launched a campaign to try to improve safety measures on the road. Tragically, 48 hours later, one of its students, Kamile Vaicikonyte, who took part in that safety campaign, lost her young life on the A5, along with her boyfriend, who was travelling with her.

The school subsequently continued its campaign in the face of that adversity and, in recent weeks, attended here, in the Senate Chamber, with the Minister for Infrastructure and directly asked him to do all he could to bring forward plans for a road that would be fit for purpose, running right through counties Tyrone and Derry and into Monaghan and Donegal.

I was very honoured to meet with schoolteacher leaders, and also young student leaders, Ciaran and Dearbhla and Lucy, who asked one of the questions directly of the Minister here last week. I thought it very poignant that, last week, when John O'Dowd visited the school, which is in my constituency, he referenced its campaign and that he had uppermost in his mind young Kamile and the impact that the situation was having on people along the length of that road. I commend the school for its civic awareness and the students for their role in that campaign.

Mrs Dodds: I rise to speak about recent developments in Health in Northern Ireland. Last week, the Minister published his thoughts on how hospitals should be restructured. Unfortunately, those amounted to little more than a series of high-level principles, with little detail on how that programme would be rolled out. I accept that the Minister said that this would be followed up, but we are now in a 16-week consultation period, and that means that there will be considerable time spent on that rather than getting on with the business of reform.

There is absolutely no doubt that our health service needs significant reform, and I welcome Professor Bengoa to Northern Ireland this week and look forward to what he has to say in relation to that. However, to demonstrate that really significant need for reform, I will look at two or three of the issues that have arisen as part of my constituency work in the past number of weeks.

Recently, the Department of Health published its cancer waiting statistics. Those are indeed really serious and should cause serious thought for everybody in the House. According to the Department, the proportion of cancer patients waiting this quarter to start treatment within 31 days was just over 90%; the target is 98%. Some 35·8% of patients started treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral from their GP; the target is 95%. That is not something that anyone should be proud of. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Only 30·7% of patients urgently referred for breast cancer treatment were seen by a specialist within 14 days: the target is 100%. Two thirds of women who find a lump in their breast are not being seen within the required time.

Money is deeply precious for the capital programme for Health. We have had a debacle around the maternity hospital. On 1 August, I wrote to the Health Minister —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Dodds: — and received a reply, and that shows a significant —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Dodds: — delay in delivering that hospital.

Mr Mathison: I rise to raise the issue of placements for children with special educational needs. I have received information in response to a question that I submitted to the Education Minister last week. It states that children with special educational needs have all been allocated a place in school, but currently 139 children are unable to access that place because capital works are ongoing to make the building ready to receive those pupils.

This situation would not be accepted as normal for a pupil applying to a school through mainstream admissions: to be awarded a place but to be told that the physical space — the classroom, effectively — is simply not ready to accommodate you.

Why is that still the experience for so many children and young people with special educational needs? For me, it speaks to a two-tier education system: one for mainstream pupils, where the system for allocating places is largely predictable, largely consistent and planned, and one for children with special educational needs that is managed consistently on one level but is on a crisis footing, characterised by an apparent failure of planning, and is entirely unpredictable year-on-year for the children and families involved. No one operating in the system claims that that is acceptable. The Minister is clear on that, the Education Authority (EA) is clear on that and the schools waiting for works to be completed want nothing more than to open their doors and provide education that meets the needs of those children.

Many EA staff have worked incredibly hard to manage another year of crisis management in SEN places. In some cases, they have been asked to turn around capital projects in a ridiculously short time. However, this is no way to run our education system for children with special educational needs. The end-to-end review of education is now well progressed, and it has been looking at the system-level change required to address the issues. We urgently need to move to a new phase with the presentation of a clear action plan to tackle the systemic issues. Placements are only one strand of work, but it is essential that we do not see a repeat of the situation in any future years. The action plan, tackling every aspect of SEN reform, cannot come quickly enough, and the Minister needs to ensure that it is delivered as a priority action in the weeks ahead. It must set out a clear plan, it must be time-bound and it must have clear measures of success. Anything less will be another failure to meet the needs of SEN learners in Northern Ireland.

Mr Chambers: Participation in any form of sport makes a major contribution to the mental and physical health of those taking part. It is open to all, and the opportunity to take part in organised sport is available at every level of ability and skill. For those who choose to just follow and support their game of choice, it can provide something to look forward to during the working week. The outcome of the game can deliver joy and satisfaction, if the result is favourable, or give you the opportunity to dissect where your team went wrong and look forward to the next game with the hope that your idea of winning tactics will be deployed by the team coach. Northern Ireland has produced sportsmen and sportswomen from every generation who have excelled on the world stage. It is a fact that we have always punched well above our weight in all sports.

My sport of choice has always been football. Local senior football has made great strides in recent years, and the enhanced coaching and development of young players has launched many of them into full-time careers at high levels across the United Kingdom and beyond. My biggest disappointment has been the failure to deliver a national training centre of excellence that could be used by men and women footballers from international to junior grassroots levels. The bricks and mortar of a permanent football centre of excellence would provide a valuable and positive legacy for the game. I call on the Minister for Communities to kick-start the distribution, at the very least and at the earliest opportunity, of the funding that was previously on the record. More promises will just not cut it.

Mr O'Toole: I want to reflect on the past year. On October 7 2023, Hamas launched an attack in Israel. It was a violent attack that has to be consistently condemned. It was unjustified and unjustifiable. I acknowledge and affirm the profound effect that it had on people living in Israel. They were shocking, shocking acts of violence, and innocent lives were taken. It is, however, impossible to speak of that day in isolation from the year that has followed. The year that has followed has been one of almost limitless violence visited on, first, the people of Gaza by the state of Israel and, subsequently, other neighbours of Israel. We in this place have come to understand that the Old Testament quality of an eye for an eye simply leads to a cycle of never-ending, limitless and ever more depraved violence.

I want to reflect on the innocent lives lost, first, on 7 October, and on the tens of thousands of innocent people, including tens of thousands of children, in Gaza and now Lebanon who are being bombed in their homes. They have no defence and no ability to know what is about to happen to them. There is no justification for the scale of violence wrought by Israel over the past year. I want to be clear in saying that 7 October was a disgraceful, grotesque act of violence visited on people. People around the world are rightly memorialising that day, and I do not in any way want to take away from that. However, it would be impossible to reflect on that day without saying that the memory of those people and, indeed, the broader cause of stability, peace and justice in the Middle East have not been served by the limitless violence that has been visited by Israel on that region since. It must be said that the states that have continued to arm and facilitate that action have, I am afraid, created long-term problems in that region and more globally that we will deal with for generations. There are babies alive now who will be dealing with the trauma — possibly with physical injuries and trauma — at the end of this century.

Not only do we need a ceasefire, we need a process to create a just, lasting settlement for the Palestinian people and, yes, security for Israelis. We cannot have what we have had over the past year. It has been the most indescribable year —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — of pain and suffering.

Miss Brogan: I welcome the news that the A5 road upgrade has been approved by the Executive, following Infrastructure Minister John O'Dowd's proposals to proceed with the project. Work on the A5 is due to commence early next year. As you can imagine, that is incredibly positive news for the people of West Tyrone, who have been waiting for far too long to have that dangerous road upgraded. I have received many messages and spoken to local people, who are delighted and relieved that the road upgrade has been approved.

I thank Minister John O'Dowd and his departmental officials for their hard work and commitment in ensuring that the A5 has progressed to this stage. I also pay tribute to the families, friends and communities who have lost loved ones along the A5. Over 55 people have lost their lives on that road since 2006. Those deaths have left families and whole communities devastated. It led many to campaign to have the A5 road upgraded, and I thank them for their determination and strength after having suffered such horrifying and unimaginable loss. I also thank Tyrone GAA for its Enough is Enough campaign and, in particular, for its efforts at the public inquiry to highlight just how dangerous the A5 road is and how the people of Tyrone want to see it upgraded.

I welcome the news that the A5 upgrade will commence early next year and thank all those involved in getting to this stage.

Mr K Buchanan: Representing a largely rural constituency, I make no apology for highlighting the need to ensure that adequate funding is available to community groups and organisations from a rural background. To help to improve our rural communities, it is important to ensure that they are thriving, sustainable and inclusive places to live. Many community groups working in the rural setting provide a vital service, and it is imperative that there is the necessary funding to allow development and capacity-building training.

We also need to ensure that our rural community and voluntary organisations can deliver capital refurbishment works to rural halls to allow them to continue their vital work. Rural halls can sometimes be underutilised, but, with the necessary funding, groups and organisations can bring their halls up to a better standard, thereby allowing other agencies to work with them to deliver a better service for all in the rural community. The work with many of those halls can go unnoticed, but, in many instances, they help to tackle social issues, such as poverty and social isolation, and deliver mental health and well-being support for people of all ages and from differing backgrounds.

Last week, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs gave a commitment to open a further tranche of their rural micro capital grant scheme. I encourage the Department to open a further rural hall refurbishment scheme, like the one that provided support and capital enhancement for 113 facilities across Northern Ireland. It is important and essential that we continue to breathe new life into rural communities across Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will follow on with continual support for those rural facilities.

Mr Blair: My statement addresses recent and recurring flooding in Antrim town, particularly in the Riverside and Massereene Street areas. It has affected residents considerably. Those Antrim town streets, which are very historic in character, are on the banks of the Sixmilewater river. Homes have been submerged, cherished belongings destroyed and stress has literally been brought home by the threat of the flooding happening again. That stress is compounded as we enter another autumn and winter, with storms and heavy rain much more likely. It is also compounded by the fact that we seem no nearer to a prioritised flood alleviation plan for the area, yet development in the area continues, impacting on water levels in the Sixmilewater river. Residents' resilience is commendable, but we cannot rely solely on individual strength in the face of such adversity.

I have written to the Minister for Infrastructure and am grateful for his timely replies. Like residents, however, I remain frustrated at being told that this area of "potential significant flood risk" has not yet been prioritised or placed on a list of planned capital works. I understand that the Department would assess existing mitigations, if there were any, and will also use criteria and identify, if it can, economically viable schemes. I certainly understand the current budgetary pressures, but all that must be weighed against the actual impact on and risk to people and their property and the cost of clear-ups, which have had to happen many times, including as recently as November 2023.

On one occasion, homes suffered having over four feet of water come in during one flooding episode. That is why flood alleviation must be an absolute priority. Some of us do not set out to generally object to new development or to deter those seeking to move to, move within or invest in our constituencies, but, without preparation, planning, investment in infrastructure and future-proofing, we may have reached breaking point.

I assured local residents that I would raise the matter in the House. I will continue my correspondence with the Minister and the relevant agencies and seek solutions, which the residents whom I mentioned deserve. I urge the Minister for Infrastructure to prioritise the urgent needs of those in Antrim town, especially the residents of Riverside and Massereene Street. We need immediate action and long-term solutions to prevent future flooding and to protect our community.

Mr Sheehan: Ba mhaith liom aird a tharraingt ar Lá Domhanda na Múinteoirí a bhí ann ag deireadh na seachtaine. Imríonn ár múinteoirí ról thar a bheith tábhachtach i saol ár bpáistí agus an aosa óig, mar sin, ní mór dúinn, mar ionadaithe poiblí, bheith ag éisteacht leo agus ár ndícheall a dhéanamh bheith ag tacú leo trí chomhoibriú ar mhaithe lenár gcóras oideachais.

D’éirigh le múinteoirí ardú pá a fháil in 2022, agus ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Dr Caoimhe Archibald as ardú pá a sholáthar dóibh mar cheann de na chéad bhearta a rinne sí ina ról nua mar Aire Airgeadais.

Le blianta anuas tá ciorruithe á ndéanamh ar earnáil an oideachais ag rialtas na Breataine mar chuid de pholasaí déine na dTóraithe. Cuireann na ciorruithe sin barraíocht brú ar mhúinteoirí agus ar an chóras oideachais. Tá deis ag Páirtí an Lucht Oibre sa Ríocht Aontaithe na ciorruithe sin a cheartú agus infheistíocht cheart a dhéanamh inár seirbhísí poiblí nuair a fhoilseoidh siad a mBuiséad ag deireadh na míosa ionas gur féidir linn oideachas ardchaighdeáin a sholáthar dár ndaltaí.

Ar Lá Domhanda na Múinteoirí, tá sé tábhachtach ár mbuíochas a ghabháil agus aitheantas a thabhairt as an obair ríthábhachtach agus as an méid a chuireann ár múinteoirí lenár sochaí agus an tionchar dearfach atá acu ar ár bpaistí agus ar ár ndaoine.

Mr Frew: I rise today to remember the events of that terrible day, 7 October, in the state of Israel against the Israeli people. It was a day that changed the world for every single Israeli citizen and every single Palestinian. My heart goes out to those people today. That Hamas attack on innocent civilians of the state of Israel has no comparison with anything that that group did in the past.

It changed the mindset of the Israeli state to where we are now.

We can all talk in stats. We can all talk about historical events. Today, however, I want to remember one of the 97 hostages who remain captive and are still missing: a young lady called Emily Damari, who was 27 when she was captured. She was removed from her kibbutz. I have not met Emily, but I have prayed for her consistently because I have met her mum. That was one of the most impactful things that I have ever experienced. How does Emily's mum feel? I met her six months into Emily's captivity; it has now been a year. They have heard nothing about Emily. They do not know whether she is alive or dead. The intelligence reports from six months ago maintained that she was alive, but I do not know whether those reports say the same thing today.

Emily's family spoke at the commemoration services at the Nova music festival today. It is absolutely heartbreaking to hear the pain that that family and all families caught up in that atrocity and the subsequent conflict bear to this day. My heart and my prayers go out to everyone caught up in those activities.

Dr Aiken: Today marks the first anniversary of the horrific and barbaric terrorist attack on Israel. The horror of that extreme example of racist and sectarian hate goes well beyond the statistics of 1,191 murdered, over 4,834 injured and 218 taken hostage. The violent attacks against the old, women, children and men were accompanied by the wide use of rape, torture, beheading and burning people alive: examples of grotesque violence that, regrettably, have been the mark of terror in this age, especially elsewhere across the Middle East and the surrounding region, in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Sudan.

What adds specifically to that horror and immeasurably to its impact on the people of Israel and our Jewish friends and colleagues is the blatantly antisemitic commentary from far too many politicians, academics, media commentators and so-called activists; commentary that blames the victims. It did not even take a day before that perverse antisemitic gloating, caricature and glorification of crimes against humanity became the normal discourse. It pains me, as it should all right-minded people across this island, that our small and vulnerable Jewish community should become the centre of so many of those ingrained antisemitic tropes.

It is almost as though, to those racist commentators, no matter what sort of racist apologists they are, the lives of women, children, men, members of the LGBT community, the disabled and even a young 12-year-old autistic girl and avid Harry Potter fan, Noya Dan, did not count, just because they were Jewish, and, again, murder, torture, kidnapping and depraved sexual violence somehow do not count because the victims are Jewish. The word "othering", that horrible all-island trait of discounting and dehumanising the lives of those we do not agree with, making them some sort of Untermenschen, applies far too strongly here, especially if it has anything to do with Israel.

It is far too easy for some to rapidly fall into blaming-Israel-for-everything mode, as if that somehow excuses antisemitic race hate. It does not. If there is a lesson we could and should learn, it is that racism and sectarianism, whatever its form, is toxic. Maybe, at least in the Assembly, hopefully, and across wider society on this island, we will. Those so-called commentators should stop and reflect on the additional horror that they have inflicted on our Jewish community by their espousal of antisemitism.

There is no space for antisemitism in the Assembly or anywhere else.

Ms K Armstrong: Today is the United Nation's World Habitat Day. There will be various activities around the world organised to examine the problems of rapid urbanisation and its impact on the environment and human poverty.

In Northern Ireland, we still do not have a housing supply strategy, and, as reported by the Simon Community in June of this year, we have as many as 80,000 people who cannot access a place to call home. In Northern Ireland, we are not building enough social homes to meet the demand. The proportion of the Budget allocated for new housebuilding is simply not enough. Without a formal housing supply strategy that includes clear funding commitments in the Budget, the Assembly will continue to fail society by leaving thousands of people without a place to call home.

I call on the Minister for Communities to bring forward his housing supply strategy as soon as possible and to stop the delays. We want to make sure that the next Budget is influenced by the housing supply strategy.

A housing supply strategy must provide a clear pathway to achieve our climate change targets by removing oil as Northern Ireland's main home heating method, and that is in line with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors World Built Environment Forum. The strategy must set out clear cross-departmental actions to ensure that new homes are built to passive-house-type standards, and have a plan to improve existing homes through a national programme of sustainable transition, including an area-based approach that provides incentives for private owners and housing associations to bring their houses up to the energy performance certificate rating A standard and away from fossil fuels.

Determined actions to deal with Northern Ireland's housing crisis will bring the opportunity to improve the desperate housing stress that up to 80,000 people face every day. Actions to deal with Northern Ireland's housing crisis have the opportunity to enable the introduction of energy efficient improvements that will help us meet our climate change targets and make life better for everyone.

As a counterbalance, if we are committed to our environment, our environmental heritage should be protected and building more homes should not come at the expense of our natural environment. To this end, I ask the Minister for Communities to work with the Ministers of Finance and Infrastructure to develop planning regulations that ensure that any disturbance to the natural environment is minimised, and the Minister ensures that the historic environment division of DFC invests in native seed conservation, such as that carried out by True Harvest Seeds in Kilclief, to safeguard native species going forward.

Mr Speaker: I call Stephen Dunne. You have two minutes.

Mr Dunne: I rise to express my sincere condolences and pay tribute to Gina Murray, who sadly passed away on Thursday after a period of illness. Gina's daughter, Leanne, was cruelly murdered by the IRA in a cowardly bomb attack on the Shankill Road in 1993 when she was aged just 13. She was an innocent young girl whose life was callously taken from her as it was just beginning.

Although losing Leanne broke Gina's heart, it did not break her spirit. She showed immense courage and was a positive influence for good on everyone she met. Gina Murray bravely stood up for justice and truth throughout her life. Gina was an incredible lady who was compassionate, kind, resilient, gracious, caring and always interested in others.

Gina was also instrumental in her work through the Kilcooley Women's Centre in Bangor, where she was a tireless campaigner for the victims of violence and a champion for local women through the many educational and empowerment programmes and much more that she was involved with over the years. She was always an encouraging influence on everyone she met and always had a happy smile on her face. Gina also dedicated many years of her life to working with local scout and cub groups. She quickly became a greatly loved leader of many children, particularly in the Kilcooley and Clandeboye areas, over the years and, indeed, generations.

I take the opportunity to pay tribute to Gina and express our thoughts, prayers and condolences to Gary and the wider Murray family.

Mr Speaker: As with similar motions, the motion will be treated as a business motion, and there will be no debate. I remind Members that, in accordance with Standing Order 79(3), the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Speaker: Members should take their ease before we move on to the statement by the Minister for Communities.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notice that the Minister for Communities wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions, believe me, will not be allowed.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, and in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following report on the British-Irish Council (BIC) housing work sector ministerial meeting on 20 September. Aisling Reilly MLA, junior Minister in the Executive Office, also represented the Executive at the meeting. The report has been endorsed by us both, and she has agreed that I make the statement on our behalf.

The British-Irish Council, established in 1999, is a forum for its members to discuss, consult and use best endeavours to reach agreement on cooperation on matters of mutual interest within the competence of its member Administrations. The British-Irish Council housing work sector is led by the Executive. The group has proved to be a constructive forum for facilitating thematic evidence exchange and practical collaboration. The meeting on 20 September focused on the housing work sector's programme of work carried out since 2021 as well as the forward work plan that will cover the period from now until 2026. I chaired the meeting in my role as Minister responsible for housing, and, as I said, the Executive were also represented by junior Minister Reilly. The Government of Ireland were represented by Mr Alan Dillon TD; the Scottish Government by Mr Paul McLennan; the Welsh Government by Jayne Bryant; the Isle of Man Government by Tim Crookall; the Government of Jersey by Sam Mézec; the Government of Guernsey by Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez; and the UK Government by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

Ministers considered and reflected on the papers that were presented at the ministerial meeting, which included a discussion of the challenges and opportunities of improving housing supply. Much of that reflects the work that I am taking forward in the delivery of a new housing supply strategy that will provide a framework to address the challenges here. Ministers also noted and agreed the content of the forward work plan for the housing work sector, which identified the work sector's areas of focus for the next three years. The areas of focus for the sector that were agreed by Ministers are residential net zero and retrofit; the private rental sector; affordable housing models; attracting private sector investment for housing; and homelessness and temporary accommodation.

All member Administrations have demanding targets for achieving net zero and preparing for a switch away from carbon-based fuel sources that are used to heat homes and water. While there are challenges with new builds, there are particular challenges with retrofitting old buildings that were not built for such technologies. The housing work sector will include consideration of more energy-efficient building techniques, new heating technologies, changing resident behaviour and ensuring a just transition.

Different approaches have been taken across the islands to ensure that the private rental sector delivers high-quality, secure and affordable homes for tenants. Members will be aware that we are undergoing a process of reform here, as are most other BIC Administrations. We can learn from what is being done elsewhere.

Housing costs form the largest part of most household budgets, and ensuring that costs remain affordable is key to avoiding an increase in poverty. Private rents and house prices continue to rise, and, as a result, there is considerable pressure right across the housing system but in particular on social housing. All Administrations continue to innovate to introduce new models of intermediate housing, and much of that work has been informed by the conversations that have taken place in the BIC's housing work sector. Given the pressures on the conventional sources of investment that are traditionally used for affordable housing, Administrations have sought out more innovative forms of subsidies, such as loans, loan guarantees, long-term private capital loans and developer contributions. Indeed, some Administrations have been very innovative in that area, and others are keen to examine what more they can do in that space.

All Administrations are managing the increased use of homelessness services and temporary accommodation. That is partly due to pressures found across the housing market. There is also the increasing complexity of people presenting with mental health and addiction issues who require much support. Collectively, we can continue to learn from various approaches across these islands.

Finally, I thank all my ministerial colleagues who participated so productively in the meeting. It has been agreed that the next ministerial meeting for the housing work sector will take place in 2026.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Has there been any indication from the UK Government that the Budget will include increased funding for housing? What discussions has the Minister had with his Executive colleagues to determine whether, should additional money come here through a Barnett consequential arising from such an announcement, it will be ring-fenced for housing?

Mr Lyons: No, that was not mentioned at the meeting, and I do not think that it will be the case that we will receive additional funding for housing. I have, however, made the case to Executive colleagues on the importance of housing. I secured a commitment in the draft Programme for Government that housing is a stand-alone item, and I expect that to be reflected when budgetary conversations take place. I have been able to secure additional funding this year for the social housing development programme, and I hope that I will be successful in securing more.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for his statement. What conversation or learning was shared about rent regulation and improved security of tenure to strengthen renters' rights?

Mr Lyons: Over the past number of years, we have seen various changes to the law across the UK and Ireland and in other Administrations on that issue. As the Chair will be aware, I am taking forward some of the issues that were included in the Private Tenancies Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. We have made good progress on some of them already, albeit more is to be done. The private rented sector is an area of concern, and the meeting was another good opportunity for us to share the learning that exists in different Administrations.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he agree that the introduction of rent controls would have a detrimental impact on the housing market and on housing supply?

Mr Lyons: Yes, that is an issue that was raised at the meeting. We had a conversation about the approaches that are taken in different areas. The powers in the Private Tenancies Act have lapsed, but, in any case, the independent research commissioned by the Department clearly outlined the potential negative impacts of rent controls. In particular, the research report highlighted the point that a large proportion of landlords may exit the private rental market and that would result in a greater shortage of available private rented properties in an already stretched market. The research report concluded that the best way for us to relieve pressure on affordability for renters is by increasing the housing supply and ensuring that the benefits system properly takes account of the cost of housing.

Ms K Armstrong: Given the number of people without a home to call their own, what did the Minister learn from the actions being taken forward in other regions that will be included in his housing strategy?

Mr Lyons: As the Member will be aware, the housing strategy has been under development for some time. I like to think that a lot of the issues that have been talked about in the British-Irish Council housing work sector are already part of or will form part of the housing supply strategy. I heard what the Member said just a few moments ago, and I recognise the importance of ensuring that we move that forward at pace. Nevertheless, I believe that many of the actions that we can take in terms of housing supply have already been taken.

It is worthwhile outlining some of the things that the Department has been able to do since the return of devolution. We have moved forward with the intermediate rent product. We have provided more financial transactions capital for move-on accommodation. We have increased the property value limit for co-ownership. We have continued to provide the Supporting People programme with additional funding. We have secured additional funding for the social development housing programme. I have worked with housing authorities to make sure that we can identify void properties in order for us to take the pressure off homelessness. We have got housing as a stand-alone item in the Programme for Government, and we are bringing forward the housing supply strategy and progressing the issues in the Private Tenancies Act. We are making progress on a lot of issues. The housing supply strategy will ensure that we have collective agreement from other parties so that we can take a whole-Executive approach to dealing with the issues that the Member has raised.

Mr Allen: Energy efficiency measures to lift households out of fuel poverty are vital. Did the Minister have any conversations with BIC colleagues about energy efficiency measures, and did he take away any learning from them?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. As I said, one of the items in our forward work programme relates to residential net zero and retrofit. In my opinion, given the very challenging climate targets that we have, one of the best things that we can do is invest in energy efficiency measures. We need to make it cheaper for people to heat their home. That is why it is so important that this work sector goes forward with that focus on making sure that we invest so that people can save on their energy bills.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for his statement. What conversations were had with respect to the importance of projects such as Complex Lives and services such as the dispersed intensely managed emergency (DIME) accommodation projects in relation to homelessness and addressing the huge issue in relation to temporary accommodation?

Mr Lyons: The Member is right to highlight those issues. The issue of homelessness was part of our conversations, as was the importance of investing to prevent homelessness in the first place. That is certainly what I want to do. I want to make sure that we have the funding available to have temporary accommodation where it is needed. More importantly, however, we need to invest earlier and in those challenging cases as well. We need to do everything that we can to make sure that people have a safe, secure and affordable home.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement. He will be aware that one of the key challenges here in providing affordable and social housing is the difficulties in our planning system and our waste water treatment capacity. Areas at capacity include the likes of Enniskillen in my constituency, and there is an ever-growing housing need there. What discussions is the Minister undertaking to solve those matters so that the Department can push forward on any housing strategy?

Mr Lyons: It is a key part of the housing strategy to make sure not just that we have the land and the ability to build on it with the infrastructure but that the planning is as quick and efficient as possible. To that end, in preparing the final draft of the housing supply strategy for the Executive, I have requested meetings with a number of ministerial colleagues. A couple of those colleagues have yet to take up the invitation to meet me, but I hope that that will be forthcoming. I have met the Infrastructure Minister and have raised with him the importance of ensuring that the issues are sorted out. The easiest way to deal with the housing crisis that we face is to make sure that we have the ability to build more homes. If planning is holding that up or if we do not have the waste water connections, that will be difficult, especially in those areas of high demand. That will form part of the housing supply strategy, but, most importantly, we need to make sure that we have an action plan in place from that strategy that means that we see real delivery on those issues for towns such as Enniskillen and others.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for the statement. I want to ask him about the ongoing work on the reform of private tenancies. Can he confirm when he will bring forward the regulations in the Private Tenancies Act?

Mr Lyons: There are a number of regulations to be brought forward, and some already have been. The Member will be aware of the work that has already taken place on, for example, smoke alarms, carbon monoxide alarms and electrical safety checks. Other issues have still to be progressed, but those commitments have been made in legislation, and we will take them forward as soon as is practicable.

Miss Hargey: Was the issue of letting agents discussed? When will you be able to share the commissioned report by the Chartered Institute of Housing on letting agents and practices of charging?

Mr Lyons: I do not remember that being discussed. I will check and come back to the Member. I cannot remember that specifically being addressed during the conversations that we had, which makes me think that it was not. I am certainly happy to provide further information on that and potential dates for the publication of the report that she referred to.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement and his answers. Minister, you have outlined some of the issues around the housing crisis, but will you give an update on the progress of your housing supply strategy?

Mr Lyons: We are nearing the point — I hope very soon — at which I will be able to take it to the Executive. I had hoped to meet two more Executive colleagues on issues that are pertinent to their Departments. I have not heard back from them yet. Regardless, it is important that we press on with the strategy. It will provide a long-term, cross-departmental framework for the actions that are required to increase supply and address the main barriers to supply here. We need to move that forward as quickly as possible, and I hope to do that in the very short term.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Linda Dillon.

Mrs Dillon: My question has been answered.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis.

Minister, how does the Department plan to ensure that our vital homelessness services are protected, given the present budget constraints?

Mr Lyons: Of course, there is a statutory duty on us to provide the services that the Member refers to. I would like to see much less money being spent on temporary accommodation and much more being spent on prevention because that will give us the best benefit in the longer term. That may be better for budgets, but, more importantly, it will be much better for the individuals who are most affected by homelessness.

We are in a difficult position with our temporary accommodation needs, and the Member will be aware of that. That was reflected in other jurisdictions in the BIC, and there was conversation on that. If we want to deal with the issue, more than anything else we need to make sure that there is an increased supply of housing across Northern Ireland. That is why I intend to bring forward the housing supply strategy as soon as possible.

Mr Carroll: I remind the Minister that rent controls have worked in many countries in Europe and across the world.

Minister, what conversations took place between you and your counterparts on empty properties? There are 20,000 empty properties in the North and 166,000 in the South. Taking action on those empty homes could get rid of homelessness in one fell swoop, so what discussions took place on that?

Mr Lyons: First, I am happy to hear from the Member whether he has any independent research that he has commissioned on rent controls that shows something different from the independent research that my Department has commissioned on the subject. I look forward to seeing that from him.

The Member is right to raise the issue of empty properties. That has been a concern of mine from before I came into this post. I have engaged in conversations with the Housing Executive and housing associations to make sure that we do everything that we can about void properties in Northern Ireland. However, the Member will be aware, because we have discussed this, of the number of properties that lie empty for the long term and the number of properties that do not seem to have anyone maintaining or looking after them.

I want to see those issues addressed as well, because, as we are all aware, it is very, very expensive to build new homes in Northern Ireland. We should make the most use that we can of the buildings and homes that we already have.

Ms Mulholland: The 6·4% increase in Supporting People funding in this Budget is obviously very welcome. The community and voluntary sector plays a huge role in supporting people who are living with homelessness, but it is under increasing pressure, with some providers working on monthly budgets. What can the Minister do to support the community and voluntary sector, particularly around the homelessness agenda, in the work that he wants to bring forward?

Mr Lyons: The Member will have already seen my commitment to that through, as she rightly mentioned, the increase in funding that I have provided this year for not only the Supporting People programme but the voluntary and community sector. I want to ensure that we protect those budgets and the organisations that do such good work, including, importantly, preventative work. If we were starting from scratch, we would ensure that we spend far more on the preventative measures than we currently do. I have shown my commitment to ensure that we deal with the issue, and I look forward to our making more progress on that. That is certainly my intention. I want to see that delivered.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I think that I am right in saying that all, or virtually all, of the other Administrations that attended that meeting have implemented or are moving to implement a ban on no-fault evictions. My understanding is that you do not want to do that here. Why should Northern Ireland be an outlier when all our neighbours have taken or are taking that important step?

Mr Lyons: First, I am committed to progressing the provisions of the Private Tenancies Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, because that is what was passed by the House. Also, of course, it is not always like for like. Scotland has the ban that the Member mentioned, but with a very different framework in some cases. There are so many exemptions to it that, essentially, no-fault evictions still exist. As I said previously, I am open to conversations with colleagues on that. I absolutely want to ensure that we protect tenants. That is why we are driving forward the reforms that we see. I am always happy to review the legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement. Members may take their ease while we change the top Table.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Infrastructure that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that questions must be concise. Long introductions will not be allowed.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

for the opportunity to address the Assembly. I wish to make the following statement about the Executive's flagship A5 western corridor dual carriageway project, following the Executive's agreement last week to my decision to proceed.

The A5 western corridor dual carriageway scheme was recognised as a flagship project by the Executive in 2015 and has been a long-standing commitment of the Executive and the British and Irish Governments. The whole scheme is approximately 85 kilometres in length, extending from Newbuildings to south of Aughnacloy where the existing A5 joins with the N2 at the border. It will provide a continuous new dual carriageway, generally parallel with the existing A5 corridor, with a number of junctions that will facilitate access to the various towns, villages and hamlets along the route of the corridor that are currently served by the existing A5, as well as links to other strategic routes.

The proposed new A5 dual carriageway project is, first and foremost, about saving lives. Sadly, we are all familiar with the news reports about the 57 fatalities that occurred on the road between April 2006 and April 2024, and hundreds more injuries have been suffered that have not grabbed the headlines. Lives, families and communities have been devastated so frequently by the loss of a friend or loved one. I have met grieving families and witnessed their heartache at first hand, so I was pleased that, following the agreement of my Executive colleagues last week, I was able to announce my decision to proceed with the construction of the first stretch of the A5 upgrade, which is between Strabane and Ballygawley. That is in line with the Planning Appeals Commission's (PAC) recommendation that it is in the wider public interest that that section proceed. The stretch covers almost two thirds of the project — 55 kilometres, or 34 miles, of 85 kilometres, or approximately 53 miles. My intention is to make a formal decision on the remaining sections at the earliest opportunity.

The experience of the adjoining A4 dualling scheme tells us that we can be confident that improved safety profiles will be delivered on the new A5 dualling scheme. A key objective of the scheme, therefore, has always been to improve road safety, but it is also about improving journey times and reliability in order to meet the needs of a modern society. The new dual carriageway is also of significant strategic importance to the north-west region and our wider island, helping to tackle regional imbalance, improving the economy, job prospects and prosperity, and connecting communities.

In its opening remarks to the public inquiry of April 2023, the Planning Appeals Commission commented that it wanted to bring to an end the long saga of the A5 scheme. In making my decision, I also want to bring an end to that uncertainty insofar as it is in my power to do so. My decision is to proceed with approximately 55 kilometres of new dual carriageway from a junction just south of Strabane, which will be known as junction 8, to the proposed junction close to Ballygawley, which will be known as junction 15, including a short westward extension of the existing A4 dual carriageway to join to the new road. That amounts to nearly two thirds of the scheme's full length. My decision is in line with recommendation 30 of the PAC's final advisory report from the 2020 and 2023 public inquiries. The recommendation is that, subject to certain conditions, my Department should proceed with that part of the scheme.

I reassure Members that I remain fully committed to progressing the entirety of the scheme and to taking a statutory decision on whether to proceed with the remaining parts, which go from Newbuildings to south of Strabane and from Ballygawley to the border south of Aughnacloy, at the earliest opportunity. My Department continues to work to progress those remaining parts.

The 2023 PAC report raised a number of issues with the length of road between Newbuildings and Strabane, the main one being the potential for increased flood risk in the River Foyle basin. Work is ongoing to consider and address the PAC's recommendations on that. As part of that work, my officials have initiated and are progressing extensive engagement with the Irish Government's Department of Transport, Donegal County Council and the Office of Public Works (OPW). That work is ongoing, with the aim of developing a common position on how to mitigate the flood risks. I am confident that the issue, which the PAC raised, can be resolved in due course, and I do not see a reason to delay progress on other parts of the scheme.

I remain committed to delivering the length of dual carriageway from Ballygawley to the border. Recently, at the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) transport sectoral meeting on 27 June, the NSMC agreed:

are crucial:

The NSMC agreed that both Administrations should continue to work collaboratively, and it agreed to establish a new cross-border working group to reinforce that collaboration:

road schemes:

In making my decision, I considered the PAC's final advisory report from the public inquiries that were held in 2016, 2020 and 2023; all representations that were made, including landowners' concerns; all advice that was received from public authorities; all environmental information; the results of transboundary consultations; policy considerations; and all information and materials relating to the scheme. I did so, having also eliminated the risks of adverse effects on the scheme on special areas of conservation and special protection areas, following appropriate assessments of those risks.

My Department concurs with the PAC's conclusions that that part of the scheme will bring large benefits for road safety, journey times and economic competitiveness and significant benefits for the balancing of regional infrastructure provision. My Department also concurs with the PAC that, for that part of the A5 western transport corridor, the substantial benefits offered by the proposed offline dual carriageway outweigh the adverse environmental impacts and justify any interferences with the human rights of individuals who may be affected by the scheme.

Regard has been given to the environmental statement of 2016, the environmental statement amendment of 2019 and the environmental statement amendment of 2022; all other advice and environmental information; the updated August 2024 reports to inform an appropriate assessment; the consultation responses on those assessments; and the advice and recommendations from the public bodies. As such, the likely significant effects of the proposed scheme have been assessed, and the information presented is sufficient to inform the judgements on the decision to proceed with that part of the scheme. The appropriate assessments, which have been undertaken, are reflected in reports. Those will be published in the public notice. In light of the content of the reports, it is considered that the construction and operation of that part of the scheme will not by itself or in combination with other plans or projects adversely affect the integrity of special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites in view of their conservation objectives.

In deciding to proceed with part of the scheme at this time, my Department has set out in detail in the now published departmental statement the consideration that was given to the PAC's recommendations. My decision to proceed is also subject to my Department's commitment to carrying out mitigation measures and other works and conditions summarised in the Department's statement that are relevant to that part of the scheme. Further information on my decision, the departmental statement, the PAC report in October 2023 and associated documents are available for viewing via my Department's website.

In line with my decision to proceed, I have instructed my officials to make the necessary direction orders, the vesting orders and the stopping up of private accesses orders relevant to that part of the scheme. My decision on those orders will be subject to my Department's commitment to carry out the mitigations and other works referred to in the departmental statement. In accordance with the normal procedure, I have invited the Infrastructure Committee to consider the direction order and stopping up order papers at its meeting this coming Wednesday. Subject to its consideration, I hope to formalise my decision through a notice in the local press in the following week, which is the week commencing 14 October. That will also bring the above orders into effect, and the lands will then formally come into my Department's ownership around mid-November. As part of that process, all landowners whose land is to be vested will receive correspondence from my Department that sets out the vesting process and the opportunities that we will provide for them to have any further queries that they may have answered.

The completion of vesting will allow contractors to complete the environmental surveys and archaeological and geotechnical investigations to inform their detailed design. Additional enabling works, such as site clearance and fencing in advance of the main construction contracts, could commence early next year. The current programme for construction of the length of the new road from south of Strabane through to the south of Omagh, including a bypass at Omagh, indicates that work on that stretch will commence by the middle of next year, while work on the length of road south of Omagh and Ballygawley will commence in early 2026. Total construction is estimated to take place over five years.

I reassure everyone that I remain fully committed to delivering the entire 85 kilometres of the A5 scheme. My reason for starting with the Strabane to Ballygawley section is to ensure that that key length of the project is not delayed, particularly because it has had the most fatalities. I very much hope that everyone can now get behind that much-needed and long-awaited scheme in the interests of the greater good of our communities and future generations.

Mr Durkan: I welcome the statement and commend the Minister and his officials on their commitment to getting to this stage. It has been a long road and an extremely painful one for those who have lost loved ones on the A5 along the way, and I commend all those who have played a positive role in campaigning for change. The Minister has outlined well the rationale for his approach and the phasing of the project, but could he provide an estimated date of completion for the entire A5 scheme?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his comments, particularly in relation to the work that my officials have carried out on the scheme, which, at times, has been intense and, at other times, has been well above and beyond the call of duty.

I cannot give the Member an estimated time for the completion of the entire scheme now. The work that we are preparing to carry out on the phase that I have announced will take around five years from commencement, with a full phase of construction starting mid-next year and preparatory works and advance schemes starting early next year. I will most likely have to go through preparations for the other parts of the scheme similar to those that I have done for this one. The Newbuildings to Strabane and Ballygawley to Aughnacloy sections may require a public inquiry. All those procedures will have to be followed and will dictate the time before a final decision is made.

Mrs Erskine (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I thank the Minister for his statement on this flagship Executive project. I also thank him for taking the time this morning to brief me, as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. That was much appreciated.

The Minister has helpfully set out the next steps, and, as stated, those will be considered by the Committee. I am sure that we will play our part in examining the enabling orders as required. The cost of the project is expected to be in the region of £1·2 billion and will provide a much-needed boost to the construction sector, but what assurance can the Minister give that the required funding across the life of the project will be secure to ensure road safety and provide certainty to the construction sector? I note that the Ballygawley to Aughnacloy and the Newbuildings sections could take some time to come to fruition.

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for her question. As the Member stated in her opening comments, this is a flagship project of the Executive, so the Executive have committed to delivering the project in line with all our statutory obligations. I am confident that, following the agreement of the Executive last Wednesday, this section of road is now fully funded, and I am confident, given that the entire route has been committed to by the Executive, the Irish Government and, indeed, the British Government, that finances will be made available to complete the entirety of the A5 for the reasons that I outlined in my statement: road safety, ending regional imbalance, improving the economic outlook for that region and ensuring that we give all our communities an equal opportunity to thrive.

Mr McAleer: I welcome the Minister's statement. As one of the representatives of communities along that route, I can say that everyone is hoping and praying that this is it and this is the moment that things will get started on the ground. Minister, when will you be in a position to announce further details about the remaining stretches of the scheme?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his question. I reassure him that, although we announced my decision on the Strabane to Ballygawley section on Wednesday, work has been going on, over a significant period, in relation to the other sections. My departmental officials, along with their Southern counterparts, have been analysing the recommendations of the Planning Appeals Commission and looking particularly at the concerns about flooding at the Newbuildings to Strabane section. We were aware of the concerns about flooding, and my Department put mitigations forward to the PAC. The PAC continues to have concerns about that. My officials, along with our Southern counterparts, are working their way through this and want to be in a position, as soon as they can, to bring recommendations to me so that I can carry out my statutory functions in that regard. You will note that I stated that the NSMC has set up a working group that includes officials on both sides of the border so that we can see how we progress that section and ensure that our plans and the plans of Southern officials literally meet up in the right place in terms of connecting the A5 to the N2. I cannot give a definitive time frame, but I assure the Member that work in that regard has been going on and continues.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. What contingency plans do the Minister and his Department have in place should any legal challenge arise?

Mr O'Dowd: We have put forward a legally robust departmental statement. We will defend that robustly if any legal challenge arises.

Mr Stewart: I welcome today's statement and the timely advance notice of it. Minister, will you expand a bit on the vesting process and outline roughly how long that will take? Is there any reason to be concerned about some of the outstanding issues?

Mr O'Dowd: Once my Department publishes the notice in the papers, which will happen from 14 October onwards, the vesting process will take, I think, around a month to move into place. All affected landowners will be notified in due course. There has been an ongoing conversation with those farmers, because the project has been going on for so long. However, like everybody else, they received confirmation of my proposals last Wednesday. They will receive updated information in due course. Once the land is vested, Land and Property Services (LPS) will engage with the affected landowners on how and what compensation will be paid to each of them.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for this very welcome statement. I acknowledge his commitment to continue working on the Ballygawley to Aughnacloy section. Does the Minister agree that the scheme will improve road safety and save lives?

Mr O'Dowd: I am confident that the scheme has the potential to save lives and reduce road traffic collisions on that stretch of road. The Member will be familiar with the A4. Prior to the A4 being built, there were significant numbers of casualties on that road: in the 10 years since it was built, there have been two deaths. Although one death is too many, that shows that, in certain circumstances, when you provide the proper infrastructure, you can significantly reduce road deaths and serious injury.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his statement. He highlighted the commitment to seeing the entire scheme developed. From listening to your responses, it is clear that the preparatory work on the Newbuildings to Strabane section will be some time away, not least if a further public inquiry is needed. If that is the case, has the Minister given any thought to improving the existing A5 road in the short term? Obviously, the road safety issues will still exist regardless of whether that section of the scheme happens.

Mr O'Dowd: In the past two years, we have spent considerable amounts of money on A5 schemes, particularly in the areas where the most significant collisions have been recorded. I, along with my officials, will keep that under review. Where continued investment is required, that will take place ahead of any planned upgrade.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for his statement and the timely speed with which we received it. Will the Minister outline the rationale behind proceeding with what is effectively the middle of the project first?

Mr O'Dowd: The decision to move ahead with that section is in line with the Planning Appeals Commission's recommendation. The section from Ballygawley to Aughnacloy was never confirmed in any of the previous announcements or reports; it has always been a work in progress. The section from Newbuildings to Strabane was confirmed in previous announcements and reports. When my officials were at the Planning Appeals Commission's sittings, they presented a proposal on how, we believe, the flooding concerns in that area could be dealt with. The Planning Appeals Commission continued to raise concerns about that. Therefore, rather than going ahead with an announcement about the two sections and possibly facing a successful legal challenge on both, we thought that it was better to fully understand and respond to the flooding concerns raised in the Planning Appeals Commission's report. Today's announcement allows the first section to move ahead while we continue to investigate solutions to the flooding concerns on the other section.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

I thank the Minister and his officials for their continued commitment to and support for the project. It is very much welcomed by the people of West Tyrone, who have waited far too long for the road to be upgraded.

Will the Minister explain what engagement DFI has had with the Dublin Government to discuss funding for the scheme and common interests?

Mr O'Dowd: I have been in correspondence with the Taoiseach. I have spoken to Ministers at various events and formally engaged with them at the North/South Ministerial Council. There is regular engagement between my officials and their counterparts in the Department of Transport in Dublin. We have discussed at length the Irish Government's funding commitments, which remain steadfast. They are aware of my plans, and we will continue to engage with each other about the spending profile that we will require from the Executive and the Irish Government.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, the majority of the road runs through the entire constituency of West Tyrone. Given that our rural economy depends so much on its agriculture industry and on third- and fourth-generation farmers, what conversations have you and your officials had with LPS about proper compensation to allow those farmers to rebuild their farm businesses and with the Planning Service, which is a real hindrance to the farming community when it tries to rebuild farm businesses?

Mr O'Dowd: I, along with you and Deborah Erskine, met a number of the farmers who are affected by the scheme and who will perhaps be affected by further announcements about other parts of it. I fully accept that their concerns are genuine and come from a good place. As the Member said, those farmlands have been in families for generations. I have said before in the Chamber that I come from a rural background; I understand the bond between the farming community and its land. Those genuine concerns have been expressed in a respectful manner.

I will carry out all my statutory duties, which include engaging with LPS. I have committed to working with Minister Muir where there are planning issues. I suspect that most of the planning issues to which the Member refers will be in planning applications that have been submitted to councils, but I assure him that, in line with my statutory duties, I will work with any Minister or anyone else to ensure that the farmers who are affected by the scheme are treated properly and that, where there are planning issues on which I have powers to assist, I will do so.

Mr Boylan: I also welcome the Minister's statement. When will construction commence on the ground?

Mr O'Dowd: Preliminary works will start early next year. Some works on the ground are already going on, such as archaeological surveys and geotechnical inspections of land. As for work that people will notice, some preparatory work, such as the fencing off of land, will start early next year. The main construction works will most likely start in mid-2025.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his statement. I, too, welcome the progress on what is a dangerous road indeed. Given the scale of the costs, I was slightly surprised to hear no costings detailed in the considerable statement. Will the Minister provide more up-to-date costings for such a major scheme?

Mr O'Dowd: The estimated cost at this stage is around £1·2 billion. There is still engagement going on between my Department and contractors, and I am mindful that I have to be protective of the public purse. My main driver is to ensure that, when they engage with contractors, my officials are aware of the need to be protective of the public purse and to get value for money.

Mr Honeyford: I welcome this afternoon's statement from the Minister. He referenced the regional balance of the economy and the positive economic outlook for the area. Will he provide an update on the current envisaged economic benefit to Tyrone and Derry from the new A5 road? Are any estimated figures available?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have the figures in front of me, but we will supply the Member with whatever figures are available to us.

It is clear that, when you provide proper road networks or any form of transport network to a community, the economic benefit is significant. Simply being able to move goods and people in a quicker, safer, more efficient manner shows that it benefits the economy.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. Over the weekend, I met farmers who will be affected by the A5 road scheme. Top of their concerns is the vesting process. Will the Minister assure me that he will work tirelessly with farmers to ensure that none of them are impacted negatively by the scheme?

Mr O'Dowd: I welcome the Member to the Assembly and wish her well during her time here.

As I said, there has already been some engagement. There was engagement over a number of years with affected farmers. Last Wednesday's statement was definitive, so now the farmers who are directly affected will be aware of it. My officials will engage with them, and information sessions will be held. We will let them know, if they have further questions or queries, whom to contact and how to contact them.

It is difficult to say that no one will be negatively impacted: if a farmer is losing some of their land, they are negatively impacted. I accept that financial compensation does not fully resolve the matter for someone whose land has been taken, but financial compensation is a matter for LPS. I assure you that I will do everything within my statutory powers to ensure that the rural and farming community is treated fairly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that concludes questions on the statement.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mr O'Toole: When we came back here, just over eight months ago, the SDLP was clear that it would be a constructive Opposition. We have been constructive but robust ever since. The purpose of an Opposition is not simply to throw snowballs or stones but to do our job, as a public service, for those who have sent us here collectively but have been failed over years — in fact, for nearly a decade now — through repeated failures of the Executive to deliver for the people of the North.

What does our motion say today? The motion is clear: we want to see the Programme for Government (PFG) improved and updated in order to be clear about the targets, timelines and specific deliverables that the people of Northern Ireland can expect from the Executive. That is all: it is not that complicated or dense in policy terms. There is a range of areas where the public can see public services failing and have not had any devolved, Westminster or, for that matter, North/South clarity on who is delivering what for them. There is a crisis of trust in devolved government. Any of us who declare otherwise are being disingenuous. The best we can do in these institutions is to provide a clear plan and road map for how the Executive will address that crisis in confidence. We think that that needs to happen via a plan and that this document, which is a Programme for Government in draft form, is a key part of improving public confidence.

It is important to say that it is a draft. I and some of my colleagues were robust in some of our criticisms of the draft document when it first came out, on the same day as we published our own plan. Certain Executive Ministers were clear that we were being a little negative, were not getting involved and were not doing enough positive thinking. They said that we needed to get with the programme a little more. They also said that the Programme for Government was in draft and that there would be a consultation process. Well, this is consultation. This is an opportunity for all the parties in the Assembly, whether they are Executive parties, the official Opposition or independents, to have our say. It is interesting that some Executive parties have said that they will send in their own responses to the consultation on the Programme for Government. It is slightly surreal, if others do not mind my saying so, for parties that serve in the Northern Ireland Executive to say that they will send in official responses to the Programme for Government, but that, apparently, is what the Alliance Party is doing. However, in the spirit of consultation and fulsome public debate about the Programme for Government, I welcome that. That is what the motion is all about.

It is important to say that there is lots of positive stuff in the Programme for Government. It is also important to say that we recognise a number of things. The now eight-month-old Executive do not have limitless powers to solve all the problems. It is important to say in parenthesis that many of those problems have been made worse by repeated collapses by the two main parties in the Executive, but, even if we had not had collapse, powers here are not limitless. This is a mandatory power-sharing coalition that relies in large part on a block grant of funding that comes from Westminster, and consensus or, at least, some level of agreement has to be found among the four parties that comprise the Executive. I accept that there are not limitless powers to do everything all at once. That underlines and accentuates the need to have a clear set of targets and, with those targets, clear timelines for delivery and clear measurable outcomes that the public can judge the Executive against. I am afraid that the draft Programme for Government document does not have those.

The document has nine priorities. Some people would say that that is rather a large number of priorities, but, even if we go with the nine priorities — they are all important — we need to see clarity and focus on delivery. I also acknowledge that, in several of those areas, progress has been made. It would be churlish of me to pretend that the Executive and Executive Ministers have done nothing worthwhile or constructive since the institutions returned. I do not say that at all: that is not what I think, and it is not the case. I have, for example, commended the Education Minister on the progress that he has made on childcare costs. I have commended the Economy Minister for the clarity that he has given to his focus on, for example, greater all-island collaboration, taking advantage of our dual market access and, hopefully, placing a greater emphasis on regional balance. However, to make real those intentions, we need to see clarity in the Programme for Government about what will be delivered. To pick one example at random, on the provision of at least 10,000, hopefully, student places at Magee in Derry, I would like to see clarity and specificity in the Programme for Government on what it is promising about when those students will be in Derry, when the places will be in Derry or when the mechanics will be put in place to enable that to happen, with the supporting policies around accommodation, funding and all of that.

As I said, the document contains lots of positive aspiration. It also contains lots and lots of warm words but not, in many cases, a lot of clarity. It also misses out on several important things. To pick two examples, there is strikingly little about poverty and mental health in it. However, I acknowledge that no plan can do everything. The fact that those important subjects are not mentioned in the Programme for Government is evidence that, at least to some extent, Executive parties have agreed that there needs to be some level of prioritisation. If there is going to be prioritisation, there needs to be clarity about what actions are being prioritised, whether they are legislative, financial or anything else.

Our motion refers to a number of specific areas. I will touch on those because they are particularly important, but they are not the only things that are important. On waiting times, we know that we have the most devastated health service, possibly, in western Europe, to be honest. Therefore, we want to see clarity. This may come up in the debate, so it is worth saying that some in the health sector, including the BMA, have been clear that they do not necessarily want complete and detailed specificity on certain targets because they think that it would be more helpful to look at the reform programme holistically. We acknowledge that there will be views on whether one specific target is helpful. The point of our motion is to say that, in a general, broad sense, we need more targets. It is also to say that, if there is not to be a specific target for one policy output, there needs to be a clear plan with a timeline and a delivery mechanism, and it has to be agreed on and made public. We do not yet have that from the Health Minister or the Executive writ large.

The next issue that we mention is child poverty. On our second Opposition day, we tabled a series of motions on poverty, one of which touched on child poverty and specifically mentioned the pernicious two-child limit. In the document, there is not a target or even a set of clear intentions around actions being taken to address our shockingly high levels of child poverty, which are higher than in other parts of these islands. On childcare costs, as I said, I recognise the important work that the Minister has done. I have not been churlish or unreasonable, nor have my colleagues, but we would like to see more clarity on what will be delivered through the rest of the mandate. It may be that it will be indicated in a childcare strategy, when one is forthcoming, but we think that it should be embedded in a final Programme for Government.

On biodiversity laws, we have seen an action plan specifically relating to Lough Neagh, but, frankly, with not much specific detail on targets. There are lots of what Donald Trump called recently outlines of a plan or "concepts of a plan" but not specific, measurable targets. We will keep asking for those, because they are important, not for us but for the public — the people who send us here. When it comes to social housing, we know that we have a shockingly low number of social houses and that we are nowhere near fulfilling what was set out in the plans that were outlined in 2020 and 2021. On water and waste water infrastructure, in parts of the North, you simply cannot build a house, let alone get to the targets that we need to deliver on our social housing strategy. What is the plan for that? The Infrastructure Minister has talked about a proposal or the outlines or concepts of a proposal for a developer charge: we do not have clarity on that yet. If that is a specific legislative intervention, bring it before the House. The same goes for everything else that every other Minister is doing. We need detail, clarity, timelines and targets. We do not have enough of them yet in the draft Programme for Government.

Part of our job as the Opposition is to constructively nudge the Executive and Executive parties, sometimes in a way that may grate on or annoy them, towards more clarity. If that annoys them, I am sorry.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will happily give way, but I am about to come to the end of my time. I will happily give way if I get an extra minute.

Ms Bradshaw: I am looking at the SDLP's response to the draft Programme for Government for 2011 to 2015. At that time, the party also expressed concern about the lack of detail provided for each priority. The SDLP was in the Executive then, but it is not now. What has changed in your opinion of how a draft Programme for Government should look?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is nearly up.

Mr O'Toole: The Member has just floored me by reading out something that was said 13 years ago when neither she nor I were MLAs. If I am right, she has said that, when we were in the Executive —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: Hang on, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): No. Time is up, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: The Executive parties need to get real.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, resume your seat. Time is up. The instruction is clear. Please resume your seat.

Mr O'Toole: Pathetic interventions like that, I am afraid, simply reveal a lack of seriousness.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Please resume your seat.

Mr O'Toole: I ask the Executive parties to support the motion.

Mr Harvey: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The proposer will have 10 minutes to move and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes.

Mr Harvey: In moving the amendment in my name and that of Mr Kingston, I acknowledge the progress that the Executive have made on this subject since their re-formation back in February. The publication of the draft Programme for Government on 5 September marked a key milestone, one that the House has not seen since the last Programme for Government, which was for 2011 to 2015 and was agreed by the then Executive parties.

The reality before us is that there is much to be done and little time to do it, a point that I stressed to Executive Office Ministers last week at Committee. Therefore, it is vital that clear Programme for Government objectives form the basis of delivery over the next two and a half years. It is important that we can keep track and easily identify delivery against the objectives laid out in the new Programme for Government. That will afford Ministers clarity on Executive priorities and facilitate the scrutiny of performance.

I am pleased that some areas on which we are all agreed have already seen action, benefiting homes and families across Northern Ireland on issues such as childcare, resolving public-sector pay disputes and considering departmental budgeting plans to allow numerous projects to be given the go-ahead. Documents that have already been published, such as those on the elective care framework, the early learning and childcare strategy and the childcare subsidy scheme, have been welcomed in their respective sectors. I look forward to seeing how work that is in progress can align with the objectives of the programme and how, in turn, the programme will allow us to identify areas requiring targeted intervention.

The Opposition motion highlights several areas that will, no doubt, be front and centre in Ministers' minds. Healthcare and waiting times; childcare costs; poverty; the acute need for social housing; and urgent action on water and waste water infrastructure will all be key priorities over the next few years. However, that is not an exhaustive list of the many issues and difficulties that are faced. Whilst not identified in the motion, issues such as the provision of enhanced services around special educational needs, for example, or the requirement for delivery on key infrastructure projects, are equally important.

On social housing, for example, my party colleague has been working hard on a housing supply strategy, being aware of the necessity to set out how improvements and investment can deliver 100,000 homes over the next 15 years, with one third of them being social and affordable. Borrowing capacity needs to be reinstated for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in order to enable it to begin building once again. The Executive must continue to invest in new models of affordable housing, from shared ownership to the new models of affordable renting.

Whilst the programme, once completed, will supply the Government with a road map, it will, arguably more importantly, inform the private sector of the Executive's priorities, providing much-needed clarity and certainty for the coming years. The input flowing from the current public consultation will therefore be a vital element of the process and will, hopefully, inform the Executive's discussion of how best to enhance and elaborate on the initial draft framework. We, as a party, will seek to work with others to ensure that specific, measurable and time-bound objectives are introduced where we deem that to be appropriate and practical.

Delivery is pivotal for the DUP. The Executive must deliver and be seen to deliver on the issues that matter to the public over the rest of the mandate. I look forward to the final programme and to seeing the work of implementation commencing.

Ms Sheerin: I welcome the opportunity to speak about our draft Programme for Government, which is out for consultation until 4 November. It is vital that as many people as possible respond to that consultation and have their views fed in. As Mr Harvey outlined, the announcement of our draft Programme for Government on 5 September was a good news day for the North, the Executive and everyone in the Assembly. It was also a key indication of everyone working together to solve the problems that we all face in our constituencies and deal with the issues that our constituents bring to us. If you look at the priorities in the Programme for Government, you see that it tackles the issues that we all face.

Anybody who has listened to me in recent weeks will know that, as a Mid Ulster MLA and someone who lives in south Derry, we have seen a significant problem with water quality recently, which is a result of the problems that we have in Lough Neagh. I was delighted to see that an action plan for Lough Neagh features as one of the priorities in the draft Programme for Government. It is vital that that work starts, because we know that those problems will not be solved overnight. Years and years of underinvestment and decline have led to those problems, and we need to work together to fix them.

Similarly, as constituency MLAs, we have all had people contact us about the rising cost of childcare and the pressure that that puts on working families. Again, a commitment to sort that out — I know that work has begun there — and a cross-departmental approach to the issue are fundamental to good government and to us all working collaboratively together. I could go through all nine priorities, because they are all examples of that. I was particularly pleased to see ending violence against women and girls outlined as a priority, and work has begun on that strategy. Last week, the Committee heard from the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the junior Ministers about the updates that we will receive on that work. We want that epidemic to end in the North of Ireland; we do not want the North to continue to be one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman.

All these things and the work that has been done blasts a lot of the misconceptions that people have about politics in the North. We all have different ideologies; we all have different political perspectives; but we are all united in wanting to see the best for the people whom we represent, and we all want to deliver for the people who have put us here. The draft Programme for Government is a brilliant example of that, and I urge people to feed into the consultation and have their views heard.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I will say a few words initially on behalf of the Committee for the Executive Office, and I thank the Members who tabled today's motion for debate.

The consultation on the draft Programme for Government runs until 4 November, and it is important for it to be analysed, discussed and debated to ensure that it is the best possible way forward. The Committee was pleased to receive the much-anticipated draft Programme for Government and will formulate a response to the consultation. We have written to the other Statutory Committees for their views, and I trust that members will play their part in ensuring that the consolidated response will be as helpful as possible.

We expect to receive a briefing from Executive Office departmental officials as soon as is practical at the conclusion of the consultation to ensure that people's views have been taken on board.

The Committee looks forward to playing its part in scrutinising progress as the actions in the final Programme for Government unfold towards the stated aims and objectives. We will examine the indicators of progress and seek meaningful outcomes for individuals and communities going forward.

I will now make a few remarks in my capacity as an Alliance MLA. I support the motion and the amendment. I start by emphasising that a Programme for Government is meant to be a broad set of priorities, not a specific set of targets. It is designed to set out an overall direction of travel, and, to that extent, the document is well-named as it is a broad plan to establish what matters most, and that is, indeed, what a broad four-party Executive should be doing.

Going strictly by the wording of the motion, there is no requirement to place targets in a Programme for Government before it is approved. However, there is a requirement to set targets in key areas before it can be approved and signed off. We could debate precisely what constitutes "specific" and "measurable" and whether we should take "time-bound" to mean in the current mandate. Some of the areas stated in the motion need to be addressed over the medium to long term, so targets set for the current mandate would be staging posts, rather than a final destination, or evidence of a particular action aimed at a longer-term goal. Fundamentally, the public have the right to know what Executive Ministers have set out to do, so that, come election time, voters can best assess whether they have done it. Of course, targets are just one aspect of that, and we need clear road maps for attaining them.

The other omission from the motion and something that is central to the effectiveness of a Programme for Government is that actions have to complement one another; it has to be based on cohesion, not just for purpose but for action and delivery. It is for that reason, among others, that the Alliance Party has proposed that a stand-alone mission for peace and peacebuilding should be inserted into the final Programme for Government.

We need to recognise that we cannot achieve the ambitions contained in the programme, regardless of whether we have specific targets, if we do not tie it together with work on reconciliation, equality and inclusion. Ongoing political instability, the failure to tackle division and the maintenance of paramilitary control over some communities are huge barriers to achieving anything set out in the Programme for Government. We need assured stability, work on integration and an end to gangsterism if we are to meaningfully grow our economy, improve our public services and deliver shared prosperity.

Mr O'Toole: I am grateful to the Committee Chair for giving way. Does she think that the Programme for Government should have specific targets for any of the areas that she mentioned, whether for tackling paramilitarism or for political stability? For example, should the PFG include a target to reform the institutions?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. I thank the Member for his intervention. The point that I made was that, once the draft Programme for Government is agreed, we should have those specifics. They are what the Committee for the Executive Office would measure, scrutinise and assess.

The motion makes reasonable points, but they are limited because we have to think about implementation in the broadest possible sense. As I said, there is no harm in outlining targets for various Departments so that the public may assess them, and, indeed, there is no harm in adding indicators to the process, but they need to be accompanied by meaningful actions and, in our view, by an overarching mission on "Peace and Reconciliation".

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after the questions for urgent oral answer listed for today, when the next Member to speak will be Connie Egan.

Mr Speaker: Questions 9 and 15 have been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): No such assessment has been undertaken. It would not be possible to do so because we cannot know what would have been in a programme during the years in question. We are, however, delighted to say that consultation on the draft Programme for Government began on 9 September. The draft programme is supported by a well-being dashboard that includes a range of indicators on the wider health and well-being of local people, our economy and our environment. The well-being dashboard will be published and updated regularly. It will be used to help us understand the impact that the programme is having.

Mr Butler: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. If we continue to repeat the sins of the past, we will never get any better. In my estimation, it is unarguable that the failure to have government here for five years out of eight impacted on our ability to have a Programme for Government and on people's lives. Will the deputy First Minister give an undertaking to the House that a conversation will be had to learn from the mistakes of the past so that we can move into a better dispensation for the people of Northern Ireland?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is imperative that we all work together to ensure that stability. At the heart of that must be addressing issues head-on but also finding a shared way through some of the challenges that we face. He is, of course, right, but it is also fair to say that the vision, objectives and policies outlined in the previous Programme for Government had not been fully completed at the end of that period in 2016. Therefore, there is no doubt that Departments were able to continue much of that important work on the priorities set out under the previous Programme for Government. I welcome the fact that we have the draft Programme for Government out to consultation. Ultimately, while we can look back and learn, we must look forward, address the issues and try to ensure a stable and prosperous future for all of us.

Mr O'Toole: In the spirit of looking forward and delivering what is in the draft Programme for Government — hopefully, it will get a bit more specific — will the deputy First Minister confirm that she will be here for the remainder of the mandate, that she will not resign her office and that she will deliver what will be in the final document that succeeds the draft Programme for Government?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Some of those issues are, perhaps, outside my control. I hope that there are no matters over which I have to resign. I have made it clear that I have a determination to create stability. The people of Northern Ireland want that stability to drive forward the changes that we need to see, particularly around the reform and transformation of our public services.

Our draft Programme for Government is entitled, 'Our Plan: Doing What Matters Most'. It is about the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly delivering for people on what matters most. What matters most are health waiting lists; transformation of services to ensure that they deliver effectively; and tackling the big issues of education and special educational needs, affordable childcare and growing our economy. Delivery on that is what we will be focused on in the years to come.

Ms Forsythe: I have had a look at the well-being dashboard. It is good to see it online; people can see what it is starting to look like. What will it look like? What sort of indicators can we expect to see there?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. The well-being dashboard is a very exciting development. There are 40 indicators on the dashboard. It is live, and I encourage Members to go on to it through the Executive Office website. Some amendment may be made to the indicators, depending on the outcome of the Programme for Government consultation process. Those indicators are all about what the leader of the Opposition referenced: monitoring progress against set baselines. That will be done in live time as the various sources of information are updated. Some of that work will be done monthly, depending on the reporting cycle, and some will be beyond that. It will, however, all be transparent and open on the website as part of the well-being dashboard, which is a really exciting initiative for monitoring progress. There will hopefully be continual improvements against the targets that we set.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The annual racial equality indicators report monitors the progress of the racial equality strategy 2015-2025 on four key outcome areas: equality of service provision; increased participation, representation and belonging; celebration of cultural diversity; and eliminating prejudice, racism and hate crime. The most recent report, which was released on 19 September, showed that, compared with the 2014 baseline, levels of acceptance of, for example, eastern Europeans, Irish Travellers and Muslims as residents, work colleagues or family members had all increased significantly by 2022. That is a key indicator of progress against the targets.

While it remains a key priority to deliver fully the commitments in the current strategy, it is important that, post 2025, there be a clear mechanism and overarching framework for achieving racial equality in our society. As part of that, we will be examining how best to use ethnic equality monitoring and other measurements to assess the effectiveness of actions taken and to inform the new approach.

Mr Carroll: Minister, you have repeatedly used the phrase "legitimate concerns" when talking about migration. There is nothing legitimate to be concerned about when you are talking about migration. There is misinformation that definitely needs to be challenged and refuted. Will you commit to not again publicly using the phrase "legitimate concerns" when you talk about migration? Ministers need to be careful about language and not give a wink and a nod to people who may be engaged in racism or are perhaps racist thugs.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Let me be clear: all racism and hate and all public disorder or violence that is based on it is wrong. It is incredibly important to draw a strong differentiation between that and concerns that are raised in communities. I have made it clear that, as Ministers and political representatives, we must be there to listen to people's genuinely held concerns. That includes, for example, concerns about access to affordable housing and public services. I would suggest that the Member look again at what I have said, which is that there may well be legitimate and genuinely held concerns about access to affordable housing and public services. That is entirely different from and no justification for any violence, racism, hate or disorder. I cannot be clearer on that.

Miss Hargey: Following on from that question, does the deputy First Minister agree that there is a duty on all of us as political leaders actively to promote a zero-tolerance approach to racism and to build a future defined by inclusivity, tolerance and respect?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. I absolutely oppose racism, sectarianism and hate, on whatever it is based. We have just released our framework and delivery plan for ending violence against women and girls, so it can mean gender-based hate and violence as well. All of that is wrong, and we should stand strongly united as political leaders and representatives against it.

Mr Kingston: Mindful of today's date, I ask how important strong political leadership is when responding to violence and racism, including antisemitism, on our streets.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. We have seen racism play out, not just on our streets, albeit by a small minority, but on social media. As the Member reminds us, today is the anniversary of the horrific terrorist attacks on 7 October 2023 in Israel. We must remember that date as one of the darkest days. Today, we remember the men, women and children who were brutally murdered one year ago and recognise the strength of those who have lost loved ones or had them taken from them.

We should all be concerned about the ongoing situation in the Middle East. We should all be calling for all hostages to be returned safely to their families and for calm to be restored in Gaza, Lebanon and the wider region. Israel, of course, has a right to defend herself. I am deeply saddened by the antisemitism and racism that has been demonstrated on social media, on the streets and in other forums on the issue. We should all stand united against all forms of racism and sectarianism, no matter where that is found.

Ms Bradshaw: Deputy First Minister, you referenced ethic equality monitoring. We do not have that embedded on a statutory footing yet. With the delay in the revised Race Relations Order, are you minded to bring it forward through the Executive Office as stand-alone legislation?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. This is something that goes just beyond that statutory requirement. There are things that we can do. Indeed, the unit in the Executive Office is working with agencies, the Civil Service and public sector and more widely in monitoring that type of data and to collect it. It is important that we understand the issues and challenges in order to take appropriate action where it is needed most. Part of that will be around that monitoring, which could be put on a statutory footing. We are actively considering that, and the Committee has been informed about some of the ongoing discussions. We are aiming to bring forward those suggestions and recommendations very shortly.

Ms Hunter: Deputy First Minister, should Northern Ireland have a stand-alone hate crime Bill, and, if so, will you ask that the Justice Minister brings that forward?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. The Member will be aware that that issue is under active consideration. Fundamentally, it lies primarily with the Justice Minister, but it is a cross-cutting matter, so it would need to come to the Executive, and the agreement of the House would need to be sought. Concerns have been raised about balance in all of this, particularly the absolutely core protection of the basic human rights and civil liberties in relation to freedom of speech and expression. The Member and I and many others across the House have been subject to a significant amount of hate, for example on social media, so there are problems to be addressed. However, we need to be careful, on the way forward, to have the right balance between tackling the scourge of hate online and in the world around us and those basic human and civil liberties.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask the junior Minister to answer this question.

Mrs Cameron (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): We recognise the important role that high streets play in our society in more ways than one. They drive the economy and create shared spaces where society thrives. We know that the nature of our high streets and the way that people shop is changing, and we need new solutions to those issues. The report presented to us by the high street task force represents a genuine collaboration across many sectors, including central and local government, academia and the third sector, as well as businesses. That collaborative approach must continue over the coming years to deliver high streets and village, town and city centres that are fit for the 21st century. We thank the members of the high street task force for their work. The report makes 14 recommendations, and we will shortly write to Executive colleagues to ask them to take forward the appropriate recommendations.

Mr Buckley: I thank the junior Minister for her answer. In just the past 24 hours, the Yellow Door deli in my constituency closed its doors on Portadown high street, citing spiralling costs. That is not an isolated issue; it is happening in towns and villages across Northern Ireland. With that in mind, will the junior Minister outline who is coordinating the cross-departmental approach that needs to be taken to deliver on the high street task force report?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for that important supplementary question. High streets are vital to communities throughout Northern Ireland. Of course, we must recognise the changes, as I mentioned, in consumer shopping in recent times. It is sad to hear about that closure. We all have examples of businesses that close and are not able to continue. That is difficult to witness. We understand the difficulties around the cost of living and the cost of goods.

The high street task force highlighted important actions that can help to revitalise local communities. It will now be up to the relevant Ministers to take forward the recommendations most relevant to their Department, and, in doing so, they will wish to work with councils and play an important role in driving people back through various initiatives and animations.

Mr McGuigan: I note that, in her response to the substantive question, the junior Minister said that 14 recommendations would be sent to Ministers. Do Ministers support all the recommendations in the high street task force report?

Mrs Cameron: Yes. We agree with the principles of the recommendations. High streets must be supported. How the task force recommends we do that and impacts since the report was published, such as the cost-of-living crisis, the budgetary position and developments in place-based working, are all factors that colleagues across the Executive need to consider. Colleagues across DFE, DFC, DFI and DOF may have particular thoughts on how to take forward the recommendations that sit within their policy control.

Mr Dickson: All constituencies suffer from the challenges that high streets have, none less so than East Antrim in the town centres of Carrickfergus and Larne. What learning points has the Executive Office taken from the report? How will its recommendations be delivered?

Mrs Cameron: I do not think that I have a relevant answer for that. If I may, I will come back to the Member in writing on that particular point.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The issue was discussed at our meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 2 October. We remain committed to ensuring that the needs of victims and survivors continue to be met. We are delighted to have agreed the new victims and survivors strategy, which has also been endorsed by the Executive. A key part of the strategy is to provide support for victims and survivors, and their families, as they try to move forward from the experiences of the past. The draft strategy recognises the importance of truth and justice and the need to work towards greater societal recognition of the hurt, loss and trauma of our past. We will continue to provide support for victims and survivors through the advocacy support network, which is delivered by community organisations and funded by the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) and is part of the forthcoming PEACE PLUS programme.

Mr McGlone: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Given that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) has agreed to investigate only eight out of 85 potential cases, will the deputy First Minister detail what steps her Department will take to ensure that every victim of the Troubles has an equal opportunity for justice?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. It is appropriate to recognise the deep hurt that continues to be felt by many families. That is compounded by the fact that so many — hundreds — of those victims and survivors have not yet had justice or truth. I mentioned that we had raised the issue with the Secretary of State. Of course, there are different views on that important issue, but one of the issues that I raised directly was the sense that there is a hierarchy of victims or a two-tier approach. All parties around the Chamber opposed the legacy legislation and, through that, the establishment of the ICRIR. However, it is incumbent on those who have faith in the ICRIR to explain to families why that process is sufficient for some but not for all. If a different process is required for some, what inadequacies in the ICRIR process is that trying to resolve?

I have confidence in Sir Declan Morgan. He is an honourable man who will do his best through the ICRIR. There are issues with article 2 compliance, as highlighted by the recent court judgement. Those issues will have to be addressed, because at the heart of this is a responsibility on us all to support all families to get the best possible opportunity for truth and justice. All families deserve the same opportunity.

Ms Sheerin: In 2012, the former British Prime Minister David Cameron acknowledged shocking levels of collusion in the murder of Pat Finucane. We know that that was not the only case in the North where collusion was at play. Is the deputy First Minister confident that the public inquiry will deliver the truth that the Finucane family so deserves and expose the practice of British state collusion?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. Any so-called article-2 compliant process should be capable of getting truth and justice. I gently remind the Member, in a personal capacity, that there are people, not least those sitting in the Chamber, who know truths that they could give to victims and survivors, addressing the fact that those victims and survivors have not had truth and justice. There are others associated with political parties and others who hold that important truth and are withholding it from families.

We should never forget that 90% of the murders that took place during the Troubles were committed by paramilitary organisations and that many thousands of the families affected have not received truth and justice. I appeal to everyone in the Chamber to work together to ensure that all families receive truth and justice.

Mr Brett: I thank the deputy First Minister for her ongoing efforts in respect of victims across Northern Ireland. Does the deputy First Minister agree that all victims in Northern Ireland deserve truth and justice, none more so than Gina Murray? As the deputy First Minister knows, Gina Murray campaigned tirelessly following the sectarian murder of her 13-year-old daughter by the Provisional IRA on the Shankill Road. Gina Murray passed away at the weekend having not seen truth or justice for her daughter. Does the deputy First Minister agree that those who may hold information or who continue to support those who carried out those acts should finally honour her legacy by giving truth and justice to her family?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his very appropriate question. As indicated, we should all take time to pay tribute to the incredible work that so many families of victims have done over the years to try to get truth and justice. I pay tribute to Gina Murray, whose life was undoubtedly shaped — shaped so terribly — by the tragic loss of her 13-year-old daughter, Leanne, in that sectarian Shankill bomb. That cannot be justified, and it should not be justified by anyone.

Ultimately, Gina Murray gave decades of her life to campaigning for truth and justice for her daughter and for so many victims and survivors. We pay tribute to her. In memory of Gina, we across the House should absolutely commit ourselves to campaigning for the best opportunity for truth and justice for all and to ensuring that everyone has the same opportunity to get truth and justice.

Ms Sugden: At a recent meeting of the Committee for the Executive Office, Sir Declan Morgan suggested that his commission's investigations are potentially more independent than those of a public inquiry, given that the Secretary of State sets the terms of reference for a public inquiry and, indeed, can amend them if he feels that it is in the public interest to do so. Does the Executive Office have an opinion on that?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. There is no departmental position on that. As I indicated, however, we sometimes bandy about terms such as "article-2 compliant" that do not always translate meaningfully on the ground. That means a process that is sufficiently independent to have been deemed under our international commitments to independently and fully have the powers to investigate issues relating to the death of a person. With that in mind, the key thing is that the ICRIR must be article-2 compliant in order to do that.

Most of all, we have always said that the fact that all families deserve truth and justice is key to our approach. There must remain an opportunity for all families to get justice. That is why we opposed the blanket amnesty that was set out in the previous legislation. We welcome the fact that that has been changed.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: 'Infrastructure 2050' sets out the strategy for investment in infrastructure for the next 30 years in order to stabilise, deliver and transform. It aims to ensure that projects help to create thriving communities and places; a clean, secure and sustainable environment; and a competitive and connected economy. It also seeks to build resilience in public services. We are considering the final draft. We hope that, after we have done that, we will be in a position to bring the strategy to the Executive.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagra.

Minister, we know that a whole-of-government approach is required to achieve our objectives. Will the Minister outline how she will ensure that the ISNI is aligned with other key strategies?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. It is essential that we learn the lessons from the previous investment strategy. It set out a clear prioritisation and clear Executive agreement, yet some of those capital projects have not been completed. There are significant increased costs in some of those capital projects. I have said this before, and I will say it again: when the timelines and costs of projects run over, it means that we can do less than we want to with the capital funds that are available. It makes sense, of course, for the projects to be driven forward in a way that best attempts to do them in a timely way and on budget. That has not always happened, and we need to learn those lessons. I welcome the fact that a whole series of actions is now happening in order to identify the problems and to ensure that, as we move forward with the new ISNI, as it is often referred to, we fulfil the ambition that it sets out.

Mrs Erskine: The investment strategy is important in order to ensure that capital projects can drive investment to Northern Ireland. FDI in Northern Ireland has been a success story. What more can we do to work with the Government to showcase Northern Ireland and maximise opportunities in order to attract more investment to Northern Ireland? How can that be tied into the investment strategy?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. Absolutely; we have to work very closely with the Department for Business and Trade on matters that go across the UK. I welcome the fact that two opportunities are coming up this week. The new council of the nations and regions, which will meet on Friday, will be an opportunity to raise those issues. The investment summit is happening on Sunday evening and on Monday in London. That is an opportunity for the First Minister and me to engage at a high level with key businesses not only to seek investment but to make clear the opportunities that exist for Northern Ireland. Throughout all that and thus far, we have made it clear to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State that the UK strategy for economic growth and investment must include Northern Ireland, and we will continue to do that. Northern Ireland must be fully integrated into the pitch that is made and the opportunities that can be secured in order to ensure that all parts of this United Kingdom can benefit from economic prosperity.

Ms Egan: In the context of projects in previous investment strategies not being delivered, what lessons will the Department learn to ensure that all actions are delivered in the forthcoming strategy?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. Detailed work has been taken forward, particularly under the head of the Civil Service and the Strategic Investment Board (SIB). SIB is tasked with bringing forward the new investment strategy, but it is undertaking a number of pieces of work to learn lessons from what happened not only to identify the problems but to recommend where we can find solutions to issues in the process.

We have always said that this must be an Executive that deliver. I want this to be an Executive that is all about delivery. Part of that is getting agreement on prioritisation. A big part of it will be about securing a much-needed Budget. A critical aspect of that and one on which projects often fall down is in delivery, implementation and roll-out. We need to get those right, and that includes everything from procurement, business cases and contractual obligations to the roll-out on the ground. All those pieces must work together if we are to deliver on time and on budget, which is what we very much want to do.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Minister detail the specific targets that will be included in the investment strategy in order to ensure that regional balance is a key priority, as stated in the draft Programme for Government?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. I hope that we have made it clear thus far that we want every part of Northern Ireland to benefit from economic prosperity. Our focus is on economic growth. We recognise that economic growth is key to ensuring that we have happy, thriving communities, no matter where they are throughout this place. Of course, the investment strategy will actively look at opportunities to ensure that investment is made right across Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Member welcomed the announcement that was made just last week about the A5. At the very heart of that is the fact that, in order to get that prosperity, people need to be able to travel to take up those opportunities, and they need to be able to do so safely.

Infrastructure is such a critical part of ensuring that prosperity, and we will make sure that no part of Northern Ireland is left out, should it be the north-west, the south-west, Causeway coast and glens, right through to the Mournes and Newry and Armagh. I have probably forgotten somewhere by the way, so, if I have, I apologise, but we want to ensure that all parts of Northern Ireland prosper.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We have been clear that we must build on the common ground that we all share to realise the potential of the site for the benefit of all, and we are committed to working with the development corporation to achieve that. The future use of the listed and retained buildings is part of the wider discussion that will undoubtedly take place. We recognise that there is a lot of history with the site, and that will require us to move with consensus and sensitivity. Unlocking the potential of the site must be done in a way that is entirely sensitive to the needs of victims and to the history and heritage of this place. I can assure the Member that engagement with those affected will be an essential part of any process of developing proposals, if it gets to that stage.

Mr Speaker: We must move to topical questions.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Let us be clear: paramilitarism is wrong. It always was. There was always an alternative. However, our peace process has always been built on engagement. Across many aspects of government, agencies, including the PSNI, engage with those in the community. We must always reach out and continue to engage with those who wish to progress. The continued transition of those once involved with organisations that are now on ceasefire has to be core to our processes and moving communities on. I assure the Member that all engagement must take place firmly within the context of our public and firm view against all terrorism or paramilitary activity.

Mr O'Toole: I will assume, hopefully, that the deputy First Minister will not seek the input of loyalist paramilitary gangs when it comes to other policy areas. I will ask this specific question. The Programme for Government says:

It also says:

That is the case in certain communities here, including in east Belfast, where East Belfast GAA is unable to safely practise because there continue to be vexatious threats to its grounds. What message does it send when Ministers in the Executive continue to have meetings — I repeat this — with representatives of those organisations?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Again, I will be very clear about this: threats are wrong, and any violence or disorder on the basis of that is wrong. People should be allowed to go about their business, should that be work, education or sport, and the Education Minister has made that clear. I refer the Member to the previous answer and ask him to look back over the last 25 years, because the heart of our process is around engaging — engaging with the organisations that, I highlight at this stage, are ceasefire organisations. Where there is criminality or continued paramilitarism or terrorist activity, we have been very clear that the PSNI must do everything that it can to have a criminal justice response to such activities, because there is no role for those in the Northern Ireland of today. There never was in the past, and there certainly is not in the future. We must all work together to stamp out the scourge of paramilitarism.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. It is absolutely important that we show that leadership, and that leadership must be based on the principles of integrity, honesty and openness. Indeed, I encourage all those to act in that manner.

Mr Chambers: Thank you for that. The last thing that anyone in the Chamber wants to see is another collapse of the institutions. Will the deputy First Minister join me and my party in calling on all Members to commit to putting the importance of devolution and good governance ahead of personal or party interests?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Absolutely, we all have a duty here to do what we can to create stability. As I indicated, at the heart of that must be an open, honest and credible approach. Anything that discredits or damages that must be avoided at all costs; indeed, all actions possible must be taken to address that.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. Ultimately, these are serious questions for Sinn Féin to answer. It is clear that there are a number of questions to be answered. I can speak on this only in my personal capacity, but I encourage the party to answer those questions in a very open and transparent way.

The Member is absolutely right. The Executive Office had a role in overseeing the independent inquiry into historical institutional abuse. We are overseeing work on the mother-and-baby homes and important investigatory research projects on clerical abuse. Indeed, representatives from the main political parties here made an apology to the victims and survivors of such abuse for those failings and faults. Those failings and wrongs were all to do with safeguarding children. That is what our primary focus must be. Lessons must be learnt from that. The lessons from the findings are around openness, candour, honesty and not moving the problem on to someone else. It is about taking responsibility. Those are all core. A huge part of that work and the reason for it is learning those lessons.

There are serious questions about the current situation that have to be answered. As leaders, we have to be honest and credible. Very many people out there will feel that the answers simply have not been credible thus far. Therefore, I urge the people involved to be open, honest and credible on the matter.

Mr Martin: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. In light of what she said, does she agree that the First Minister should now answer with complete transparency all questions put to her about how she, individually, and her party acted in all aspects of the case?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Again, I can answer only for myself. I absolutely agree: people deserve credibility. There has been a huge amount of trauma relating to child safeguarding issues over recent years and recent decades. As leaders in Northern Ireland, we all have a duty to make it clear that we are being fully transparent and open. Events over the course of the last week or so have damaged that credibility. We need to now move to that.

I put on record the fact that I distance myself from any comments that tried to put the blame for this on to other organisations, particularly the charity involved, the British Heart Foundation. I know the charity. It does a huge amount of good work. Responsibility for the issue must be taken. I hope that there will be very clear openness and honesty about it.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. I have listened to representations on the issue from her, MPs and MLAs and from the agri-food, farming and hospitality sectors. Those jobs are essential. The Northern Ireland farming sector is a net contributor and supplies 10 million people across the UK, which is well above our population. It is really important and really valuable. However, it can do that only if it can get access to the right workers. We have continuously raised the issue with the UK Government. The approach was never about closed borders entirely; it is about having a sensible approach to migration and immigration and addressing the needs of sectors. We will continue to raise those issues, because we know how important they are to the continued supply of those goods.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Will she commit to leading a cross-departmental delegation, including the Agriculture and Economy Ministers, to meet the Home Office to try to resolve the issues in respect of visas for workers who are needed in the sector?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. I commend the Member for all the work that she is doing to highlight the concerns in the industry. We know that there is serious concern, and I know that because the Member has had the conversation with me. The Agriculture Minister should lead and be part of the team that speaks to the Home Office about that important issue. I am certainly happy to engage with the Member to see whether we can encourage the Agriculture Minister to do so.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I absolutely agree. At the very heart of city and growth deals is the sense of using whatever levers and investment are available to encourage economic growth, the "levelling up" agenda, as it was known. That is very much what we want to achieve across Northern Ireland. We believe that a better and brighter future for Northern Ireland lies with economic prosperity but that economic growth must benefit all parts. That is why we are deeply disappointed that the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal and the Mid South West growth deal have been paused and are not progressing. When you look at the statistics for those areas, you see that there is significant need for the intervention of additional funds for economic growth. We will continue to raise that directly. I have no doubt that the First Minister will agree that we should raise the issue directly with the Prime Minister on Friday at the new Council of the Nations and Regions. We will continue to raise it at the highest possible level. We want all areas to benefit, and the city and growth deals are essential to that.

Mr McHugh: Minister, do you agree that ongoing investment in areas such as the north-west, particularly my area of West Tyrone, will lead to a vibrant and thriving economy that we can look forward to?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. We have fantastic businesses throughout Northern Ireland. In areas of Northern Ireland, there is a focus on particular industries, such as advanced manufacturing in mid-Ulster, We have specialisms in different places. That is a model that we can build on, working with Invest NI and across the Departments. Where there are job or investment opportunities, we must ask, "How can we ensure that these are spread in such a way that brings economic benefit to all parts?". The clear message from the Executive is that no part of Northern Ireland will be left behind. We will continue to be a champion for every part of Northern Ireland: north, south, east and west. That is at the heart of all of the work that we do.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Member will be aware, we recently launched our framework and delivery plan. We are actively working on delivery of the challenge fund and the change fund. The challenge fund will be based on two key questions being put out to the sector and inviting organisations to come forward with proposals on how to meet the challenges. We aim for that to go live this month. The change fund will work with councils and community-based organisations. That will have to be delivered through different mechanisms, but we are striving to get it out as early as possible — no later than January 2025 and prior to that date, if at all possible.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, deputy First Minister. You mentioned some funding schemes: will you elaborate on how much resource has been set aside to facilitate that?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There is £3 million available for those funds. Over the next two years, it will be about £5 million altogether. We made a bid for additional resources, even beyond those.

The £3 million is not the totality of the ambition of what we want to achieve through the strategy and delivery plan, but it is a start. We took the decision that, rather than simply to wait for everything that we wanted, it was much better to start to get that important work under way and to support those organisations that do such important work in the sector through working with women and girls who find themselves in that situation.

That is the start. If we can get additional resources in the interim, we can and will scale up. All the funding schemes are scalable. In the meantime, however, that is the budget with which we are working.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Executive Office. I ask Members to take their ease while we move on to questions for the Minister for Communities.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We start with listed questions. Question 12 has been withdrawn.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): The competition for funding, which closed at the end of August, attracted interest from a range of organisations. My officials are now assessing the applications received. By the end of this year, I expect to be able to make the outcome public and to move on to the next stages and towards awarding funding.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given budgetary constraints, what additional steps does he plan to take beyond capital housing budget increases in order to expand housing options?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his question. I begin by welcoming him to this place. It is good to have another former member of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council here. There are quite a few of us, and the Member is very welcome.

For me, it is important that we progress with the intermediate rent option as an alternative. The Member rightly highlights the need for greater supply all round, however, and that is what I intend to achieve. How I intend to do it will be outlined in the housing supply strategy. We have a housing issue in Northern Ireland, and I want to make sure that we tackle it. The most effective way in which we can do so is by making sure that there is greater housing supply across all tenures.

Mr Durkan: Will the Minister outline exactly how that competition will be judged? What weighting will be given to factors such as housing need and how the lack of affordable housing in an area is affecting other Executive objectives such as the expansion of the university in Derry or the ability to house health workers in any area? Will the bid be assessed solely on profitability?

Mr Lyons: Intermediate rent funding will be awarded on the basis of whom the highest scoring applicant is. There will be an intensive period of due diligence done on the applicant and the applicant's proposals. Legal arrangements will then be required. As to who will benefit from the scheme, I do not intend or want to limit that to any one part of Northern Ireland. It is another tool that we have for dealing with the housing crisis that we face. Much of it is yet to be determined.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Minister clarify whether there will be provision to ensure that all intermediate rent housing schemes will be shared and mixed tenure?

Mr Lyons: It is certainly our intention to make sure that intermediate housing schemes are available across Northern Ireland. Schemes will not be limited to any one particular area. That falls in with what the Department is trying to do, which is to increase shared housing across Northern Ireland.

Mrs Erskine: I welcome the fact that the Minister said that the scheme will not be limited to any one part of Northern Ireland, so I put in my bid now for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Where will intermediate rent homes be delivered? To where does he hope to have them allocated?

Mr Lyons: It is no surprise to anyone in the House that the Member has spoken up for her constituency. As I said to Mr Durkan, schemes can be delivered in any location, and I would like to see them delivered right across Northern Ireland. There will be some constraints placed on our doing that, of course. There will be areas where, because of the high rental cost and high demand, the scheme will be more effective. It will not be possible to reflect that and make sure that it works in all different areas because, sometimes, the affordability gap will be very small between social rents and private rents. It is certainly my intention to make sure that this impacts where it is most needed. I hope that this will only be a pilot and that it can be expanded as time goes on.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Minister agree that it should be targeted at the areas and constituencies most in need, particularly given the level of saturation where even temporary accommodation is not available in areas such as Derry and Belfast?

Mr Lyons: The Member has highlighted her area, and there are particular challenges there, especially with temporary accommodation. As I have said on every issue since I have come into post, as a result of the constrained budgetary environment that we are operating in, we need to make sure that every pound that we spend goes as far as possible. Naturally, that means that, where there are areas of high demand, that might be reflected. Where there are areas of high demand, you will see a higher rental cost, so that is where it will be most effective. As I just said to Deborah Erskine, it will not always be possible to get that value for money where there is a smaller affordability gap.

Mr Lyons: As I previously stated, I have been meeting Executive colleagues who have a key strategic remit around housing supply to garner support for full implementation. I have a couple more engagements that I would like to have with other Executive Ministers before this can be concluded, but I am finalising the strategy to bring it to the Executive very shortly. Of course, publication and implementation of the strategy will be dependent on Executive approval, and project structures remain in place to allow implementation of action planning to proceed once approval has been given.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister. The supply strategy sets out a vision for housing and a route map to ensuring that everyone has safe, quality and affordable homes. How will you ensure that you have the capital allocations required for social and affordable housing and that they do not continue to fall short of the strategy's targets?

Mr Lyons: Of course, it is absolutely the case that the housing supply strategy will look at all tenures, but that is not in any way meant to replace the need for sufficient funding for new-build social homes. We have seen an increase in the funding that had originally been allocated by the Executive at the start of this year, and I am pleased that we will be getting additional funding for social homes in Northern Ireland. However, it is not enough, and I will certainly continue to make the case to Executive colleagues, as I hope the Member will, about the need for continued investment. It is now a stand-alone item and objective in the Programme for Government, and that needs to be reflected in future budgetary allocations.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for his efforts on this. Will he agree that, unless the crisis in infrastructural provision for sewage disposal is properly addressed, it has every potential to render his document and his efforts more or less an academic exercise?

Mr Lyons: I will not go as far as the Member on that one. I certainly do not think that it would be an academic exercise. It is certainly an issue that we need to tackle, and it is a drag on our ability to have the homes that we need across Northern Ireland. The whole purpose of the housing supply strategy is that it recognises that there are many different issues that are holding us back and being a problem when it comes to our ability to build homes. I absolutely agree that planning and infrastructure are really important parts. We need to free that up and make sure that there is the land availability, that we can get planning for new homes and that we have the water connections, because the homes will be worthless without that. I have engaged with the Infrastructure Minister on that, and that will be reflected in the housing supply strategy, but it also needs to have the support of Executive colleagues. We need to make sure that action is taken because, if we do not, it is a serious drag on what we want to do. It does not stop all the other things, but it is a problem.

Mr Honeyford: Can the Minister confirm whether the retrofitting of social homes is a key strategic element of the housing strategy?

Mr Lyons: It certainly is, because, as I have set out before, we want people to have not only homes to live in but warm, safe and secure homes to live in. That will be a key part of the strategy. We need to do that to meet the net zero targets, but, importantly, it benefits people, and that is why it needs to be taken forward.

I was pleased to be able to go and see the new Housing Executive properties that were built in north Belfast a few weeks ago. The energy efficiency measures in those homes, and the savings that they will make for people, are incredible. That, of course, has other benefits. In short, yes.

Mr Kingston: What level of funding would the Department need to achieve its 2024-25 target for social houses?

Mr Lyons: In its budgetary bid for 2024-25, the Housing Executive advised that a budget of £193 million would be required to deliver starts on 2,000 new social units this year. I intend to bid for additional funds in the next monitoring round to ensure that we can have new-build social housing. Importantly, I will continue to push for clarification on Housing Executive borrowing powers, because that has the potential to be a real game changer in ensuring that we not only maintain the stock that we have but build new homes.

Mr Lyons: Changes to the housing selection scheme are under way, including an exploration of options for the future of intimidation points. Under the current scheme, someone who leaves their home as a result of domestic abuse can be allocated points for homelessness and primary social needs points for violence or the threat of violence. I am keen to see changes to how applicants who have experienced violence are recognised in the selection scheme. I am aware that the Housing Executive is working at pace to bring forward options for consideration. I assure the Member that I will give those my consideration as a matter of urgency.

Mrs Dillon: I appreciate that, Minister. Will you give us a timeline for that, if you have one, and some assurance that vulnerable women will be protected in any scheme or change of policy?

Mr Lyons: I hope that it is imminent. The Member will be aware of the report that has been commissioned and is now with the Housing Executive. I await recommendations from that and want us to be able to move on them very quickly. I assure the Member that I absolutely recognise the need for us to protect those who are at their most vulnerable. We will do everything that we can to ensure that the system reflects the need that exists.

Ms Sugden: Getting intimidation points is very difficult in domestic abuse cases, which, hopefully, you will address, and indeed all other cases. How will the Minister ensure that we are taking a trauma-informed approach to implementing the policies to ensure that we are not retraumatising people and are supporting them at the point that they need support.

Mr Lyons: I absolutely agree with the need to support people in the way that the Member outlined. That is why I am waiting for the recommendations from the Housing Executive, which, obviously, has the expertise in delivering the scheme. It is absolutely right to recognise the problem and make sure that our system reflects the need for those issues to be addressed.

Ms Egan: Minister, have you engaged with front-line service users and victims and survivors regarding this policy to ensure that you have the voice of lived experience?

Mr Lyons: I certainly have engaged with those who are supported through the Housing Executive, housing associations and the different programmes that they run. It is very much the case that the outputs of the research will facilitate evidence-based decision-making, and an options appraisal will be carried out by the Housing Executive and presented to the Department. If the Member has any particular concerns that she wants to raise, I am happy to hear her views as well.

Ms Hunter: Minister, I recently heard the sad news that the Men's Action Network has been forced to close due to a lack of government funding. It supported a number of male victims of domestic violence. I am mindful that, in the North, we have very few safe places and refuges for men who have been victims of domestic violence. How can your Department help to change that?

Mr Lyons: It is the responsibility of the Housing Executive and, therefore, ultimately, the Department to ensure that people have a safe place to live. I am certainly happy to raise the Member's issue with my officials to see what else we may be able to do. The Member will be aware that various programmes are in place to help people who fall into the category that she described. If there are particularly acute issues that she wants to raise, I will be happy to hear from her.

Dr Aiken: Does the Minister agree that some in society still use paramilitarism to intimidate individuals and families, that the Department of Justice must take more robust action to dismantle those groups and that those organisations should not be called upon to use their influence in communities?

Mr Lyons: It is absolutely the case, and I think that I speak for everybody in the House when I say that there is no room for intimidation in our society. There is no justification for that sort of activity. I will certainly give whatever support is required to make sure that we deal with the issues affecting communities. This particular question is about the future of intimidation points, but, of course, I hope that we will one day be in a position where that is not an issue.

Mr Lyons: The Housing Executive was given approval to construct those properties in North Belfast. However, the way ahead for the Housing Executive to have a regular remit to build homes is still to be resolved. The Housing Executive already has a legislative basis designed to facilitate its borrowing. Currently, however, it is, effectively, prohibited from doing so by the budgeting treatment that is applied to it, which means that it cannot provide the same value for public money as the registered housing associations, which do not have access to borrowing. I am actively pushing for a solution whereby the Housing Executive can borrow so that it can invest in and maintain its current housing stock and be able to add to the housing supply by, once again, becoming a builder of social homes.

Re the areas affected by the loss of tower blocks, each individual business case submitted in relation to the tower block strategy sets out detailed proposals for the site in question, including a feasibility study of opportunities for new-build rehousing sites in the localities and how long they would take to develop. Whilst some of the land made vacant by demolishing tower blocks could be redeveloped, it is too early to confirm whether that would be undertaken by a housing association or the Housing Executive.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister will understand that the primary anxiety of people in those areas is that those sites might be cleared and left vacant and in dereliction for some time. Can I reassure my constituents that, should the tower blocks in Clarawood or Cregagh come down, that will not be the case there?

Mr Lyons: Each of those will be decided on a case-by-case basis. Where the Executive has approval for demolition and a new build, there is a timetable setting out anticipated timescales for the rehousing of the residents, demolishment of the properties and appointment of a developer to deliver the new housing. We hope to expedite the latter so that the new-build scheme will quickly follow demolition, but elongated design scheme proposals and tender processes could cause some delay. The Housing Executive will continue to work in partnership with housing associations to transfer sites for development in line with the usual social housing development programme delivery arrangements. I can assure the Member that, where tower blocks are coming down, it is certainly my intention and, therefore, the intention of my Department and the Housing Executive that we have new homes there as soon as possible.

Miss McAllister: Can the Minister touch on an update on the revitalisation of the Housing Executive and whether such revitalisation will go to consultation?

Mr Lyons: We hope to have the Housing Executive revitalisation programme in place very soon. The way that I see it and the way that it has been presented is that we are looking for confirmation from Treasury that the borrowing powers that we seek are already in place and that we should be able to borrow. This should not actually be a change. It is not a change to the way in which the Housing Executive operates. It is not a change to its status. It is confirmation of what we believe is currently the case. A lot of work has been done with the Treasury on this. I have raised it at every opportunity with the Minister of Finance, and the deputy First Minister raised it with the Chancellor. I have raised it with the Northern Ireland Office, and I have raised it with the housing Minister in HMG. I am pushing it on as much as I can, and I will continue to do so, because it is a change that can be made and, ultimately, it is confirmation of what we should be able to do in comparison with what is already happening in housing associations in other parts of the UK. Not being a significant change, it would not need to go out to consultation.

Mr Allen: It is my understanding that energy efficiency measures were the cornerstone of that pilot project in North Belfast. In that context, what steps is his Department taking to understand the measures that have been introduced through that pilot project in order to share that learning across the wider housing sector and beyond?

Mr Lyons: That is absolutely the case. We have seen incredible improvements in the energy efficiency of those homes compared with what went before. They were built to a very high standard, but we want to roll that out. We need to make sure that our homes are more energy-efficient, because that will save us and our constituents more in the long term. There is certainly much that we can share about the new homes that are in place, and there are certainly lessons to be learned for future retrofit programmes.

Mr Lyons: Addressing poverty in all its forms is a key priority for me. As poverty is a complex and multifaceted issue, my Department is engaging with officials from other Departments to develop a final anti-poverty strategy and a range of actions that will help mitigate impacts, reduce the risk of falling into poverty and support people to exit poverty.

As the development of the Executive's strategy moves forward, I will work with ministerial colleagues and their Departments to establish the priorities and commitments that are required to deliver a robust anti-poverty strategy that will positively impact and make a tangible difference to people's lives across Northern Ireland.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you for your answer, Minister, but the question was, "When?". Given that an anti-poverty strategy is over 25 years late, does the Minister agree that neither his Department nor the Executive have taken poverty reduction seriously?

Mr Lyons: No. I addressed that with the Member in the Chamber when we debated child poverty in North Belfast. I will bring the draft strategy to the Executive in early 2025. I just outlined for the Member the steps that first need to be taken, because I want to make sure that there is sufficient collaboration and working with other Departments so that we have something that is effective and delivers tangible benefits to people right across Northern Ireland.

What are the Executive doing to tackle poverty? You only have to look at our priorities. They are about healthcare, because our poor health in this country often leads to poor outcomes on poverty. It is about improving education, which is key to people getting the skills that they need to be able to flourish. It is about making sure that people have a home that is safe and secure to live in. That is another priority in the Programme for Government. It is about making sure that we have more and better jobs in Northern Ireland. The Member is absolutely wrong to suggest that poverty is not front and centre in everything that we are doing. It is there in black and white in front of her.

Ms Mulholland: Does the Minister agree that conducting a departmental audit of the financial implications of poverty would allow each Department to ascertain where future savings could made through investment in the alleviation of poverty? Will he consider carrying out such an audit of his Department?

Mr Lyons: I am certainly happy to consider that, and I am happy for other Departments to consider it as well. Some of the proposals that we will have in the anti-poverty strategy, funded with a relatively small sum, can leverage huge savings for the rest of the public sector now and in the future. Having data along those lines may be useful. We have set up that cross-departmental working group to reach agreement on the delivery of the proposed interventions, and that may be of assistance to us in that work.

Ms Ferguson: The Minister described a range of engagement with other Departments. Can he give an update on the feedback from the other Departments on the anti-poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: Yes. I have corresponded with Executive colleagues on the matter. I am pleased that most Departments have come back with a link person for the proposed interventions under the three pillars, which are minimising the impact of poverty, minimising the risk of poverty and assisting people to exit poverty. That work will be carried out in the coming weeks, so we will be in a position to bring the draft strategy to the Executive in 2025.

Mr Lyons: Notwithstanding the budgetary constraints in 2024-25, my Department has provided Libraries NI with just over £4·7 million in capital funding to progress committed projects. The funding provided will allow Libraries NI to complete carbon retrofitting work in Killyleagh library, to complete construction of the replacement library in Fivemiletown, to progress its IT infrastructure replacement programme and to progress design work for a replacement library in Enniskillen. My Department has also provided Libraries NI with just over £31 million in resource funding for 2024-25, including a spend of £820,000 for book stock.

I am pleased to advise that my Department is progressing work on a new public libraries policy to reflect the needs, challenges and ambitions of a modern public library service. I am mindful of the importance and value of our public library network, which provides safe, welcoming and inclusive spaces for people to read, work, study and access information and services. Given the importance of our public library service to communities throughout Northern Ireland, my Department will seek to provide the fullest support it can in resource and capital funding investment.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome the redevelopment of Killyleagh library in my constituency and the innovative way in which Libraries NI funded that transformative project. The Minister will be aware of my persistent lobbying for Newtownards library for the last 15-plus years. Can he give an update on that much-needed facility?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for inviting me to Newtownards and showing me the current state of the library. It has fantastic staff who do great work, but the building is simply not fit for purpose. Therefore, the redevelopment of Newtownards library is a key priority for Libraries NI. The present location on Regent Street forms part of a shared site with the council's Queen's Hall facility, and the agreed lease arrangements are in place for library facilities.

Libraries NI has submitted an updated business case to support the proposed redevelopment of the library, which is being considered by my Department. It would increase the library's size from 203 square meters to almost 1,500 square meters at a cost of around £9·2 million. Departmental economists are currently reviewing the business case and responses from Libraries NI to queries raised.

Once the approval of the business case has been secured, the progression of the project will rely on the Department securing the necessary capital funding. There is no definitive timescale for the Newtownards project, and any decision to proceed with the new library will depend on the prioritisation of capital investment in a very difficult budgetary situation. I am sure that the Member will continue to lobby me on the issue.

Mr Dickson: I am sure that the Minister will agree that libraries are much more than just bricks and mortar and that a lot of excellent community and other activities take place there. Can the Minister assure the House that, given the United Kingdom Government's failure to provide pensioners with warm homes this winter, libraries can also be used as warm spaces?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Quick response, Minister.

Mr Lyons: Yes. That is certainly the case. I witnessed that just last Friday in Larne library in our constituency. Libraries are not just a place to get books; there is so much more that can be done. I congratulate library staff on the services that they provide for people of all ages but for older people in particular.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I thank the Minister for that.

That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr Lyons: I am not aware of any issues with the development that the Member has mentioned, but I will certainly speak to officials and see what the hold-up is, if there is one. I will come back to the Member in writing.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer and for that commitment. I will enlighten him a wee bit. I am waiting for further enlightenment myself, but I understand that the delay is due to the discharge of planning conditions. Will the Minister commit to speaking not just to his officials but cross-departmentally to the Infrastructure Minister to make them get a move on and get people into those homes as a matter of urgency?

Mr Lyons: I am certainly happy to do that. I have a growing concern on hearing that, because it comes up more frequently that homes receive planning permission and are constructed but issues seem to arise later. That increases costs, makes it more difficult to build homes and creates uncertainty in the sector. I am happy to take that up on the Member's behalf and raise it with Executive colleagues if necessary.

Mr Lyons: I am sure that the Member will be aware of a number of things that we are doing on energy efficiency. He will be aware of the affordable warmth scheme and the potential for its replacements, as well as the development of the fuel poverty strategy, which, as I said earlier, is absolutely key. We want people to have homes, but we need those homes to be warm, safe and secure. I hope that, when we have developed the fuel poverty strategy further, we will have in place schemes that will be most effective in helping those most in need.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for his answer. A lot of my constituents, particularly homeowners, have contacted me, saying that they want to make their homes more sustainable and energy-efficient but the schemes are simply not there for them to access. I appreciate that the Minister has provided some update, but will he provide an update on any potential schemes that he hopes to run and who would be eligible for them?

Mr Lyons: That will form part of the housing supply strategy as well as the fuel poverty strategy that I hope to bring forward in due course. It is important that we look at all the available options for making homes more energy-efficient and helping with, for example, home generation of electricity through solar panels. That will cut across some of the Minister for the Economy's responsibilities and relates to the some of the priorities in the energy strategy. An action plan is associated with that strategy. That is where the money should be spent, because that it where it can have the greatest and longest-lasting impact.

Mr Lyons: I am trying to make sure that we have as many housing options as possible. We want affordable housing, social housing and a sustainable private rented sector. That is why we are taking forward changes under the Private Tenancies Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. As I said to the Member earlier, there are concerns about the impact that rent controls will have on supply, so our focus should be on making sure that we do everything in our power to increase the supply. That is where my focus will be.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you said that we need "as many housing options as possible", and I agree with you. What work is your Department doing alongside the Finance Minister to look at vesting and compulsory purchasing powers in order to tackle the scourge of empty homes? When a home lies empty, at what point should public bodies be able to acquire it in order to tackle homelessness?

Mr Lyons: We will look at that through the housing supply strategy, but there is a role for the rates system, for example, to put pressure on the owners of homes that have been vacant for, in some cases, years. Sometimes, they are a hub for antisocial behaviour, and they are homes that someone could be living in. There are ways in which we could use the rates system, for example, to tackle those issues. We need to make it as desirable as possible for people who own empty properties to do something with them. The Agriculture Minister, Minister Muir, will also seek to deal with that through the dilapidation Bill that he will bring forward.

Mr Lyons: Homelessness is a scourge on society. Far too many people do not have a stable home to live in, and that has impacts for them and their families, including children and their schooling. I do not have an update on youth homelessness for the Member, but, when I do, I will be able to share it with him.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister; I look forward to that. The action plan will need to address the lack of support staff in the sector to help actively address youth homelessness.

Mr Lyons: We spend too much money on temporary accommodation. That money should be spent on preventing homelessness, because that will save us in the long term. We need to do everything that we can to make sure that we help those who are most in need, because we understand that homelessness causes further problems for people down the line. It can cause educational difficulties and, in many cases, serious health issues. It also sometimes impacts on the Department of Justice. We need to make sure that the money that we spend is spent in the best way. When it comes to homelessness, that money should be spent on prevention. Unfortunately, due to the budgetary situation that I find myself in, we are spending far too much money on temporary accommodation. That means that resources are not going where they need to go. In the longer term, we will deal with the issue by making sure that we have more homes across Northern Ireland in all tenures.

Mr Lyons: I am aware of the issue. Those overpayments have caused concern; a number of Members have highlighted that. I have also been made aware that not all customers are being given the same opportunity to access support from the Department to manage their debts. I can advise that work is being progressed to introduce a waiver facility for welfare supplementary payment customers.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply. In addition to the measures that he has outlined, what actions are being taken to address the distress caused to claimants by those letters? They are being informed, on one hand, that thousands are being written off, yet the letters remain on file in relation to them.

Mr Lyons: I am happy to speak to the Member specifically about this and any cases that are outstanding. I know that further engagement will take place to agree the new processes and amendments to the customer notifications that are needed to support the change. That should have been introduced last month. If there are further issues on that that he would like to raise with me, I will be happy to discuss them.

Mr Lyons: I am pleased to say that good progress is being made in advancing the Northern Ireland Football Fund. Many clubs have asked for funding to help them develop their business case. I am happy to announce today that a further five clubs will be provided with funding in order to do so. They are Newington, PSNI, Institute, Ards and Loughgall.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, that is extremely good news, and it shows what a Minister who is prepared to take action on the issue can achieve in a relatively short time. Can you assure us that your officials will work closely with those clubs to develop their business cases so that we can see progress made quickly towards full implementation?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for her comments. She is absolutely right: it lay for far too long. We saw no movement for 13 years. I am pleased that we are now making good progress and that the first letters of offer will be out to clubs by the end of this financial year. That is real progress and real delivery. I understand that some clubs do not have the necessary capacity to move forward with bidding for funding, which is why I have increased the number of staff who are working on the Northern Ireland Football Fund. They can provide assistance to clubs to make sure that they have what they need to complete their application successfully by providing the pertinent information so that they can progress their case as soon as possible. Those people have been waiting for far too long.

Mr Lyons: As I indicated to Members earlier, dealing with delays will be an important element of the housing supply strategy. Delays are one of the barriers to the rapid building of the new homes that we need to see. I have engaged with the Department for Infrastructure and with Minister O'Dowd in order to highlight some of the particular things that can be done. He has just walked into the Chamber, so he will be able to confirm that I have raised with him the importance of statutory consultees responding more quickly to requests for information. If we want to see more homes built across Northern Ireland, we need to make sure that the planning system is fit for purpose and that we have the correct water infrastructure.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister. In addition to your discussions with the Finance and Infrastructure Departments, what work have you been undertaking with local authorities to advance the improvement of our planning system?

Mr Lyons: That is another important element of making sure that we get the planning system right. The Member will be aware of the significant role that planners play in local government. They have a role to play in making sure that their planning systems are as efficient as possible. That means working with applicants to make sure that they know what information they are meant to give and that they respond as quickly as possible. A week here and a week there makes a lot of difference at the end and drives up costs. We want to make sure that housing is as affordable as possible for people in Northern Ireland, and that means that we cannot have unnecessary delays with planning and waste water connections.

Mr Lyons: The independent review of charity regulation report was published in January 2022. It made 93 interlinked and mutually dependent recommendations to improve the regulatory framework and the role of the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland within that framework.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Tom, you can ask a very quick supplementary question.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for that answer. What impact will the £20,000 registration threshold have on small charities?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask the Minister for a very quick response.

Mr Lyons: I am considering consultation proposals from my officials to support the introduction of a £20,000 registration threshold below which charities in Northern Ireland would not be required to register with or report to the Charity Commission. Too many charities in Northern Ireland have to do too much work, and that puts some people off. We need to make registration as simple and as streamlined as possible for our charities to operate, and that change will help do that for the smallest ones.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease.

Mr Speaker: Dianne Dodds has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Executive Office. I remind Members that if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question that was selected will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question. Other Members who tabled similar questions will be called after that.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): First, let me address directly the issue of confidence in my office, which has been posed in this question, and let me be crystal clear on this point: I am absolutely and totally committed to ensuring that the strongest and most robust child protection and safeguarding processes and policies are in place. Everything that I do as First Minister is guided by that fundamental commitment. As a mother and as a grandmother, I assert my absolute determination, political and personal, to protecting all children and all other vulnerable people.

In my work in the Executive Office, I have prioritised and focused attention on the needs and rights of victims and survivors of childhood abuse, and of children and young people more generally. The issues that have arisen over recent days result primarily from the actions of two former press officers who have now resigned from their employment and from Sinn Féin.

I now want to set out clearly and comprehensively the circumstances surrounding the departure of those two press officers. In that regard, Mr Speaker, I am asking for your indulgence to allow me the space and time to do so. [Inaudible.]

Mrs O'Neill: It is important that I set out and address the legitimate concerns that are being raised, because it is an important matter of public concern. It is important, first, to state that Michael McMonagle's actions are utterly reprehensible, and he is being held fully accountable under the law. His crimes have inflicted significant harm on his innocent victims, and there is nothing more reprehensible than the abuse of a child.

In August 2021, when Michael McMonagle informed Sinn Féin of his arrest and questioning concerning serious criminal offences, the party took decisive action. In line with our child protection policy and human resources handbook, he was immediately suspended from party membership and his position as a press officer, with his employment terminated in June 2022 when his contract ended. I was made aware of his suspension, and I had no further contact with him.

On 14 February 2023, I attended the event in the Great Hall in support of the Donate4Dáithí campaign, hosted by the British Heart Foundation. My sole focus was on Dáithí and supporting the family to raise awareness for the campaign. I was not aware that Michael McMonagle was at that event, and I had no knowledge either that he had gained employment with the British Heart Foundation.

On Wednesday 25 September 2024, Sinn Féin and I were informed that two press offers who were former colleagues of Michael McMonagle had provided employment references for him. I am absolutely appalled and horrified that that occurred. Those references were given without the knowledge or authorisation of the party, and under no circumstances would the party have provided a reference, for work or otherwise, for McMonagle. The party took immediate action against both individuals, and their actions constituted gross misconduct, which would have resulted in their dismissal. However, as the party process was ongoing, both individuals resigned their positions and terminated their party membership with immediate effect on Saturday 28 September. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I apologise for the hurt and distress caused by their actions.

I have since also established, on Thursday of last week, that, in August 2023, following media reports of charges against McMonagle, the British Heart Foundation contacted Sinn Féin's former HR manager to verify the email address and identity of the senior press officer who had provided the reference the previous year, to which the HR manager responded. That contact from the British Heart Foundation was not brought to my attention nor to the attention of the Sinn Féin leadership at that time. That was a serious omission. Members will know that I spoke with Fearghal McKinney, head of the British Heart Foundation here, to discuss the situation. That organisation does sterling, excellent work to provide support, research and advocacy services. I am deeply sorry for the reputational damage that has been caused to the British Heart Foundation. I regret that this has happened, and I apologise for it. I look forward to a constructive working relationship with the British Heart Foundation in promoting heart health.

Finally, Mr Speaker — thank you for the latitude — I want to be very clear that the issue of child safeguarding is of paramount importance to me. I will do everything that I can to ensure that a situation like this never arises again.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, First Minister. Before I bring Members in to ask questions, I advise the House that, while I am happy to entertain robust questioning, I do not want people to get personal or any of that type of thing.

Mrs Dodds: When the Assembly was reconvened, the First Minister promised change. It appears that all that we have are changes in her story. Today, we need the truth, not the denial of responsibility. She claimed that she did not see McMonagle, but she was in a photograph in which he was standing nearby. She told the Committee that she had not spoken to the British Heart Foundation, then we saw her doing exactly that. She tried to create distance between herself and McMonagle, yet we know that she personally employed McMonagle for a short period when he appears to have been —

Mr Speaker: Question, please.

Mrs Dodds: — the party press officer.

First Minister, how can the people of Northern Ireland, who will not be taken for granted on this issue, have confidence when you appear not to know the facts, refuse to be fulsome in your explanation and deny responsibility, apologising only for the press officers and not for the Sinn Féin cover-up?

Mrs O'Neill: I welcome the fact that I have the opportunity to set the record straight. As Members will know, I tried to do that on Saturday with a comprehensive statement that set out exactly what I knew and when I knew it. I take my responsibility as a political leader seriously. I want to set the record straight because I want the public to be assured that safeguarding is of paramount importance to me, particularly when it comes to young children. I wanted to take the opportunity today to be clear about what I knew and when I knew it. I hope that I have been able to provide that information.

I assure you that, had I known that references had been requested for Michael McMonagle, they would not have been given. I would never have given permission for that. The two former press officers took that action and provided the references without my knowledge. Had I known, I would have stopped it. It would not have happened because I would not have tolerated that. I have no tolerance whatsoever when it comes to child protection issues. I want to set that out.

Let me also say this about the photographs that appeared last week of me attending the British Heart Foundation event in Stormont: I understand how people have taken it in the way in which they have, but I was solely focused on going to see that wee man. I was solely focused on going to support the campaign, and I was not aware of everybody else who was around me. I just want to make that clear again, but I also understand how people might take it a different way. I can only set out and account for my own actions. I want to be clear about that today.

Mr Gaston: First Minister, your party brought us the Liam Adams scandal, the Máiría Cahill scandal and the Seamus Marley scandal. Sinn Féin has now brought us the Michael McMonagle scandal. You claim that you did not see him standing in front of you at an event in this Building, despite your employing him personally in 2020. Your credibility is in tatters, but, for the sake of those who share government with you, can you assure us that no more paedophilia scandals will come out of Sinn Féin?

Mrs O'Neill: I want to give a full account, as I said, of what I knew and when I knew it. Today gives me the opportunity to do so. I tried to do that in a written statement on Saturday, and I want to do it again today because I take my responsibilities seriously when it comes to safeguarding. I am a mother and a grandmother. Of course, the issue is right up there on my list of priorities and concerns. I have set out my account of what I knew and when I knew it. I hope that that provides some assurance to the public about my role, what I understood and when I understood it. I have been as factual as I can be about everything that I now know. That is what I have put out very publicly.

Dr Aiken: I declare an interest as a safeguarding board member of a major NGO and the safeguarding governor of a school in my constituency.

First Minister, when you first employed Michael McMonagle, what due diligence did you do on his conduct in order to determine his suitability for employment? Subsequent to being informed that he was being investigated for serious offences, what safeguarding checks did you conduct in relation to any access that he may have had to children or vulnerable adults while he was in your employ?

Mrs O'Neill: I assure the Member that I took all the precautions that he does when he employs a member of staff in the Assembly. I employed him many years before this occurred. I do not make any secret of that. It is all on public record, and anybody can inspect it. The same processes that apply to the Member's staff apply to my staff.

Mr O'Toole: No organisation, political party, business or church is responsible for the actions of abusers; they are culpable for their actions. Organisations are, however, responsible for the actions that they take to safeguard vulnerable people. They are also responsible for fulfilling their duty of candour and transparency. A reasonable person, having viewed the actions of your party over the past week, would not think that it had discharged its responsibility of duty of candour and transparency, but I welcome the fact that you are here today.

First Minister, specifically in relation to the photographs that were taken in the Great Hall, are you clear, given that a photograph was taken in which you are 10 ft or 15 ft away from Michael McMonagle — closer than I am to you now — that you did not see him? People genuinely do not find that credible. Will you also correct, for the record, the statement that you made to the Executive Office Committee last week in which you said that you had had no contact with any member of the British Heart Foundation, given that there is a photograph of you speaking to the chief executive? Finally, is the senior HR officer who was in contact with the British Heart Foundation still a member of Sinn Féin?

Mrs O'Neill: On the issue of the photo, I understand that people may perceive it differently, but I can stand over only my own actions. My statement of absolute fact is that I did not see Michael McMonagle on that day. I was focused solely on the child and the campaign, of whom and of which I have been a big advocate the whole way through. I very much regret that the family is being brought into the middle of this day and daily. I just want to say that.

At the Executive Office Committee, when I was asked that question and was speaking from memory, I said that I did not engage with anybody from the British Heart Foundation. Clearly, however, I can see — it has been brought to my attention — that I greeted Fearghal McKinney. I am happy to put that on the record, thereby correcting the record. Hopefully, that provides that information.

That senior member of HR is no longer employed by the party, but they are a party member.

Miss McAllister: Last week, a Sinn Féin colleague of yours suggested that notifying the British Heart Foundation would have prejudiced a police investigation. Last Thursday, at the Policing Board, however, the Chief Constable said that that would not have been the case. Will you apologise for that remark and help us to ascertain whether that fits into the timeline of what you knew and when you knew it? It is important that the public are aware that those notifications can be made. There is innocence until proven guilty, but the safeguarding of young children is always paramount and a priority.

Mrs O'Neill: I accept that the Chief Constable clarified his position, and I accept that position. I confirm that what I put out publicly relates to when I became aware of it: whether that was the timeline that I set out for when we knew about the press officers having given the references without asking for permission or the HR officer confirming to the British Heart Foundation, a year later, the clarification point that it had asked for. Everything that I have put on the public record is from within that time frame and when I knew about things.

Mr Frew: Given that the First Minister confirmed that the senior HR officer made a serious omission by not notifying the Sinn Féin leadership about references given for Michael McMonagle and said today that he or she is still a member of Sinn Féin, will there be any disciplinary investigation of that member? How is it consistent that the two press officers have left but that person remains a Sinn Féin member?

Mrs O'Neill: Those are two distinct cases. In one, an investigation started by the party would have ended with a ruling of gross misconduct. The former HR person is no longer employed by us, so any employment action that we took would have been retrospective and based on what we know now, which we did not know then. That is the very distinct difference.

Mr McGrath: Does the First Minister accept that, by not disclosing all the information relating to the investigation around Michael McMonagle and the British Heart Foundation, her party's handling of the issue damaged the reputation of the charity, these institutions, her Executive and her office?

Mrs O'Neill: I have been very clear both today and when I spoke with Fearghal on Saturday that we would not want to damage the reputation of an excellent charity that does sterling work to promote heart health. I look forward to a constructive relationship with the charity, but I have been unequivocal about any reputational damage caused to it. I apologise for that.

Mr Buckley: The entire McMonagle saga has exposed serious failings in Sinn Féin's child safeguarding policies. What is even more concerning to the House is that the failure to notify the Assembly and return Mr McMonagle's security pass for the Building also compromised the Assembly's child safeguarding policy. Does the First Minister accept that, and will she set the record straight and apologise to the House?

Mrs O'Neill: If there has to be a review of passes, so be it. That is what we should do. We should always keep policies under review. The passes should have been returned. There is no other way to explain that: they should have been returned. If the Assembly has to look at the policies and procedures on the cancellation of members' passes, I am absolutely up for that.

Ms Bradshaw: First Minister, given that there has been more information and revelations since you came before the Committee last week, first, do you accept our invitation to come back to address the Committee? Secondly, in your role as First Minister at the Executive table, do you undertake to work with your Executive colleagues to make sure that safeguarding policies are updated and reviewed across all parts of government here?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, absolutely. That is important. I will absolutely not be found wanting in playing my part to make sure that we have policies that are as effective and up to date as possible and benchmarked against best practice. I think that we all share in that.

I am attempting to answer all questions that Members have today. Let us consider whether talking to the Committee is also required. I am trying to put on the record all the answers to the questions that Members have posed to me today. Hopefully, those answers will shed light on anything that people were perhaps unclear about.

I want the public at home to be assured that safeguarding is paramount to me. I take it very seriously in not only my departmental work but my party capacity. I will do everything to ensure that this is got right.

Mr Brett: Both Sinn Féin and the media have referred to Mr McMonagle as a Sinn Féin press officer. Details that the Assembly Commission released today show that he was directly employed by MLAs through the office cost allowance. Is it the case, First Minister, that it is a scandal for not only child safeguarding but in the possible misappropriation of public funds by Sinn Féin in using the office cost allowance to employ press officers?

Mrs O'Neill: Mr McMonagle was probably employed by different MLAs at different times to fulfil different responsibilities. I am happy to answer any questions on the role that he played during his employment with any of our team. We want to be as fulsome, open and transparent as we can be, and we will do so with whatever the relevant body is in the Assembly.

Ms McLaughlin: What specific actions has the First Minister taken to review the safeguarding processes, and does she acknowledge that her party's actions have damaged these institutions and her office? I am mindful of the Executive Office's role in supporting victims and survivors, including those who experienced historical child abuse. Leadership and responsibility really matter when it comes to safeguarding our children.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. Leadership and responsibility absolutely matter when it comes to areas that are as sensitive as child protection. I share that concern. We have our own child protection policies and our human resources handbook, but, when we reflect on the past week and everything that has happened, there is no doubt that we need to ensure that those are as up to date with the best practice as we possibly can. I am very much committed to ensuring that it will not happen again. I will do whatever I can, including, in particular, looking at references. That is crucial. As I said, in this scenario, two people gave references without permission. They were not condoned. They were not endorsed. They were not given permission to do so, and they should not have done so. That is a wrong — an absolute, fundamental wrong. They should not have given the references in the first place.

Mrs Erskine: Safeguarding is vital. In light of the HR manager still being a party member, will the First Minister give an assurance to the House that anyone who is engaged in or has assisted in the cover-up of sexual abuse or anyone who has shielded or shields a perpetrator by not passing on details of abuse will be suspended from the membership of Sinn Féin?

Mrs O'Neill: That is always the case. It does not arise just on this occasion. That is a fundamental commitment from our party in terms of our own child protection policies and our own HR rules, and I just would be careful about not straying too far into accusing people of something that we did not know — in this case, a serious error on behalf of the HR manager in which to fail to provide the information to me that the British Heart Foundation had contacted the office, but, outside of that, that is as far as that goes.

Mr McGlone: Minister, you said earlier that you could not answer all the questions here today. The difficulty that I have is that I do not know how many more questions there will be before the end of play today. Will the Minister consent to a full independent inquiry into the circumstances around the case of Michael McMonagle to ensure full transparency and accountability and to rebuild public trust in these institutions and this Government?

Mrs O'Neill: The Member must have misheard me. I said that I am attempting to answer all the questions today, not that I am running out of time to answer questions.

I have put publicly on record how, through our internal processes, we have responded to this issue. I have said that I take it seriously — with considerable seriousness in the issues themselves. Michael McMonagle is a monster. Michael McMonagle did what he did, and he is being dealt with under the full force of the law, and rightly so. The two former Sinn Féin press officers should not have done what they have done. They should not have provided references. They would not have been given permission to give references. I do not condone that for anybody, particularly in this kind of case, and I will reflect on the issue of references in our HR guidance and our policies, but, outside of that, I am trying to give full answers today to all the questions that are being asked of me.

Mr Kingston: I have to say that the First Minister was less than clear in her response to the Chair of the Executive Office Committee. That Committee has an important scrutiny role, and members have the ability to ask more than one question, which we are limited to here today. I will ask again: will the First Minister commit to accede to any request to return to the Executive Office Committee to answer questions on this matter in the interest of restoring public confidence in relation to safeguarding? Furthermore, will she cooperate with any investigation or inquiry launched by the Committee or any complaint investigated by the Commissioner for Standards?

Mrs O'Neill: Well of course I am ready and willing to work with the Commissioner for Standards, if that is what, they feel, is appropriate. There is no grey area here. That is an absolute. I am trying to stand up and answer all the questions today. I have just offered to the Chair to speak to the Chair about whether or not it is appropriate to come back to the Committee, given that I am trying to answer all the questions today, but I am happy to engage with the Chair.

Mr Tennyson: First Minister, you have outlined that you did not see Mr McMonagle in the Great Hall, but is it really credible, given the circumstances in which he departed employment from Sinn Féin, that not a single member of the Sinn Féin Assembly team was aware of his presence in this Building that day and brought that to your attention?

Mrs O'Neill: As the Member will know probably from his own party, whenever someone is disciplined, that is not for wider public consumption. That is an employment issue between an employee and the employer, so I was very mindful of that. So I am very confident and, as I said, I stand over the fact that I did not see Michael McMonagle in the Great Hall. I accept that, when you look at that photograph from that angle, it could perhaps look as though I perhaps should have seen him, but I did not see Michael McMonagle that day. I would not stand here and make that statement if it were not true. I did not see that individual on that day. I was solely focused on talking to the family and solely focused on the actual reason why they were in the Great Hall in the first place, which was around trying to get the organ donation legislation over the line.

Mr Brooks: At the First Minister's appearance at Committee last week, the junior Minister was not afforded the opportunity to clarify whether she had contact with Mr McMonagle on the day on which he was in the Building. Will the First Minister clarify that for the House?

Mrs O'Neill: No, she did not know, because Aisling did not even start until months after he was actually suspended, so how would she even know that that is the case? I have asked Aisling that question. If we had known that Michael McMonagle was there that day, we would have said it. That is the case: we did not know. I did not know, and I have tried to clarify that for everybody today.

Mr Durkan: While all Sinn Féin Members may not have known the reasons behind McMonagle's departure, surely, when news of his arrest broke, it must have occurred to some Members at least to question how he had ended up in that job and whether the party had given references. The HR manager, who is still a Sinn Féin member, is no longer in the employ of the party. Was the same HR manager involved in the disciplinary action and McMonagle's suspension?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I am not trying to say any different. That is correct. That HR manager was the person who had to manage through the disciplinary hearing. That is correct, because they were, in fact, the HR manager. The question of the serious omission only arose last week, when I was contacted by the British Heart Foundation, which told me that it did, in fact, send the email. I only became aware of that issue last week. I can say that, on 20 August 2021, when Michael McMonagle informed the press officer here at that time that he had been arrested by the PSNI, decisive action was taken. We immediately acted. Our child protection policy and our human resources handbook were deployed, and he was immediately suspended from party membership. He was also suspended from his employment as a press officer. The child protection policy kicked in immediately. Everything was done according to that policy. So, we acted decisively.

This other issue has arisen because people gave references without asking for permission and because the HR manager was asked for clarification after McMonagle was charged, but did not bring that information forward. That is where the issues that we are speaking about today have arisen.

Ms Sugden: The Assembly is holding you to account as the First Minister. We do not have the ability to hold you to account as the Sinn Féin deputy leader. I am mindful that it is a joint office and that you are representing that office. First Minister, what conversations have you had with your partner in government, the deputy First Minister, about the viability of your role and, by extension, the viability of the Executive moving forward?

Mrs O'Neill: We have not spoken about it at this stage, but I can say that I am evermore determined to lead the Executive Office. I am evermore determined to carry out my role as First Minister and to deliver on all the commitments that we have set out in our Programme for Government. We, as an Assembly, have much work to do here. I am determined to play my part, to work with others, to deliver for people, to deliver on the Programme for Government commitments and to take on the big issues of the day. That is what I am determined to do and focused on in my work as First Minister. I will work with the deputy First Minister, the rest of the Executive and colleagues in the Assembly to continue to do our best for the public that we collectively serve.

Mr Middleton: First Minister, I noted your response to my colleague Deborah Erskine about Sinn Féin's child protection policies. If those are as robust as you say they are, can you indicate why Gerry Adams is still a member?

Mrs O'Neill: That is not relevant to the topic that we are discussing today.

Mr Speaker: That concludes Members' questions on the question for urgent oral answer.

I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health.

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

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): With your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, before I move to address the substantive issue, I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate, on behalf of the entire health service, the previous apology to all those who have been so badly let down.

Whilst the independent neurology inquiry revealed some deeply unpleasant truths, following the neurology recall, it also played an incredibly important role in identifying and spearheading changes that have since been made to improve patient safety. I am aware that the High Court in Belfast recently awarded damages to a former patient who pursued a medical negligence claim against Dr Michael Watt and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. I hope that Members will appreciate that it is not appropriate for any Minister to comment on individual cases, but I assure the House that I am aware of the ruling and its conclusions. The ruling in this case will, of course, be carefully considered.

On 9 June, 2022, the then Minister of Health confirmed the arrangements for neurology compensation by way of a written statement. Each neurology recall case will be considered on its own merit to ensure a just outcome for those affected and to ensure that claimants receive the compensation that they deserve. All claimants against the Belfast Trust are managed by the Business Services Organisation's directorate of legal services on behalf of the trust. Recognising the scale of the issue at hand, however, Members may also be aware that there is already a dedicated neurology recall legal team in place in the legal services directorate. It acts on behalf of the Belfast Trust, with the aim of progressing claims at pace. In addition, there is potential to instruct a joint expert to provide a joint medical report —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, I assume that you need an extra minute to answer the question.

Mr Nesbitt: I so beg your pardon, Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Do you need an extra minute?

Mr Nesbitt: If I may have one.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Nesbitt: I beg your pardon.

That joint expert is available at no expense to eligible patients or families. It is a streamlining approach that is supported by a set of guiding principles to ensure that eligible cases are progressed as quickly as possible.

Claims in respect of private patients are not within the remit of the Department or the Belfast Trust. Claims against independent providers will be managed by the providers' legal advisers. I and my Department wish to ensure a just outcome for all those affected and to ensure that claimants receive the compensation that they deserve.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber today to answer the question. You mentioned a just outcome for all affected, but, at the minute, it is a very slow and painful outcome for just a small number of families who feel that they can access the processes.

Minister, the Chief Medical Officer is on the Department's inquiries implementation programme management board, which is supposed to deal with the learnings from scandals. How can families have any faith in that implementation board when the then chief executive of the Belfast Trust — we do not need to talk about an individual case —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question.

Miss McAllister: — because this —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question.

Miss McAllister: — issue spans years — is now the Chief Medical Officer of Northern Ireland? Does he retain your confidence?

Mr Nesbitt: The Chief Medical Officer, Professor Sir Michael McBride, does indeed retain my confidence. In all my dealings with him, not just as the Minister of Health but previously as an MLA and even before that as a contributor to a medical charity, I have found him to be nothing but professional, engaged, knowledgeable and dedicated. I would never answer in the negative a question about whether an individual retained my confidence unless I had an evidence base that guided me towards saying, "No, I do not have confidence in that individual". If the Member has an evidence base in respect of that individual that she wants to produce, I am more than willing to listen to it, but the question as posed has a definitive and definite answer.

Ms Kimmins: Minister, given that the neurology scandal saw the biggest patient recall on the island, what lessons have been learned about the lack of oversight and management of Michael Watt? Will the Minister consider bringing forward an individual duty of candour for all Health and Social Care (HSC) staff?

Mr Nesbitt: The inquiry was a substantive piece of work: I commend it to you. I think that there were 214 oral evidence sessions. It received in excess of 147,000 pages of documentary evidence. That should be the evidence base for reflecting on any individuals. Out of that detailed inquiry, which found opportunities wasted or missed as far back as 2006 and 2007, there are certainly lessons to be learned.

I have been examining introducing a duty of candour, and, as I have said to the House before, a balance has to be struck between creating such a chill factor by placing an individual duty on an individual so that people are not willing to come forward and creating circumstances that maximise their willingness to step forward, particularly where an error has been made or something has gone wrong. I am still looking at that, still consulting and still open as to a final decision.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Minister tell the House what oversight there was of Dr Watt's practice by medical colleagues and the trust's senior management? Can the public have confidence in 2024 that things are better at the trust than they were in 2016?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. I can tell her that the independent neurology inquiry report was published in 2022 and included 76 recommendations for the Department, healthcare organisations, the independent healthcare sector and the General Medical Council to improve and ensure patient safety and to reduce the risk of similar events occurring. Ensuring that those recommendations are taken forward, implemented and critically delivered is a priority for the Department. A programme board chaired by the permanent secretary was established to oversee the implementation of the report's recommendations. The Department published an overarching implementation plan on 27 July 2023. The plan outlines the specific actions required against each recommendation and was published on 7 March this year.

The work has been supported by two key independent groups: an assurance subgroup, the purpose of which is to provide the structure and process for an independent assessment and recommendations to the programme board in respect of actions required for each recommendation and to determine whether each recommendation has been fully implemented, and an independent neurology liaison group, the purpose of which is to align with the work of the assurance subgroup to further enhance feedback and recommendations from service users, carers and families on the assurance process and implementation programme.

I hope that that gives the Member some assurance that a lot of work has been going on to make sure that this never happens again.

Mr Chambers: The independent neurology inquiry report was extensive and detailed, but it also made for some difficult reading. Will the Minister give an assurance that its findings and recommendations are being taken on with appropriate priority?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question and will simply say to him that, if he reflects on the answer that I just gave Mrs Dodds, he will see that a lot of work is going on to ensure that the recommendations are implemented. I give him a personal assurance that that will happen at pace.

Mr O'Toole: The actions of Michael Watt were appalling. Anyone in the House who is engaged with victims or families of victims of Dr Watt will know how serious this is. The award of £50,000 to one victim of Dr Watt will only reinforce to the others the sense that the painfully slow review process is not moving quickly enough and that —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question?

Mr O'Toole: — they may not get justice. People are literally dying, so will the Minister ensure that there is a proper resolution to the processes? Will he meet some of the families to reassure them that he is committed to getting justice for their family members?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the leader of the Opposition for his question. On the last point, yes, I am always willing to meet people who feel that they have been badly treated by the health service. In this case, that is beyond any doubt: they have been extremely badly treated. I can only assure the Member that it is a matter that I take extremely seriously. When the Department started to offer briefings to MLAs, although it was not my particular area, I got engaged and attended the meetings with the then permanent secretary and the Chief Medical Officer.

It just should not happen that something such as this is allowed to occur. We put so much emphasis on safe practices that it should not happen, so, when it does happen, it is not only shocking but a scandal. I am determined that we will follow this through. We will not deliver everything for all the families involved, because many of the families simply want their loved ones back, and we cannot, of course, do that.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, you talked about the chill factor, and I accept that, but we need to ensure that there is not a chill factor for people who feel that they have been harmed in some way by the health service. They need to feel confident in coming forward, so what reassurance can you give to people that, when they come forward, they will get justice for whatever has happened to them or their loved ones?

Mr Nesbitt: Again, I say to the Member that you can take actions in introducing some sort of duty of candour, and I know that some people would like a duty of candour that reflects not just a corporate responsibility but an individual responsibility and maybe an individual responsibility that has the facility to lead to legal action against somebody who is not being open, honest, transparent and candid. The question is this: does that help, or does that hinder the process? I still have an open mind on that. I hear evidence from some who think that it is a good thing, and I hear evidence from some who think that it would be a retrograde step and would not work in the interests of patients and of openness, transparency and candour. Therefore, I have to continue to ponder that and reflect on it, and, finally, I will come to the Committee and maybe come to the House with my recommendation.

Mr Frew: Some in the House, Minister, could accuse you of consulting a duty of candour to death. Is it not now time, Minister, for there to be an individual statutory duty of candour with criminal sanctions for withholding information or misleading the public? How can having a policy and law on telling the truth have a chill factor on an organisation that should have the interests of the population at its heart?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. He has definitive and well-expressed views on the issue. However, one of the questions that I have to ask myself is this: would it be right to bring in the sort of legislation that the Member obviously prefers and favours simply for people working in Health and Social Care? Should it not be brought in for the entire public sector? I accept that some people may be frustrated that I am taking too long, in their opinion, to come to a conclusion. However, the Member need only look at the number of debates on health in the Chamber to be aware that there are a huge number of issues that people want prioritised. They cannot all be done at one time, not with the staffing, resource and budget that is available to the Department of Health.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, the families of the victims of Dr Watt have low confidence in the trusts as it stands. As someone who lives with multiple sclerosis, I am reminded of a meeting of the all-party group on MS and neurology in 2022 during which senior trust officials and families of the wronged patients attended, and officials then apologised the next day by email for their inaccuracies. That is another example of where patients feel that inaccuracies, mistakes and delays have compounded the hurt and damage already caused. What steps will you take today to ensure that individuals and families can have faith in the process moving forward?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I absolutely apologise, through him, to anybody who feels that they have not been well served by what has happened since the revelations about Dr Watt. At the moment, my mind is with phase 3 of the dead patients review, and the Member will, I am sure, be aware that a third phase is beginning. That will see a number of families, 18 in total, having expressed an interest in having a review of what happened to their loved one. There will be a period between now and the end of the year when other families can come forward and ask for the same thing from the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). The reason it is not being opened to everybody is that I do not think that it is right to force a family that does not want to be involved in a review process to do so.

That is based, primarily, on the family reviews that took place during phases one and two. I want to be person-orientated and family-orientated in this process. I am very open to hearing any valid criticism or recommendations on how we might do this better.

Mr McGrath: Minister: neurology, urology and cervical screening. Will you be the Minister who gets to grips with all the controversies in our health service and ensures that those who are impacted — patients numbering in the tens of thousands — get the information that they need when they need it? What will you do to ensure that?

Mr Nesbitt: I assure the Member that I am genuine when I say that I am here to deliver better outcomes. That is not just a catchy phrase that I hope people will remember me by; it actually sets me up to be judged. Hopefully, I will be in post until May 2027, and, at the end of that time, I expect that people will reflect and make a decision on whether I, in any way, delivered better outcomes. Is it possible in the time remaining, with the budgets, resources and staffing levels, to fix everything and deliver better outcomes? That is a valid question. It is something that I will try to do. You have, in a way, defined the nature and the scale of the problem and the challenge, but I will try to rise to it. That is all that I can say to the Member. I cannot give a guarantee.

Mrs Erskine: In response to my colleague Mrs Dodds, the Minister listed a raft of things. This matter should be taken very seriously, and, as has been mentioned in the Chamber today, public confidence is key. I do not feel that the question has really been answered today, so I will ask it again. How can the public have confidence that the oversight of health professionals is any better today than it was in 2016?

Mr Nesbitt: I regret that the Member feels that way. As she obviously puts so little faith in the answer, I will not rehearse it. I simply ask her to reflect on the fact that health professionals are vocational people. They do not just do it for the money or because it is a job; they do it because they really want to. Yes, we get examples like Dr Watt that disrupt public confidence in the way that health and social care is delivered, but, ultimately, it is down to people to decide whether what I have said gives them any confidence. You may have had a bad experience of a Dr Watt, or perhaps you simply read about an incident and it has impacted on you or even traumatised you. It is very difficult for a politician to stand in a Chamber like this and restore public confidence if people are not willing to give it a try and accept that others are working genuinely and professionally to improve services.

Mr Donnelly: The Minister has talked a lot about raising public confidence. Will he review the composition of the inquiries implementation programme board to ensure that there can be a level of confidence from the public and the families who have been affected? Quite simply, it could be perceived in this case that we are asking people to mark their own homework.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I am not quite sure what he has in mind. I have confidence in the individuals who are conducting this particular bit of business, but if the Member would like to speak to me offline about how he thinks it could be done better in a way that does not disrupt the workings of what is going on but adds to public confidence, I am willing to meet him.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for coming to the House today. Does he agree that this scandal and the story from last week shine a very bright light on how important it is that it is made as easy as possible for patients and staff, regardless of their roles, to share their experiences, that sharing their experiences is normalised and that those in key positions act decisively when those experiences are shared?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question and his comment. Yes. As a generalisation, we have overcomplicated the delivery of healthcare, and, in this case, we certainly have not made available a smooth and easy process. The work streams, the associated reviews and the investigations have been long and very difficult processes, especially for the former patients of Dr Watt and their families. I can say that I am committed — I will repeat that: I am committed — to restoring public confidence, but making it as quick and easy and also as fair and accurate as possible is always the challenge.

Again, if, as I believe, there are frustrations amongst families, I can only apologise for that and commit to trying to continuously improve the service that we offer.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the item. Members, take your ease, please.

Ms Egan: My party and I will support the motion and the amendment. Northern Ireland has not had a Programme for Government since 2016. Publication of the draft Programme for Government is a notable step in the right direction and an indicator of positivity for the future of Northern Ireland. My colleagues and I engage in this debate in good faith. Yes, there are things in the draft Programme for Government that can, we believe, be improved upon, and I only hope that we can approach the debate constructively and keep in mind that the published document is in draft form and is being consulted on.

That said, my Alliance Party colleagues and I agree that more needs to be done to put in place clear and measurable objectives that are rooted in accountability. That should be done after the consultation period, when groups in our society and Committees have had a chance to input into and further shape the draft Programme for Government. That would create clarity and visibility for the public on what the Executive wish to lead and support delivery on.

The Programme for Government is not just for Executive use. It is for everyone across our society, so that they can see the direction of this place that we call home. It creates pillars and goalposts for businesses, delivery partners, campaigners and community organisations to work with, to use to hold us accountable and to shape their work plans and priorities for the coming years.

I welcome the inclusion of the ending violence against women and girls strategy as a priority in the Programme for Government. The Executive Office's recent launch of the strategic framework complements the work that Minister Naomi Long is doing alongside the Department of Health on the strategy for ending domestic and sexual abuse. Alliance has never been a stranger to the fight for transformation of public services, so it is also welcome to see that in the draft Programme for Government.

For us, as legislators, to adequately deliver and work to the Programme for Government, we must first strengthen the underlying missions and focus on which we build our objectives. Our society, while progressing, remains divided in many ways. The new Programme for Government must find a path forward to forge the benefits of a truly shared society. That is what the everyday person not only wants but expects to see from us. Peace provides that path. The missions laid out in draft — people, planet and prosperity — create a focus for delivery, but that focus will be restricted until we understand that peace is not just a cross-cutting principle but a stand-alone mission of its own. The mission of peace is inextricably linked to the transformation of public services, many of which the motion notes, and it is undoubtedly necessary to relieve the squeeze that our public finances are experiencing. A mission on peace and peacebuilding will ensure that reconciliation, diversity, equality and inclusion are embedded in everything that the Executive do. Division manifests duplication, additional costs and opportunities for development. Peace provides a solution to those. We simply cannot afford the burden of not progressing with peace.

Research that Ulster University recently developed highlighted the idea that the cost of division in education in Northern Ireland could be up to £226 million per year. Paramilitaries have been estimated to cost the public purse up to £750 million per year, as noted in the draft Programme for Government under the priority "Safer Communities". A peace pillar would ensure that there would be a focus on reconciliation, diversity and inclusion throughout the entire Programme for Government. It is simple: we need a Programme for Government. We have not had one for far too long. We need buy-in from Assembly colleagues and wider society to make delivery possible.

Measurable targets, with outcomes that properly interrogate the issues that we face as a society, will aid that delivery. However, whether it is growing the economy, creating safer communities, improving public services, tackling poverty or supporting the vulnerable, none of the goals in the draft PFG will become reality without putting peace and peacebuilding at the heart of the Executive's agenda. We in Alliance will continue to make the case for that mission, and we hope that we will be supported in the effort to put peace at the heart of the delivery of everything that we do.

Ms Sugden: I rise to address an issue that will not surprise the deputy First Minister. This is quickly becoming one of the defining challenges of our time, and it is the rapid ageing of Northern Ireland's population and the urgent need for public services to adapt to that reality.

Northern Ireland is ageing more quickly than any other part of the UK. By 2040, nearly 25% of our population will be over 65. While that demographic shift is a reflection of people living longer, which is a good thing, it will bring profound challenges that we are not yet prepared to face. If we fail to plan adequately, we will see a public-services crisis that will affect not only older people but everyone in Northern Ireland — children, working-age families and future generations.

The draft Programme for Government promises improvements to public services, particularly a reduction in hospital waiting times, yet it fails to account for the most significant driver of demand, which is an ageing population with multiple long-term conditions. Already 80% of social care packages go to older people. With the number of people over 65 growing by 49% by 2050, our health and social care systems are heading for collapse unless we take action now. Older adults who live with conditions like dementia are projected to triple in prevalence in the coming decades. We will need intensive long-term care that our current system is ill-equipped to provide. A failure to act will lead to increased waiting times, overburdened hospitals and exhausted healthcare workers — sounds familiar — and it will only get worse.

Failure to respond to our ageing demographic will also create an economic strain that will be placed on younger generations. By 2040, Northern Ireland will have just three working-age people for every person who is of pensionable age. That will create a higher old-age dependency ratio that will put unprecedented pressure on the workforce to support an ageing population. Younger generations will inevitably face increased taxes that will have to cover the rising cost of pensions, healthcare and social care. Those economic burdens will grow, and there will be increased poverty and a deepening generational inequality.

That is not just a future problem — it is happening now — and without a significant policy change that is reflected in a Programme for Government, it will only get worse. The draft programme mentions the need for social housing, but it overlooks the fact that we have an acute shortage of age-appropriate housing in Northern Ireland, as older people require homes that are accessible and safe. That shortage is a major social issue. The percentage of older people who are waiting for social housing is growing, and without urgent action, many will be forced into unsuitable living conditions, which will further exacerbate health issues.

Social isolation and loneliness among older people are already at crisis levels, and that will only intensify without intervention. The Commissioner for Older People highlighted that the lack of transport and community services, particularly in rural areas, is isolating older people in those communities, which leads to deteriorating mental health and an increased burden on health services.

Perhaps the most glaring omission is the lack of age discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland. We are the only region of the United Kingdom not to have that legislation for goods, facilities and services. I hope to address that omission as a private Member, but it should be up to our Government to put value on our older people and close the gap of inequalities for that age group.

The Programme for Government needs to have a specific outcome on preparing for an ageing society. That would provide a road map for cross-departmental action, ensuring that all aspects of public services, from healthcare to housing and from transport to employment, are equipped to meet the demands of a rapidly ageing population. The draft Programme for Government does not go far enough. It lacks specific and measurable outcomes that will address the growing crisis in healthcare, housing, social isolation and age discrimination. We need a clear, coordinated and well-funded strategy to adapt to our public services. Anything less will lead to a future in which our systems buckle under the strain, our citizens are left unsupported, and intergenerational tensions deepen.

The draft Programme for Government must have a specific focus on preparing for an ageing society, because, if we fail to act now, we risk creating a society where older people are left behind, public services collapse, and future generations are saddled with an unsustainable economic burden. The time to act is now, embedded in the Government's overarching policy. Let us ensure that we are prepared for the future — for all of us, young and old.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome the publication of the draft Programme for Government. After a long period of stop-start government, it is right to recognise that this is, indeed, progress. It is also right that we take the opportunity to debate the draft Programme for Government, and I am pleased that we were able to table the motion.

There is plenty to welcome in the 88-page document, from the focus on childcare support to the commitment to end violence against women and girls. Members will imagine, I am sure, that I am also delighted that regional balance has been included in the draft Programme for Government. It seems that it is worth sounding like a broken record. However, I also know the expectations of the public in all our communities and the change that they truly want to see. The people whom we represent are impatient for change and eager for delivery. They want to see, and they should expect, serious detail, clear targets and a plan for how the Executive will deliver on their priorities.

When the draft Programme for Government was published, the deputy First Minister said:

I agree totally with that sentiment. We were also told that the production of the document involved complex negotiations, but it is hard to say that the plan can be seen as ambitious.

Mr O'Toole: I thank my colleague for giving way. Will she reflect on the fact that, as well as the seven months between the Executive being restored and the draft Programme for Government being published, there were, as we found out, more than 100 meetings between Executive parties and civil servants between the 2022 election and the restoration? There were literally hundreds of meetings to produce this plan.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Ms McLaughlin: Yes. I am well aware that the plan has been in the cooking pot for a number of years.

It has been said that the draft Programme for Government lacks serious detail, time frames and objectives. That can be seen clearly in the treatment of childcare, for example. Of course it is good that bringing down the absurd cost of childcare is a focus, but we are still none the wiser about the Executive's longer-term strategy to do that. Our plan sets out an ambition to cap costs and halve them by 2030 so that no parent pays more than they can afford. While it is welcome to see a focus on regional balance, the steps contained in the document simply will not deliver it, and they limit action to the Department for the Economy. It is good to see that the Executive are starting to take notice of the importance of having a level playing field between all areas in Northern Ireland, but we must go further than that. Our suggested legislation will create binding obligations on all Departments. The expansion of higher education in Derry is mentioned — that is, obviously, close to my heart — but, even on that issue, it is concerning that the Executive have chosen to use the wording, "up to 10,000 students". We must not rewrite history. The commitment that we all signed up to in New Decade, New Approach was 10,000 students. Many of us, including the SDLP, want to see it go much, much further.

I am also frustrated, as many members of the public might be, that no measures are included in relation to the unregulated flying of flags; there is no target for addressing waiting list times; and there are no specific commitments around the delivery of the anti-poverty strategy, which has remained unpublished, dare I say, for 25 years. Those are real issues that affect the lives of people across the North. On all those issues and many more, the public need to see ambitious, time-bound and measurable targets. Of course, I am fully aware that the Executive find themselves in a difficult financial situation, which can limit the progress that they can make. However, the failure to set multi-year Budgets has a large influence on the situation in which we find ourselves, with chronic underfunding in all our public services, be that in Derry or parts of Belfast. The public deserve a Government who are willing to be clear about their ambition and be innovative about how to deliver it. Families are struggling to make ends meet and public services are at breaking point. They deserve a Government who will watch their backs.

In summary, the Programme for Government, while only in draft form, is underwhelming. It lacks the seriousness and urgency that is required. I hope that the final Programme for Government faces those issues and meets the challenges of public services in crisis and of a public who are weary of false promises and a lack of delivery. Now is the chance for the Government to revise their approach and improve their plan, and they must not be found wanting.

Mr McMurray: I welcome the publication of the draft Programme for Government. I was pleased to see many important areas covered in it. However, an effective Programme for Government must be supported by clear, measurable and time-bound targets. Without those, it is impossible to measure and scrutinise success. Targets are currently missing from the draft programme. I will comment on two areas that are referenced in the motion, where clear targets are urgently needed. The first area is biodiversity, and the second is water and waste water infrastructure.

Biodiversity loss is a global problem and one of the most pressing challenges of our time. The global erosion of biodiversity is threatening the ecosystems on which all life depends. The 'State of Nature Report 2023' provided some shocking statistics for Northern Ireland and showed that Northern Ireland is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. For example, an estimated one in nine Northern Irish species is threatened with extinction; the numbers of farmland birds and wintering waterbirds have decreased substantially over the past two decades; and many species of flowering plants are in decline.

Unsurprisingly, the main reason for that biodiversity loss is the result of how we interact with our environment, be that our marine, lowlands or uplands environment. However, it is possible to halt and reverse that decline if you put in the effort. Encouraging work is going on in my constituency, which shows that, if scaled up and implemented at pace, the right solutions can put nature on a path to recovery. In South Down, there are schemes that have proved that our biodiversity can be protected and be successful and thrive. The Mourne Heritage Trust has piloted healthy heathlands in which natural materials have been used to re-profile peat hags in order to retain water and sediment and prevent them from washing out. There is also the National Trust's DAERA-funded wildlife recovery projects and path building on the side of Slieve Donard, and landowners in South Down have seen the benefit of tree planting on small parcels of land and hillsides, all of which increase the biodiversity of an area.

Outside of South Down, it is of particular note that a pair of white-tailed eagles in Fermanagh has become the first to breed in NI for more than 150 years. I am sure that former South Down MLA Mr Jim Wells was glad of that news.

I was pleased to see the environmental improvement plan for Northern Ireland published last week. The plan contains several measurable time-bound targets that will help us reverse this biodiversity loss. Many of those targets extend well beyond 2027. That is a good thing. We need ambitious long-term targets, but it is equally important to have clear interim targets to ensure that we stay on track and make steady progress. I want to see interim targets for biodiversity included in the Programme for Government.

We also need ambitious, measurable and time-bound targets to tackle huge challenges in our water and waste water infrastructure. It is becoming increasingly clear that our failing waste water system is grinding Northern Ireland to a halt. The impact on DAERA and the Department for Infrastructure is obvious to see. DAERA will not be able to tackle the water quality environmental crisis in Lough Neagh without significant improvements to waste water infrastructure. The Department for Infrastructure's budget faces an ever-growing burden with every single day that NI Water remains paralysed by a lack of funding.

This is, however, no longer just about DAERA and DFI. The inadequate water infrastructure now threatens to constrain every activity in every single Department. The Communities Department's development bans in parts of Northern Ireland mean that we cannot build the homes that we so urgently need. Those bans will only spread if waste water capacity is not tackled. Building bans are affecting the delivery of the Department's housing supply strategy, which promises the development of 100,000 new homes. In Economy and Finance, economic growth will be reduced and fewer jobs will be created. Representatives of the Construction Employers Federation told me that jobs in the construction sector are in peril, as investors are building new factories elsewhere. Skilled labour in the sector is leaving the country as work is drying up. Education, Health and Justice will also eventually feel the impact when they face barriers to building new facilities.

The issue is of such wide-ranging consequence that we need the whole Executive to be committed to tackling it, including through having clear, measurable and time-bound targets for water and waste water infrastructure in the Programme for Government. That would send a strong signal that the issue is understood and that the Executive Office is committed to tackling it.

Mr Gaston: Members, whatever way you want to spin it, the draft Programme for Government is a distinctly underwhelming document. If anyone went to the public with it as their manifesto, they would be soundly rejected by the electorate. Even some of the things in it that are trumpeted as achievements do not stand up to the most superficial scrutiny.

Let us look at something specific and measurable such as childcare. I have heard Ministers cite the childcare strategy several times as a huge win for the Executive. On page 24 of the document, it is presented in the following glowing terms:

Yet, the other week, when I pressed the Finance Minister on what the Barnett consequential for childcare schemes in Northern Ireland is compared with Great Britain, I discovered that families in Northern Ireland are being short-changed to the tune of £32 million. The Executive got £57·2 million for that scheme from London but are spending less than half on it. A mere £25 million is being spent on childcare. That is not something to trumpet; that is a disgrace for the Executive.

When I looked at the other things that the Executive have found more money for, I discovered one measurable fact that will be of interest to unionists. Some sought to tell the unionist people that they returned to Stormont only because our place within the Union had been restored. The boast was that there would be zero checks and zero paperwork. Not only that, they claimed that they had abolished the idea of an all-Ireland economy. Oh yes, there is a reference to Intertrade UK on page 78 of the document, yet when I asked about its budget, I was told that there was certainly no money for it coming from this place. What a contrast with the other body mentioned on that page: InterTradeIreland. Just this week, in a response from the Economy Minister to a question for written answer, I received confirmation that, since the introduction of the protocol, the budget for InterTradeIreland has ballooned by £1·8 million.

What really takes the biscuit about this document is that one of its nine priorities is the ending of violence against women and girls. Who is taking the lead on that? None other than the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. When I was preparing for this debate on Saturday evening, I decided to take a look at the people who were murdered on that date during the period that some gullibly call the Troubles. I found one murder, on 5 October 1974, which is particularly telling in this debate. It was the murder of Asha Chopra. Asha Chopra was a 25-year-old mother of two, soon to be three — she was pregnant.

As she was a member of Northern Ireland's small Indian community, one might think that she was the sort of person thought about when, on page 67 of the document, the Executive commit themselves to tackling racism. What happened to her? She was shot in the head while sitting in a car with her family while returning from a funeral. Shot by none other than the IRA. Can the Executive really combat violence against women and girls? Can they really claim to be concerned about minority ethnic communities while being led by someone who tells us that there was no alternative to the murder of Asha Chopra? I think not.

What business do the Executive have in claiming, as they do on page 8 of the document, that they are committed to ensuring:

when the lead party is engulfed in a paedophile scandal? What business does the party to my left have in claiming that, when one of its number did not even revoke the pass of Michael McMonagle? This is a document that is wafer-thin on policy, seeks to con the public when it comes to childcare and is fatally undermined by the actions of those trying to sell it who are sitting on the Front Benches to my left.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the list of Members to speak. I call the deputy First Minister to respond. Deputy First Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion. On taking office, we pledged to work with all parties across the Executive and the Assembly to confront the challenges that we face and to capitalise on the many opportunities on offer to deliver a better future for Northern Ireland. That is exactly what we and our colleagues in the Executive have done with the draft Programme for Government, which is now out for consultation.

In the draft Programme for Government, we set out nine priorities. They are growing a globally competitive economy; delivering more affordable childcare; cutting health waiting lists; ending violence against women and girls; providing better support for children and young people with special educational needs; providing more social, sustainable and affordable housing; having safer communities; protecting Lough Neagh and the environment; and reforming and transforming public services. We have also made proposals to invest in infrastructure, including water management, and have identified a set of long-term missions that the Executive will pursue.

I welcome Members referring to some of the big infrastructure challenges that we face, not least with the water and sewerage system, but we also have capital spend pressures for, for example, public transport, the education estate and social and affordable housing. In fact, all those challenges tie in with the water and sewerage system. The proposals and the plan for doing that work will be set out in the investment strategy for Northern Ireland as opposed to being the primary focus of the Programme for Government, although the two documents are, of course, inextricably linked in that ambition.

It is for the public, the Assembly and all our partners to tell us whether those are the priorities that matter most to people here, which is why we encourage everyone to get involved in the consultation. The consultation is open until 4 November, and we very much encourage Members to share the information with groups, organisations and constituents. I am really pleased to say that we have had a good response to the draft Programme for Government thus far. We are up to 366 responses online, which is a healthy number at the midpoint. We know that many people often wait until the later stages of a consultation before responding. The time frames involved mean that we also committed to looking at responses as they come in. I am pleased to say that the early indications are that there is significant support for the nine priorities in those online responses.

Once the consultation period has concluded and once the Executive have properly considered the responses and the input of Committees, we will work collectively to agree a final Programme for Government that will then be brought to the Assembly for cross-community approval. I thank the Committee — the Committee Chair is not in her place — for the work that it will undertake and has undertaken thus far as a coordinating Committee for the other Committees on the Programme for Government. That is invaluable work, often gathering in the specific departmental and sectoral interests from across the range of Committees.

There is, of course, more work to be done before a final programme is agreed, and we will work with the Executive to consider carefully how best to include targets. Any targets will need to be specific, measurable and time-bound. Most of all, they will need to be meaningful and result in change that people want and need to see. We have already made a good start on that. Earlier, during Question Time, there was reference to our well-being framework and dashboard. The 40 indicators will be a critical aspect of measuring this. Those 40 indicators will be key measurements against the nine priorities, and they will be updated, as I indicated earlier, in real time in order to measure progress. It will also give us an indication of problems in real time. Often, Ministers refer to targets going the wrong way or being red as opposed to green or amber and going in the right direction. That well-being dashboard should be able to give us those indications, which will facilitate Ministers and the Executive in taking mitigating actions.

The challenge for us all will be the difficult Budget and fiscal environment in which we are trying to deliver. We are determined to deliver against all nine priorities. The scale of that delivery and the realisation of our ambition will, in part, depend on the Budget that is available. As I indicated to the Committee last week, it is unlikely that we will have a multi-year Budget before next year. The lack of a multi-year Budget prevents us from making the planned decisions that we would want to make. However, we anticipate that the fiscal environment will be difficult for the next 12 to 18 months at least. Therefore, the targets and priorities will all be scalable. If we secure additional revenue, we will, of course, scale those up.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the deputy First Minister's giving way. She talked about the multi-year Budget: my party wants to see that too. Was she disappointed that the Budget sustainability plan, which was produced last week, did not have a huge amount of detail or ambition on long-term measures to reform and improve how we manage public finances? It seemed to be mostly a placeholder exercise. Perhaps she can correct me on that point.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The sustainability plan was to set out the framework for managing, regardless of the situation that we are in, but it also made it clear that our preference is for a multi-year Budget. We made that point directly to the Prime Minister. We made it directly, strongly and robustly to the Chancellor when we met her. She indicated to us that she agreed that the multi-year Budget was the preference but, of course, also highlighted the difficulty for the new Government in coming in and being able to take a look at those longer-term measures. I expect that some of that challenge is because the fiscal environment is particularly challenging at the moment. The Government will want to align a multi-year Budget with some ambition for what they want to achieve over the remaining three to four years of their term beyond next year. We have to work with the conditions in which we find ourselves. Ultimately, we are dictated to by whether a multi-year Budget comes out of Treasury. We also made the point that longer-term funding supports us, particularly on the capital side, and, indeed, that more needs to be done on that coordination piece. I have no doubt that we will raise that point again at the Council of the Nations and Regions on Friday.

We will also look at how to link projects in the Programme for Government to that well-being dashboard. The indicators on that dashboard will be updated automatically when the latest data is published. Again, I advise all Members to look at that and bring forward any views that they have. That will aid work across the Executive and help us to identify and bring forward solutions when issues are found. We will also look to identify gaps in data by strengthening our suite of indicators. The aim is for those to be dynamic, so, if some of them are not working in the right way or doing what we want them to do with regard to that progressive realisation against our overall targeted outcome, we should be able to change them, if needs be. We will, of course, take feedback from the relevant Committees as well. The indicators on mental health, the number of people in housing stress and the percentage of people who see towns and city centres as safe and welcoming are currently not moving in the right direction. In order to continually improve, it is important that we have prioritised healthcare, the provision of more social, affordable and sustainable housing and safer communities.

We will, as we have said in the Assembly, work with Executive colleagues to carefully consider and introduce specific, measurable and time-bound objectives where it makes sense to do so, but to approve the motion would mean that we agree changes to the process that I have outlined and the programme itself without letting that consultation run its course fully. It is also important that we, as an Executive, have that opportunity to reach a collective decision based on the rounded view that a consultation exercise provides.The process, while maybe not the most exciting part of this, is critical. Keen as we are to see timely progress, we are not willing to do either of those things.

The First Minister and I agree with Members that it is important to clearly set out what we are working to achieve through the programme and to be transparent when it comes to reporting our progress. The Programme for Government sets out priorities. We have said it before, and I will say again: it is not the totality of our ambition. Frankly, despite reflections from some Members across the Chamber that they find the Programme for Government underwhelming, the reality is that if, in two and a half years, we have made significant progress against all nine priorities, that will be a job well done. We are realistic about that, and I think that the public expect us to be.

Some valid issues have been raised about older people and making sure that their interests are fully integrated; the underpinning of our infrastructure; the importance of our investment strategy; and the importance of all kinds of other issues from mental health to health, young people, wildlife and peace as a core objective that underlines our work. All those issues are essential, but the Programme for Government is ultimately about prioritisation. It is up to individual Ministers, working in their Departments or cross-departmentally and across agencies, to bring forward a huge suite of additional measures to respond to statutory responsibilities and address the many other concerns in society that are not referenced in this prioritised document.

This is a positive way forward for the Executive and provides clear prioritisation. If we fulfil the ambition that we have set out, we will make a real and meaningful difference to people throughout Northern Ireland on the issues that matter most to them.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Brian Kingston to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Brian, you have up to five minutes.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As my party colleague Harry Harvey said when he proposed our amendment, the publication last month of the Executive's Programme for Government was a significant milestone and set out the Executive's priorities for the mandate. As Members know, it is the first published Programme for Government since the 2011 to 2015 version. The nine priorities cut across Departments and provide a means by which the public will be able to judge progress during the Assembly term. Many additional items of legislation are being and will be advanced by Ministers during the mandate, but the nine priorities in the PFG are key matters that the Executive have committed to.

The DUP amendment:

introduce

You can see there a call for an annual delivery report, for the monitoring of progress against the 40 statistical indicators and for work with Executive colleagues to introduce specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) targets.

The statistical indicators referred to in our amendment are those of the PFG well-being framework, which can be found on the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency's (NISRA) website: datavis.nisra.co.uk. Those indicators are based on the Executive's missions: people, planet and prosperity, with peace as a cross-cutting commitment. There are 10 strategic domains of well-being: happier children; cleaner environment; equal society; healthier lives; brighter futures; stronger economy; safer communities; caring society; better homes; and living peacefully. Each domain of well-being is supported by a selection of 40 indicators, and, as the deputy First Minister said, data will be updated constantly in real time. We are very supportive of real-time monitoring and of targets being introduced and the progress of the Assembly and the Executive being tested against them.

We urge Members to support our amendment and to see the desire and willingness to work on those targets.

I will comment briefly on some of the comments made in the debate. In proposing the motion, Matthew O'Toole said that he wanted to see targets, a timeline and plans. Harry Harvey highlighted some of the Executive's achievements to date and said that objectives must form the basis for delivery over the next two and a half years. Emma Sheerin said that the publication of the draft Programme for Government was a key date for the four-party Executive and that she was keen to see delivery across the Province.

Paula Bradshaw, as Chair of the Committee, reminded the public that the consultation continues until 4 November. In her capacity as an Alliance MLA, she said that the Alliance Party will support the motion and the amendment and that voters need to be able to measure progress. She and her colleague Connie Egan said that they wanted to see a stand-alone mission for peace and reconciliation.

Claire Sugden highlighted the increasing demographic of older people in Northern Ireland and the costs to and the pressures on public services as a result of providing for that section of the population. Sinéad McLaughlin recognised that the publication of the draft Programme for Government represented progress and said that it would be judged on its delivery. She highlighted her wish to see delivery in Londonderry, though she probably said "Derry", and highlighted areas that need that delivery. Andrew McMurray highlighted the need for targets around biodiversity and water and waste water infrastructure. Timothy Gaston was not a fan of the draft Programme for Government or the Assembly in general, but that is nothing new.

The deputy First Minister highlighted a commitment to a better future for the people of Northern Ireland, encouraged everyone to take part in the consultation. She said that the response so far had been positive —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

Mr Kingston: — and that measures will be specific, measurable and time-bound.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

I call Mark Durkan to conclude the debate by making a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Durkan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

After seven months, the publication of the Executive's draft Programme for Government was welcome. However, it quickly became apparent and is becoming more apparent by the day that the document, which should provide a road map for a better, fairer Northern Ireland, lacks any detail whatsoever on how to get us there. The plan is remarkable only in its vagueness, not its ideas. It lacks the ambitious and measurable targets that this place so desperately needs. In the face of deepening crises across healthcare, housing and poverty, the draft Programme for Government is a hollow promise, and missed opportunities echo through its empty shell.

The term "budget pressures" has become the tag line of this Executive. It is rolled out when we seek urgent updates on critical services: "We would like to do it, but, you know, budget pressures". It is akin to that dreaded phrase that no child wants to hear from a parent when asking for something — "We'll see"— and my children hear it frequently enough. Even as children, we understood that that phrase meant no. It was a way to dodge responsibility but not be the person to say no. We think that the amendment does a bit of that, so we will not support it.

That is not to say that financial precarity is not an issue. Budget pressures are a huge, harsh reality. We do not downplay the challenges ahead. However, budget pressures cannot be used as a constant excuse for the Executive's lack of creativity. Real leadership demands innovative solutions, not simply pointing to financial constraints as a barrier to progress.

Much of what is included is not new or has already been committed to. For example, the £76 million of new money to tackle health waiting lists is, in fact, old money that had been allocated to address red-flag cases, and it will not make a dent in our growing waiting lists. The environment improvement plan is required by law under the climate action plan, and it should have been actioned already, yet that, too, has been presented here as some sort of novel concept and radical aim. Mr McMurray outlined the cost of damage to our environment and pointed out environmental exemplars that we could and should aspire to emulate. However, we have here a practice in acknowledgement, not action. We have acknowledgement of our ever-growing housing waiting list, increased poverty rates and the need to protect the planet, but we do not have a tangible plan or indication of time frames for any of the priorities that are outlined.

While the SDLP and I welcomed housing as a priority in the programme, the PFG merely notes that it will prevent homelessness by:

It fails to mention or address the fact that the Executive have not seen fit to fund homelessness prevention in the past financial year. Services are on their knees and facing closure. Service users are on their knees and facing into an abyss. The Programme for Government promises to deliver affordable homes and to bring forward the housing supply strategy for 100,000 homes over a 15-year period, but that promise is made at a time when fewer than 600 new social homes will be built this year, falling woefully short of targets. Addressing Northern Ireland Water issues and their impact on housing development barely get a mention.

The Executive commit to tackling poverty, with zero mention of delivering an anti-poverty strategy, which has been 20 years in the making. There is a commitment to private rented sector reform when we have already witnessed a rowback on previous commitments, including on no-fault evictions, as I raised with the Communities Minister earlier. Managing our water, which is one of the most pressing and historically neglected issues, gets a 38-word mention. That mention encompasses water supply, maintaining infrastructure, addressing pollution and biodiversity loss and preventing flooding, yet there is absolutely no detail on how the Executive intend to address it.

I could go on, but I believe that I have painted a clear enough picture. You get the idea. The PFG lacks the bold ambitions and actions that we need to achieve meaningful progress for the people whom we all serve. We need to see specifics. People need to see specifics, including a statutory obligation for collaboration across Departments and the effective utilisation of North/South opportunities.

The leader of the Opposition has outlined the fact that we are not being negative. You would be forgiven for thinking that I did not get that memo before the debate started, but it is true. It is, of course, worth noting that this is a draft Programme for Government that is now out for consultation, but it is so important that that consultation be widespread, thorough and meaningful and that more than lip service is paid to responses.

The SDLP acknowledges and appreciates the positive things in the PFG and, indeed, the positivity of actually having a Programme for Government. We have been without one for more than a decade, but, of course, we have been without a Government for half a decade. None of what is in the document will be achieved if we go down that road again. Mr O'Toole focused on — or he was beginning to hone his focus on the importance of targets and timelines. He was in full flow before the Chair of the Executive Office Committee interrupted him — not her only well-timed intervention in the past week — but, in doing so, she highlighted my party's consistency in approach. We will always seek to do better, whether we are inside or outside an Executive.

Ms Sheerin spoke of water quality and the action plan for Lough Neagh. She welcomed the cross-departmental approach, but the scope of our ambition should not be limited to dealing with just one environmental crisis at a time. People want to see a similar commitment to tackle the issues at Mobuoy, which pose a threat not only to the environment but to human health and are a barrier to the completion of the A6 and the economic development of Derry.

Ms Bradshaw made important points about tackling division — division that has cost lives, cost money and continues to cost so many opportunities for us to do better. Ms McLaughlin made the salient point about tackling the flying of flags, which is a practical aim and outworking of tackling that division.

I have said that people need more than words, but words are important. My colleague correctly identified the wording around the expansion of the university in Derry. The document refers to "up to 10,000 students". We need "at least" 10,000 students.

The deputy First Minister spoke of the infrastructural challenges that we face. We all know of the huge challenges and the cost of delivering major infrastructural improvements and projects. The biggest driver of cost is delay. We clearly need to improve our delivery. An infrastructure commission could have and, undoubtedly, would have a role to play in improving that and reducing the eye-watering overspends that we now seem to shrug off and take as par for the course. However, that infrastructure commission has been sucked into TEO where so many good ideas go to die.

The motion is not about pointing fingers; it is about extending an open hand. We want to work constructively to craft a plan that delivers results. What we currently have does not cut it. This cannot serve as another soulless exercise in political rhetoric and jam tomorrow. I commend the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease for a moment or two while we change the top Table.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly may sit until 8.00 pm if necessary.

Mr McAleer: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mr McAleer: I welcome the opportunity to debate the motion this evening on the farmers' basic payment scheme. Our farmers are grappling with some of the greatest challenges they have ever faced. Among them are Brexit, climate change and animal diseases. On top of those, the rising cost of production and reforms to agriculture policy are stretching our farming communities to the limit.

Local farmers play their part in global food security, particularly for countries that are not self-sufficient. In this context, our farmers are not just local producers; they contribute to the wider European and global food chain, as well as being custodians of the countryside. Global food consumption is projected to increase by 1·4% over the next decade, driven by population growth. This is not the time to cut funding or reduce our commitment to agriculture. On the contrary, we need to invest in the future of farming to ensure food security at home and abroad.
Thriving rural communities are essential for our wider economy, and agriculture is the backbone of those communities. Over 80% of farms in the North are small-scale, but we cannot assume that the end of direct payments would only impact on small farmers; it would devastate the entire sector. Research from Queen's University suggests that, without direct support, we could see the collapse of 30% of our farms. For the over 25,000 farm businesses here, the loss of direct payments could be catastrophic, threatening sustainable farming practices and the livelihoods of thousands of people. With approximately one million hectares of farmland, primarily grassland, we have the unique ability to convert grass into protein, thanks to our ruminant livestock. In the North, 75% of land is classified as less-favoured areas (LFA), which is unsuitable for growing crops but is perfectly suited for grazing livestock. That natural resource should be protected and maximised, but the current uncertainty threatens the industry.

The basic payment scheme, known to many as the "single farm payment", is crucial to the rural economy. It provides direct financial support to farmers and has a multiplier effect throughout the local economy. It stabilises farm incomes, enabling farmers to maintain or increase production, helps to keep the land in good environmental condition and boosts demand for agricultural input, such as machinery, seeds and fuel. That increased spending power supports local businesses, services and jobs in agriculture-related sectors like transport, processing and agri-tech. Additionally, the basic payment scheme allows farmers to invest in farm infrastructure, further benefiting industries like construction. Overall, the basic payment scheme is central to sustained growth and economic resilience in rural and non-rural areas.

Under the guise of austerity and post-Brexit policies, we see a systematic undermining of our agriculture sector. Direct payments from the European Union that represented over 80% of farm income provided long-term security and enabled farmers to produce safe, nutritious and affordable food whilst caring for the countryside. The South of Ireland, by contrast, has continued to invest heavily in agriculture, increasing payments for areas of natural constraint, whilst, in the North, we do not have such vital supports, which puts our farmers at a distinct disadvantage. With Brexit, we face a declining Budget, and the British Government have yet to provide any clarity on whether there will be a ring-fenced commitment to agriculture similar to the EU's common agricultural policy.

We eagerly anticipate the Chancellor's Budget announcement on 30 October, which is expected to shed light on the funding that will be available. It is crucial that the Minister promptly assesses the implications of that funding for our agriculture sector and ensures that it aligns with our goal for sustainable development and a just transition. I welcome the fact that the Minister is with us in the Assembly this evening.

We need a robust, long-term commitment to agriculture, similar to pillar 1 and pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy. It is our duty to fight for that in the upcoming spending review. We must secure the future of farming in the North for the good of our rural communities, our environment and our collective food industry.

Sinn Féin supports both amendments. We support the DUP's call for a:

The SDLP amendment — amendment No 1 — helpfully includes the need for a separate, ring-fenced pillar 2 scheme. As we know, pre Brexit, CAP pillar 2, which was also known as the rural development programme, provided funding for agrienvironment schemes and the farm business improvement scheme as well as social and economic development programmes through the local action groups. In the current post-Brexit arrangement, there is only one farm budget envelope available — there is no pillar 2 — but all the schemes proposed in the new farm policy will be modulated out of the basic payment scheme, which will reduce the value of farmers' entitlements. All of that is in the context of no overall clarity from the British Government on the Budget.

While we support both amendments, I understand that the SDLP amendment will be voted on first and if it is passed, the DUP amendment will not be voted on. The Speaker will keep me right on that. I am certainly not going to pre-empt how Members will vote.

The Assembly must ensure that farm support continues so that our farmers, who are the custodians of our countryside, can continue to feed people and contribute to the global food supply. I look forward to the debate.

Mr McGlone: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1.

Mr McGlone: Mo bhuíochas leat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the debate and the recognition of the significant investment made by the single farm payment and the EU common agricultural policy in rural communities and businesses. While we agree with the intent of the motion, in our view, it is incomplete. That is why we believe that our amendment is necessary. There were two pillars to the EU common agricultural policy, and both of them, as we well know, played an important part in supporting rural communities and the rural economy. The motion mentions only the direct payments under pillar 1, but the pillar 2 payments for rural development were also crucial. However, after Brexit, the British Government did not properly replace the pillar 2 funding stream, as many of us know. As a result, we have lost access to nearly £100 million of funding that should have been invested in our rural communities. Our amendment seeks to acknowledge that loss. Let us be clear: this issue is up for debate today directly because of the Brexit that the DUP campaigned for, which the SDLP and others opposed. That is a simple fact.

We all know the importance of the agri-food sector to our rural and wider economy. It is one of our most vital industries, supporting tens of thousands of jobs and generating over £2·87 billion in output in 2023. The bedrock of that sector is farming, with many small farms, most of them family-owned and run, dotted across the rural landscape. For years, those farmers have been supported by EU funding that was made available through our membership of the European Union. That funding, whatever problems some may have had with it, ensured a level playing field for farmers across the EU and between these islands. That funding was consistent and, importantly, it allowed farmers to plan ahead financially. That was all thrown into chaos by Brexit. Previous friends of the DUP in the British Conservative Party promised to match EU agricultural funding. They have not matched the inflationary pressures that have followed, which has led to cuts in real terms to the funding that is available. Those are cuts that the DUP, more than any other party here, bears some political responsibility for.

The annual funding allocation to replace the EU's common agricultural policy payments has been capped since 2020 at approximately £330 million.

Within that is around £300 million of direct payments to farmers. The Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) has calculated that maintaining the real value of the funding — the "real terms" referred to in our amendment — will require the overall funding to be increased to £389 million by the end of 2024. Without that increase, there will be a shortfall of around £60 million this year, a real-terms cut in the available funding that has been experienced each year since 2020.

Meanwhile, while the financial support has been cut and is reducing, farmers are under increasing pressure. It is expected that the figures will show a drop in total farm income from £609 million in 2022 to £341 million in 2023. Therefore, it is not enough to maintain direct payments at the pre-Brexit levels. The funding must be inflation-proofed in real terms, as our amendment states, and guaranteed for at least 10 years, as the UFU has called for. That would restore the certainty that accompanied the EU funding. It must also include replacement funding for the pillar 2 payments. As I said earlier, many from rural areas know that they are crucial for rural development, small businesses, microbusinesses and community groups in general. The funding was lost after Brexit, and replacing the lost investment for rural development is essential if the Executive hope to deliver, in total, for our rural communities.

It is right that the argument is being led by our Minister of Agriculture, but it is also a message that the joint First Ministers must take to London. Sin é. Tá mé an-sásta an leasú a chur in bhur láthair. Thank you, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go raibh maith agat as sin, a Phatsy.

Miss McIlveen: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. With that understood, the Member has 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Miss McIlveen: I thank those who tabled the motion for bringing the important matter of financial support for farmers to the Chamber. The majority of western countries support farmers directly or indirectly, and they are our competitors for sales and inputs. Not addressing the issue puts our farmers and economy at a competitive disadvantage.

I acknowledge the inclusion of pillar 2 in the previous amendment. It is an oversight that the importance of rural development funding and the difference that it has made to our rural communities is not explicit in our amendment. However, the call for increased ring-fenced, inflation-proofed and multi-annual farm support and a development budget to support our farmers and the wider agricultural sector is missing from the motion and amendment No 1.

It is worth repeating how important the farming and agri-food sector is to our local economy. Food and drink production is worth £6 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. It is our largest manufacturing sector, supports a workforce of around 113,000 and is served by a range of other sectors, such as transport, animal health and construction.

Farms are required to undergo massive changes and meet huge challenges to become financially viable and more environmentally sustainable, including the target set by the Assembly under the Climate Change Act. The cost of production has also increased massively, and, of course, farmers also face the impact of changes in our climate. The basic farm payment is a hugely important in enabling farmers to manage and cushion market volatility. The latest set of total income from farming figures (TIFF) show that income has reduced by around 46%. There are around 26,000 active farm businesses in Northern Ireland, which employ about 51,000 people. It is, therefore, a cornerstone of our local economy.

The UFU recognises:

Let us consider the challenges facing local farmers. For more than 10 years, inflation has not been factored into the Agriculture budget. It has been a cut, year-on-year, in real terms. The Government expect farmers to do more for less. Some 10 years ago, the CAP budget was in place to help to support the production of cheaper food. However, farmers are now expected to use the budget to reduce ammonia emissions, reduce their carbon footprint and produce food to a higher welfare standard, while somehow still keeping food prices low. A policy that started as a food policy expanded to a rural development and agri-environment policy, and now we have climate change, biodiversity, water and air quality and animal health and welfare issues to factor in.

Whilst there is a strong argument that says that the UK Government should increase their budget, local Ministers can and must do more to help the sector. There is a need for major capital investment on farms to meet the challenges being faced through the demands that are placed on farmers to improve efficiency, reduce carbon footprints, invest in technology and develop expertise. Future support from DAERA needs to go towards helping productive farmers to produce food efficiently in an environmentally sustainable way. If the Minister walks away from previous commitments, that will result in a real danger that farmers will turn their back on the support scheme and will not claim any government support. That will mean that the Government have less ability to influence the sector and deliver necessary change.

It is evident that maintaining the level of direct support at 2020 levels is not sustainable. It ignores inflationary increases and does not take cognisance of the other pressures that farmers now face. We need to see future allocations being inflation-proofed in order to ensure that farm businesses are protected and treated equitably. That is vital for our food security, particularly given how uncertain and volatile global markets have been seen to be.

Safeguarding direct farm support needs to be central to government policy on promoting food production and food security. For example, since 2020, the cost of keeping a ewe has increased by £24 per animal. The cost of vaccinations has increased by 175%, the cost of worming and fluke by 75% and the cost of machinery by 100% — all in the past four years. A ton of lamb pellets has increased from £200 in 2020 to £320 in 2024. In that time, the cost of a 580 kg straw bale has gone up from £40 to £130. One small Armagh dairy farm has 60 cows as its main enterprise. Its BPS total was £7,700. It will lose £700 from the 2024 BPS and a further £650 in 2025. That money would have covered conacre costs, which have increased from £160 per acre to £280 per acre. Milk prices are slightly above break-even, but, as I noted, input costs have increased significantly. How are smallholdings meant to survive?

In addition to the much-needed financial support, there is so much more that the Minister could do to help farmers create sustainability and effect necessary change. Inaction stymies progress. The Minister must be mindful of the need for generational renewal. Farmers are getting older, and it is getting harder to attract young farmers. Uncertainty, poor policymaking and a lack of financial support make that renewal even harder. I am delighted that the deputy First Minister, in her engagement with the Chancellor, made our concerns known regarding Labour's position on a possible change to inheritance tax and the impact that that would have on our farming community.

We have raised planning policy this term. The current environmental policy has stopped virtually all agricultural development in Northern Ireland. That is fundamentally wrong. Farmers who want to improve their farm buildings in order to improve their businesses and the environment cannot do so. For example, a farmer who wishes to install a new milking parlour that will reduce the time that the animals are milking and increase the time that they are outdoors at grass cannot get it through the planning system. That is madness. Last week's announcement on the A5 upgrade is welcome progress for improving road safety and connectivity, but there is still a huge amount of uncertainty for farmers along the route. Farmers who will lose farm buildings cannot get planning permission for new buildings because of inaction to address the anomaly in the current ammonia policy. Will the Minister undertake to address that issue for the farms that are affected? He needs to be an advocate for the local farmers who are affected in such instances.

TB is estimated to be costing £60 million, which is money that could be better spent in the Agriculture budget. I appreciate that a review is being undertaken, but there is a genuine concern among the farming community that the fundamental issues pertaining to TB will be kicked down the road. Despite that large sum of money, the disease is not being controlled as it is in our neighbouring jurisdictions. The current TB problems are closely related to the need for an adequate basic payment. Take a farm with 70 suckler cows, a £20,000 BPS and 65 suckler calves to be sold in the autumn. If that farm went down with bovine TB before the sale, the farmer would have to keep 65 extra cattle over the winter until the farm was TB-free.

The BPS is needed to cover the costs of those additional cattle, rather than for paying annual bills. In the absence or lowering of the BPS, farms such as that could not survive.

There is understandable despondency among the farming community. There are reduced margins; increased red tape; heightened risks of bluetongue, maedi-visna (MV) and bird flu; the unbalanced focus on farmers over Lough Neagh; and increasing demands to do more with less. The UFU tells us that the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland is at tipping point. There is a need for government intervention — financial and practical. The message that the UFU is sending out is stark: without increased government support, the sector risks decline in farm incomes; increased job losses in rural areas; and a reduction in the production of the high-quality, sustainable food that a country relies on.

The basic farm payment is an investment in the future of rural communities. It is also an investment in the economy and in environmental sustainability and social well-being. I urge the Minister to be the advocate and policymaker whom the sector needs for its long-term survival. There are 670,000 people living in rural Northern Ireland, with thousands of jobs relying on farming and the wider agri-food sector. With increasing policy demands being made of our farmers and spiralling costs from international instability, there is a need for an increased, ring-fenced, inflation-proofed and multi-annual farm support and development budget to support our farmers and the wider agricultural sector.

Mr Blair: I thank the proposer of the motion and those who proposed the amendments. I speak in my capacity as a member of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. Members of the Committee are often reminded of the difficult financial situation faced by many in the agriculture sector but also of the Department's difficult budgetary situation. Before I proceed, I express my gratitude to Members for tabling the motion. It is one that the Alliance Party supports in principle. I am sure that, when he speaks, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will clarify his position and that of the Department. It is my hope that there will be some positive news in that regard.

I know that the Minister has corresponded repeatedly with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in GB, for example, as well as with the Northern Ireland Office, to strongly express his profound concern about the future of the allocated agriculture budget. The Minister has informed us of that in the Chamber on a number of occasions. The uncertainty around funding arising from DEFRA's underspend has been widely reported. Indeed, the annual report of the farming and countryside programme has confirmed a DEFRA underspend of £358 million in the agriculture budget over three years. That is a very worrying figure in the context of Northern Ireland and that of GB.

Ultimately, today's discussion centres on a critical implication of Brexit. We cannot escape that, and we cannot talk about this without rehearsing all of the arguments over again. We are witnessing an increasing number of such issues in the Department and across other Departments. As well as Brexit, immense challenges are being posed by climate change. Therefore, I must take the opportunity to address the issue of a just transition — an issue that is becoming increasingly urgent.

It will come as no surprise to those in the Chamber to hear me say that the transition to a low-carbon economy will significantly affect the agri-food sector. The just transition fund is crucial, because it aims to provide guidance and financial support to the sector as it meets its obligations under the proposals and policy outlined in the climate action plans. That assistance will further enable the sector to improve its economic resilience and competitiveness. I was glad to hear the Minister speak in detail on the issue at Question Time last week. Specifically, he announced plans to establish a just transition fund for agriculture in the coming months. However, he emphasised the need for clarity from the UK Government regarding the funding that will be available in future years. I understand that the Minister has consistently emphasised to the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the importance of funding decisions that reflect the need for a just transition. The Minister has advocated for and, I am sure, will continue to advocate for a similar approach to be taken to that of the EU, where separate and additional capital funds are provided to support the just transition in agriculture outside of the common agricultural policy. That includes eight interventions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air and water quality.

Farmers require the UK Government's support and investment in order to transition to regenerative farming practices, ensuring a sustainable livelihood and stability for the future. The UK Government need to take decisive action to ensure the provision of clear and consistent funding for our agriculture sector, which plays a critical role in maintaining the UK's food security. Future funding must also be regularly adjusted to keep pace with inflation to guarantee its long-term sustainability. I know that the Minister will continue to press for that and for the sector, as he has told us before. I look forward to hearing what he has to say on that when he responds to the debate.

I support the motion. I have no major problem with either of the amendments. I note that neither one fully mentions a just transition or any detail, although one amendment alludes to it. I am slightly disappointed that, unlike the other one — perhaps not coincidentally — one of them does not reference the Brexit challenge at all. Overall, I have no major challenge to any of the proposals that are before us.

Mr Butler: Thanks for your clarity, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, as to how the motion and the amendments will be taken and how we will vote on that. I welcome the motion from the Sinn Féin Member and the amendments that have been tabled. They are all pitching in the right direction, which is in support and recognition of the hard work that our farmers do. The issue touches not only on the heart of rural communities but what I consider to be the backbone of our economy.

We are here to address the uncertainty surrounding the future of agricultural funding, following the end of the CAP single farm payments and the looming conclusion of the basic payment scheme in 2024. Let us first acknowledge the tremendous value that the CAP payments provided. They ensured that our farms, particularly small family farms, remained financially viable. They also promoted environmentally sustainable farming practices, allowing our farmers to adopt greener technologies and to protect our rural landscapes. That support system, which was in place for decades, not only helped our farmers but had ripple effects throughout rural communities and the economy. Now, however, our farming community stands at a critical juncture, with the loss of £300 million annually from the basic payment scheme and the uncertainty of what may follow hanging over the agriculture sector, and the tension is palpable. It is not just about numbers: that uncertainty fuels stress and anxiety, contributing to a mental health crisis amongst farmers and their families. The weight of not knowing how they will make ends meet or how they can plan for the future takes a significant toll on their well-being.

In response, we support the call for increased farm support and development funding. Specifically, we need to adjust the annual ring-fenced allocation for agricultural funding from £324·9 million to around £390 million, reflecting the effects of inflation, and that has been picked up on by a number of Members already. Farmers are already operating in increasingly competitive global markets, and it is essential that they have the resources that are needed to remain viable and competitive. Moreover, we must commit to long-term sustainable funding. That is why we must develop a more robust funding strategy that adjusts annually for inflation. We cannot afford to revisit this crisis of uncertainty every few years. Northern Ireland's agri-food sector, which plays a vital role in feeding our communities and supporting rural economies, needs a stable and predictable funding model.

As we look at the volatility of global food and energy markets, investing in local food production and sustainable farming practices becomes even more critical. A failure to invest in those areas will jeopardise our food security and increase our reliance on costly imports. Our long-term resilience depends on empowering our farmers with the resources that they need to innovate, thrive and provide locally.

In addition, I urge us to increase investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency in the agriculture sector. Agriculture can and should be part of the solution to our energy challenge. Only by supporting farmers in adopting renewable energy sources can we reduce energy costs and contribute to a greener economy.

The impact of this issue, however, extends beyond the farms. Thousands of supply-chain companies across Northern Ireland depend on the spending power of our farmers. Those businesses provide essential services from machinery suppliers to food processors. Many of them are located in rural areas where alternative employment opportunities are limited or, indeed, non-existent. Any reduction in future agriculture budgets would have a significant ripple effect, threatening the livelihoods of countless rural businesses and families. The socio-economic impact of underfunding our farmers would be devastating to the broader rural economy. Those farmers and supply chain businesses are the lifeblood of rural Northern Ireland, and their success is linked directly to the prosperity of our rural communities. Any reduction in support would endanger the upstream benefits that those businesses provide: jobs, economic activity and social stability. We must protect the livelihoods of rural communities by increasing agriculture funding, thereby ensuring the continued economic vitality of our rural areas.

Let us not forget, as I mentioned, the mental health toll that uncertainty brings. Farmers already face incredible pressures: weather, fluctuating markets and rising costs. The added uncertainty over future funding compounds the stress, leading to increased anxiety, depression and, sometimes, worse. The Assembly has a duty to mitigate that stress by providing clarity, stability and support for our farming community. We must now focus on securing the future of our farmers, rural businesses and food security. We must secure the funding necessary to ensure that our farmers remain competitive, environmentally sustainable and resilient to the challenges ahead.

Miss Brogan: I speak as a member of the AERA Committee. I welcome Robbie Butler as the new Chair of the Committee and wish him well in his role.

I thank our farmers for the work that they do in producing food and stewarding our environment. Farmers play an essential role in producing high-quality, nutritious food and contribute significantly to food security. Agriculture is not just an economic driver; it delivers crucial social, economic and environmental benefits. Farmers and the agriculture sector are the backbone of our rural economy, supporting jobs and sustaining communities.

DAERA must take all necessary steps to retain the basic payment scheme beyond 2024. The upcoming UK spending review is critical, especially for our farmers, who need certainty to plan. The pressures on the agricultural community are immense. Rising feed, fertiliser and energy costs are crippling incomes. Inflation is hurting every sector, but farmers are particularly vulnerable. Meanwhile, as Robbie has alluded to, mental health issues among farmers are rising, as highlighted by Rural Support's recent report. Brexit has only deepened those challenges. Leaving the EU's common agricultural policy has been disastrous for the North financially and structurally. The EU provided multi-annual funding through the CAP, giving farmers long-term security. Now, with Brexit, we have a shrinking agriculture budget, a loss of environmental funding and post-Brexit trade deals that have left our farmers exposed to cheap imports that undermine their ability to compete.

The looming end of the basic payment scheme adds further uncertainty, and we have seen no clear replacement. In my constituency of West Tyrone, the total amount of single farm payment is almost £47 million annually. Sinn Féin has called for impact assessments of the loss of those payments because, without them, 25,000 farm businesses are at risk. Food security should be treated as a political priority. Our farmers produce safe, nutritious and affordable food, while maintaining high animal welfare and environmental standards. Agriculture is a key pillar of the economy, especially in the North, and a shrinking budget threatens the sustainability of rural communities.

We must also address the broader challenges impacting farming: climate change, access to labour and global instability, such as the war in Ukraine. The British Government's austerity agenda has done little to alleviate those pressures, and the Government's failure to prioritise agriculture will only deepen the crisis. A strong, secure agriculture budget is essential not just for our farmers but for the future of food security. Thriving rural communities depend on it, and so does the economy.

We need a Government committed to supporting our farmers beyond 2024, with policies that genuinely reflect the importance of local food production and the sustainability of rural life.

Ms Mulholland: I do not think that there is a Member in the Chamber who would deny the vital role that the agriculture sector plays in Northern Ireland. The farming and agri-sector is the backbone of my constituency of North Antrim. It sustains families through a wide-ripple network of connected sectoral businesses that are not often thought about when you think of farming. It adds so much to the local economy. Therefore, there is an onus on us all to ensure that it receives the support that it needs in these uncertain times, especially with the end of the basic payment scheme approaching and given the ongoing impacts of Brexit.

In recent months, concerns have been raised consistently in my constituency office about that impending end to the agricultural funding package. With it set to expire, it is clear that future allocations must, at an absolute minimum, maintain current levels and, crucially, be uplifted for inflation to ensure that farmers can continue their vital work. Since coming into office, my party colleague Minister Andrew Muir has been proactive in his engagement with the UK Government on multiple occasions, fighting for the clarity and support for farmers that they so desperately need in this time of uncertainty. There may have been some criticisms, but he has been an unfaltering advocate for the farming community since coming into office. I have heard that consistently from people who have come into my office.

At his September meeting with UK Government officials, the Minister stressed the importance of early decisions on future funding. He underlined Northern Ireland's role in UK food security, with 80% of the food that we produce being exported, with the majority of it going to Great Britain. Simply put, Northern Ireland's agri-food sector is absolutely vital to the food security of the UK as a whole. With £4·3 billion worth of exports annually, it is critical that any future settlement recognise that and the vital role that our farmers play in the economy.

The Minister has also acted swiftly to avoid the challenges that we have seen in other parts of the UK, such as the disastrous £358 million underspend of the UK's agriculture budget over the past three years. Pushing for that early clarity and for inflation-proof payments to prevent Northern Ireland's farmers from facing the same uncertainty and financial strain is absolutely vital. Schemes such as the farm sustainability payment that is being rolled out under the Minister's leadership will hopefully ensure that stability.

While we are now eight years down the road from Brexit and some have forgotten about it, we cannot ignore the ongoing negative impact that it has. It continues to affect farmers across North Antrim and across Northern Ireland as a whole. Certain parties in the Chamber supported Brexit and now shy away from discussing the harm that it has caused directly to our rural communities, but Alliance has, in addressing that impact, been clear that the promises that were made during the Brexit campaign have not been fulfilled. Farm incomes in Northern Ireland have dropped by 46% in the past year alone. Post Brexit, small family farms face uncertainty as a result of that falling income.

As we move from the basic payment scheme to the farm sustainability payment in 2025, the Minister and our party have stressed that clarity is urgently needed. Without proper planning and information, like people in any other business in any other sector, farmers cannot make informed decisions for their businesses. Future payments must be index-linked to inflation. The £330 million allocated in 2020 should have increased to £390 million by 2023 to reflect rising costs. Farmers in my constituency face the rising costs of fuel, feed, medications and vaccinations, services and supplies, while their payments remain stagnant. We have heard that, without further investment from the Government, our farming communities will collapse. With a budget that has remained stagnant over the past number of years, however, there is only so much that the Department can do.

I thank the signatories to the motion and those who tabled amendments. I assert my support for the farmers who make up a community that is so colourful and vibrant in North Antrim. Hopefully, more clarity and support will be forthcoming in the time ahead.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: This is Diana Armstrong's first opportunity to speak as a private Member, so I remind the House that it is convention that an inaugural speech is made without interruption. Diana, if you choose, however, to express views that would provoke an interruption — just saying — you are likely to forfeit that protection.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that speaking on this motion affords me the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech. It is with immense pride and a deep sense of responsibility that I rise as the Ulster Unionist MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, a place that I have always called "home" and where I raised my family. It is a truly humbling moment. I am deeply honoured to have been entrusted with the opportunity to serve the people of my constituency, a region that is steeped in history, resilience and community spirit.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard. His service to Fermanagh and South Tyrone has been marked by dedication, dignity and an unwavering commitment to his constituents. His work on behalf of our community will not be forgotten. I intend to build on the strong foundations that he laid. Lord Elliott's leadership and integrity set a high standard, and his presence at Stormont will be missed by many. He will, however, continue to make a valuable contribution to Northern Ireland and unionism through his work in the House of Lords, and I wish him well in that role.

Representing Fermanagh and South Tyrone is not just a political role for me; it is a deeply personal one. As I drove up to Parliament Buildings on my first day as an MLA, I felt a great sense of pride in my family. I was following in the footsteps of my late father, Harry West, a former MP, Agriculture Minister, leader of unionism and representative of the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. My father tirelessly advocated for rural communities and farmers, whose livelihoods form the backbone of our economy. Standing in the Chamber today, I am motivated by the values that he held dear and am determined to continue his legacy of service to those people.

My politics have been shaped by the people in the community in which I work. I believe that politics is a tool for delivering positive outcomes and that the well-being, aspirations and voices of the community should be at the centre of every decision we make. Throughout my career, whether in the European Commission, in advertising and merchandising or as an elected representative, I have consistently demonstrated a commitment to prioritising the needs of the people whom I serve. My message to Fermanagh and South Tyrone is simple: I want to be a voice for all, and it is my pledge to represent every one of you, regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum. We may not always agree, but I believe that, through dialogue, respect and understanding, we can deliver and build a better future for everyone in our community.

Naturally, coming from a farming family, my heart is in the countryside. I value very much the land beneath my feet. It is rich and productive, and, in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, there are many successful agri-food businesses and companies that supply national and international markets. Many of those enterprises have grown from the micro scale to command superiority in the marketplace. I want to see those success stories continue with added support such as is in the motion that we are debating this afternoon.

I will move to the motion at hand. I thank Members for tabling the motion and the amendments. Following the contributions we have heard from other Members, I too acknowledge the vital role that the single farm payment scheme and its successor, the basic payment scheme, have played in supporting agriculture in Northern Ireland. Those schemes have been essential in sustaining farm incomes and ensuring the viability of the industry. Agriculture is a significant factor in the local economy and plays a key role in the social fabric of society. Farming is Northern Ireland's largest sector, employing around 51,000 people and utilising 75% of our land, and ring-fenced and future-proofed funding is critical to its survival. Farm incomes have already dropped by as much as 44% in 2023, creating serious challenges for producers.

Local farmers whom I have spoken to are concerned about the uncertainty surrounding what will follow the basic payment scheme, particularly with rising costs and interest rates threatening the viability of their businesses. The lack of a funding road map for the long term is leading farmers to question the viability of continuing in the profession. That uncertainty is taking its toll on farmers' mental health and well-being. Many farmers were encouraged to develop their businesses and have invested heavily in expansion. Now they face repayments with high interest rates, soaring input costs and uncertainty about the future funding that would make farming a viable profession, as well as the ongoing regulatory restrictions of the Windsor framework. Farmers are resilient, but their ability to plan and grow is being tested by external pressures such as fluctuating markets and global instability.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Diana.

Mr Gaston: I welcome Diana to the Chamber. Congratulations on making your maiden speech, Diana. I was in that position a number of weeks ago, and I understand the pressure that you can be under. Well done. I enjoyed listening to your comments.

I will move on to the motion. Recent global events have starkly highlighted the need for food security. As the Government have stated, food security is national security. With an increasingly aggressive Russia and turmoil in the Middle East, there has never been a more important time to support our farmers.

With over a third of our population living in rural areas, we can ill afford to not pay attention to the needs of our farming community. All too often in the House, their concerns are overlooked or glossed over. One has only to look at the current state of our waterways to see how the farming sector has become a scapegoat when NI Water is the biggest cause of the problem.

In advance of the debate, I received a briefing paper from the Ulster Farmers' Union. Under the section entitled "Sector-specific Support", it highlights the vexed issue of sheep farming support. As the paper observes:

We have a beef support package — the beef carbon reduction scheme and a separate cow scheme — that contributes to the environmental enhancements in the direct payment scheme, but there is no package for sheep farmers. The task force recommendations were made early last year, but they are still sitting with no action from the Minister.

From 2025, sheep farmers who farm only sheep are set to lose 17% of their basic payment unless they change to include protein crops and cattle. For many, that is just not possible. There is an urgent need for the Minister to address that issue. We need to see that the AERA Minister is a Minister for farmers, not just for the environment and for net zero.

Many of those with whom I speak do not want to rely on subsidies and handouts from the Government. They want to be paid a fair price for the produce that they produce on their farms. For a sustainable model, that is the direction of travel that we need to go in. We should not be solely reliant on subsidies. We should pay farmers the money that they deserve for the product that they pour their heart and soul into producing.

Mr Irwin: I declare an interest as a partner in a farm business that is in receipt of the basic farm payment.

There is no question that the basic farm payment scheme has played a pivotal part in farming in Northern Ireland. Our industry could not have done without it over the years. A continual theme in our agri-food industry is that the farmer is at the bottom of our supply chain. As an individual, that farmer has to absorb disruption associated with the global marketplace and still be able to function as a business. That is not easy, and we can think immediately of the crises over the years that have beset the industry, including, to name but a few, BSE, foot-and-mouth disease and COVID. At the moment, there is a serious issue with bovine TB. Yet, through those challenging times, our farmers had to somehow function and find a path through in order to maintain a high-quality supply of food to our nation.

Profitability is certainly not guaranteed for any farmer. It continues to be a challenge, and there is a squeeze on the industry by processors and retailers that continually tighten the screw on our farming community. Input costs of feed, fuel and energy fluctuate massively, as do the prices of fertilisers, seeds and machinery and general upkeep costs. Indeed, many of those costs have doubled since 2020. That is why the payment support system has been a vital part of farming; it must continue.

Farm incomes fell by 46% in 2023-24. The DUP lobbied and leant heavily on the previous Government to ensure that payments remained at pre-2020 levels for the duration of their tenure. That was important in order to provide security and confidence for producers.

Extremely challenging targets are coming down the tracks. I am on record as saying that the changes to address climate change are much too large a challenge and will be much too costly, yet they are the law. Those requirements will, of course, apply to all aspects of industry in Northern Ireland, including the agriculture industry. However, agriculture is unlike any other industry. The costs that farmers are struggling to pay cannot be passed on at the stroke of a pen. They sadly do not have that power at their disposal. As I said, processors and retailers have significant authority in regard to farming. There must be urgent action on the issue of farm support payments. Our party's amendment rightly calls for:

With 25,900 active farm businesses in Northern Ireland employing roughly 51,000 people, it is important that the magnitude and seriousness of the issue be fully understood. Let the focus be on dealing with this issue in a manner that sees support delivered to assist our industry with the considerable pressures that are coming down the line. I support amendment No 2.

Ms Sugden: As a representative of East Londonderry, a rural constituency where farming is the heart of our community, I welcome the debate to address such a critical issue: the imminent end of the basic payment scheme, or single farm payment.

That scheme has provided essential support to farmers across Northern Ireland for years, and its removal, without a realistic replacement, threatens the very livelihoods of those who rely on it. The scheme has allowed farms, particularly small family-run farms, to maintain stability in a volatile and unpredictable sector. For many, it has been a lifeline that has kept them afloat amid rising costs and fluctuating markets. Without that financial support, many farmers are now faced with a future of uncertainty, with no clear path or viability for moving forward. Farm incomes have already fallen drastically, and that is a reality for countless families in my constituency and across Northern Ireland. Those farmers work tirelessly with slim margins and rely on the single farm payment to bridge the widening gap. The loss of the scheme will leave many unable to continue their work, which will have severe consequences for them, as well as for rural communities.

The issue goes far beyond individual farmers. If we lose those farms — that is the risk — we will undermine our food security. Northern Ireland farmers produce much of the fresh local produce that we depend on every day, from dairy to beef and fruit and vegetables. If farms can no longer operate, we will become increasingly reliant on imports, which are not good for the environment and are subject to price fluctuations and global market disruptions. Brexit and conflicts have shown us how fragile the global food supply chains can be, and with that fragility come rising food prices, which are an immediate concern for families across Northern Ireland, not just those in rural communities. Families who are already struggling with the cost of living will face even greater challenges in putting food on their table.

As others said, our farmers are not only vital to our economy and food security but play a crucial role in managing our environment. During the climate change debate, how often did we hear how farmers are modernising through environmentally sustainable practices, protecting biodiversity, improving soil health and reducing carbon emissions? If the support is removed, farmers will be limited in what they can do, and that is now a statutory obligation.

We must also acknowledge the other challenges that farmers are facing. The rising cost of fuels, fertilisers and feed is squeezing their margins more tightly than ever. The price of fertilisers alone has skyrocketed, and it is putting enormous strain on farmers' ability to maintain productivity. Many are being forced to make difficult decisions, and that includes closing their farms. Many farming renewable heat incentive (RHI) claimants applied in good faith to a scheme that was intended to support them, but they now find themselves under a financial burden because of the outcome of that scheme.

Labour shortages are another issue. Post Brexit, it has become difficult for farmers to access seasonal workers, particularly for tasks such as harvesting and looking after livestock. Many farmers in Northern Ireland are struggling, as are other industries, to find the help that they need to keep their businesses going. It is not just a problem for large farms; it is hitting small family-run farms just as hard, as well as business across Northern Ireland.

The farm sustainability payment is not enough, and it will not come soon enough for farmers who are struggling. Its eligibility criteria could exclude very small farms that are most in need of help. Farmers in my constituency and across Northern Ireland cannot wait two years for support; they need solutions now. The Minister and the Executive must work with the British Government to ensure an immediate replacement for the basic payment scheme, and that replacement must recognise the specific needs of Northern Ireland's farmers and provide them with the financial support that they need to manage costs, access labour and invest in sustainable farming practices — again, that is a statutory requirement.

We need to do more with our local food markets. We need to strengthen our local food supply chains and promote local produce in order to ensure that farmers receive fair prices while enhancing our food security and reducing our reliance on imported food.

As many others said, we must address the mental health challenges that farmers face. Farming is a tough job at the best of times, but the increasing and extra pressures that farmers face, including financial stress, labour shortages and the impacts of climate change, which many did not expect when they entered the role, take a significant toll on their mental health. The Assembly must do more to support them, because it is not just farmers who will come under pressure; Northern Ireland, as an agricultural region of the UK, will come under pressure too.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Thank you, Claire. The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is next to respond to the debate. Minister, you will have 15 minutes.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Before I start, I welcome Diana to the House and congratulate her on an excellent maiden speech. It is great to have you here. I look forward to working with you and with the new Chair of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Robbie follows in the footsteps of Tom, who did an excellent job. You will keep me on my toes. [Interruption.]

I am looking forward to that and that is your job.

I have a couple of things to say. First, I thank Members for bringing this important issue to the Floor for discussion. Hopefully, we can have unity and purpose around it. Both amendments have merit, which has been debated. The SDLP amendment references the importance of pillar 2. The DUP amendment references the importance of earmarked funding and other matters. Both amendments have strengths. Hopefully, from today, we can come together as one around what is a really important issue.

As Minister, I fully recognise the economic and environmental significance of the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland. As custodians of the countryside, our farm families work hard to produce quality food. What farmers produce is literally life-giving in terms of sustenance to millions of people and life-affirming through the sector's value to communities, businesses, our environment and, indeed, the very social fabric of everyday life in Northern Ireland. I wholeheartedly agree that it is vital that our local farm businesses and rural communities are supported. I highlight the fact that the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland makes a significant contribution to UK food security. Although we have a population of nearly two million, Northern Ireland produces enough protein for 10 million people, and a large portion of that is supplied to other parts of the UK. However, our environment carries the impact of that agricultural production, particularly through the excess nutrients that have caused deterioration in water quality, biodiversity and our valuable habitats. The blue-green algae crisis in Lough Neagh, which is impacting on society and the economy, is a stark example of that.

I must therefore stress at the outset that we are on a journey of change. I have set out my priorities. We have many environmental challenges. We need to support sustainable, resilient and productive agri-food and fishing sectors. I recognise the significant investment in rural communities and businesses and the wider economy that was derived from the single farm payment under the EU common agricultural policy, which has been outlined. I agree that single farm payments were critical in supporting farms, particularly small family farms, to be financially viable and more environmentally sustainable. I acknowledge that the closure of the 2014-2022 rural development programme is of concern to our rural communities. I am considering the future of rural policy post EU exit. I have recently established a new rural policy unit, which I met today. It will focus on reviewing and evaluating previous rural policy initiatives and engaging with other Northern Ireland Civil Service Departments, councils, public authorities and stakeholders to inform collaborative policy proposals that are mindful of the changed rural landscape and the current and future needs of rural communities. I will meet some of those practitioners tomorrow.

As Members highlighted, we do not have confirmation of funding for future agricultural support beyond March next year. I share the concerns that were expressed about the significant uncertainty that is facing our farming community. I stress that the future provision of funding for agriculture, agri-environment and wider rural support is a matter for the UK Government. We must be able justify to Treasury that all future agricultural support payments deliver value for money. It is my view that maintaining the status quo for any farm business is no longer a viable option. Change is needed, but I am determined that we do that together. Through my Department's new farm support and development programme, I am seeking to transition to a more sustainable farming sector by implementing policies and strategies that benefit our climate and environment whilst, very importantly, supporting our economically and socially significant agriculture sector.

Importantly, the programme is being co-designed in consultation with the Northern Ireland agricultural industry and other key stakeholders to target farm support so that it meets the bespoke needs of Northern Ireland. That partnership approach is critical to our collective success in tackling the challenges and seizing the opportunities that lie ahead.

My ambition is high. Great work has already been done in the agriculture sector, and it has to be built on. Positive solutions are required to deliver at pace, and there is much for us all to do. The farm support and development programme is made up of a range of schemes and actions, some of which, such as the groundbreaking soil nutrient health scheme, are already seen as exemplars by my counterparts in the rest of the UK and Ireland. The schemes that will be introduced through the programme will be essential levers in contributing to Northern Ireland's statutory obligations under the Climate Change Act and achieving a genuinely just transition. I firmly believe that we can strike a balance that allows our agriculture industry to thrive and be sustainable while protecting our environment.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for giving way. He will forgive my ignorance — I am just chipping in to the discussion — but I think that we are all facing the same direction when it comes to our environmental credentials and the ambition of farmers. As a former butcher, I remember Brazilian beef coming in. Is there not a risk that we replace and increase globally the impact on our environment if we do not handle this issue sensitively, given that we produce some of the finest produce in the world here locally?

Mr Muir: I agree: it is about carbon leakage, which was debated when the legislation was being passed. We need to be conscious of that. We cannot, essentially, move the problem around; we need to address it, here and now. That is why I am very keen that the future farm support and development programme addresses the concerns that you raised. It is a legitimate issue to have raised.

The delivery of the farm support and development programme will be essential to addressing ammonia- and phosphorous-related issues and incentivising and enabling actions to ensure environmental sustainability in Northern Ireland by contributing to water and air quality, soil health and biodiversity. Although agriculture has partially contributed to nutrient loading in Lough Neagh over the past century and more, today's farmers should not be blamed for the actions of previous generations. Rather than engaging in a blame game, we should focus on solutions and work together with others. We should also be conscious of the fact that the nutrient overloading was from not just agriculture but waste water infrastructure, septic tanks and industry. Everyone needs to play their part, which means that we need to face up to issues such as waste water infrastructure, which is having an impact on our environment, economic development and housebuilding. I am not into a blame game; I am into working with people in that regard. We have be fair in all that we do.

The farm support and development programme will also deliver on my priority of supporting sustainable, resilient and productive agri-food and fishing sectors by securing sustainable productivity in Northern Ireland agriculture and assisting the development of effective functioning supply chains, ensuring food security and high standards of disease control and public and animal health. As part of the programme, it is planned that the current basic payment scheme will be replaced by a farm sustainability transition payment next year, with the full farm sustainability payment's coming into operation in 2026. As was announced in March 2022 by my predecessor, the new farm sustainability payment will provide a balance between providing a safety net, which will help a farm business to withstand shocks that are beyond its ability to manage effectively, and encouraging farm businesses to be sustainable, efficient, competitive and able to manage risk proactively.

Over time, the funding allocated to the farm sustainability payment will reduce to enable funding to be diverted to other elements of the farm support and development programme to encourage and support changes in behaviour and deliver better outcomes across a range of defined metrics. The College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) will provide training to farm business to help them to navigate that period of change. The programme is supported by a full programme of communications to inform and motivate stakeholders to participate and establish the understanding required to support the necessary behavioural and attitudinal change. Any reduction in the future earmarked budget would have extremely adverse impacts for not only farm businesses but the successful delivery of the programme.

I note that Members have called on me to urgently press the UK Government to set out what replacement funds will be put in place to support our farmers and the wider agriculture sector. Be assured that I have written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on a number of occasions expressing my concerns about the future of the earmarked agriculture budget. Given Northern Ireland's important role in food security, I consider that it is fair and reasonable that there should be adequate funding to support us to deliver environmental sustainability and food security. I 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.

It is essential that the competitive position of our farmers is at least equivalent to that which is being provided to EU farmers and, most particularly, to those elsewhere on the island of Ireland. Consequently, the real value of our allocation must, at the minimum, be maintained in real terms. I note that a disparity is starting to appear between North and South in that. That became very clear last week with the Irish Budget. Our position is clear and strong, and I make it abundantly clear to the Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Most recently we discussed this in person at the Inter-Ministerial Group for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which met in London on 16 September. Following that meeting, I wrote again to stress the importance of receiving early clarity on future earmarked agricultural support funding for next year and beyond. In my letter, I highlighted the significant contribution that the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland makes to UK food security.

I have also recently stressed to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and DEFRA the need for funding decisions to reflect the importance of a just transition and also made the case that there should be a separate, specific and additional capital fund to support just transition in agriculture. We need to ensure that the work that we carry out to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reach net zero will be fair and will support people on the journey through a just transition. That is why we need to provide those incentives and support.

Funding for the just transition fund for agriculture will need to be considered in the context of budgetary pressures and priorities across the Northern Ireland Executive. That is why I made the case to DEFRA. My Department is engaging with the Department of Finance on raising these issues with the Treasury as part of broader budgetary processes. It is fair to say that there is regular engagement, informally and formally, between me and the Finance Minister.

I thank Members for bringing the motion and for the interesting and challenging discussion that the debate has stimulated. I will endeavour to keep Members informed of the outcome of the future earmarked Budget allocation.

I have a couple of minutes, so I will deal with queries that were raised. It is clear that this issue of the earmarked funding is primarily the responsibility of DEFRA and Treasury, and it is important that we, as a House, speak together, united on this point. It is absolutely critical that we send the message about the importance of the funding for Northern Ireland. We are facing a cliff edge at the end of March next year and concern arises from that. Also, there is concern at the underspend by DEFRA. That is regularly reported in the farming press and also on 'Farming Today' on BBC Radio 4. We should not feel the consequence of that money being passed back to Treasury and surrendered. As Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for Northern Ireland, I send a very clear message, and that is "No surrender" from us of money back to the Treasury. Just because others have done that does not mean that we should be punished as a result.

A couple of other issues were raised. I met the sheep industry task force last week about support for sheep farming, and I have tasked officials to engage with them around what further support we can provide to that sector. There are challenges in that, but we are going to look it and work in a process of co-design on that.

We are taking action on TB. I am not kicking any cans down the road — I do not believe that we should be treating waste like that: we need to deal with it correctly. We need to deal with TB, and that is why Brian Dooher is looking at that issue. I have tasked him to bring recommendations to me in the next couple of weeks.

People will know that the Office of Environmental Protection has today published a report on ammonia. Whatever I do has to be within the law. I have had a number of stakeholder engagements on ammonia, and I am holding another one later this month.

I am committed to working with people on these issues. The most fundamental thing that I can say is that we need the funding so that we can support farmers to deliver the changes that we require in our society and also to support food security across the UK.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Tom Buchanan to wind up the debate on amendment No 2. You have five minutes.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

The amendment has been well articulated by my colleague Michelle McIlveen. I thank all who took part in the debate: those who brought the motion, and the SDLP for bringing the other amendment. It is something that has obviously united everyone in the Chamber. This is an issue that lies at the heart of everyone in the House, and therefore we need to support it as best we possibly can.

I come from the rural constituency of West Tyrone, which consists largely of agriculture enterprise. Many of the farm businesses are small, family-run farms. No one can overestimate the economic benefit that those small farm holdings have brought to rural communities. Of course, there is a little concern about farms perhaps being left as unsustainable by the new A5 road that will be coming through. With some of the Ministers, we will have to look at proper funding packages for those farmers in order to allow them to redevelop and rebuild their farm holdings when they lose their land for that road to be built.

Single farm payments have been critical in supporting our agriculture industry, especially our smaller farms, to be financially viable and environmentally sustainable. That is why, in the previous Westminster term, our party secured a guarantee from the Government that the level of annual support provided for direct farm payments would be maintained at pre-2020 levels for the duration of that Parliament. However, it is clear that simply maintaining the level of direct support available at 2020 levels, ignoring the impact of inflation, is no longer sustainable. Others around the Chamber have mentioned that today. We must ensure that future allocations are future-proofed so that our farm businesses are protected and treated equitably. The Labour Government must continue to value primary production and make food security a national asset by providing an increased multi-year, ring-fenced farm support and development programme budget. Given increased costs of production, many smaller farm holdings are struggling financially, with some paying off debt that has been accumulated over the past few years due to profit loss in their business. Safeguarding direct farm support should be the central tenet of the Government's policy on promoting food production and food security. However, it should not be the only priority; creating the proper conditions for on-farm investment in more sustainable and productive technologies and buildings must also be a priority.

I will mention some of the comments that have been made in the debate. The proposer of the motion spoke about the single farm payment and the multiplier effect and increased spending power that that has in rural communities. He said that it is central to sustaining growth and that there is a need for a robust and long-term commitment to agriculture. That is exactly what we need: a robust and long-term commitment to our agriculture sector. The proposer of amendment No 1 tabled that amendment because of concern about pillar 2 not being mentioned in the motion and because of the importance of rural development funding to rural communities.

My colleague Michelle McIlveen spoke of the various policies that are now in the mix. Of course, policies relating to the agriculture and farming industry are increasing. All the new policies that are coming in, and where it will end, can sometimes be a bit of a concern. She said that the Minister could do more on ammonia, planning and TB. The Minister mentioned the action that he plans to take on those issues. Robbie Butler spoke about farming being at the heart of the rural community. He said that it stands at a critical junction, with anxiety and mental health issues among farmers increasing, and that long-term, sustainable funding is required.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Tom.

Mr T Buchanan: With that, I will have to leave it as my time has gone.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I appreciate that. I call Colin McGrath to wind on amendment No 1. Colin, you have five minutes.

Mr McGrath: The SDLP is clear that our amendment and our support for the motion is support for our rural communities. The agriculture industry in our rural communities contains some of the most vital businesses that we have in Northern Ireland. They support tens of thousands of jobs and generate billions of pounds of output. Getting the support funding right for the agriculture sector is not something that we should do but something that we must do, and we must do right.

Our agriculture industry is the cornerstone of rural life, supporting economic prosperity in areas such as South Down that are otherwise overlooked by the Executive. Recent years have brought about significant changes for the industry. There is the impact of climate change requirements, the war in Ukraine impacting on prices, the very prices that farmers get at market for their produce, the weird weather patterns that we have had to contend with and, of course, Brexit, Brexit, Brexit and the impact that it has had on our farmers and rural communities. Getting the support intervention right is critical.

As with any amendment to a motion, the question has to be this: what does the amendment do? We feel that there is a weakness in the motion, in that it simply calls for a continuation of the funding scheme as is. There is no reference to the policy changes taking place that are affecting practices. To proceed without acknowledging such policy changes would be a major fault of a funding scheme.

I also highlight the fact that the motion ignores any reference to the rural development funding stream, pillar 2, which is in danger. We cannot leave that funding to the whim of the British Government's Shared Prosperity Fund or their Levelling Up Fund, as we do not know whether that funding will be delivered. The former rural development programme offered funding streams that helped agriculture and rural areas become more resilient and more sustainable. Those opportunities came via a number of schemes, such as the rural business investment scheme, the rural basic services scheme and the village renewal scheme.

In my council area of Newry, Mourne and Down, for example, the village renewal scheme stands out, as it delivered over £3 million of rural village improvements to Annalong, Ballyhornan, Dundrum, Hilltown and other villages district-wide. Those environmental improvements enhanced the physical and social infrastructure of those villages. The funding allowed for widespread consultation, which informed each village's individual renewal design and included a combination of new paving, street lighting, gateways, railings, shrubbery and landscaping. I say that just to show that, while we have absolute support for our farmers, the impact reaches far beyond them, right down into the lives of people living in rural areas. That funding model allowed a bottom-up approach to community funding. Without doubt, it improved the economic prospects and quality of life of rural dwellers and made those rural communities more attractive and vibrant. Nowhere do we see similar funding opportunities, and that is why it was important that pillar 2 is referenced in our amendment.

There is real evidence that we need to support our farming communities with funding but also recognise other funding streams that our rural communities need. We have heard Members refer to the lack of reference to a just transition in the amendment. There is such a reference, however, because we refer to:

which is at the core of a just transition. It is about helping those farms, providing them with funding and allowing them to move into more environmentally sustainable practices. The key, however, is to provide the support and to make sure that it is there.

I will not reference any of the other comments that were made. We were all in the Chamber as they were made.

Our agriculture sector is critical to the facilitation of jobs and economic prosperity in rural communities. Support for them is critical. We must also support rural funding for rural community development, which is critical for communities to connect, flourish and prosper. The SDLP is steadfast in its support for farmers and our rural communities, and I urge support for our amendment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Áine Murphy to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Áine, you have up to 10 minutes.

Ms Á Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.

I thank all those who contributed to this evening's debate on what is a very important issue for farmers and, indeed, rural communities. I also welcome Diana to the Chamber: I look forward to working with you over the coming months and years.

The success of rural communities is closely tied to the prosperity of farm businesses. The 'Key Rural Issues' report highlights the fact that, in areas over an hour away from Belfast, agriculture, forestry and fishing dominate, with nearly half of businesses being in those sectors and an additional 17% of businesses operating in construction. In my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which is the largest recipient of farm subsidies, agriculture lies at the heart of our rural life. Our farmers, who are expected to compete in a subsidised global market, rely on these payments to sustain their livelihoods.

A report commissioned by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board recently highlighted the fact that farmers in the Red Tractor scheme comply with world-leading standards. Our farmers across the North and, indeed, the island of Ireland continue to produce food to the highest standards with exceptional animal welfare and environmental practices. We are immensely proud of that. Rural communities are the backbone of our society, playing a crucial role in supporting agricultural production, preserving cultural traditions and safeguarding natural landscapes. Farmers make significant contributions to the economy, food security and environmental sustainability, while fostering strong social bonds and a sense of identity. Ensuring the vitality of those communities promotes regional development and benefits everyone.

We face a period of reduced public spending exacerbated by uncertainty about replacement EU funding. During the Brexit referendum, we were assured that the North of Ireland would not be financially disadvantaged. However, as we know, Brexit has led to a significant reduction in financial supports. A survey conducted by Rural Support in Cookstown found that nearly half of farmers cited rising costs, climate change, animal disease and changes to subsidies as their top concerns. Alongside those financial and environmental pressures, mental health issues are growing amongst farmers. That has been referenced by the Committee Chair and other Members.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Ms Á Murphy: Yes.

Mr Muir: It is important for me to put this on record. Does the Member agree that the mental health impact of TB in our farming community is significant? That is why we need to come together on the actions that I hope to outline in the next few weeks to try to drive it down. It is having a real impact on people in the farming community.

Ms Á Murphy: I agree with the Minister.

Future policy decisions must consider those impacts, and the Minister must ensure that the well-being of our farming and rural communities is at the forefront of decision-making. I commend Rural Support in Cookstown for its tireless work in supporting farmers, and I call on the Department to provide greater backing to such organisations.

Supporting rural communities and farmers is essential to ensuring their continued contribution to our economy, culture and environment. As we face uncertain times with reduced public spending and unclear funding, it is vital that the Department and DEFRA prioritise fair and sustainable support for those areas. By doing so, we can ensure the prosperity of the rural businesses and agricultural businesses that are so deeply intertwined with our success.

Agriculture is not just an industry; it is a way of life. The food on our plates comes from the hard work and dedication of our farmers. Clarity and long-term sustainable funding need to be delivered as a matter of urgency. The future of our food supply and rural economy depends on it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.