Official Report: Monday 14 October 2024

Ms Bunting: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to the Second Stage of the Justice Bill, which occurred on 1 October. At that stage, I stood in my capacity as Chair of the Committee. Today, I do so in a private capacity as an MLA. At that time, further to the Committee's request for a Keeling schedule, the Minister outlined this in her response to me:

Mr Speaker, I submit that, thus far, three Keeling schedules have been provided: one to the Committee for Justice on the Legal Aid and Coroners' Courts Bill in 2014; one to the Committee for Finance on the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001; and one to the Committee for Education on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill in 2015. Whilst a Keeling schedule was not specifically found for the Committee for Employment and Learning on the Employment Bill in 2015, there is a clear commitment to provide one in this case, and it is clear and unequivocal.

On that basis, I seek to correct the record and ask the Minister to reconsider her decision not to accede to the Committee's request to provide that schedule in order that changes to the Justice Act and various Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) schedules and other legislation that is mentioned in the Justice Bill can be tracked and traced by the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: The Member has placed her point on the record. She will know that I have previously spoken in the Chamber about the importance of proper scrutiny of legislation. I am sure that the Committee will continue to liaise with the Minister about the information that it requires to scrutinise the Bill. It is important that Ministers give accurate information to the House. Sometimes, Ministers may say something inaccurate inadvertently, in the heat of the moment, or because they have been advised wrongly. It is normal in such cases for Ministers to correct the record, in writing or in the Chamber. Given that the Member has put her point on the record, I assume that she is also corresponding directly with the Minister or tabling questions. I am sure that the Minister will review her remarks and consider further action. If the Minister does not take further action, the Member can take advice from the Clerks on the options that are available to her.

Mr Gildernew: Last Tuesday, the Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, held a meeting with the Loyalist Communities Council (LCC) at its request. That was the second such meeting between the LCC and a DUP Minister in a matter of weeks. Those meetings have generated large media interest, and the public are, rightly, expressing concerns about the matter.

Let us be clear about who the LCC are. The LCC is an umbrella group made up of members of the UVF, the UDA and the Red Hand Commando. Those loyalist paramilitaries regularly engage in criminal behaviour and terrorise their own communities through fear and coercive control. Those paramilitary gangs are involved in drug dealing, racketeering and sectarian acts of violence. They are also strongly suspected of orchestrating the racist attacks in Belfast during the summer. They have no place in our society, and they should have left the stage long ago. It is wholly inappropriate and unacceptable for any Minister to consult those groups on matters of public policy.

In the wake of a meeting with Education Minister, Paul Givan, a couple of weeks ago, it was revealed that the LCC had lobbied the Minister to block the development of an Irish-medium school in east Belfast. One cannot help but wonder what, if any, similar demands were made of the Communities Minister and, crucially, what his response was.

The public have a right to know what was discussed at last Tuesday's meeting with Gordon Lyons. In the interests of transparency and openness, he has a duty to provide that information. At last week's Communities Committee meeting, I called on the Minister to publish the minutes of the meeting with the LCC along with a list of attendees. I repeat that call today. In addition, I call on the Minister to come to the House as soon as possible to make a statement on the meeting and provide Members with an opportunity to ask questions.

Mr Kingston: Saturday 5 October saw the commencement of Northern Ireland's newest parkrun, at Paisley Park on the West Circular Road in Belfast. That is really positive for the community, as it is the first parkrun in the greater Shankill area. We had 112 finishers and a lot of positive feedback. I thank all who made it possible: the volunteer team, the board of Paisley Park Sportsplex, the Department for Communities, Belfast City Council and Matt Shields of parkrun.

We were honoured that, along with the Lord Mayor, Councillor Micky Murray, local athletics legend Derek Graham attended to start the event. That made the connection with a historic achievement on the Paisley Park track in August 1967: the breaking of the four-minute mile for the first time in Northern Ireland, by Kenyan Kip Keino and Derek Graham, the first two finishers in the race. Derek unveiled a plaque marking the inaugural parkrun and his and Kip Keino's historic achievement.

Derek was a phenomenal athlete throughout his running career. He was ranked number one in the UK and Ireland over 2 miles and 3 miles in the 1960s. He finished second in the equivalent of the World Athletics Cross Country Championships in 1966, and he held the world record for half marathon for six years from 1970 to 1976.

The inaugural Paisley Park parkrun took place on the 20th anniversary of the first ever parkrun, which was held at Bushy Park in England in October 2004.

Parkrun is now a global phenomenon, with over 2,500 events taking place each week around the world. As Members will know, parkruns are free, timed 5 kilometre runs in local parks on Saturday mornings. Once you have registered online and received your barcode, you can turn up at any parkrun and take part.

The first parkrun in Northern Ireland and on the island of Ireland took place at the Waterworks in Belfast on 6 November 2010. Today, across Northern Ireland, we have 40 parkruns taking place each week, plus 20 junior parkruns, which cover 2 kilometres. Parkrun continues to expand in Northern Ireland. I am glad to say there are several proposed new ones in the pipeline. There is a small one-off cost to establish each new parkrun of £4,000 plus VAT for all the equipment. After that, there is no ongoing cost either to participants or to the public purse.

In some cases, there has been difficulty pinning down a source for the start-up funding. It is sometimes provided by local councils, such as Belfast City Council. The Public Health Agency and Sport NI should also be supportive, given all the health and community benefits that flow from parkruns. Well done to everyone who supports the parkrun activities, particularly the volunteers who make it all happen. Happy 20th birthday, parkrun, and here is to many more.

Mr McMurray: I rise to acknowledge the achievement of young Leon Toase, who has become the youngest person to summit the highest peaks in Ireland's 32 counties. At seven years of age, Leon hails from Mayobridge in South Down. It is one thing to go to the honeypots that are the highest peaks in the provinces: Slieve Donard, Lugnaquilla, Mweelrea and Carrauntoohil, but to go to the lesser-known county highest points is quite the achievement. Indeed, I cannot tell you what province Mullaghmeen, Slieve na Calliagh or Carn Clonhugh are in, never mind what county. It is really impressive.

Undertaken as a challenge, Leon's hiking soon gathered momentum, and donations for charity began to come in, and commendation must also be given for that.

Leon is a pupil of St Colman's in Saval. His classmates, fellow pupils and teachers are all very proud of him. Leon has now stated that his sights are on Everest, and I would not dissuade him of that, although he had best negotiate that with his mother first of all. Much credit must also be given to Leon's father, Andrew, who accompanied him. As any parent will know, the ability to keep children's motivation levels high is no small skill, but giving Leon such an experience — indeed, any parent who gives their child an outdoor adventure time — is something to be encouraged, given the benefits that it entails.

I have offered Leon either a trip to Stormont or a session with a map and compass. I think that he is going to go with the map and compass, so he is a wise man. For climbing the highest peaks: maith thú,

chapeau and kudos, wee man.

Mr Beattie: On Friday, I visited a fantastic tourist attraction just outside Banbridge. My colleague might talk about it as well because she also visited. I am talking about the 'Game of Thrones' studio tour, which is probably one of the largest indoor tours and tourist attractions in Ireland. It was brought about by a £48 million investment by a US firm, and it employs about 70 staff, full-time and part-time. It is the only official 'Game of Thrones' tour, although there are many unofficial tours.

Yet this fantastic tourist attraction does not feature in Tourism Ireland or Tourism Northern Ireland's 100 places to visit. It is an incredible site, and it is working to have up to 400,000 visitors a year in the next five years. Sometimes, you can look at that and think, "Are we too Belfast-centric in Northern Ireland?". This tourist attraction is on the link road between Dublin and Belfast. Yet when people jump on the tour buses and leave Dublin, because it is not in the 100 places to go and see, they shoot up to Belfast to go to the Titanic Belfast visitor attraction.

It is first class, and I have been to it as well, but I have to say to anybody who is here or listening that the 'Game of Thrones' studio tour really is world-class. It needs to be on the map. Tourism Ireland, Tourism Northern Ireland and Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council need to do more. I recommend everybody here to give it a wee visit.

Mr McCrossan: A short distance from Strabane town centre is a small, quaint village known as Ballymagorry. It is a tight-knit local community in a rural part of my constituency, where people have lived for a long time and where there has been little disruption, antisocial behaviour or serious incident. All of that changed on Sunday 6 October, when a young man, Kyle McDermott, was attacked outside his home. Unfortunately, as a result of that attack, he died a short time later. Kyle was 24 years of age. He had recently moved into a new home with his partner, Chloe, and they were living peacefully in the village without any issue. That all changed in a small moment on that Sunday night.

I attended a public meeting on Friday at which hundreds of people from the wider rural community gathered in solidarity with Kyle McDermott's family and his partner to express their outrage at what had happened in the local community. When we delved further into the incident, we found that there is a hostel or an emergency accommodation at the outskirts of the village to which the Housing Executive has been allocating various people. No risk assessments; no checks; just allocations into towns and villages. As a result, we see spikes in antisocial behaviour and issues emerging in various parts of Northern Ireland. On that Sunday night, the worst possible consequences occurred: a young man lost his life. It is absolutely devastating. The sense of anger in the community is palpable.

I have spoken to the Housing Executive and will continue to engage with it and the Minister on how emergency accommodation is allocated and what checks are put in place to ensure that the person in question, who has been moved from one end of Northern Ireland to the other, is no risk to anyone else or, indeed, to themselves, given that a lot of people are vulnerable. The community is looking for answers from the Housing Executive. I and other elected representatives will seek assurances that a better process will be in place to ensure the safety of the population in those villages and towns, but that does not change what happened. A young man was buried yesterday, and his family are in mourning, grieving the heartbreaking and tremendous loss of a young life. I think on his mother and father, Claire and Stephen; his partner, Chloe; his sister, Stephanie; and his brothers Arden and Sheehan. May he rest in peace.

Mr McGuigan: There was a lot of Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) activity in County Antrim over the weekend. It was impossible to be everywhere, but I was lucky enough to be in Cushendall yesterday for the senior camogie final between Loughgiel and Dunloy. Both teams served up an exhibition of tough, competitive, skilful and entertaining camogie. Nobody likes losing a county final, and I expect that the team and management of my club, Dunloy, will be disappointed today, but they should also be proud of their performance yesterday. The team is young, and I have no doubt that the girls and women who represent Dunloy will represent the club in many future county finals.

Yesterday, Loughgiel won its eleventh consecutive county senior camogie championship, which is an unbelievable record and achievement. The team has some of the most individually gifted camógs playing the game, and it is undoubtedly one of the best teams in Ireland. I congratulate the Loughgiel team and management on their victory yesterday and their phenomenal record in County Antrim, and I wish them good luck as they focus on capturing further glory and bigger prizes in the time ahead.

I also congratulate all those involved in St Mary's Ahoghill intermediate camogie team, who lifted the title, and wish the players and management success in their Ulster campaign.

Erin's Own GAC, Cargin, is a club outside my constituency of North Antrim, but it is worthy of congratulations in the Chamber for its magnificent achievement yesterday of lifting its third senior county football title in a row. In competitive sport, winning is very important, but, thankfully, the GAA is about much more than just winning, so a special word to all involved with Roger Casement's GAC, Portglenone, a club that does sit within my constituency. I know that the Gaels of Portglenone will have been deeply disappointed this morning, but they should be proud of their efforts this season. I was lucky to participate in the club's recent PG100 community fundraising effort that raised a lot of money to support not just the club's activities but five worthwhile local charities. Like GAA clubs the length and breadth of Ireland, Portglenone's club strives for excellence on and off the pitch, and it provides the heartbeat for the local community. I have no doubt that its day for senior football glory on the pitch will come in the time ahead.

Mrs Dodds: I will talk about the consultation on public health policy. Given the number of emails received on the consultation and the interest shown in it, it is worthwhile putting on record my position and that of my party on the matter. The consultation seeks to update legislation from 1967. We do not argue that legislation that dates so far back should not be in need of renewal and revision, and, as a party, we recognise the need to act swiftly in times of crisis, but we do not believe that the current proposals strike a fair balance between fulfilling public health objectives and defending personal liberty.

We also believe that the bizarre and, indeed, extraordinary measure taken by the Minister of Health during the consultation period of issuing statements that distanced him from his own consultation has undermined public confidence in the consultation and will make the path to agreeing new public health legislation even more challenging. We are absolutely clear that sweeping powers should not be handed to the Minister to impose restrictions that directly impact on a private individual's family life, education, employment and movement, and we will continue to reject mandatory vaccinations or plans to compel citizens to undergo any form of medical treatment. Any future public health framework for Northern Ireland must be underlined in principle and in law by the principle of informed consent.

Mr McReynolds: I speak as chair of the all-party group on active travel in concern at an announcement last Friday afternoon by the Minister for Infrastructure that he will introduce an experimental scheme to allow class A and class C taxis to use yet-to-be-determined bus lanes in Belfast city centre. Class B and class D taxis are already permitted to use them, meaning that, for some bus lanes in Belfast, we are facing a move from bus lanes to bus/taxi lanes being in operation. That will have four main effects: reduce the safety that we already give cyclists when they use an already limited cycling infrastructure; reduce the ease with which our public transport can complete journeys; reduce the appeal of public transport as a whole; and — this is the elephant in the room — impact on our responsibilities within a declared climate emergency and our need to commit to strategies and policies that we know work to reduce car dependency and the amount of carbon that we release into the air every day.

The pilot scheme to allow taxis in some bus lanes is something that I saw floated many times while a Belfast city councillor, and now I see it floated while an MLA for East Belfast. I am not saying that we should not support taxis or that they do not have an important role to play — we had taxi representatives present to the Infrastructure Committee very recently, and I recognise taxis' importance for tourists, older people and those living with disabilities and reduced mobility — but there has to be a reasonable limitation while we ensure that we have an efficient and supported public transport system in which the public can have confidence.

On Saturday, at around 11.30 am, I took the Glider into Belfast city centre. The journey took around 10 minutes.

During that time, we sailed past car after car that had a driver but no passengers. Obviously, people take their car for different reasons on their journey to different destinations. However, if we extrapolate that to the city centre, it reinforces a point made to me on social media over the weekend: individuals and taxis cannot take priority over a bus carrying significantly more people than that or over cyclists.

I will watch the development of the proposals and work with the active travel stakeholders to see whether it achieves its wildly optimistic aim of reducing congestion by allowing more cars to operate in some of our bus lanes, while ensuring that Translink is supported in its goal of offering sustainable and reliable public transportation in the context of the climate crisis, the impact of which we see across the world today.

Mrs Mason: I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Kilcoo senior men's GAA team on its remarkable achievement this weekend in securing its sixth consecutive Down Senior Football Championship. The latest triumph marks a significant milestone for Kilcoo, as it has now won an astonishing 12 Down county titles in just 13 seasons, an unprecedented feat for a club representing a small but proud village in the heart of south Down. The level of dominance and consistency that Kilcoo has shown over the past decade is nothing short of extraordinary. It speaks volumes about the dedication, talent and spirit of the players and the wider Kilcoo community supporting them.

Yesterday's county final between Burren and Kilcoo showcased the talent that lies in our county, with Burren also putting in a commendable performance. Two clubs from south Down competing for the prestigious Frank O'Hare Cup is a testament to the strength and competitiveness of football in that area. While Burren may have fallen short on this occasion, the players can definitely hold their heads high after a valiant effort in a hard-fought contest. I have no doubt that they will come back better and stronger.

As Kilcoo looks ahead to the Ulster Championship, I wish it the very best in the upcoming clash with Cavan in a few weeks' time. I have no doubt that Kilcoo will approach that challenge with the tenacity and determination that has become its trademark. I eagerly await Kilcoo's continued success as it seeks to progress. Furthermore, I hope to be standing here again in the near future, extending my best wishes for its all-Ireland campaign. Comhghairdeas

to Kilcoo, agus ádh mór

on the road ahead.

Miss McIlveen: Maedi visna (MV) is a highly infectious viral disease affecting goats and sheep. It is transmitted through the ingestion of milk from a virus-infected sheep and within flocks through direct contact or contamination. It has no impact on human health. MV is a wasting disease in sheep, similar to lung cancer. The symptoms lie dormant for several years, so it is detected only in older animals. The disease is currently widespread in Great Britain and the Irish Republic. Until recently, Northern Ireland had just nine flocks testing positive for MV, low enough to maintain our MV-free status.

At present, DAERA samples any new arrivals into Northern Ireland from outside the island of Ireland to keep Northern Ireland MV-free. Animals from GB flocks that do not have an MV-free accreditation are sampled in isolation five months after importation. Animals from MV-free accredited flocks from mainland Europe and the Irish Republic are sampled on arrival. It is really disturbing that DAERA plans to stop carrying out that testing. It is proposed that 2025 will be a transition year for the industry to implement its own scheme. The DAERA recommendation is that farmers test their own sheep six months apart to get MV-free accreditation. That places further financial pressure on our farmers. Any potential scheme is likely to be expensive, which may affect buy-in. It would also affect how marts and shows work, with accredited and non-accredited animals needing to be kept apart with separate sheds and classes, as has been seen in Great Britain. Due to the different schemes operating in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, that could have a negative financial and social effect on the industry.

Last week, over 100 commercial and pedigree sheep farmers met to voice their concerns. The industry is willing to act responsibly but would prefer Northern Ireland testing to lie with the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) and be administered by Animal Health and Welfare NI (AHWNI). If DAERA does not keep up border checks on the importation of sheep, MV sheep could be imported into Northern Ireland. DAERA has said that it needs to look at the cost of border checks, which need to be funded by industry. Despite the upheaval being based on budget cuts to the DAERA Veterinary Service, when I asked the Minister for the cost of testing for MV in each of the past 10 years, he told me that it was not retained in a readily available format. What financial advice is DAERA basing the cuts on, given the vulnerability being thrust on the sheep sector by this ill-thought-through proposal? Keeping Northern Ireland MV-free is vital for animal health and trading status. One farmer said that MV has the potential to be the bovine TB of the sheep sector. That is something that the House should not allow to happen.

Dr Aiken: From just before sunset on Friday to dusk on Saturday marked Yom Kippur. Across the world but particularly in the homes of our many Jewish friends and colleagues, it is by observing their prayers that members of the Jewish faith seek to atone and ask God for his forgiveness. Yom Kippur culminates with Neilah and the sounding of the shofar. During the religious services, one of the most poignant moments is the saying of Yizkor, the memorial prayer for the recently deceased. Anyone with a degree of empathy will share in that with our Jewish community, this year of all years, on Yom Kippur. Equally, the attempts to denigrate that religious observance by some, including university student bodies, left-wing and pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah terrorist supporters or just those who cannot resist joining in with their base antisemitism, need to be roundly condemned.

Last week, memorial services for the victims of 7 October were held in Belfast and Dublin. In the spirit of the Yizkor prayer, large numbers of Gentiles, including me, stood in solidarity with our Jewish friends and colleagues in Israel, the United Kingdom, Ireland and elsewhere. I thank the friends of the Jewish community who organised those events, especially the one in Belfast. I was pleased that the deputy First Minister attended and expressed solidarity on behalf of us to our beleaguered but still proud local Jewish community and to the victims of 7 October.

That was in marked contrast, however, to the event in Dublin, where neither the president nor the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste could find the time to attend the memorial to 1,119 victims of terror, torture and sexual violence, nor did they bother to attend any Yom Kippur memorials. Indeed, a Fine Gael councillor, Councillor Rane, even expressed base antisemitic tropes during a Dublin City Council debate. It seems that some members of society on this island are deemed to be less equal than others. It is also apparent to any dispassionate observer that the Irish Republic is more interested in opening embassies in Tehran and its parties more interested in inviting the Iranian embassy to their conferences than it is in tackling its ingrained and growing institutional antisemitism. While Dublin is happy to cloak itself in intolerance, it is good to see that many others are calling that out, especially in Brussels, Berlin and, above all, Washington. That, at least, gives reason for hope as Yom Kippur for the Hebrew year 5785 passes.

Mr O'Toole: I want to touch briefly on some good news, some frustrating news and some more concerning developments. First, train services have begun, with the restarting of full cross-border services, at Grand Central station. One hundred years ago, we had a thriving rail network across the island. One of the tragedies of the 20th century in transport terms was the fact that that rail network was butchered, particularly in the west of what became Northern Ireland and in relation to cross-border lines.

We now have the opportunity, from the base of Grand Central station, which is the biggest transport hub in Ireland, to start to grow and build the future that is set out for us in the all-island strategic rail review. I agree with my DUP colleague across the Chamber that it should have included the county of Fermanagh, and we will stand with anybody in that county who wishes to have rail connections there too.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr O'Toole: It is important to mark the opening of Grand Central and the restarting of those cross-border rail services as an example of the connectivity that we can build on the island. I look forward to getting the train to Dublin from the new Grand Central and all of the opportunities that that provides.

I want to touch on the related matter of the disruption that will be caused in Belfast for commuters and other road users. Following on from Mr McReynolds's remarks, I agree with him, and it is vital to say that a strategic priority for the Department for Infrastructure and for the Executive more generally should be to do all that we can to get people out of their cars and on to public transport, using active travel where they can. That said, there will still be people who need to use their cars for various reasons, such as accessibility or a lack of public transport infrastructure where they are. We need to be clear and communicate properly with people who will be affected by the disruption that, where they can, they should avail themselves of public transport or, if they can, avoid making that journey. Also, we should tell people to use as much public transport as they can and to use active transport opportunities. However, there is a particular onus on the Minister and the Department to be clear and to communicate better with people this year on the closure of Durham Street.

Finally, I express some regret and concern — I hope that we do not have to return to this subject — at the appearance of a sign at a point on Durham Street that is also known as "Boyne Bridge", which is due to be deconstructed for the purposes of building access to Grand Central station. I recognise that there are architectural and other historical and cultural reasons why what is called the Boyne Bridge has resonance for people. It cannot be acceptable to put up signs that carry, implicitly or explicitly, a threat to people. We have to move beyond that in this society. We have a debate on a related matter tomorrow on Opposition time, but —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — I have to say that that is completely unacceptable.

Mr Speaker: I thank Members for their statements.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday, at the meeting of the Executive Office Committee, a decision was taken unilaterally by the Chair of the Committee to move the Committee into private session. Standing Orders are clear that that is a decision for the Committee as a whole, not a unilateral act by the Chair. Given that, in breach of Standing Orders, permission was not sought and nor was agreement given for that Committee to move into private session and that the public were denied the ability to scrutinise proceedings, will you advise what action the House can take when a Chair of a Committee breaches the clear Standing Orders that are set down before all Members?

Mr Speaker: I received a letter as well on this. Further, I understand that the Chair acknowledges that that was not in order and accepts that that is the case. Therefore, I consider the matter closed. Members may wish to raise it at the Committee itself, but there has been an acknowledgement that the Chair did not act according to the rules of the Assembly in that instance.

I thank Members for their statements. Quite a lot of Members did not get called to make a statement today. We appreciate that and will try to facilitate it tomorrow. Members may take their ease for a moment before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The next item of business is a motion to approve a statutory rule (SR).

Dr Archibald (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

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

Dr Archibald: As Members will be aware, the order would extend powers introduced in the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the registration of deaths and stillbirths for a further six months until 24 March 2025.

The specific powers in the order concern the way in which the registrations are conducted. First, they enable individuals to choose to register a death or stillbirth remotely. Although they can opt to come into a registration office in person, the provisions give the next of kin a choice to conduct the registration over the phone if they wish. Secondly, the powers enable participants in the registration process to exchange important documents electronically, rather than requiring the grieving next of kin to take one piece of paper from a doctor to the registrar and another from the registrar to the undertaker. Those exchanges can happen electronically.

It will be clear to the Assembly why the provisions were important in the context of the pandemic. The temporary changes to the registration process reduced the need for face-to-face contact both for grieving and sometimes vulnerable members of the public and for registration staff. They enabled the registration system to continue to operate even when its services were, sadly, under significant pressure. However, in the four years that have passed since the start of the pandemic, those arrangements have become the normal means by which the vast majority of such registrations take place. They have helped the registration process to be more efficient and productive, and they carry the support of stakeholders, ensuring the smooth passing of important documents and enabling registration staff to handle any errors or omissions in advance.

Most importantly, the provisions ease the burden on grieving members of the public. When someone is coming to terms with the death of a loved one, it is right that we should not burden them unnecessarily. While offering them a choice about how to register a death and conducting some of the paperwork electronically may seem like small things, they can make a big difference. In short, although the powers were introduced as the pandemic took hold, they have become the established means by which deaths and stillbirths are registered, and they have helped the registration service to become more modern, efficient and empathetic. Given the positive effect of the provisions and as I set out in the debate on our earlier extension order, it is right that we should look to make the temporary powers permanent, rather than continuing to depend on the Coronavirus Act. We have used the time provided by that earlier extension order to progress the permanent powers.

I had hoped that we would not be in the position of requesting a further extension today. It was our understanding that we could make the required changes through secondary legislation. However, in the final checks, it became apparent that we did not have the powers that we required to effect all the changes that we needed to make to the Births and Deaths Registration Order 1976. The draft regulations had to be set aside and an alternative route found through primary legislation. I thank the Chair and members of the Finance Committee, who carried out the scrutiny of the order.

At my direction, officials from the General Register Office (GRO) have been working with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to draw together the primary legislation required to make the powers permanent. The Bill that they are working towards will provide for the electronic transfer of documents between stakeholders and the registration of deaths and stillbirths by phone.

Bringing forward the Bill will also enable me to progress a new baby loss certificate scheme that recognises the suffering of families who endure the pain of loss before 24 weeks of pregnancy. Members will know that losses early in pregnancy are not recognised by existing legislation here. The scheme will provide official recognition to parents who have suffered the tragedy of losing a baby before 24 weeks. Sadly, that loss is often met with silence and stigma, with many parents feeling isolated in their grief. I am determined that those parents' heartache and grief is recognised in a scheme similar to those in Scotland and England. That is why I have directed my officials to include in the Bill provision for the legal basis for that new voluntary scheme. Details of how it will operate and delivery mechanisms are being developed by my officials and officials in the Department of Health. Those arrangements will be in regulations and will be brought to the Assembly for consideration.

Today's extension order will, consequently, provide the time required to finalise primary legislation to make permanent the temporary powers of the Coronavirus Act. It will also afford the space needed to make provision for a baby loss certificate scheme. We hope that, if required, any further extension order from March 2025 would be needed for only a relatively limited period to allow the legislation to complete its passage. In bringing the extension order, I recognise that it is not desirable to continue to depend on the powers of the Coronavirus Act. However, I hope that the Assembly will be reassured by our determination to end the use of those orders by the work that is under way to make the relevant powers permanent and will look favourably on the motion.

Should the extension not be approved, the existing powers will fall, with a return to pre-COVID procedures required. Irrespective of their personal circumstances, relatives would again be required to attend registration offices and to convey paper forms between doctors, registration staff and undertakers. As I set out in a previous debate on these matters, that would be a retrograde step that is not in the interests of the registration service, funeral directors or the public. I hope that the Assembly concurs.

I recommend a further extension of the powers included in the order, which have enabled the provision of a modern, empathetic registration service over the past four years. By extending the provisions today, we will be able to continue to provide the service that has been welcomed by stakeholders and will create space to allow for permanent legislation to be put in place. I commend the order to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): The Committee for Finance has had extensive written and oral briefings on these legislative provisions and on the Department's work in this area. The Committee previously agreed statutory rules made under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the recording of deaths and stillbirths.

The most recent of those briefings was at the Committee's meeting of 11 September, when GRO officials briefed Committee members on the work that was being advanced on the proposed death and stillbirths legislation. The Department indicated that it would be bringing forward primary legislation to put on a statutory basis those measures for registering deaths and stillbirths by phone and electronically that had been made temporarily under the Coronavirus Act 2020. At its meeting on 11 September, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposed statutory rule and with extending the temporary provision made under the Act until the end of March 2025.

During that briefing with GRO officials last month, Committee members raised the issue of whether the deaths and stillbirths Bill could contain provision for baby loss certificates. The Committee discussed that issue again, in closed session, at its meeting of 18 September. That discussion ranged across a number of options in relation to the Bill legislating for baby loss certificates. The Committee agreed to write to the Department to seek further clarification on what is possible within the existing draft Bill, including whether there is any potential to widen the draft Bill to allow for legislative provision for baby loss certificates, as well as to seek any further detail around logistics and resources for making such provision.

The Committee is somewhat frustrated with the time that it has taken for the provision on the registration of deaths and stillbirths online and by phone to be drafted into permanent, stand-alone primary legislation: there have been dead ends and false dawns. However, the Committee very much welcomes the Minister's decision to incorporate baby loss certificates into that legislation, following members' requests that she do so. That news is particularly welcome and poignant coming, as it does, at the end of Baby Loss Awareness Week.

The Committee considered the SR at its meeting on 2 October. While the Examiner of Statutory Rules had not yet reported on the rule at that point, members had no objection to the rule, subject to her report. At its meeting on 9 October, the Committee considered the Examiner's report, which indicated that she had no objection to the rule and recommended that it be approved by the Assembly.

As the Minister knows, the Committee will play an active role in holding her and her officials to account and ensuring that baby loss certificates are included in the Bill, finally making those provisions permanent. Committee members stand ready to work with her to create a change that will make a huge difference to parents who have suffered the tragedy of losing a child during pregnancy. The Committee supports the motion to approve the regulations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak, briefly, in my party capacity. The delay in turning this into stand-alone primary legislation is deeply frustrating, and it is deeply frustrating that we were told that legislation would be delivered more quickly than has been the case. The use of what were effectively emergency provisions from the pandemic is, to put it mildly, not ideal. It is necessary and proper that we move expeditiously to deliver legislation that will put the use of electronic means to register deaths and stillbirths on a proper, permanent statutory basis. That is entirely sensible. It is humane, and it will be welcomed by people who have experienced bereavements and also by doctors and those in the funeral-care world who interact with those processes each day. It is completely sensible, but it is also necessary for us to legislate.

We are doing a lot of debating in the Chamber at the minute on motions, some of which are necessary and vital. Opposition day motions are certainly a critical part of holding the Executive to account, but, when it comes to Executive party time, one might argue that we are doing a lot of going through the motions. The three letters after our names stand for Member of the Legislative Assembly, so we should be here to legislate. We, as yet, have not seen very much primary legislation from the Executive. This should have been an example of bringing something relatively straightforward before the Assembly, so I not-so-gently encourage the Executive and the Minister to bring forward that stand-alone legislation sooner rather than later. I think that, when that happens, it will find a broad base of support in the Assembly.

Finally, I add my party's reflections to the importance of baby loss certificates, which the Minister touched on in her speech. I think that everybody understands, particularly given that we have just come through Baby Loss Awareness Week, how extraordinarily difficult it can be for people who experience that trauma in their life or in the life of their family. This is one small legislative step that, I think, will enable people to feel that that awful, traumatic event is not a burden that they have to carry by themselves, in private. The otherwise stark bureaucracy of the state has found a way of poignantly helping them to mark and remember the very awful loss that they have suffered. I look forward to working with the Minister and the Department to make that legislative change.

Miss Brogan: I thank the Minister for bringing the motion to the Assembly, and I am happy to speak in support of it. As has been outlined, the legislation was introduced during the pandemic to allow the registration of deaths and stillbirths to take place via telephone and for documents such as death certificates to be sent electronically. That was necessary to allow registrations to continue during the pandemic while minimising face-to-face contact. The height of the COVID pandemic was a difficult time for all of us, but especially for those who lost loved ones. We, as a society, pulled together, adapted and made changes to help to save lives and ease the burden on our incredible healthcare workers. During that time, we learned new and more efficient ways of doing things. For example, we discovered the value in practices such as remote working. We also learned that there was a different way to handle the often traumatic issue of registering deaths and stillbirths. The changes to how deaths and stillbirths were registered made the process more efficient and eased the burden on health workers and infrastructure while maintaining the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that deaths were still properly investigated. Crucially, those changes also eased the burden on grieving loved ones.

The public have widely availed themselves of the option to register deaths via telephone since its introduction. It has reduced the administrative burden on those who deliver the service. To revert to the old system at this stage would only cause stress and confusion, so I am happy to support the motion to ensure that those provisions do not lapse.

Mr Frew: I recall the previous extension order, six months ago — the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024 — and the commitments, promises and reassurances that were given to the House at that time. Unfortunately, those commitments and reassurances counted for nothing with regard to the procedures that were adopted and promised at that time. I understand how it took place and why that happened, and I am fully supportive of these measures being contained in primary legislation. They are valid measures that were put in place as a common-sense approach during the pandemic. However, the fact is that those common-sense measures are still wrapped up in coronavirus legislation that has caused massive damage to our people.

In less than two hours' time, in the Long Gallery, there will be about 100 people who have been damaged by the measures of the Coronavirus Act. That time will soon be known forever as a period of shame for the Department of Health and the zombie Assembly at that time. It is good and right that the Minister moves as quickly as possible to disassociate her Department from the Coronavirus Act. I note the commitment from the Minister and the GRO. I know that their destiny has not been their own in this regard, despite the promises that were made six months ago.

The silver lining to the fact that we have to further extend the legislation is that it will bring primary legislation that can be scrutinised by the House in the proper way. There will be a prize at the end of that: the enabling clause for baby loss certificates. The House should and will support that. My party, the DUP, has pushed for that, and I am so glad that the Minister and the Committee for Finance have adopted that position. I thank the Minister and record my gratitude for her activity in that regard. I thank the members of the GRO who came to the Committee when requested to do so and fronted up on all of that. I record my gratitude to them also.

I recognise the work that the Finance Minister and the GRO have put in. I look forward to seeing primary legislation that includes the enabling clause for baby loss certificates. Hopefully, the House can pass a Bill that is of good worth and that will make a real difference to people out there, especially those who lose loved ones.

Mr Carroll: The extension to the legislation will hopefully make very difficult, tragic and heartbreaking experiences, such as child deaths and stillbirths, a bit less painful to navigate. I am sure that most people outside the Building will welcome the change or have done so.

The Minister should be aware of a matter that I raised at Committee with the officials, who are in the Chamber. It was about the lack of provision and support for people who do not have English as their first language and how much consideration had been given to that. Obviously, society here predominantly uses English everywhere. Navigating that can be difficult at the best of times for people who might not have been born here or who do not have English as their first language, so I can only imagine how difficult it would be for anybody to navigate the situation of having a stillbirth or the death of a child. It is really awful to think of.

Some translation services are provided by the GRO, about which we were briefed last week or the week before through correspondence, but I am not sure whether those are wide-ranging enough. Given that the legislation has, once again, been delayed, this issue has not been considered as part of the original drafting, so I urge the Minister and her officials to look at that aspect. It might affect only a small number of people, but if we can make a painful and tragic experience much easier to navigate for people who do not have English as their first language, it will be good legislation and in line with the other things mentioned by Members. I urge the Minister and her team to look at that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister to conclude and wind up the debate.

Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank the Members who have commented on the order and welcome their remarks about it. I reiterate my thanks to the Chairperson and members of the Finance Committee for their scrutiny. As Members have reflected, our objective with the order is to continue to provide a registration service that meets the public's needs and to allow time to develop the permanent legislation to replace the existing Coronavirus Act provisions.

I will deal with a couple of points that were raised by Members. I acknowledge and recognise the sentiments and frustrations that have been recorded by members of the Finance Committee. Obviously, the issue only came to light when we were doing the final checks on the drafting of the legislation. I am sure that Mr Frew does not doubt the sincerity of my remarks in the previous debate on this. It is something that we want to move on as quickly as possible.

I put on record my thanks to my officials in the GRO for all their work on the order and on the development of the new baby loss certificate scheme and for finding a way in which to progress the scheme through the legislation. As Mr Frew said, it is a silver lining of the slight delay that we now face. It is not ideal to have a temporary scheme. We are therefore absolutely committed to putting it on a permanent statutory footing as soon as possible.

To touch on Mr Carroll's comments, I will discuss with my officials the issue of individuals who do not have English as their first language.

In closing, I say that I hope that the Assembly will support the order. The powers that it contains have enabled us to provide a modern, efficient and empathetic registration service during a critical time. By extending the powers today, we can sustain the service while creating an opportunity to embed the provisions permanently in law. I therefore ask Members to approve the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) (No.3) Order 2024.

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

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

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek the Assembly's approval for the making of a draft statutory instrument that will amend the Human Medicines Regulations (HMRs) 2012 to lawfully expand access to naloxone, which is a life-saving medication that reverses the effects of an overdose of opioid drugs. In addition, it makes amendments to keep the regulations current by updating references to Public Health England (PHE) and the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) in Northern Ireland, following the dissolution of those two bodies.

I will start with naloxone. We are all aware of the devastating impact that illicit drugs can have. Drugs destroy lives, tear families apart and make our streets less safe. Drug misuse deaths have doubled since 2012. The impact of synthetic opioids on opioid-related deaths is yet to be fully understood. In 2022, opioids were involved in 60% of drug misuse deaths in Northern Ireland. Such deaths are avoidable.

Through their substance use strategy, 'Preventing Harm, Empowering Recovery', the Northern Ireland Executive have prioritised reducing alcohol- and drug-related deaths. Naloxone is a highly effective antidote to opioid overdose and, in an emergency, can be administered quickly and safely by anyone. It is considered a very safe medicine for the recipient and the person administering the drug, and it is already widely used in the United Kingdom and worldwide.

Currently, however, exemptions in the HMRs allow only drug and alcohol treatment services to supply naloxone to individuals for future use — usually called "take-home naloxone" — which limits the reach of that life-saving medicine. The draft amending statutory instrument that is being debated proposes two key changes. The first is to expand the list of services and professionals named in the regulations that can give out naloxone without a prescription. It means that professionals such as registered nurses and probation officers will be able to provide take-home supplies of naloxone, where appropriate, should they wish to do so. The second proposed change is to establish national registration services across the whole United Kingdom. That will enable all other services and professionals that were unable to be named in the legislation, including housing and homelessness services, to register and to procure naloxone.

That will mean easier access to naloxone for people at risk and for their loved ones. In short, the legislation will save lives.

It will not be a mandatory requirement for services or professionals listed in the legislation to supply naloxone. The powers in the draft legislation are enabling, simply allowing the supply of naloxone without a prescription. The intention is not to create new burdens for services but instead to provide an opportunity for provision based on local need. UK-wide consultations on the proposals have taken place, and the proposals received significant support across the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, 100% strongly agreed or agreed with the proposed list of named services and professionals that could supply naloxone without a prescription.

There are safeguards in the proposals, including the establishment of mandatory training requirements for new services and professionals who wish to take on the role. That training would give participants an understanding of appropriate practices around storing and supplying naloxone, and how to support an individual being supplied with the drug.

The Assembly should be assured to note that the infrastructure is already in place in Northern Ireland to deal with an expansion in the number of those who can supply naloxone. Since 2012, the Public Health Agency (PHA) has commissioned and operated a take-home naloxone programme. Naloxone was supplied 1,861 times in the financial year 2022-23. Since the take-home naloxone scheme was put in place in 2012, it has successfully reversed an overdose in over 1,765 cases. PHA has mandatory training in opioid overdose awareness, naloxone administration and supplier training, which all naloxone suppliers must complete initially and refresh every two years. In preparation for expansion of the scheme, PHA will transfer that training to an online option to target larger numbers.

There are technical amendments in the SI in relation to the transfer of functions following the dissolution of Public Health England in 2020 and the regional Health and Social Care Board here in 2022. In Northern Ireland, as part of our programme of work to transform our health and social care system, the regional HSCB closed on the 31 March 2022, and functions migrated to a newly formed strategic planning and performance group in my Department. Many of PHE's functions have been transferred to the United Kingdom Health Security Agency, an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The proposed amendments will ensure that legislation reflects recent changes in the healthcare systems in England and Northern Ireland.

My officials attended the Health Committee on 12 September to outline the full policy intent of the draft SI and to respond to any questions that the Committee might have had prior to its possibly being debated in the Assembly. I am pleased to confirm that the Committee raised no issues on the policy intent. The Committee also indicated that it was content, following further consideration of the regulations, when the SI was laid in draft form at the Northern Ireland Assembly Business Office on 24 September. It is with the Committee's support, therefore, that I bring the SI before the wider Assembly and its Members. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Ms Kimmins (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to confirm the Health Committee's support for the motion. As the Minister outlined, the statutory instrument amends the 2012 Human Medicines Regulations, the set of laws that regulate the licensing, manufacture, wholesale dealing and sale or supply of medicines for human use.

Departmental officials briefed the Committee on 12 September and advised that the instrument would expand access to naloxone products: life-saving medication that can reverse the effects of an overdose caused by natural or synthetic opioids. Officials advised that anyone could administer naloxone hydrochloride in an emergency; that it is considered a very safe medicine for the recipient and the person administering it; but that, although the medicine is widely used, current legislation allows only drug and alcohol treatment services to supply it to individuals for future use, which limits the reach of the life-saving medicine.

The Committee is content with the two key changes that the statutory instrument is intended to bring about. First, it intends to expand the list of services and professionals named in the regulations who are able to give out naloxone without a prescription. The regulations will allow people who work for the police, the Prison Service, probation services and youth justice services, as well as registered healthcare professionals, to supply naloxone products, provided those individuals have undergone appropriate training. Secondly, national registration services may be established to enable other services and professionals not named in the legislation to register and procure naloxone. Allowing a much wider range of services, healthcare professionals and organisations to supply naloxone on a take-home basis for use in a future emergency that involves opioid overdose could significantly reduce the number of deaths from opioid overdoses.

The Committee heard that drug misuse deaths have doubled in the UK since 2012. In 2022, opioids were involved in 60% of drug misuse deaths in the North of Ireland. As the Minister outlined, naloxone was used 1,861 times in 2023-24, reversing an overdose in 1,765 cases. It is sad that we have such high levels of overdose and drug addiction in our society. For families who have, sadly, lost people to overdose, the loss is devastating. The more people in the community who have this medicine, the more lives can be saved.

The Committee supports the powers in the legislation being enabling rather than mandatory. They allow the supply of naloxone without a prescription. The Committee supports the inclusion of safeguards that establish mandatory training requirements for new services and professionals. The Committee sought information from officials at the briefing on 12 September on the model to be used to administer the medicine, and the Committee welcomes the move towards an increasing use of the nasal spray, which is considered to be a harm-reduction model. The Department assured the Committee that the infrastructure is already in place in the North to deal with the expansion of those who can supply naloxone, mainly through work by the Public Health Agency and its take-home naloxone programme, which is a regional scheme that has operated since 2012. The Public Health Agency will have a crucial role in the implementation of the legislation, including the roll-out of training.

The Committee endorsed the policy merits of the statutory instrument as well as the technical amendments that the instrument makes to the regulations regarding the dissolution of Public Health England and the Health and Social Care Board. On 3 October, the Committee agreed to recommend that the statutory instrument be approved by the Assembly.

Mrs Dodds: I rise very briefly to give my support to this move. It appears to us that the UK-wide changes are common sense and that extending the range of professionals and services that can offer take-home naloxone to those at risk of an overdose should be widely supported. The ability for people to save lives, with the extended use and the extended provision of those who can use and administer naloxone, is something that we should all support. Today, we acknowledge the lives that have been lost to overdose and remember that each one is a person with a family and a life that has been lost to drugs. That is deeply regrettable. Approving this measure will help the situation, but we should never forget the people who have lost their lives to drugs and the families that have been left impacted. I simply want to say, Minister, that we support this, and I hope that you manage to enact it.

Mr Donnelly: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I will speak in favour of the draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Naloxone and Transfers of Functions) Regulations 2024. As the Minister, the Committee Chair and Diane have outlined, we have discussed the regulations at the Health Committee. We took evidence from departmental officials on Thursday 12 September 2024.

Naloxone is a life-saving medication that is used to reverse the effect of an overdose of opioid drugs. As a nurse, I am very aware of the importance of that medication to saving lives. The proposals in the regulations will widen the availability of naloxone by expanding the list of services and professionals who can give out naloxone without a prescription, allowing the appropriate use of take-home naloxone.

The regulations also establish a national registration service to allow relevant services and professionals not outlined in the legislation such as housing and homelessness services to register and procure naloxone.

As the Minister mentioned, tragically, drug misuse deaths have doubled since 2012, and, in 2022, opioids were involved in 60% of drug misuse deaths in Northern Ireland. The evidence in favour of naloxone is clear. It was supplied 1,861 times in 2023-24, and, since the introduction of the Public Health Agency's take-home naloxone scheme in 2012, it has successfully reversed an overdose in over 1,765 cases. The regulations will expand the availability of take-home naloxone and provide essential training for naloxone suppliers. The training is to be completed initially and then refreshed every two years. I was happy to hear from the Minister that it will be expanded with the availability of an online version.

The levels of overdose and drug addiction in our society are truly tragic, as others have mentioned. Like other MLAs, I have met families who have, sadly, lost relatives to overdose, and their loss remains heartbreaking. As an MLA for East Antrim, I have seen the hard work of organisations dealing with drug addiction, including Extern, Larne YMCA and Carrick Connect. Any support that we can provide to such organisations is essential, and the widening availability of naloxone should assist in the prevention of loss of life as a consequence of drug addiction.

Naloxone is used in overdose prevention centres around the world, which have prevented thousands of deaths, reduced the spread of serious disease and improved communities without increasing drug-related crime in the countries where they operate. I hope that the Minister is considering such a centre for Northern Ireland, as it would undoubtedly save more lives.

This is a welcome step towards a harm-reduction model for issues around drug use in Northern Ireland. I thank the Minister for bringing the regulations today, and I encourage all Members to support the wider availability of this life-saving medication.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call on the Minister to conclude and wind up the debate.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Chair of the Health Committee and the other Members who spoke for their contributions. It was important that the Chair talked about the availability of the nasal spray, an application that is to be welcomed. Diane Dodds made a very important point encouraging us all to acknowledge the lives lost to the use and misuse of illicit drugs and not just the lost lives but the impact on families and communities. I thank Mr Donnelly for highlighting the online training that the Public Health Agency will undertake, which will expand the reach of those who administer naloxone.

I firmly believe that the introduction of the legislative changes will widen access to a life-saving medicine. Any death from an illicit drug is tragic. It is also preventable, and I am pleased that we are taking this significant step forward in helping to reduce drug-related deaths. I often talk about my desire to deliver better outcomes: today, collectively, we are doing just that, Therefore, I commend the regulations to the Assembly.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister for Infrastructure): I beg to move

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

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I am pleased to bring the draft statutory instrument (SI) to the Assembly for approval.

The Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023 is secondary legislation made under the Climate Change Act 2008 that created four vehicle emissions trading schemes (VETS) and applies to new cars and vans registered in Britain from 3 January 2024. This statutory instrument, the Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) Order 2024, will also be made under powers conferred by the Climate Change Act 2008. The amendment will bring the North into alignment with Britain from 1 January 2025.

At present, 63% of our overall transport emissions are from private cars. If we are to meet our collective emissions reduction targets by 2050, as required by our Climate Change Act 2022, we must focus on how we transition from petrol and diesel cars to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs). In 2023, electrical vehicle (EV) car sales made up just over 16% of the new car market here, with 11·5% being purely battery electric vehicles (BEVs). That represents a greater percentage of sales in the EV car market here than in Scotland or Wales in 2023.

We now have a network of over 630 charge points, and the availability of rapid chargers has increased by over 300% over the past 18 months. It is estimated that 80% of EV owners are also able to charge from home and generally need to charge their cars only once or twice a week. Due to the increase in battery capacity and in the number of public charge points that are within range, the anxiety of potential owners is being reduced and the availability of new models is attracting new buyers to the market. That is a very encouraging position.

With the introduction of the vehicle emissions trading schemes, we have the opportunity to continue to accelerate the uptake of ZEVs by setting sales quotas for vehicle manufacturers. The introduction of VETS will give confidence to the private sector-led charging infrastructure providers that the number of EVs here will continue to increase.

We have seen evidence of momentum building, with the recent announcements from charge point operators securing further private investment for the expansion of the charging network on forecourts and the installation of charging points at schools and sports clubs in the heartland of our communities. I want to see that strong growth maintained in order to provide the services that EV owners will require to seamlessly move away from petrol and diesel. That will provide the commercial sector with the confidence that it requires to continue to invest in infrastructure in order to align with the targets set out in our climate change plan.

The vehicle emissions trading scheme sets targets requiring an increasing percentage of manufacturers' new car or van sales to be zero-emission vehicles and requiring CO2 emissions from non-zero-emission vehicles to be below their 2021 threshold. Emissions are measured as fleet-wide averages calculated per individual manufacturer.

The aim of VETS is to encourage the sale of an increased number of zero-emission vehicles. It is aligned with the British Government's ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035. Its introduction here will continue the momentum that we have to accelerate the uptake of zero-emission vehicles as those quotas are achieved. However, the targets are not for the North alone but are taken from sales across Britain and here. That gives manufacturers flexibility in sales across their dealerships and across regions.

The third of three consultations on the zero-emission vehicle mandate and CO2 emissions regulations for new cars and vans in the North and in Britain opened on 30 March 2023 and closed on 24 May 2023. That was a joint consultation led by the Department for Transport (DfT), with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Department for Infrastructure in the absence of an Executive. The consultation responses were used to finalise the design of the ZEV mandate and CO2 emissions regulations.

In response to the consultations, manufacturers overwhelmingly stated that their desire was for one scheme throughout the North and Britain. That would allow them to freely move their vehicles across these islands. That supplies an annual fleet-wide target to eligible vehicle manufacturers for registering non-zero-emission vehicles across Britain and the North. Every year, manufacturers will need to be compliant in meeting their ZEV and CO2 targets. Compliance is set out by allowances or credits that manufacturers earn meeting targets for sales and CO2 emissions.

Targets can be met in several ways. Manufacturers may meet the target percentage by averaging their sales of zero-emission vehicles in different locations — for example, dealers' sales of zero-emission vehicles in London may be higher and can offset lower zero-emission sales in more rural locations — or by earning excess credits on their CO2 emissions or their ZEV sales and transferring them from one side to the other. Manufacturers with an excess of credits may trade that excess with other manufacturers that may be in deficit and need further credits to be compliant. They can borrow credits from future years, and that will be especially useful for manufacturers that expect to be fully zero-emission in two to three years but are not now. They can bank excess credits for use in future years.

I highlight again that zero-emission vehicle percentages will be targets across Britain and here. Neither single nations nor single dealers will be expected to meet the targets on their own. The vehicle emissions trading schemes are set up to encourage the industry and not to make the targets unachievable, and manufacturers understand that the incentives will allow them to meet their targets.

The draft Order was laid before the Assembly on 9 September 2024 and is subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. It will come into operation on 1 January 2025, if passed by the House.

The introduction of the VET scheme is part of the critical pathway for the House to meet its climate change targets. Climate change is a concern for all of us, and the introduction of the legislation will contribute to reducing emissions from the transport sector, cleaning up our air and making our home a greener place to live and work for our families. Other critical pathways are also being explored by my Department and include the development of a suite of transport plans and continued investment in zero-emission vehicles for the public transport fleet, which will build on the legislative arrangements that I have brought to the House today.

I thank the House for its cooperation and assistance in making this major step towards achieving our climate change targets in the transport sector. I also thank the Infrastructure Committee for its scrutiny of the policy and useful feedback; the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) for its scrutiny of the legislation; and the Department for Transport for the collaborative approach that has been taken in drafting the Order. I commend the motion to the Assembly and ask that it approve the statutory instrument.

Mrs Erskine (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Committee for Infrastructure.

The Committee was first briefed by the Department for Infrastructure's transport and decarbonisation officials on 22 May on the proposal to lay legislation that will bring Northern Ireland into the vehicle emissions trading schemes. At the outset, I place on record the Committee's appreciation to the departmental officials, who appeared before the Committee at particularly short notice on one occasion and provided timely responses to the issues in the course of our consideration of the legislation. I also place on record the Committee's thanks to the National Franchised Dealers Association (NFDA) and the Electric Vehicle Association Northern Ireland (EVANI) for their evidence on the issue.

As the Minister outlined, VETS has been in place in the rest of the UK since 3 January this year. A joint consultation for what was then known as the zero-emission vehicle mandate scheme was undertaken by other legislatures in Great Britain and the Department for Infrastructure in the absence of an Executive in 2023. The Department advised the Committee that manufacturers stated clearly that they wanted to see Northern Ireland included in the scheme. However, the absence of an Assembly meant that the legislation could not have been implemented here at that time in line with other jurisdictions. Northern Ireland is, therefore, under a different regime for CO2 emissions targets. The Department states that those targets are set to become significantly tougher to meet in 2025.

The vehicle emissions trading scheme that is being considered today introduces graduated targets that require manufacturers to increase the percentage of new electric car or van sales each year, setting out a pathway to full net zero emissions by 2035. Targets for zero-emission vehicle sales will be set at 28% for 2025 and increase yearly until 2035, at which point it will be 100%.

The move to 100% zero-emission vehicle sales will not be straightforward. We know, for example, that there are concerns about the availability of public charging infrastructure, and that impacts on consumer confidence. In oral evidence to the Committee on 18 September, EVANI highlighted that Northern Ireland's public charging infrastructure for electric vehicles lags well behind that in England, Scotland and Wales.

It is clear that we need more investment in this area, particularly when we are introducing targets for manufacturers that will impact on our local dealerships and the driving population here. Better charging infrastructure will encourage more motorists to switch to EVs and will help with meeting the targets. I welcome the investment made to date by private charging operators, which has seen an increase in the number of fast chargers available to our motorists, but Northern Ireland's inclusion in VETS would provide certainty and will be a catalyst to attracting and promoting further private investment in our charging infrastructure.

As mentioned, the Committee also heard from representatives of the NFDA. The NFDA highlighted the fact that it wishes to see a grace period for the introduction of VETS in Northern Ireland to allow dealerships time to increase supply and stock. When asked how much of a grace period NFDA wanted to see, the representatives stated that their preference was "as long as possible" but that two to three years would allow the charging infrastructure to be developed to:

EVs.

The NFDA also proposed what it referred to as "a gentler profile of targets", although 2035 would remain as the target for the achievement of 100% electric new vehicles. The targets in the intervening years would be realigned: for example, instead of the 28% electric vehicle target for new car sales in 2025, in line with the rest of the UK, the Northern Ireland target could be 18%. The NFDA advised that there is serious concern amongst the dealer network that the automotive industry in Northern Ireland could collapse. More widely, it advised:

and:

entirely.

The NFDA also highlighted concerns on type approval. Without diminishing the seriousness of that issue to the industry, we note that it sits outside the fundamental purpose of the statutory instrument that we are discussing. Whilst it merits wider discussion between the industry and the UK Government, it is outside the remits of the Committee, the Assembly and the Executive.

The Committee received further written evidence from EVANI in response to the NFDA's evidence. Among other things, it questioned how a grace period would align with the proposal to introduce gentler targets for Northern Ireland. EVANI also noted that the aim of achieving 100% electric new vehicle sales by 2035 would remain and argued that a two-to-three-year delay at the start would likely have the effect of creating a much steeper and more challenging path towards the end of the mandate to catch up with the rest of the United Kingdom.

On 2 October, departmental officials attended the Committee and responded to the NFDA's concerns. They highlighted the fact that the target for manufacturers applies across the UK as a whole and that no one location or dealer will specifically be required to reach 28% in 2025. It could therefore be the case that lower sales in one region will balance higher sales in another, with the overall target still being met. The officials also highlighted flexibilities in the scheme by which manufacturers can meet their targets. For example, manufacturers can use CO2 emissions credits to offset zero emission vehicle targets. They can also borrow from future years to meet their targets; trade with other manufacturers by buying or selling targets; or bank excess credits to use in future years.

In its written and oral evidence, the Department indicated that manufacturers are highly supportive of Northern Ireland being included in the scheme, as it will simplify their operations and mean that they will not have to adhere to different regimes across the jurisdictions. Officials highlighted the fact that manufacturers participate in the vehicle emissions trading schemes operational user group and are overwhelmingly keen for our inclusion to allow a more seamless flow of vehicles in the UK market.

The statutory instrument will ensure that the four UK jurisdictions operate under one scheme. The Committee questioned officials to understand the impact of diverging from the requirements of the scheme, as suggested by the NFDA. In response, officials said that, if the statutory instrument was not approved here, simultaneous consideration of the amendment to include Northern Ireland in the scheme could not be progressed in England, Scotland or Wales, as is required, and different legislation would have to be drafted for the other jurisdictions, leaving Northern Ireland out. Importantly, it would also mean that DFI would have to assume the administrative duties for the CO2 regulations that are currently undertaken by the Department for Transport. The cost for that would be around £500,000 per year.

The Committee notes from the evidence that it has received that Northern Ireland represents 2% of the total of new vehicle sales in the UK. Therefore I am not persuaded that Northern Ireland not joining the scheme would, in itself, be the determining factor for manufacturers to consider withdrawing from Northern Ireland or, indeed, the wider UK market. In their evidence to the Committee, DFI officials advised that no other body has raised concerns similar to those of the NFDA. They indicated that they were due to meet NFDA representatives at some point after their attendance at Committee. It would be helpful if the Minister was able to provide an update of any meeting that may have taken place between his officials and the NFDA. It is fair to say that members felt some reassurance about the legislation after hearing from departmental officials on 2 October, and it would be interesting to know whether officials were similarly able to provide the NFDA with clarity regarding its concerns.

All Members will be aware that the commitments contained within the Climate Change Act are statutory obligations that will require decisive and timely decisions to afford the Executive the best opportunity to meet them. Whilst this order may be only one of a number of steps needed to help us achieve these goals, it is nonetheless a significant step. However, it must be recognised that significant work is required to get us to 100% zero-emissions vehicles by 2035, including developing our charging infrastructure and increasing the connectivity of our public transport network.

To conclude my remarks as Chairperson, I can advise that, having considered the evidence received, the Committee agreed at its meeting on 2 October to recommend that the statutory instrument be approved by the Assembly.

Mr Baker: Sinn Féin fully supports the target for net zero by 2050 for the entire island of Ireland and is therefore supportive of the Minister's plans for the vehicle emissions trading schemes as part of delivering a zero-carbon economy. Until now, there has been confusion within the industry around the issue, given that the North has been in a different position from other places across these islands. However, this legislation will bring the North into the vehicle emissions trading scheme, which is already in place across these islands. Therefore the legislation, as stated by car manufacturers, will provide clarity to give support to the overwhelming call for the North to be a part of VETS. That will ensure that they are operating under one scheme, rather than two different schemes.

I welcome the recent roll-out of the 100 new electric buses as part of a £64 million investment by the Minister to help decarbonise our public transport. While it is important that we commit ourselves to delivering carbon savings through the vehicles that we drive, we must also note that much more work needs to be done to increase and improve the infrastructure to make it viable to drive an electric or zero-emissions vehicle. The Minister will know this: we also need to continue to improve the availability and reliability of charge points and other pieces of infrastructure across the North, particularly in our rural communities, to ensure that people have the confidence and the opportunity to decarbonise their own transport. It is imperative that the transition to net zero is fair and just, and we must work to tackle emissions and develop more opportunities for sustainable travel.

Mr McReynolds: I welcome the Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) Order 2024. Earlier today, during Members' statements, I mentioned the climate emergency and the need for us all to think and act differently and to challenge and stretch ourselves with ambitious targets. Joining the vehicle emissions trading scheme does just that. It will deliver significant carbon savings; mean that Northern Ireland will play its part in the UK transitioning to a zero-carbon economy; and support the industry within that transition by increasing the share of new vehicle sales made by zero-emissions vehicles, reducing carbon input and improving our air quality.

The Committee recently heard from the National Franchised Dealers Association, the Electric Vehicle Association NI and departmental officials, and we scrutinised the proposals significantly. I put on record my thanks to officials for their recent input on and clarification of concerns that were raised with us before we reached consensus in Committee.

Mr Gaston: Part 4 of the legislation references some assimilated EU law, which, unlike three other areas of law, we thankfully will now have control over. That having been said, I note that there is a cross reference to the Windsor framework, because emissions relate to product approval, which is a matter of EU law. Although the product approval provisions in the Windsor framework are not changed by the draft Order, they do relate to it. There could therefore in future be an issue with moving vehicles for sale from Great Britain to Northern Ireland if the EU emissions regime is different from that of the UK, because, notwithstanding UK emissions legislation applying, if one can sell only vehicles that meet EU emissions standards, it becomes debatable to what extent Northern Ireland's emissions regime is different from that of the EU. I would be grateful to the Minister if he can pick up on that point and address it in his response.

I also note that the Northern Ireland consultation that preceded that on the draft Order makes no reference to the UK Climate Change Act 2008. That Act is supposedly the basis on which the Order was drafted. It rather suggests, however, that the lead is being taken from the EU. The consultation document noted that the European Commission recently recommended a diesel emissions particulate number (PN) test for younger vehicles as an alternative to the current diesel smoke test.

Had there been a proper Northern Ireland consultation on the draft Order, it would have had to be done using the powers in the 2008 Act to create a UK-wide approach to zero-emissions vehicles. No reference was made to that in the consultation that was undertaken prior to validating the Order. That seems very odd, unless the Order was made on the basis of a UK-wide consultation, but why then validate it by reference to the two Northern Ireland consultations? Again, I would welcome the Minister's comments on that point when he makes his winding-up speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for Infrastructure, John O'Dowd, to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members who contributed to the debate on the motion. As has been stated, the legislation will not address every element of the climate emergency actions. It will also need to be taken to other sectors. It is, however, a significant step in helping us move forward collectively to meet our ambitious climate targets. It will bring benefits each and every day to all of us through improving air quality and reducing pollution.

I will address some of the comments that Members made. The Chair outlined the NFDA's concerns, to which my officials adequately responded at the Committee. It is only right and proper that the Committee question and challenge us on those matters, which have now been clarified. I was asked when there will be a meeting with the NFDA. It is scheduled for next week, and we will answer any further questions that it may have about the draft Order. The crucial point to make is that the targets are not simply targets set for this jurisdiction. They are targets set for England, Scotland, Wales and here, so that is the basis of the legislation.

Mr Gaston commented on the Windsor framework. This is stand-alone legislation and is not impacted on by the Windsor framework.

The consultation was carried out jurisdictionally by England, Scotland, Wales and us, and the Order was drafted based on the information garnered from that consultation. There have been two consultations in that regard, so the legislation has been well tested and, in the format in which it is set out, will be proven to be beneficial to local car dealers, local consumers and our climate. I commend the statutory instrument to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease before we move on to the next item of business.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next item in the Order Paper is a prayer of annulment from the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Robbie. The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on this debate. I call the Chair of the Committee to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. This is my first speech as Chair of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It is not the speech that I would have wished for, as I was not in the Chair for the scrutiny of these regulations; that was, in fact, my predecessor, Lord Elliott. My Committee colleagues, who are more knowledgeable on the matter, may shed more light in their speeches, and I look forward to listening to the debate.

Scrutiny of the Hops Certification (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 began at the Committee meeting on 9 May 2024, when members considered correspondence from the Department advising of the eight-week consultation and the information that went out to stakeholders. It was noted that new European Commission-delegated and implementing regulations for hops certification came into force on 27 March, and new regulations for the import of hops, rice, cereal and sugar from third countries came into force on 20 December 2023. It was noted that EU hops legislation relating to certification and third country imports is directly applicable here under the annex of the Windsor framework.

The Committee felt that it needed a fuller oral briefing from officials, which took place on 20 June 2024, when the following points were explained in more detail. The amending statutory rule (SR) is required to provide enforcement powers for the updated EU rules. It seeks to replicate the current UK hops regulations as far as possible, with no change to underlying policy. The EU regulations for hops certification have introduced several changes, however. First, the cost of certification is to be carried by operators except where member states decide otherwise. The Rural Payments Agency, which is the certification authority for GB and Northern Ireland, does not charge operators for hops-related certificates or services. The regulations would allow that derogation to continue. Secondly, brewers must declare the particulars of hops harvested on their land to the competent certification authority by 15 November each year. Currently, that date is 31 October, so it is a two-week extension. Thirdly, the regulations increase the maximum weight where certification rules do not apply for sales to individuals for their own use. Lastly, the regulations allow for electronic documentation: digital attestations of equivalence that must accompany hops that are imported from third countries. In addition, officials stated that, in the rest of the UK, the relevant hops certification legislation remains the UK-wide Hops Certification Regulations 1979.

I understand that some members highlighted a number of concerns regarding the need for the regulations, given that there are no hop growers in Northern Ireland. Some members also highlighted the involvement of the Windsor framework and potential divergence from the United Kingdom. The next time the Committee considered the proposed SR was on 12 September, when it had before it the Department's SL1. The Committee noted that the SR was to be laid before the Assembly under the negative resolution procedure and that it was anticipated that it would come into operation on 18 October.

Members again considered the amendments to the 1979 regulations as they apply here to, first, update references to the new EU legislation for hops certification and, secondly, reflect the changes that have been introduced by the new EU legislation. A number of members again expressed concern regarding the need for separate regulations and divergence from the United Kingdom. The Committee agreed to write to the Department to request an oral briefing to get more information on the extent of that divergence.

That second oral briefing took place on 19 September. Again, some members queried the need for the specific regulations. Officials explained that DAERA could not carry out certain checks on imported hops without them and that documentary checks would continue at the point of entry. Officials went on to highlight the future-proofing elements for potential hop growers here. At that juncture, some members flagged the potential for seeking a prayer of annulment, but the Committee agreed that the Department should proceed to make the SR in the meantime.

The SR came before the Committee at its meeting of 26 September. My predecessor, Lord Elliott, reminded the Committee that it had taken a second oral briefing to attempt to address any concerns. He then put the following motion to the Committee:

The Committee then divided on the motion. There was a quorum — five members — and the Committee divided, with two Ayes and three Noes.

In conclusion, the majority of the members present at that meeting when the vote was taken agreed to put down a prayer of annulment. Members also considered the twenty-third report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules at its meeting on 10 October, which included this SR. The Committee noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules did not draw special attention to it.

Miss McIlveen: The regulations relate to EU law that covers the certification and import of hops. As a result of the protocol, Northern Ireland is expected to stay in lockstep with changes that have been imposed by Brussels in this aspect of our economy despite those provisions continuing to treat Great Britain as a third country. Under the regime, EU attestations of equivalence are mandatory for any business that is looking to move to Northern Ireland hops or hop products that are grown or processed in Great Britain. The latest regulations would provide a digital route to demonstrating that equivalence. Ultimately, however, they do nothing to deal with the root of the problem: the fact that there are different and more stringent requirements for moving goods to Northern Ireland compared with other parts of the United Kingdom.

For producers, it is notable that the regulations bring the potential for certification, and brewers in Northern Ireland will have to declare information about hops harvested on their land by a different date in the year than brewers in Great Britain. It may well be the case that the practical impact of that divergence will be limited right now as there are no hop producers in Northern Ireland. However, that cannot be guaranteed moving forward.

The Democratic Unionist Party will continue to fight to fully restore Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom. That, in our view, means removing the application of EU law in our country, and the internal Irish Sea border that it creates. We cannot reconcile our commitment to that cause with support for legislation — however technical it may be — that maintains and, potentially, deepens regulatory divergence between different regions of our United Kingdom. We will not endorse regulations that continue to treat our largest and most valuable market as a foreign country. For those reasons, we will vote in favour of the prayer of annulment and encourage other parties to join with us.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am going to call John Blair. At the minute, we are sitting on six minutes left, so will you be able to —?

Mr Blair: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will try my best; thank you.

Members of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, including me, have, as was made clear, been fully briefed on this issue. Before I go any further, it is vital to stress that the regulations are purely technical. As was pointed out, there are no hop growers in Northern Ireland, and there is only one, as far as I know, in Ireland. Ultimately, if the regulations are blocked, a hop grower who wishes to set up in Northern will be unable to sell their goods to market. Moreover, an eight-week consultation was launched and received not a single response.

If we allow these regulations to fall, it will lead to "trivergence" — the scenario where Northern Ireland deviates from EU and GB regulations, thereby creating three separate sets of rules, given that the laws in the EU and GB have continued to move at pace. All the while, we continue to drag the issue out. As a result, Northern Ireland would be governed by legacy EU laws, leading to a loss of enforcement powers. We also risk facing infraction proceedings from the EU, which could lead to financial penalties being imposed on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; penalties that the Department cannot afford. We hardly need to be reminded of current budgetary pressures and constraints.

The DUP initiated the prayer of annulment because it believes that the regulations will lead to regulatory differences with Great Britain. However, it is evident that those differences are minimal and, in fact, one could argue, beneficial and that they do not deviate from the underlying policy position in GB. A few benefits of the regulations are as follows. First, in GB, only hard copy documentation is currently accepted. The regulations would allow for the acceptance of hard copy and digital documentation. Secondly, in GB, brewers are required to report to the Rural Payments Agency, the certification and enforcing authority, by 31 October. Under the regulations, the deadline is extended to 15 November, providing an additional two weeks for compliance and, of course, preparation. Lastly, the certification requirement is increased under the regulations from 1 kg to 5 kg, thereby excluding smaller quantities and making the process easier.

The issue before us is simply an outworking of a Brexit journey that was supported by some in the Assembly but not by my party. It was never going to be easy, and some of us said so, but we must work as best we can to ensure that there is certainty for trade and the economy.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, you are next. Will your speech take longer than five minutes?

Mr Gaston: Probably.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It will, OK. [Laughter.]

On that basis, if you do not mind, we will go to the next item of business in the Order Paper, which is Question Time. I, therefore, propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I have not had discussions with the Minister for Infrastructure in relation to sufficient school provision in central Craigavon. An examination of the Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon local government district, where central Craigavon is located, shows that 3,368 places were available at primary schools and 1,161 places were available at post-primary schools. The Education Authority (EA) has statutory responsibility for planning education provision that is sufficient and efficient in meeting the needs of all children and young people in an area. The EA area planning team has examined the area and has reported that, for primary schools overall, there are available places in all sectors with the exception of the grant-maintained integrated sector. There are limited places available at post-primary level. However, the demand for year 8 places within the time frame of the strategic area plan covering the period 2022-27 will decline.

Where pressure on school places arises, my Department is able to respond to it by using the temporary variation procedure. Any school that is oversubscribed can request additional places through a temporary variation, and, if there is a shortfall of provision in that sector and that area, additional places will be allocated. That ensures that the school admissions system can flex and respond to demand as and when it arises.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister, and I thank the Minister's team for winkling out the answer to that question, which I did not word very well. The point that I am making is that an awful lot of private houses are being built in central Craigavon. There is a real concern that, if that building continues at the rate that it is going, we will not have the school provision to support it. If you look at Portadown College, which is getting a new build, Portadown Integrated Primary School and Craigavon Senior High School —

Mr Speaker: Question, Mr Beattie.

Mr Beattie: — you will see that they need extra space. Will the Minister review those builds to give them that extra space?

Mr Givan: The siting of housing developments is an area on which schools will make a case for a change in enrolment figures. That is often the case for change that comes through. If there is a new housing development, any reports that come to me will reflect what that might mean for an increase in the birth rate and potential pressures on schools. Housing developments do not necessarily, in and of themselves, translate into evidence of a need for schools, but I have outlined the flexibility with which we approach such matters as need arises.

Ms Hunter: Off the back of Mr Beattie's question, what role do the Minister's Department and the EA play in discussing with councils the formation of local development plans (LDPs)? I ask that because a fantastic new school — Mill Strand Integrated School and Nursery — has been built in Portrush, but there are ongoing road safety concerns due to its being in a built-up area.

Mr Givan: The Department does not engage with other Departments to determine which schools will be announced, but, when it comes to taking into account local development plans, the council can certainly engage with the EA and the Department on those, and, where a request comes forward, it is expected that the EA will participate.

Mrs Dodds: This is an important issue. So far, we have discussed only new builds and the capacity of schools. One issue that the Minister's Department has taken up and is doing well on is the school enhancement programme (SEP), which not only creates capacity but enhances facilities. Will the Minister try to ensure that the EA responds to the business cases for school enhancement programmes in a more appropriate manner than it has done? I think in particular of Carrick Primary School in Lurgan, where the process of getting the school enhancement programme has gone on for many years.

Mr Speaker: OK, we get the gist.

Mr Givan: The Member raises a valid point about the processes involved in the school enhancement programme. There are minor works schemes, the school enhancement programme and new capital builds. I have raised concerns about the time that it can take to go through that process. The Department is actively engaging with the EA to establish whether there is a better way of taking forward school enhancement programme processes.

Mr Givan: Major refurbishment projects are assessed through the school enhancement programme, which targets investment to address immediate and pressing accommodation needs in schools. The second call to the school enhancement programme closed for applications from school managing authorities in February 2017. The applications were assessed against key criteria, such as rationalisation, suitability, condition and the percentage of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) and allocated free school meals. The selection criteria will be reviewed in advance of any future calls for the SEP.

Minor refurbishment projects, which are typically up to £1 million, are considered through the minor works scheme. Unfortunately, the demand for investment far exceeds the budget available, so difficult decisions have been required to prioritise works to keep schools open, keep pupils safe and provide education access for the most vulnerable. Many schools across the estate are in urgent need of investment, and I am delighted to have progressed seven SEP projects to procurement earlier this year. Unfortunately, the number of projects that I am able to progress is restricted due to the challenging budget position and SEN placements. I assure you that I will continue to make the case for increased investment in the education estate to allow much-needed projects to be delivered.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Minister. How does a school apply for minor works for refurbishment?

Mr Givan: A number of schools that I have visited have highlighted minor works schemes that are necessary. Presently, we are trying to meet the need around inescapable statutory requirements, such as health and safety, fire protection and other statutory obligations around the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. A school approaches the EA for an unavoidable minor works application in that regard, and the EA then takes the school through that process.

I very much want to get to a place where we deliver so much more by way of the refurbishment and enhancement of our school estate. That is why I continue to put forward comprehensive bids as part of the Executive's financial monitoring round process. I trust that all colleagues in the Assembly will support me in the case that is being made for further investment in education.

Dr Aiken: I declare an interest as a school governor for Kilbride Central Primary School. Minister, is there any advice that you can give to governors of schools that are stuck on the SEP? How do we navigate our way through the Kafkaesque approach that the EA seems to develop every time that we try to have a conversation with it about a business case?

Mr Givan: Once a school has been successful in the SEP, it advances to the integrated design process, which is when an architect is appointed and professional support is put around that team to advance the project. I understand the frustration of the schools that were announced as part of the SEP but have not been able to advance. Once a school is able to advance to the next phase, progress can be made. I want those schools to get to at least pre-tender stage, where the design work has been completed, the feasibility studies have been carried out and a business case has been approved. The Member is right: the process takes too long, which, obviously, leads to frustration. I want the Department and EA to look at that process to see how it can be improved.

Mr Donnelly: The Minister mentioned that the key criteria will be reviewed before the next round of projects. When was the last review of the eligibility criteria?

Mr Givan: I think that my answer referred to 2017, when there was a scheme. As things stand, I am not in a position to make another call on schools to come forward for either a school enhancement programme or a new capital build. Billions of pounds would be needed to deal with those that already have approval for a new build or a school enhancement programme. As things stand, I have no intention to open up a call for SEPs or new capital builds in the near future. If that changes, I will look at the criteria that will be used in carrying out any assessment for the schools that may come forward. There are no immediate plans to make a call in those areas.

Mr Givan: On 18 July 2024, the Northern Ireland Executive agreed that the Strule Shared Education Campus should proceed immediately to contract award and agreed the investment of £375 million on the programme. The main works construction contract was signed on 7 August 2024. I am delighted to confirm that the programme is progressing at pace and that my officials are fully engaging with all the stakeholders around every aspect of delivery. On the current programme timetable, following the pre-construction design period, campus construction is due to begin on the site in early 2025, with the full campus opening planned for September 2028.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his reply and welcome the timeline. The Minister will be aware that, when the schools relocate to the campus, there will be a number of vacated sites in the town centre that could be strategically important to the development of Omagh. Has the Department engaged with fellow stakeholders about how to maximise the opportunities presented by those sites?

Mr Givan: The matter of any vacant sites that come about as a result of the campus opening will be one for the people and bodies that own them to discuss as to whether there are any alternative uses for them in education or, indeed, wider public service or whether they should be disposed of. The process of deciding whether the sites can be repurposed in any way or disposed of is for those who legally own them. At this stage, my Department and I have not been involved in any of those conversations.

Mr Dunne: What is the latest position for the schools announced under the Fresh Start Agreement scheme?

Mr Givan: Of the announced Fresh Start projects, eight have now been completed, and a further six are currently in construction. The Member will know that, unfortunately, earmarked Fresh Start funding was removed by the Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government. Ring-fenced funding is, therefore, no longer in place for the planning and construction of any of the remaining 10 Fresh Start projects that are not currently in construction contract. I have been able to place those remaining unfunded Fresh Start projects in my Department's Executive-funded major capital works programme. That will allow the projects to continue to advance in planning and design.

Mr Givan: I have made funding available to progress the school enhancement programme project for Holy Child Primary School through the design stages to pre-tender stage. A decision to release to tender will be taken on a case-by-case basis, dependent on budget availability at that time. I will continue to make the case for additional capital funding for Education through the Executive.

Mr Delargy: Minister, thank you for your answer. I appreciate that you have already dealt with the SEP in quite a lot of detail. I declare an interest as a member of the board of governors and a former teacher at Holy Child Primary School.

The board of governors condemned several huts this summer and previously because of black mould. Many of your colleagues touched on the point about how quickly the EA reacts to that. If you could provide me with any more detail on that, I would greatly appreciate it.

Mr Givan: I commend the Member for continuing to serve on the board of governors. It is important that elected reps do that, where they can, because they can add value to the school that they serve.

The Member highlighted the SEP process for that school. The tender process to appoint an integrated consultancy team (ICT) has begun. That team will take the project through its design and construction phases. The ICT will be appointed before the end of the financial year.

The Member highlighted areas in which they continue to work with EA to address some of the issues. If there is anything in particular, I would be happy to look at it directly with the EA on his behalf.

Mr Durkan: That sounds like progress on something that was initially announced in January 2020. Of course, that was one of the first announcements post a three-year collapse, and we have had a subsequent two-year collapse. Given that delay is the biggest driver of cost, will the Minister acknowledge that the political paralysis that has become all too familiar here has cost our public services, our education system and our children dear?

Mr Givan: I very much want to make sure that the Executive are able to deliver on all the key issues facing the citizens whom we serve. Over the past eight months, there has been clear evidence that we have been able to do that. I cite, for the Member's benefit, the early learning and childcare strategy. After a full month of implementation, over £2 million has gone into the pockets of hard-working families. That is a sign that the Executive are delivering. I brought the scheme forward, and the Finance Minister and colleagues supported me in that. We are taking action. I also announced major capital spend for a new special educational needs strategy and new capital build projects. We are making progress on a whole range of areas, and I trust that that will be the case in the future. I say to the Member that, in the past, the Assembly did not operate in the way that it should have, and there were multiple occasions under the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party when the Assembly collapsed.

Mr Givan: Since taking up office, I have received invitations to meet schools, individuals and many organisations. I have accepted 324 invitations and fulfilled hundreds of them, including visits to many schools and community facilities that represent every part of our society. Given the significant demands on my diary, it would not be possible to accommodate every request.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, in response — you did not say this in your answer — to a colleague of mine, Councillor de Faoite, you indicated the large number of organisations that have been declined meetings. What do you say to those organisations, many of which are charities and which are legally registered with the Charity Commission, Companies House and all sorts of other legal routes, that are startled to see you decline meetings with them but accept meetings with an umbrella group linked to paramilitary organisations?

Mr Givan: I highlighted in the response to the question that I have accepted 324 invitations. I have discharged hundreds of those requests. I have been in countless schools and community facilities that represent every section of our society and every sector in education. If Members were to put that question to every other Minister, I would be interested to hear how many invites they have accepted and meetings they have attended and to compare my record with theirs. That is maybe something that colleagues will do.

I will not make any apology for making sure that we seek to move every part of our society forward. Unlike the Member's previous leader, the late John Hume, I do have concern and share some of the concerns that people have expressed. When John Hume embraced Gerry Adams and Sinn Féin, while the IRA was up to its neck in murdering the people of our country, his response was:

I, however, do have concern, and I share those concerns, but I will continue to work in every community to bring them forward.

Mr Mathison: Will the Minister provide an assessment of the extent to which he considers that the Loyalist Communities Council (LCC) represents the views of proscribed, unlawful paramilitary organisations and, on that basis, explain the rationale as to why it was appropriate to hear its views on education policy?

Mr Givan: Every part of our society has to be able to move forward. I have often said that, just because you have a past, that does not mean that you should not have a future. My family locked up, day after day, in the Maze prison some of the very people whom I have been criticised for meeting. Members of my family served in the H-blocks and were shot at going to work. My uncle took 13 bullets as he drove down the motorway. My father served in the loyalist and republican wings. The Alliance Party and others here campaigned vociferously to get all the prisoners released. I campaigned against the Belfast Agreement. Now the Alliance Party and others who championed the early release of mass murderers into our society have the cheek to criticise me for wanting to move our society forward. I will not be lectured by those who are acting in a very hypocritical fashion on the issue.

Mr Buckley: There are Members in the Chamber who believe that, just because they are now elected representatives, their heinous terrorist acts and convictions are in some way justified. History records that the Nazis had a similar ideology.

To get back to the substance of the issue, I ask the Minister what work is being done to support working-class Protestant boys who continue to feel the worst impact of social deprivation and educational underachievement in Northern Ireland.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. I was shocked when I heard Pat Sheehan justify the heinous acts of the Provisional IRA on the basis that he now has an electoral mandate. His mandate does not change the fact that he was a convicted terrorist for a proscribed organisation. Those who participated, just because they managed to get votes to get elected to the House, will not be viewed differently from loyalists whom they now criticise me for meeting.

A significant amount of support is already available to help address underachievement among working-class Protestant boys. I refer the Member to targeting social need, which accounts for approximately £75 million. I also safeguarded the extended schools programme budget this year to maintain funding of £8 million, and that assists 450 eligible schools. We then have 'A Fair Start' programmes, many of which benefit everybody, irrespective of religious background, which is the right thing to do. Later this week, I will officially announce the RAISE programme, which, again, is about trying to address the educational underachievement that exists in many of our working-class communities but is particularly acute among those from a Protestant/loyalist background.

Mr Givan: A task force has been commissioned to progress that important work in the pursuit of consistency and equity of support. The task force held its first meeting on Friday 27 September. It is chaired by the chief executive of the Controlled Schools' Support Council (CSSC) and includes senior representation from the Department of Education and the Education Authority.

The task force will develop a proposed model for controlled schools support, including a dedicated body to include managing authority responsibility. It is due to report to me by December 2024. I will be in a position to provide a further update to the House in due course.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for his update on that really important work. Does he agree that it shows his commitment and that of our party to ensuring that all education sectors in Northern Ireland are treated equally and have the same representation across the board, which they rightly deserve?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments. It is not just my view that there needs to be that support for the controlled sector; it comes from the independent review of education report, which made that recommendation. There is an evidence base for doing so, and one of the comments that were highlighted in the report is:

The independent review of education also referenced what was then a recent landscape review of the EA. That landscape review produced similar findings and highlighted many of the same failings for the controlled sector that the independent review of education had highlighted and on which it made recommendations.

Mrs Guy: Does the Minister acknowledge that he is going against the recommendation of the independent review of education by establishing yet another management authority in Northern Ireland rather than setting up a single management authority?

Mr Givan: No, I do not. It is interesting that the Alliance Party now seems to be positioning itself against the controlled sector, yet that party brought through the Integrated Education Act to give preferential treatment to one sector. What I am after is equity for all sectors. That is why I support the proposal and ask that the task force report to me by the end of the year.

Mr McGrath: Sorry. I did not realise that I had a question.

Mr Givan: It is for the Education Authority to determine what measures can be taken to improve the management of school transport at the start of the year. My Department is, however, committed to supporting the EA in delivering those improvements. The EA is developing a smart transport project that will digitise key transport functions, such as route planning, and introduce other digital solutions, enabling it to have visibility of all services travelling to a school. That will allow the EA to optimise the school transport network, deliver efficiencies and improve the information available to parents about transport arrangements.

Transport assistance is provided to over 90,000 pupils travelling to and from school each day, of whom around 10,000 have an additional transport requirement detailed in their statement of special educational need. The number of children with a statement of SEN requiring bespoke transport arrangements continues to increase. The EA can only start arranging transport once a school placement has been confirmed. That can present operational challenges in the management of transport provision at the start of the school year, especially in relation to taxi transport. As a potential enhancement of the current model, the EA is piloting a seven-seater vehicle in its fleet to determine whether that affords flexibility in the delivery of transport for pupils who need more bespoke arrangements and would help minimise disruption and delays at the start of the school year.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for working so diligently and quickly through his questions.

Does the Minister agree that school principals know pretty much from the beginning of one year what they will require in the following year and that there should be a procedure for EA to interact with school principals much earlier to determine what needs there are, rather than waiting until the beginning of September to see problems?

Mr Givan: I like to facilitate everybody in asking their questions and engaging with me.

The Member is right about the sharing of information. That is why the digital scheme will be helpful. It will help to capture that data and make it more readily available to those who are involved in taking the decisions. Part of the end-to-end review of special educational needs is about looking at the processes that are involved. Streamlining those processes, sharing information and all that should help decisions to be made more speedily and effectively. I recognise that, in some cases, that was not what it should have been in September. That is partly a result of the process whereby you secure a placement and then seek to put in the transport arrangements. In some cases, that has required new provision and Access NI checks, all of which has led to delay. That is regrettable, and we need to find better ways to improve the process.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his update and the news of a new digital solution, but I do not think that the digital solution will reach into the policy failures here. It is a draconian transport policy. We see failures every year, particularly around the transfer test, with parents having to opt for schools that do not comply with the policy. There are also bullying issues where young people —

Mr Speaker: Question, Mr Butler.

Mr Butler: — have to attend schools other than the one closest to them. Will the Minister commit to a full and fundamental review and reform of the transport policy?

Mr Givan: The policy is underpinned by legislation in many respects. A full review, which some Members have advocated, may require legislative change. I am keen to look at transport in its totality. The Department spends approximately £120 million a year on transport, which is a significant amount of funding. Some colleagues advocate that the current two-mile distance for primary schools and three-mile distance for secondary schools is too restrictive and would like to see it made more accessible. That would present a clear funding challenge. Our transport policy underpins the plurality of choice of type of school. If we were to look at the policy comprehensively, that may lead to changes that require legislation. However, we have to look at it. It is about providing the service in the right place for pupils, but there is also an issue as regards the increased expenditure. From the public's perspective, we need to be satisfied that the money is being well spent and can be justified.

Mr Givan: A review of the home to school transport policy commenced in 2018, However it was paused by the then Minister due to the pandemic and further suspended pending the outcome of the independent review of education. It is important to note that the transport policy supports other policies in the Department, such as parental preference and special educational needs. Work progresses on the end-to-end review of SEN. Work is already under way on an action plan arising from the EA's landscape review to include detailed consideration of the operational delivery of services such as school transport. Any review of the home to school transport policy should complement and build on the outcomes from all those work streams. It is in that context that I will consider the utility and timing of a new separate review of the transport policy.

Mr Speaker: Time is up for listed questions. I commend the Minister for learning to speed-read since becoming Education Minister. It is good that he is learning something. We move on to topical questions.

Mr Givan: I assure the Member that there has been no pause in the development of the childcare strategy. We prioritised the establishment of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme. It was important that we set that up, and it has been rolled out across Northern Ireland incredibly well. Early Years is the organisation that the Department commissioned to carry out that work, and the uptake demonstrates the efficient manner in which the childcare subsidy scheme has been delivered. The 15%, in addition to the 20% tax-free childcare allowance, has proven to be the right model on which to base the scheme.

We have also been taking forward other work, including identifying what preschool provision could move to be standardised as full time as opposed to part-time. We are developing that, and I hope to be in a position in due course to announce which 100 settings can move to that full-time provision. We are also using the information that has been gathered from the childcare subsidy scheme to inform all of the work that will take place to develop a comprehensive strategy.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister, for your detailed answer. We know that parents across our constituencies pay what is almost a second mortgage for childcare. Do you have a rough timeline for when we will see the childcare strategy?

Mr Givan: It will take a number of years to get the final comprehensive childcare strategy in place. My engagement with the stakeholders has indicated that they want it to be comprehensive and detailed. That has not prevented us, as an Executive, from taking forward measures around the childcare subsidy scheme, including the standardisation of preschool provision towards full-time places. I want to do more where I can, but we need to get the development of the strategy right and engage with as many different organisations as we can to shape the totality of the comprehensive scheme when it comes forward by way of the strategy.

Mr Speaker: Questions 2 and 5 have been withdrawn.

Mr Givan: The Executive agreed that £25 million be allocated towards that, and we have been drawing that down since September and October of this year. If you applied that to the full financial year, you would need in the ballpark of £50 million to do what we currently do. We need to build on that, which is why, as we develop the scheme, I will continue to put proposals to the Executive on what further funding will be necessary to build on the work that we have started.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, I appreciate that you have a family-centred approach to the roll-out of the programme: how many families have benefited from it?

Mr Givan: As of 7 October, 12,966 children and 1,524 providers had registered for the scheme, and the first payments were made just last month. In September, the scheme alone saved parents almost £1 million on their childcare bills, along with the additional £1·1 million of savings through the tax-free childcare allowance from Westminster. That is a demonstration of how the Executive and the Department are making an impact. From speaking to families, I know that they have greatly appreciated the support because they are finding it difficult. I have also had feedback to indicate that some of those families have been able to increase the number of hours that they work.

That is a key component underpinning the scheme. It is not just about helping to meet the costs of childcare but enabling women, in most cases, to re-engage in the workforce or to do more through their employment. I have some evidence that suggests that that is happening.

Mr Givan: I had a very helpful meeting, organised by Michelle Guy and Nick Mathison, with a number of principals. We talked through all the issues that are impacting on our special schools, particularly the concern about the potential withdrawal of nurses but also changes that have resulted from allied health professionals withdrawing from those settings. On the back of that meeting, I have corresponded with the Health Minister, and I believe that we have a date for another meeting with Nick, Michelle and the principals to go through the issues with the Health Minister.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. Will you commit to work with the Health Minister to instigate a review of the level of nursing provision in special schools in order to ensure that all students receive safe and appropriate medical care?

Mr Givan: The Member rightly highlights the collaborative way in which Departments need to operate in order to meet the needs of the children and young people in our special schools. We will not be able to provide an education for those children and young people if we do not have the appropriate professional support from the Department of Health and the trusts. It is critical that that support is put in place. Clear concern is being raised by teaching professionals and principals that the withdrawal of services is already having an impact on the educational potential of those children and young people. I was particularly struck by the fact that, in one of the schools that I visited, the only way in which one child was able to be at school was to have her parent or grandparent stay in an annex beside her classroom for three to four hours a day. Otherwise, because of her complex medical needs and provision not being made by the health trust, she would not be allowed to be in the school. That is not satisfactory — far from it — but I need the Department of Health to step up and help me on that.

Mr Givan: A number of months ago, the Treasury Minister James Murray MP asked to engage with me as a result of the Labour Party's election manifesto commitment to apply VAT to private schools. We had that engagement, I outlined my opposition to what was proposed, and we have continued, with our officials, to engage. I met James Murray again on 7 October to highlight my concerns. We have made some progress on VAT exemption in the case of group A voluntary grammar schools, but we continue to have issues with group B voluntary grammar schools and grammar schools that have prep departments. The proposal also has a negative impact on independent schools in Northern Ireland, and we continue to make the case on their behalf.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. What is the position today, and how many schools in Northern Ireland will that affect?

Mr Givan: Treasury has advised that a change to the definition of a private school that is set out in the draft legislation is not required for grammar schools that charge a capital fee of up to £140. Nine voluntary grammar schools charge that capital fee, and they will not be within the scope of the legislation. A further 12 schools with prep or boarding departments may be within the scope of the legislation, and my officials continue to present evidence that, we believe, should justify their exemption. We await clarification from the Treasury on that matter.

Mr Givan: Any funding is subject to the allocation that I receive in the Department. Education is not funded to the level that we all want it to be. That has implications for resources, but I am happy to write to the Member on the case that she has raised in order to provide specific details for that organisation.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Minister for his answer. Early engagement with a second language has benefits educationally and psychologically, as well as for employment prospects for children and young people. If the budget allows this in the future, will the Minister consider reviewing the funding for that?

Mr Givan: I am happy to look at any proposals. I have visited a number of Irish-medium schools, and I have been particularly impressed by the cognitive impact of learning another language. It has a clear educational benefit for those who immerse themselves in the Irish-medium system and those who learn other languages. There is a clear correlation between that cognitive ability and abilities in other parts of those children's education. I am more than happy to support proposals that will have a positive impact. I come back to the point that the financial resources that my Department needs are significant and that it is underfunded.

Mr Givan: The consultation was launched in June to gather stakeholders' views on matters such as the need for statutory guidance on school uniforms, particularly on the cost and affordability of uniforms, the use of branded items and sole-supplier arrangements. The consultation closed on 27 September, and there was a large response to it. I am pleased to say that many people shared their views with us. There were just under 7,500 responses overall, and approximately 4,000 of those were from children and young people.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister. Minister, when do you hope to be in a position to introduce legislation on school uniforms?

Mr Givan: Once we have analysed the consultation responses, I would be keen to bring forward legislation in the coming months so that the Committee can carry out its scrutiny role and the Assembly can give due consideration to it. I hope to bring legislation to my Executive colleagues for their consideration in the next number of months.

Mr Givan: Last week, I met the independent autism reviewer, and we discussed those very issues, including support for families and young people in particular, especially in early intervention. All the evidence shows that the sooner that you can intervene and provide that support, the better your outcome. Part of the special educational needs end-to-end review has been about looking at all those issues. That review is coming to a conclusion. I hope to be able to provide an update to the House about how we will take forward special educational needs transformation across all the issues, including autism.

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

The Minister almost read out my second question about early intervention. Will the Minister commit to making early intervention a priority in the Department's approach to special educational needs?

Mr Givan: One of the key outworkings of the review is to identify how you can move those interventions to a much earlier stage. I assure the Member that I very much believe in early intervention. The challenge has always been about meeting the current need whilst investing further upstream in earlier intervention. We need to be able to do what we currently do, but we need the additional investment. That is why a significant bid has been put forward as part of the transformation, and the transformation board will assess the Department's bid in due course, but a key component of the bid is how we can transform our approach to special educational needs provision.

Mr Speaker: We do not have time for further questions to the Minister of Education, so we will move to questions to the Minister of Finance.

Dr Archibald (The Minister of Finance): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will group questions 1 and 3.

I established and appointed members to the interim public-sector transformation board earlier this year. A call for proposals was issued to Departments, and the interim board has been working to assess the proposals to determine which ones are transformative. It has now completed the first stage of its assessment process. Forty-seven proposals were received in total, 29 of which continue to move forward. Eleven of those have progressed to a stage two assessment, whereby, having received feedback from the interim board, Departments will submit a revised proposal by 18 October for a final assessment. The remaining 18 proposals have been included in a digital landscape review, allowing the interim board to consider them collectively and to take a more strategic, system-wide approach to digital transformation.

The Department of Health has four proposals that continue to progress. One of them has moved to the stage two assessment, and three are included in the digital landscape review. In due course, the interim board will provide advice to me on what proposals it considers to be transformational. I will then bring recommendations to the Executive for agreement.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for her answer. We understand that the £235 million will be delivered in tranches of £47 million over five years. Will the Minister outline whether the flexibility and profile of that funding have been agreed with Treasury to ensure that we maximise the investment over that timescale?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, we are getting quite the way through the financial year. The timescale was always going to be challenging, given that we had to set up the board this year. I have raised that point in my engagement with the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in order to seek some flexibility on it, should we need it. I anticipate that we will not spend the full £47 million this year. We want to get the best bang for our buck from the money that we have. We have to make sure that the money that is spent is spent on projects that are actually transformational.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for her answer. Is it acceptable to her that the NIO permanent secretary sits on the public-sector transformation board, giving the UK Government a de facto say on key devolved spending priorities and, some might argue, even more of a say than it gives the Executive?

Dr Archibald: I do not accept the latter point. Obviously, the interim board is working under the Executive's direction. They agreed to my transformation programme proposal at our meeting on 9 May. The British Government's role is primarily through having representation on the interim board. As I outlined to Mr Mathison, the board's role is to determine what proposals are transformational. Ultimately, it will still be for the Executive to make the decisions on proposals that are recommended for funding. The British Government's role was set out in the financial package, in correspondence from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and in the interim fiscal framework. Assessing proposals as transformative is part of their role on the transformation board.

Mr Kelly: Will the Minister expand on the expected outcome of the digital landscape review that she mentioned? Will projects go ahead in the same way after it is completed?

Dr Archibald: Given the number of departmental proposals that were digital in nature, the interim board saw an opportunity to consider them collectively, allowing for a more strategic, system-wide approach to digital transformation. It therefore recommended undertaking a digital landscape review to facilitate that. I agreed to the development of terms of reference for the digital landscape review in my letter of 30 August to the head of the Civil Service. The Executive Office is taking the lead in developing the terms of reference on behalf of the interim board and will be taking the work forward with the support of my Department. Obviously, we are not able to pre-empt the outcome of the review or what the interim board will advise based on its findings, and it will also need to go through a procurement process. The review is expected to be commissioned and concluded by the end of this year.

Dr Aiken: Further to my friend Mr Durkan's comments, are we envisaging Julie Harrison becoming a member of the permanent public-sector transformation board? Is that enshrining the Northern Ireland Office at the centre of our Government?

Dr Archibald: As has been set out, we appointed members to an interim board. We are working through the development of terms of reference, and everything will have to come back to the Executive for decision-making. I am clear in my mind that the public-sector transformation board, as it is constituted, relates only to the £235 million of transformation funding that was in the financial package. The terms of the financial package required the setting up of a transformation board, with membership to have representation from the British Government as well as the Executive, to enable access to that pot of funding, but I am clear that the decision-making in relation to the allocation of that funding rests solely with the Executive. I expect that that will be set out in the terms of reference.

Dr Archibald: All of us want to see our town centres and shopping areas thriving. The back in business scheme aims to bring vibrancy, footfall and investment back to our high streets, while providing businesses with a boost at the start of their business journey, helping to support jobs and bringing long-term vacant units back into use.

The scheme offers businesses a 50% rates discount for up to two years if they move into premises that were previously used for retail purposes and have been unoccupied for 12 months or more. Since the launch of the back in business scheme in May 2024, 18 businesses have benefited from the 50% rates discount, which has provided almost £41,000 in rate support.

I was pleased to visit Coleraine recently, in the Member's constituency, and meet two businesses that have received support from the scheme. One of those businesses occupied a building in the heart of the town that had been vacant for 10 years prior to its use under the scheme. It was encouraging to hear how the scheme is supporting new businesses, while giving premises, which had been vacant for a long time, a new lease of life. I urge anyone who is planning to start a business or expand their existing business to consider setting up in an empty unit and availing themselves of the rates support on offer through the back in business scheme.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for her answer. What other Departments is the Department of Finance working with to promote town centres? Are those collaborations proving to be successful in establishing a broader strategy to create vibrant, sustainable and economically thriving town centres?

Dr Archibald: The Member will be aware that the high street task force was set up back in the previous mandate. Its report and recommendations were published in March 2022, I think. The reinstatement of the back in business scheme and the extension of the small business rate relief scheme were the recommendations from my Department. Both of those measures have been implemented. I am always happy to engage with other Departments. Obviously, they have particular remits: the regeneration and promotion of towns, cities and villages is with the Department for Communities, and the Department for the Economy has a role in supporting businesses. I am happy to engage with colleagues in relation to those.

Miss Brogan: Will the Minister outline what other support is available to existing businesses?

Dr Archibald: Around 75% of non-domestic ratepayers get some form of rates support. Over 63% of retailers get some form of support, with 80% of that provided to small retailers through the small business rate relief scheme because they have a net annual value (NAV) of £15,000 or less; around 30,000 businesses from our tax base of just under 75,000 businesses get small business rate relief; and 4,474 manufacturers here pay the lowest business rates on these islands. They get 70% off their rates by virtue of industrial derating, which is a tax relief that is unique to this jurisdiction.

Mr McGrath: The small business rate relief scheme, which did have to close for a period because this place was collapsed, should never have done so. It is a valuable source of assistance to businesses on our high streets, including in my constituency of South Down, where many were impacted on by flooding. Will the Minister advise how much money was paid into the Department from the time the scheme closed in March 2023 until it reopened in May of this year?

Dr Archibald: I do not have that information in front of me, but I am happy to write to the Member in relation to that.

Dr Archibald: I am keen to see a baby loss certificate scheme taken forward as quickly as possible. The scheme would provide official recognition to parents who have suffered the tragedy of losing a baby before 24 weeks. Losses of this kind affect many families, causing very real pain and heartache. Sadly, this is often met with silence and stigma, with many parents feeling isolated in their grief. I am determined that parents' heartache and grief be recognised, and I want to give people an opportunity to acknowledge these losses, perhaps for the first time for some, to bring some comfort to their suffering. I met the Health Minister in September to receive an update on progress from the General Register Office (GRO) officials in my Department, who are working closely with Department of Health officials on how the baby loss certificate scheme might be developed, learning from the equivalent schemes in England and Scotland. That work is continuing at pace. I have instructed my officials to put the required legislation in place to provide a statutory footing for a scheme here. They are working to include a baby loss certificate scheme in the deaths and stillbirths registration Bill, which is under development.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Minister for her answer. Acknowledging baby loss in legislation is crucial, so I am grateful for that. Minister, will the scheme go out to public consultation?

Dr Archibald: It is important to me that the baby loss certificate scheme meets the needs of families, charities and third-sector organisations. I am sure that, like me, the Member has had a lot of correspondence in relation to the issue. It has touched many people already that we are keen to develop and progress a baby loss certificate scheme, so, as that legislation is developed, we will consider how best to shape the proposed scheme around the needs and expectations of those who will access it.

Mr McNulty: Minister, last week was Baby Loss Awareness Week, a painful reminder that parents who lose their babies during pregnancy will feel every year. Can you guarantee that, by the time of Baby Loss Awareness Week next year, the baby loss certificate scheme and any accompanying legislation will have been introduced?

Dr Archibald: I have directed GRO officials who are drafting the deaths and stillbirths registrations legislation to include the ability to register deaths and stillbirths online and by phone. We will include in that legislation provision for a baby loss certificate scheme. We may have to go to public consultation. That might be the right thing to do to get the views of people who will access the scheme. The intention would be to bring forward secondary regulations. I want to do that as quickly as possible. It is my commitment to do that as quickly as possible. I do not want to nail my colours to the mast by saying that we will definitely have it by next October, but that is certainly my intention. It is something that, as an Assembly, we are all committed to and want to see delivered as quickly as possible. Obviously, however, we have to go through the appropriate processes and allow the legislation and any consultation that might have to be carried out to proceed. I am committed to delivering it as quickly as I can.

Dr Archibald: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 5 and 11 together.

Over 1,400 responses were received from ratepayers, businesses and a range of other stakeholders.

It is for that reason that I wanted to ensure that, with my officials, I took the time to examine carefully all the views from those who responded.

I will be engaging with Executive colleagues on the next steps and will continue my engagement with business bodies, organisations and wider society to work together to build a progressive rates system that grows our tax base and stimulates our economy. As part of that work, I have now presented short-, medium- and long-term rating policy proposals, including a more strategic, longer-term policy approach to the Executive for consideration. It is my intention to make a statement to the Assembly after the Executive have agreed the way forward.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Minister for her response and for her efforts in that regard. More specifically, is she able to give an update on industrial derating?

Dr Archibald: I have spoken on that issue a number of times in the Assembly, because I recognise the role that industrial derating has played in supporting 4,400-plus manufacturers and its contribution to our having a strong manufacturing sector here. The measure supports indigenous businesses, with over 50% of the recipients being eligible for a small business rate relief valuation at a threshold of £15,000 net annual value (NAV). Anything that I and the Executive do on our rating policy has to align very much with what we are trying to achieve with our economic vision of creating good jobs and improving productivity, decarbonisation and regional balance.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for her answer. Despite the hard-working businesses in our town centres, there is a proliferation of vacant premises in my constituency of East Antrim. Does the Minister agree that high street businesses are getting an unfair deal from the current rating system? What can be done to make competition from online shopping, where rent and rates are much less, fairer in order to protect town centre businesses?

Dr Archibald: There are a number of factors at play that have had an impact on our village, town and city centres over recent years, not least the proliferation of online shopping. It is just so handy for many people to choose that option. The Executive need to take a collective approach to supporting our towns and our high streets. When I engage with businesses and business organisations, they outline a number of pressures that they are facing on a lot of fronts and tell me that general costs have increased very significantly. Their rates bill is one of the many bills that they receive.

Furthermore, it is important to recognise that rates are our major source of income generation. When we want to do anything to give support or rate relief, we have to recognise that that is money either that is not there to be spent on public services or that will increase everybody else's rates bill. That is the balance that we have to strike with the rating system. We want to stimulate our economy, but we also need to be able to fund our public services.

Ms McLaughlin: The Budget sustainability plan explores raising rates this year from 2·5% to 4%. Ratepayers have seen increases in the regional rate and the district rate. As you indicated in your response to a previous question, rates are increasing and services are decreasing. Given that previous answer, will you commit to not putting the burden on ratepayers for the rest of the mandate?

Dr Archibald: The Budget sustainability plan reflects the amounts that will have to be raised through the regional rate to meet our obligation to raise the £113 million that needs to be raised over two years. The decision that the Executive took last year to keep the increase in the regional rate in line with inflation was taken to do exactly as the Member outlined, which was to mitigate the impact that would be felt by households and businesses. That was despite the pressure that we were getting from the Treasury as a result of its revenue-raising demands. There is a good, strong argument for that Executive decision, and, as I said to Mr Donnelly, we have to get right the balance between being able to fund public services and ensuring that the burden does not fall too hard on too many people.

Dr Archibald: The Budget sustainability plan is a first step on the Executive's journey towards fulfilling our longer-term ambition of integrating sustainability discussions into the heart of our processes and decision-making. As part of the plan, the Executive have agreed to a work plan that includes the development and implementation of five-year departmental financial sustainability plans. Work is ongoing to finalise the full content of the work plan. However, it is envisaged that the five-year plans will become a rolling programme of work with Departments. In parallel, my officials will look to take forward the development and implementation of a Budget improvement plan.

The Budget sustainability plan, in and of itself, will not address all the fiscal problems that the Executive face. It provides the Executive with a strategic framework to work together to develop and introduce fiscally sustainable policies to deliver the level of public services that our citizens deserve. Individual Ministers must now begin to address the overcommitments in the current year and take steps to live within budget. However, that work needs to be underpinned by a new approach from the British Government that sees proper investment in public services and infrastructure. The Budget at the end of October is the opportunity for them to signal that intention.

Ms Á Murphy: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, how does the Budget sustainability plan address some of the issues that the Executive face?

Dr Archibald: The Budget sustainability plan is not, and was never intended to be, a panacea for addressing all the fiscal issues that the Executive face. Rather, it is the first step in a financial sustainability journey, providing a strategic framework that will allow Departments to consider how they can deliver long-term, sustainable public services and everything that is required for them to be able to do that.

I hope that people will take confidence from the work that has already taken place, and that the strategic framework will enable further work on longer-term departmental plans and a strategic Budget improvement plan. Those will contribute to the delivery of efficient and effective public services, and the long-term fiscal stability that our citizens and those who access public services so rightly expect.

Ms Forsythe: The Budget sustainability plan is based on the plan to have a balanced Budget for 2024-25. Given the Minister's recent announcement of £769 million of overcommitment for the year, and the fact that we are still waiting to hear the outcome of the monitoring round, is she confident that the 2024-25 Budget can be balanced?

Dr Archibald: I have certainly made no secret of how difficult the financial situation is, particularly for this year. It will still be a challenge for Departments to live within budget. As we have already outlined in contributions to the Assembly, we anticipate a significant amount of Barnett consequentials for the rest of this year, which will help to offset the overcommitments that Departments have projected. However, individual Departments still need to work to address those.

The problems that the Executive face this year, and faced in previous years, are the consequences of the chronic underfunding of our public services by successive British Governments. We got the interim fiscal framework agreed and, because of that, we had a 24% increase to the needs-based factor codified. That provided us with some additional funding this year, but it is still going to be a challenge to live within Budget.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, do you agree that any Department that is reporting an overcommitment should not be committing to additional discretionary spend? What steps can you take to ensure that that situation does not arise again?

Dr Archibald: I agree with the Member that addressing overcommitments and living within the budget should be the top priority for any Minister. All Ministers are autonomous within their Departments and have to take decisions to live responsibly, but the consequences of any Department overspending this year would be dire for the Executive as a whole, given the fact that the overcommitted funding would come out of next year's Budget. It would also call into question the write-off of the £559 million of what the Treasury called "debt" from previous years. It is incumbent on all Ministers to take the decisions that are necessary to live within their budgets and not put the Executive in that position.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, with the greatest respect, the Budget sustainability plan is waffle. Most of the text simply summarises actions that were obvious anyway, such as seeking multi-year Budgets. Honestly, I say that with the greatest respect. At appendix D, however, there are some interesting tables on the options for revenue-raising some £113 million. One of those options is to raise £6 million through car parking charges. It points out that delaying the implementation of the Hospital Parking Charges Act 2022 will realise £6 million of savings and, therefore, revenue. Is it the position of you and your Department to count, as a revenue-raising measure, delaying the implementation of a piece of private Member's legislation that one of your colleagues introduced?

Mr Speaker: Are you making a speech, Mr O'Toole, or are you going to ask a question? Minister.

Dr Archibald: Obviously, I do not agree with the Member's interpretation of the Budget sustainability plan. Appendix D is a list of proposals from Departments. The Executive will take a decision, and Ministers will take decisions in each of their Departments on which of those they will take forward.

Dr Archibald: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 7 and 12 together.

I am continuing to push for the reversal of the British Government's pause on growth deal funding. My officials are working closely with the two growth deal teams to provide the necessary evidence for Treasury to consider as part of the spending review. During the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee meeting on 3 October, I raised with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury the importance of the growth deals to our economic development and reiterated the need for funding to be reinstated for the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West growth deals.

I am pleased to advise that, at their meeting on 2 October, the Executive agreed to recommendations that I brought forward, asking them to reaffirm their funding commitments to the two growth deals and the £100 million complementary fund. While we continue to collectively press the Treasury to reverse its decision to pause the £162 million British Government funding contribution to the growth deals, the Executive's agreement to reaffirm their funding commitment should help to provide clarity amidst the confusion that has been caused by Treasury, especially — I know that the Member will be pleased about this — on the A4 Enniskillen bypass, which is currently out to tender.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister and the Executive for what they have been doing on the Mid South West growth deal and, indeed, the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal. They are an economic game changer and catalyst. I appreciate that the Minister will have some vested interest in the issue for her area. What is her assessment of the NIO's willingness and ability to lobby effectively on the issue to ensure that the money is drawn down and the pause is lifted? It is vital for the two affected council areas. We have a situation in which two council areas are missing out. What is her assessment of the NIO's —

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Mrs Erskine: — ability to do that?

Dr Archibald: The strong collective message that we have been able to send, as an Executive and as parties across the board, on the need to unpause the funding commitment to the growth deals has been a real strength. The deal partners have been engaging directly with the NIO — I think that they met the British Secretary of State last week — and have been reassured by that engagement. That is some of the feedback that I have received. Other Members may have had similar feedback.

There is still work to do. Certainly, I have been encouraging the deal partners. Later this week, I will meet the Mid South West growth deal partners again. We will continue to put that pressure on and use whatever avenue we have. I have continued to press the issue with Treasury, in particular, to ensure that the commitment is reinstated.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. We appreciate the work that has gone into trying to get the deals back on track. The Mid South West deal was due to be signed with heads of agreement on Wednesday. That shows how far we were along the line with that.

Will you accompany the councils to London next weekend to lobby parliamentarians on the issues around the deal? What other suggestions have you for keeping the deal alive so that the Government know precisely how important it is?

Mr Speaker: Minister, you have about 10 seconds in which to answer.

Dr Archibald: I have not been invited to go to London next week, but I would be happy to attend with them. As I said to Deborah, I will meet the Mid South West growth deal partners again this week. We all have avenues that we can use for lobbying, and I will use my relationship with Treasury.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I was going to say, "In October". When I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the Financial Interministerial Standing Committee (FISC) the week before last, there was an indication that, rather than having to wait until January to get clear confirmation of Barnett consequentials for the year, as is usual, substantive clarity on that would be given when the British Chancellor announces the Budget on 30 October. October monitoring has therefore been commissioned. When we see the outcome of the Budget, we will seek to make those allocations.

Mr O'Toole: If I am to divine from that, Minister, that, in all likelihood, the monitoring round will not happen in October, two things flow from that: either you and your officials were wrong to say in June that monitoring rounds had to happen in the specified month and cannot be delayed for major things such as Budgets and general elections, or they can be delayed. Can you clarify why it was wrong then and not now?

Dr Archibald: I do not think that my officials or I said that. We said that we wanted to give Departments clarity on their funding allocations as quickly as possible so that they could make decisions or not make decisions that would be detrimental to the services that they deliver. That is why there was an urgency around June monitoring.

By the way, I feel that there is still that urgency in making allocations. I would prefer to do so as soon as possible, but, if we are to get substantive clarity on the total Barnett consequentials for the rest of the year on 30 October, it makes sense that we wait until then so that we can give Departments as much certainty as possible.

Mr Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Dr Archibald: I think that the Member has corresponded with me on the issue. I recognise that public realm works sometimes inconvenience businesses, so I will consider cases for relief on their individual merits. Members should be aware that that will always be done in the context that I outlined to Mr Donnelly: when we award relief for a specific purpose, we have less money to spend on public services or there are higher rates bills for other homes and businesses.

Under the rating and valuation system, every case is assessed by Land and Property Services (LPS) on its merits by considering the impact of the work on the NAV of the property. That is determined by established case law and a long-standing statutory framework that supports the stability of a tax base used to fund central and local government services.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her response and welcome her comments. Will the Minister commit to working closely with the council to see what can be done? One business has talked about there being a 40% reduction in footfall at weekends. That is not sustainable in the long term. Will the Minister commit to working closely with the council to try to provide some support?

Dr Archibald: LPS is aware that the ongoing works in Foyle Street affect up to 29 properties and is dealing with applications from two businesses in relation to those works. We encourage businesses to engage with LPS. I am happy for my officials to work with council officials to see what the impact is.

Dr Archibald: No, I do not think that it is appropriate to meet the LCC to discuss issues of public policy. We are 26 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, so there is no place in this society for paramilitary groups. There is no role for paramilitary groups. There is no excuse for the continued existence of those groups. Despite the work of the PSNI's paramilitary crime task force (PCTF) and the tackling paramilitarism programme, those paramilitary groups continue to exist. Tolerance of those groups is indefensible and must be called out.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.

Does she agree that the only reason that anyone should meet those groups is to tell them to leave the stage?

Dr Archibald: I fully agree. The only issue that needs to be discussed with the LCC is ending paramilitarism and the anti-community criminality that criminal gangs engage in. The recent meetings between DUP Ministers and the LCC provide political cover and implicit justification to those groups. That is unacceptable.

Mrs Erskine: I declare an interest in that my husband's family lives along the A5.

Dr Archibald: I do not have the information that the Member has sought in front of me, but, if she wants to write to me about that specific issue, I am happy to correspond with her.

Mrs Erskine: Thank you. A key concern of landowners who live along the A5 that has come up time and again is the purchase of land for developmental versus agricultural reasons. Will that be a consideration of her Department for other road infrastructure projects?

Dr Archibald: I am happy for the Member to engage with LPS officials, who lead on that area of work. If you correspond with me, I can facilitate that.

Dr Archibald: Members will be aware of my intention to bring forward a Bill to amend the current law on marriage and civil partnership. Those important reforms will bring belief marriage within the statutory framework and increase the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership from 16 to 18. I am pleased that the Executive approved those proposals at their meeting on 26 September. My officials have finalised instructions to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), and drafting work is under way.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for that answer. When do you expect a Bill to be ready for consideration by the Assembly?

Dr Archibald: The marriage and civil partnership Bill is earmarked as a year-2 Bill, so it will be introduced during the 2025-26 session. I hope that the Bill will be ready for consideration before then and that we might be able to introduce it earlier than currently scheduled. Depending, obviously, on competing drafting resources, I hope that the Bill will be ready for consideration by the Assembly before next summer and before the official start of the year-2 session.

Dr Archibald: At the meeting of the FISC the week before last, as I said in my earlier answers, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicated that we would have substantive clarity about the total amount of Barnett consequentials that we are getting for the rest of the year at the Budget on 30 October. Previous indications from Treasury officials through engagement with my Department officials put that in the region of £500 million. Although that is a significant amount of money, when set against the overcommitments that Departments are projecting, there will clearly still be challenges for us.

Ms Á Murphy: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, how soon do you intend to allocate those additional funds?

Dr Archibald: As I mentioned in my answer to an earlier question, my intention is to allocate the money as part of the October monitoring round. The timing has been revised to allow departmental allocations to be informed by the outcome of the autumn Budget.

Dr Archibald: I do not have the exact timetable in front of me, but I will do it from memory. The British Chancellor will announce her Budget on 30 October. We will then engage in developing the Executive's Budget on the basis of that. Departments have already submitted their projections for the next three years. That exercise was commissioned a number of months ago, so we have their information, I suppose, ready to go, once the total amounts are confirmed. My intention is to do a Budget some time in early December, probably. It will then go out for a full consultation, which, obviously, we were not able to do this year.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for her response. Does the Minister believe that the Budget will better reflect the funding needed to mitigate climate change, particularly by including more funding for the Lough Neagh action plan?

Dr Archibald: Each Minister will make their pitch for what, they think, is the priority in their Department. We are also in the position where a draft Programme for Government is out for consultation. That will also shape the allocation of funding. Climate change and our obligations under the Climate Change Act 2022 have to be a priority for every Minister and in the decisions on how they spend money. Part of my Department's work on the Budget improvement plan will look at wider issues than just how we spend our money. It will be about how we do gender budgeting or green budgeting, for example, and about other issues that can be applied to that process.

Mr Speaker: Mr Crawford is not in his place. I call Robbie Butler.

Mr Butler: I am glad I was in the Chamber.

Dr Archibald: I have had quite a bit of correspondence on the issue, and I know that a number of Members are concerned about it. It is a complex area of law, and we do not have the expertise in my Department currently to properly develop the policy proposals that we would need. I met the Minister for Communities last week about another issue and raised the matter with him. He is happy for our officials to work together. We need to look at how we can progress the matter, and I have asked my officials to do that.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for her answer. Some legislation is passing through Westminster. Certainly, a White Paper was produced, and I believe that the Labour Government will bring that through. Will the Minister's Department work with the UK Government on that, and, if we do not have the facility or recourse here, can we expedite things by tabling something at Westminster?

Dr Archibald: One way that we want to move forward on the issue is by looking at what happens in other jurisdictions, because there are different legislative frameworks. That will be part of the policy development work. I am happy to engage with officials about that.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister.

Mr Speaker: Joanne Bunting has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Justice. As the Justice Minister is unavailable, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will respond on her behalf. 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 question.

Mr Muir: I start by offering my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Mary Ward, who recently lost her life under horrific circumstances, becoming the fourth woman to be killed here in just six weeks. My heartfelt sympathies go out to the families of the other three woman — Montserrat Martorell, Sophie Watson and Rachel Simpson — who tragically lost their lives in recent months, as well as to all those who have lost loved ones due to the actions of another. The profound and traumatic impact of those untimely deaths on their families and friends is indescribable.

We fully recognise that Northern Ireland can be a dangerous place for women, as shown by the troubling statistics on domestic and sexual abuse (DSA). That is exactly why the new domestic and sexual abuse strategy was developed: to address these deeply concerning issues. Although such instances are appalling, they are, unfortunately, not new challenges in this context. The aim of the new strategy is to ensure that domestic and sexual abuse is not tolerated in Northern Ireland and that everyone can be safe and free from fear. The clear message is that domestic and sexual abuse is everyone's business and that each and every one of us has a role to play in preventing and tackling it. There are also clear, strong interdependencies with the strategic framework on ending violence against women and girls. We must recognise that violence perpetrated against women and girls is not restricted just to situations of domestic and sexual abuse but can involve wider issues, reinforcing the need for the Executive's strategic framework on ending violence against women and girls in parallel with the domestic and sexual abuse strategy.

That having been said, we are acutely aware that women and girls are disproportionately affected by domestic and sexual abuse, which is why the Department of Justice and Department of Health officials worked closely with colleagues in the Executive Office, who lead on the ending violence against women and girls strategy, to ensure that efforts are aligned.

Given the urgent nature of the question, there has not been the opportunity for a discussion to take place on whether changes are required to the domestic and sexual abuse strategy. However, it is important to note the recency of its publication and to recognise that it was carefully designed alongside subject-matter experts and those with lived experience to address the needs of all victims and to hold perpetrators to account. The strategy is built around five pillars: partnership; prevention; children and young people; support and provision; and justice. Those are the areas that stakeholders considered that we need to focus our efforts on in order to lever the biggest change. A number of actions will be taken forward under those pillars over the lifetime of the strategy. The integrated performance framework will enable progress to be monitored and efforts to be refocused, if needs be.

It is worth reemphasising that tackling domestic and sexual abuse is everyone's business. These issues cannot be eradicated by any single Department alone. Indeed, they require a whole-of-society approach, with collaboration across government, public services and communities.

Ms Bunting: While I am disappointed that the Justice Minister is not in her place, I am grateful to her colleague for stepping up and answering such a serious question on a serious issue that faces our society at present.

As the Minister outlined, the woman who have been killed in the past six weeks are: Sophie Watson, on 18 August in Magherafelt; Montserrat Martorell, on 25 August in Londonderry; Rachel Simpson, on 13 September in Belfast; and Mary Ward, on 1 October in Belfast.

The Minister will appreciate, as we all do, that strategies are useful and provide a long-term intent and framework, but actions speak louder than words on a page. I therefore ask the Minister whether he can give some indication of what practical measures will be brought forward and implemented as a matter of urgency and without delay to help people who are in abusive relationships to escape before any more lives are lost.

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her follow-up question. It is absolutely critical that we take practical actions, and there are many outlined in the strategies that we will talk about today. One thing that is particularly critical is how we work with the community and voluntary sector and those who provide support in the community. It is absolutely critical that we do that, because they are often the people on the front line, giving that assistance. They gave assistance to my mother when she was a victim of domestic abuse, and I want to say thank you to them for doing that. One of the challenges that we have is how we support the work that is being done in society in Northern Ireland through the Budget. It is critical that we support those organisations through next year's Budget.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much to Andrew for stepping in.

To highlight it, in the course of this question for urgent oral answer, two women will report domestic abuse. That really sets in context the importance of why we are here. I ask the Minister, beyond strategies and action plans, on the back of four women having been murdered in six weeks, many of whom were murdered in their own homes, what specific action has the Minister taken over that period and what meetings has she had in responding to this emergency of femicide within our community?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. I cannot answer for the diary of the Justice Minister, but it is a priority for her to take forward this action. That is reflected in legislation that was introduced in the previous mandate. It is a very serious issue not just for the Justice Minister but for the whole of the Executive and society. One of the most important aspects is breaking the stigma associated with it so that people do not hesitate to report it to ensure that victims can be freed from the perpetrators around us.

Mr Donnelly: Is the strategy funded and what is its budget?.

Mr Muir: I recognise the need for funding to be provided to support delivery of outcomes under the draft strategy. The Minister of Justice has indicated that she will continue to use her seat on the Executive to argue for adequate funding to be made available to allow us to respond effectively to reduce and eliminate domestic and sexual abuse, safeguard those at risk, support those who have experienced it and bring perpetrators to justice. However, I also acknowledge the budgetary constraints that are faced across the whole of public-sector funding and recognise the need for us to focus on priorities and work collaboratively to ensure that limited resources are used effectively and efficiently deliver results. In 2024-25, the DSA ring-fenced budget is £1·62 million.

Ms D Armstrong: Has the Justice Minister engaged with the PSNI to address the real issue of femicide in Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: There is regular engagement between the Justice Minister and the PSNI. This subject will feature in many of their meetings and discussions. It is also one of the issues where we collectively need to support the police so that they have the resources to deal with it. This is a collective effort, not just for the police, but for us all.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you may not be able to deal with the detail of this. Section 8 of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 included anonymity not just for people who were accused of rape but for those who experienced rape or were victims of it. This is a very serious and sensitive subject. Media organisations have got in touch with me to say that there is now a very serious situation in Northern Ireland where they are legally unable to report when women who are murdered are also victims of rape. This is a very serious matter: it pertains to public information around the appalling epidemic of sexual violence and femicide that are intimately, unfortunately, connected. I ask that the Minister speaks to his colleague the Justice Minister to look at that piece of legislation and see whether it requires repeal or amendment. At the minute, media organisations, in many cases, do not feel legally able to report that many female victims of murder —

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole, the question has been asked.

Mr O'Toole: — have also been raped.

Mr Muir: The Member says that this is a serious issue. In all our discussions today and thereafter we have to take a victim-centred approach. I am happy to discuss this with my colleague the Justice Minister after Question Time and in due course. I recognise the issue that the Member raises. It is an important issue and we need to be victim-centred.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for his update to the House. I know that he has been a long-term campaigner on this important issue. I thank him for all the work that he continues to do. I ask why the Justice Minister herself was unable to come to the House to answer Members' questions.

Mr Muir: The Justice Minister is unavailable to answer questions in the Chamber today, and I am happy to answer questions from Members on the issue.

Ms Egan: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber today to talk about this very serious issue. Far too many women have been lost to femicide in Northern Ireland. Will changes be made to the multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARAC) as a result of the report undertaken by Marcella Leonard?

Mr Muir: I welcome Leonard Consultancy's review of the MARAC process. The Justice Minister has indicated that she is committed to ensuring that the risk posed to victims of domestic abuse is assessed and managed as effectively as possible. Her Department has set up a dedicated multi-agency oversight group to consider the report's recommendations and develop costed options for reform, informed by a number of working groups that have been established and will report to it. The oversight group's core membership includes the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and the police, with other organisations invited to contribute. This oversight group will also seek to take account of the views and experience of partners in the community and voluntary sector.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for standing in for the Justice Minister. It is an incredibly sensitive time to be speaking. We had reports yesterday of a young child in Dungannon losing their life in suspicious circumstances, and a number of people have been arrested. Inarguably, young people are disproportionately affected when women are killed or when violence is inflicted on them. Does the Minister agree that what we have been doing over recent years is perhaps not working and that enhanced custodial sentences may need to form part of the strategy's wider work?

Mr Muir: The sentencing framework for crimes is a matter that is often discussed, and I know that it is reviewed in many instances. It has to be taken into account. You mention children and young people, and it is about ensuring that we support them, because they are often the most significant victims and live with it for the rest of their life. We need to ensure that we are supporting them, and that is why it is important that the Department of Justice work with the Department of Health and the Department of Education. Further linkages have been established in recent times. As a member of a board of governors, I know that phone calls are often received to the school the night before so that the school is then aware that there are issues at home.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for coming to the Chamber to answer our questions. I am aware of breaking news that another woman in Northern Ireland has lost her life today. Do you accept that there is a need for a complete overhaul of the family court system? I have discussed that with the Minister. There are real flaws in the family court system. Minister, is there space in the strategy to consider having specialised sexual offences and domestic abuse courts, with the appropriate support and the required wrap-around services provided?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her question. There is always scope to do things better. It is one of the issues with the constrained mandate that we have left for legislative reform. We lost two years, and we are now working through the rest of the mandate. That is why it is important that, when we are introducing legislation, we ensure that it is properly scrutinised and given proper consideration and that we are able to make it progress through the Assembly so that we can deliver for the victims in Northern Ireland.

Ms Forsythe: Twenty-four women have been murdered in Northern Ireland since 2020. Based on the information given in the previous question, that is 25 now, and five in the past six weeks. That is a huge escalation, and it is terrifying that Northern Ireland is one of the most dangerous places in Europe for women to live. Given that, with the murder of Mary Ward, the PSNI referred itself to the ombudsman directly, and given the recent handling of the Katie Simpson case, will the Minister of Justice be taking any steps to undertake an urgent review of the handling of those cases in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: I am hesitant to talk about individual cases, particularly the Mary Ward case, because it is currently in the criminal justice system. Every situation that we hear about is of massive concern, not only to me but to everyone in the Chamber. That is why I am glad that we are able to agree such strategies. We have a collective role to play in challenging some of the misogynistic attitudes in society and in encouraging people to make a report to the police at the earliest opportunity. I could give examples but will not do so of many cases in which the police were being contacted a number of years into a very violent relationship, and sometimes, unfortunately, that was too late.

Mrs Dodds: I appreciate the Minister's standing in today. Will he convey to the Minister of Justice the need to support women who suffer domestic and violent abuse and the need to support organisations such as Nexus, which does so much work in that area? Will the Minister of Justice write to Members outlining her interactions with the Minister of Health about the funding of programmes?

Mr Muir: The Member highlights the funding challenges that we as an Executive face. She also highlights the need to be able to support organisations such as the one that she mentioned and to do much more than that in the community and voluntary sector in order to provide the necessary assistance. In the circumstances in my family, Women's Aid was excellent in the support that it gave. That is why it is important that we work with the Finance Minister on the financial settlement that we get for Northern Ireland. Our departmental budgets are not sufficient, and we are not able to deliver the services that we ought to be delivering across Northern Ireland. I will bring the issues that the Member has raised with me to the Justice Minister.

Mr McNulty: It is disappointing that the Justice Minister is not here to answer questions on the matter. It is terribly sad that another young woman has lost her life in the past day. Does the stand-in Minister agree that the chronic underfunding of the police by the Minister's Department, which is leading to insufficient officer numbers and inadequately trained officers, is, despite red flags, allowing tragic murders of women such as that of Mary Ward that could have been prevented with proper training and staffing levels?

Mr Muir: The issue is too serious to drag it into that. The collective issue for the Executive is the budgets that we have and how we can fund our public services. We need to work on that issue with the UK Government to ensure that we can fund not just the Police Service but the community and voluntary organisations that we have mentioned and our criminal justice system. I will say no more. As someone who saw his mother being a victim of domestic abuse, my focus is on the victims today.

Mr Carroll: Limited resources and financial prudence should not come into the discussion about trying to prevent violence and support women who have been victims of violence. I appreciate that you are standing in today, Minister, but have there been discussions about extra funding being made available to support people leaving abusive or violent relationships and situations? As has been mentioned, often but not always, it is a current or ex-partner who is violent.

Mr Muir: The Member raises a legitimate point. A challenge for us with regard to budgets for the next financial year is how we can support and deliver those services across Northern Ireland. There is a collective will here, so let us ensure that we can work together. A strong message should be sent that this is entirely wrong and is a concern for us. We should support people in need.

Mr Kingston: I refer the Minister to the domestic and sexual abuse strategy: the second pillar on prevention and the fifth pillar on justice. Given the pressure on the policing budget, does the Minister, on behalf of his colleague, recognise the importance of the neighbourhood policing budget to ensure visibility and community reach in relation to education, awareness-raising, investigation and prosecution?

Mr Muir: I will touch on the issue of prevention. We need to get to a situation where it does not occur and no one is subjected to domestic or sexual abuse. That is about support for the police, which we need to work collectively on, but also about wider society. It is also partly about attitudes. People need to be conscious of what they say and what they post on social media about women and girls in Northern Ireland. We need to draw a line under that and ensure that we all stand together in saying that some of the attitudes that have been expressed are entirely unacceptable.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Members and Miniser. That concludes questions to the Minister on that important issue. Members, please take your ease for a moment.

Mr Gaston: As I understand it, at present no one in Northern Ireland grows hops. The principal reason, therefore, for the regulations is to give DAERA the power to conduct checks on third-country hops entering Northern Ireland to ensure that they are compliant with EU rules on third-country hops entering the EU single market.

As part of the United Kingdom rather than the EU, we should be subject to UK rules on third-country hops imports, not those of the European Union. The regulations presumably make the rest of our country — England, Wales and Scotland — a third country in the same way as other Windsor framework legislation has done. Thus, the purpose of the regulations is to help alienate one part of the UK from another, and, that being the case, they are contrary to international law and, in particular, the UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which insures against:

In that context, I have no hesitation in voting for the annulment of the regulations, and I urge anyone who does not want to see Northern Ireland's place in the UK in jeopardy to do likewise.

If today's prayer of annulment is lost, it should act as a belated wake-up call to unionists in the House. This is, in a sense, a dry run for the vote that we will have in December. We know where Sinn Féin stands; we know where the SDLP stands; and we know where the rigorous implementers of the Alliance Party stand. They are all happy to vote the prayer down today, just as they will be when they take advantage of the first majoritarian vote in the Chamber in half a century to ride roughshod over unionists and dispense with the cross-community guarantees of the Belfast Agreement in the most significant vote in Northern Ireland's history.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister to respond to the debate.

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

I will begin by setting out the context to explain why my Department has laid the Hops Certification (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. Until December 2023, the UK's domestic hops regulations — the Hops Certification Regulations 1979, which were made just a few years after I was born — were aligned with those of the European Union. However, the European Union introduced two new pieces of legislation. First, in December 2023, the Commission published new implementing and delegated regulations (EU) 2023/2834 and (EU) 2023/2835 for the import of rice, cereal, sugar and hops from third countries in the Official Journal. Following that, the Commission published new implementing and delegated regulations (EU) 2024/601 and (EU) 2024/602 for hops certification in March 2024. Those regulations replaced and revoked previous regulations on the importation of hops from third countries and hops certification, both of which are listed in annex 2 of the Windsor framework. As a result of that, Northern Ireland is required to comply with the new updated hops regulations.

The publication of the new hops regulations has led to a loss of enforcement powers for various Northern Ireland hops bodies, specifically the Rural Payments Agency for hops certification and DAERA's Forest Service for checks on hops consignments imported from third countries. With that in mind, my Department wishes to update the domestic Hops Certification Regulations 1979 on a Northern Ireland basis to reinstate lost enforcement and certification powers.

To ensure that the voices of stakeholders were heard early in the process, the hops statutory rule was the subject of a consultation between 7 May 2024 and 2 July 2024. The Department received no responses to the consultation. That was not unforeseen. There are currently no hop growers in Northern Ireland, and the new hops statutory rule simply updates references to the new EU rules so as to maintain enforcement powers in Northern Ireland.

During and after the consultation period, officials from my Department provided two oral briefings to the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. During those Committee meetings and in the debate today, Members have raised concerns and questions as to whether the hops statutory rule will create divergence from Great Britain and whether the legislation is required at all, as there are currently no hops producers in Northern Ireland.

As has been stated, the proposed changes to current legislation are technical and will not represent a deviation from the underlying policy position in Great Britain. Many of the small changes are, in fact, positive: for example, enabling hard copy and digital documentation and an extra two weeks to report to the Rural Payments Agency, a certification and enforcement authority.

Whilst there are no hop growers in Northern Ireland, there are businesses that import hops. A lack of powers to perform the necessary checks on hop consignments from third countries has the potential to impact negatively on consumer confidence and protection. For instance, not being able to enforce the movement of hops into Northern Ireland could allow products of a lesser standard to come into our local market. We should not risk Northern Ireland's reputation for always providing a good-quality pint.

In the absence of the legislation, the Department is not fulfilling its responsibilities under the withdrawal agreement. There is a risk of the UK Government being subject to EU infringement proceedings for failing to implement EU regulations that fall under annex 2 of the Windsor framework, something that we can ill afford. It is something that, given our cost pressures, such as those at Lough Neagh, we should do.

Not having the legislation would leave Northern Ireland as the only region of the UK without enforcement powers. Should a producer wish to begin growing hops in Northern Ireland, in the absence of the legislation, their produce could not be certified. Northern Ireland would be the only region in the UK where a producer would be unable to have their produce certified. Annulling the legislation therefore has the potential to create divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I am committed to ensuring that hop stakeholders, such as local breweries, hobbyists and supply specialists, continue to be able to import hops of a high standard into Northern Ireland. To ensure the facilitation of trade on the global market, it is important that the regulations are in place in Northern Ireland. I urge Members to vote against the prayer of annulment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Declan McAleer to conclude and make a winding-up speech.

Mr McAleer: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. First, I will make a winding-up speech, and then I will make some comments on behalf of Sinn Féin.

At the beginning of the debate, Robbie Butler, in his first foray into the Chamber as the Chair of the Committee — I welcome him to the role — pointed out that new regulations came into effect on 24 March. They were applied under annex 2 of the Windsor framework, were passed by negative resolution and came into operation on 18 October. He said that the Committee had already had two oral briefings on the regulations.

Michelle McIlveen highlighted the fact that it was a protocol-related matter. She was not happy with it being a stringent requirement for imports from Britain to Northern Ireland. She recognised the limited practical impact. However, the DUP does not support regulations that may cause divergence of the North from Britain.

John Blair also highlighted the fact that the Committee had been fully briefed. He pointed out that it was a purely technical matter, that there are no hop growers here and there were no responses to the eight-week consultation. He also highlighted the prospect of "tridivergence" between Britain, the North and the EU and the risk of EU infraction. He also made the point that it was the outworking of Brexit and that we must do our best to protect our growers.

Mr McGlone: Will the Member give way?

Mr McAleer: Yes, of course.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat as sin a dhéanamh.

Has the Member, in all his deliberations and research, found anything advantageous to voting for the annulment today?

Mr McAleer: I thank the Member for his intervention. No, nothing whatever. In fact, it would be hugely detrimental to growers here. Whilst we do not have hop farms here, we have hobbyist growers. If we vote for the prayer of annulment, we risk creating divergence not just from the EU but from Britain.

Mr Gaston of the TUV made the point that no one grows hops here and said that we should be subject to UK not EU rules. He said that it was a dry run for the vote in December.

The last Member to speak was the Minister. Again, he said that they are EU regulations on the import of hops and are embedded in annex 2 of the Windsor framework. He said that the public consultation carried out between 7 May and 2 July gained no responses. He said that the legislation was a simple update of the EU rules to make positive technical changes, particularly on the digitisation of certification. The Minister warned that, if we do not pass the legislation, there will be an impact on consumer confidence, a risk of lower-standard hops in the local market and a risk of EU infractions. We do not want to end up in a situation where there are no regulations, meaning that growers here would not be able to have their hops certified and we would be the only part of these regions in that situation. It is important that we facilitate international trade.

I will speak briefly on behalf of Sinn Féin. The hops certification regulations are a routine part of business. They refer to fairly minor and largely technical updates to existing legislation that will keep us in line with Britain and the EU on this niche issue. We know that it is niche, because, after the Department put out the consultation, it received no responses because there are no hop growers here.

Failure to update the regulations will see the Department not fulfil its obligations under the withdrawal agreement, risk reputational damage internationally and, possibly, even be subject to EU infringement proceedings. Furthermore, it will make the importation of hops for private hobbyist growers more difficult, with the lack of certification meaning that they could get lower-quality hops that do not meet safety standards. In addition, if somebody ever wants to start a commercial hop-growing business here, as we have seen happen in other parts of Ireland — for example, there is a successful hop farm in the Wicklow mountains — it will make it more difficult for them to do so.

In short, refusing to allow the updated regulations to come into force would provide no benefit to any person or business anywhere in the North. It would make a hobby that many people here enjoy more difficult, less safe and, in all likelihood, more expensive. It would deter the creation of potential future businesses and risk reputational damage to the Department as well as potential EU infringement proceedings. Blocking the updated regulations would create real and immediate diversions in Britain and the EU.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will give Members a few moments to leave the Chamber in an orderly fashion.

Mr Kingston: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Brian. 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. Brian, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Members will be aware of the vital role of the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice in providing palliative care for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions and in supporting their families through extremely challenging times. From its premises in north Belfast, the Children's Hospice provides care for more than 350 children and their families throughout Northern Ireland, in their home setting and at Horizon House. Due to rising operating costs, the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice is facing financial challenges that have already caused a reduction in bed capacity and placed the long-term provision of care in jeopardy. That decrease in capacity limits the availability of and access to respite care at Horizon House for families across Northern Ireland. It is time for the Department of Health to step up and provide the quantum of funding that is required to protect that work for future children and families who may be affected by life-threatening and life-limiting conditions.

The work of the Children's Hospice is far-reaching and impactful, as will be any cuts to services that will, inevitably, come from a failure to place this vital inpatient facility and outreach provision for our community on a more stable footing. It should be the collective aim of all in this place to ensure that the Children's Hospice is in a position to offer and deliver its full suite of services to every family that requires them. The Alliance Party amendment to our motion highlights a desire to see the provision of palliative care as a core Health and Social Care (HSC) service that is not dependent on any charitable fundraising. We have every sympathy with that intention. We are also cognisant, however, that steps need to be taken in the short term to stabilise current services and ingrain a degree of sustainability. Increasing statutory funding to meet 50% of the costs incurred by the Children's Hospice in delivering lifeline care and support to children and their families represents a reasonable, proportionate and minimum requirement of the Department and the Executive.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. This is an important debate, and it is important to focus on funding, but there is another element involved, which is the lack of a palliative care strategy in Northern Ireland. Does the Member agree that a good palliative care strategy is necessary and that children who suffer from long-term and debilitating illnesses, as well as adults right across Northern Ireland, deserve the opportunity to live well with a care strategy in place? We hope that the Minister will speak to that as well.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Member for making the point about the need for a palliative care strategy.

The Northern Ireland Hospice and the Children's Hospice taken together require more than £20 million annually to provide their services. At present, statutory grants account for around 30% of that. That places an immense focus on charitable fundraising and, to a large extent, leaves the success of the service dependent on the generosity of the wider public and businesses. That imbalance needs to be addressed. The hospices' energy bills have risen massively in recent times, and the cost-of-living crisis has led to spikes in the cost of essential clinical and catering supplies as well as in the cost of insurance and security provision.

Future budget allocations must recognise and rectify the debilitating impact that inflation has had on the Children's Hospice's expenditure. The charity's reserves are already dwindling. The hospice has long campaigned for a 50:50 funding model, and the Minister now needs to bring forward clear, time-bound actions to bring that model to fruition in the weeks and months ahead. The demand for services is increasing, yet income from fundraising has been decreasing. The hospice should not be expected to absorb increases in the cost of providing care in order to ease pressures in other areas of the health service. Every sector and service provider ought to be treated fairly.

It is crucial that the Department come up with an agreed benchmark of financial need rather than rely on commissioning and accounting methods that do not have the confidence of the Children's Hospice. The Treasury and the Minister of Finance also have a responsibility to ensure that Northern Ireland has access to needs-based funding. Ultimately, however, there needs to be an agreed, ambitious plan from the Department of Health for how additional resources will be allocated to fortify and enhance our palliative care and hospice network. That must be done in co-design with the Children's Hospice, with children and their families at its core.

It is not good enough for the Minister simply to say that it is for the Children's Hospice and the Northern Ireland Hospice more generally to review their finances, get to grips with the situations themselves and chart a more sustainable way forward. In fact, that would be entirely at odds with the approach that the Department of Health has adopted for its own budgetary situation. Staff are already going above and beyond to deliver the best possible care in a highly constrained environment. The current financial settlement is simply not sustainable.

Let us not forget that the Children's Hospice and the Northern Ireland Hospice more generally are contributing enormously to care in the community beyond the confines of their inpatient services. That includes specialist nursing care at home and the Tiny Horizons service, which provides palliative care for patients right from diagnosis during pregnancy. The Northern Ireland Hospice as a whole remains deeply committed to providing specialist palliative care. It is imperative that it see practical action from all parties in the Assembly to ensure that it can deliver on its mission.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Danny Donnelly to move the amendment.

Mr Donnelly: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Danny. You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Danny, please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I support the motion. I thank Mr Kingston and his DUP colleagues for bringing it to the Assembly. I ask all Members to support my party's amendment, which will add one line to the motion to ask that the Assembly:

The motion rightly acknowledges the important role of the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice in providing palliative care for children and support for their families in an extremely difficult and challenging situation. Palliative care is an essential part of Health and Social Care. That must include children's palliative care. I have had the privilege of personal involvement in delivering palliative care to patients. I know how important it is. It requires a wide range of specialists to ensure that the needs of patients are met: doctors, nurses, social workers and many others. We must ensure that every patient is given the highest-quality treatment and support, and that their families and close relatives are given the support that is necessary to relieve suffering and to deal with difficult conditions, including depression and anxiety related to those conditions. That should apply regardless of age, background or any other distinction.

Many brilliant charities and community and voluntary organisations provide that essential service. We would be lost without them, their workers and their volunteers. As we have discussed on previous occasions, many community and voluntary organisations have been struggling to maintain their much-needed services, largely as a consequence of the 2023 Budget and its significant cuts to core grant funding — a tragic consequence of political instability in this place — and the loss of vital European funding.

A vital service like palliative care should be provided directly by departmental funding. Despite the obvious financial challenges that face the Department of Health and the Executive as a whole, I encourage the Health Minister to do what he can in collaboration with his Executive colleagues and the UK Government to ensure that funding is delivered for palliative care services. In 2016, the then Health Minister, who is now First Minister, launched 'A Strategy for Children's Palliative and End-of-Life Care 2016-26'. It included 23 objectives that were intended to provide an improved outcomes-based approach to palliative and end-of-life care for children from 2016 to 2026. Objective 7 is particularly relevant to the motion and amendment:

In the most-recent update, in 2021, the Department outlined that, while 24/7 services are available to children in Northern Ireland, the services are provided on an informal basis and in the absence of a formalised, commissioned approach. That reflects the tireless work of the staff of the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice and others, such as children's community nurses, but the Department must do more to see that objective realised and a clear framework established to ensure that 24/7 support is provided. As with the Bengoa report, highlighted by Professor Bengoa's return to Northern Ireland last week, we are now eight years into that 10-year strategy. Will the Minister, therefore, provide an update on the implementation of that strategy, particularly those objectives that will support the vital role of the Children's Hospice?

To address funding shortages in the Department of Health and the Executive as a whole, we must address the underlying lack of sustainability of the existing funding model. That requires engagement with the new UK Government and the Treasury. We have raised the issue many times that Northern Ireland is underfunded relative to its need. My party has been calling for the implementation of an appropriate fiscal floor to ensure that the required funding is in place for necessary services such as palliative care. However, the Assembly also has to take responsibility for devolved matters such as health. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Assembly and Executive to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

The Health Minister must take responsibility and lead on the essential transformation of our health and social care system. The blueprint is there. We welcome that the Minister launched his consultation on the hospital reconfiguration framework recently. Fundamental reform of our health and social care system will lead to savings in the medium to long term, which should allow us to invest more efficiently in desperately needed services such as palliative care.

The motion refers particularly to the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice. The Children's Hospice provides an invaluable service through its multidisciplinary team, which includes specialist nursing care, supported breaks, end-of-life care and family bereavement support.

It is the only such service in Northern Ireland, and each year the Children's Hospice provides care for over 350 children and their families.

Earlier this year, we saw the devastating impact of budget cuts, with a planned reduction in bed capacity to ensure a continued and sustainable service. After the Assembly was restored in February, all parties correctly raised concerns about the cuts to the Children's Hospice, and everyone recognises the value of the support that it provides.

Too many debates and motions here are focused on confrontation between parties, which contributes to a growing sense of disillusion with the Assembly and what we can and have achieved. This is an issue that requires action from the Department of Health but also a coordinated approach from the Executive more broadly. I hope that we can show that we are capable of delivering on such an important issue.

It is right that the Assembly take the opportunity to recognise the vital role of the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice in providing palliative care to children and their families. The recent financial pressures have been extremely concerning, and we must do what we can to deliver sustainable funding for the Children's Hospice. Our amendment is intended to reflect the importance of palliative care in the Children's Hospice and more widely. That should be a key priority for the Department of Health. For the reasons that I have outlined, I encourage the Minister to do what he can to reinstate that vital funding, and I encourage all Members to support our amendment.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the DUP for the motion and the Alliance Party for the amendment, both of which we support. The issue has touched all of us, and we understand the huge challenges that surround it.

Many parents and family members will become carers for their loved ones who are suffering from terminal and life-limiting illnesses. One in two people is affected by cancer at some stage in their lives, and for many families who receive the devastating news that their child has a terminal illness, their worlds are shattered. That news can come at any time: during pregnancy, after the birth of their child or later in a child's life. It throws parents and families into a whole new scenario that many of them could never have imagined and many subsequently struggle to navigate.

The role of the Children's Hospice in the North is therefore vital for the hundreds of babies, children and their families who are cared for each year through its antenatal, inpatient, community, social care and bereavement services. Therefore, any dilution or reduction in those services has significant ramifications for those families who rely heavily on their support whilst they are dealing with their child's diagnosis, coupled with the financial, social, emotional and psychological impacts that come with having a child or sibling with a life-limiting illness.

Palliative care should be viewed as a quality-of-life treatment. The specialist palliative care provided by the Children's Hospice should be non-negotiable for the children and their families when it is needed. I visited the Children's Hospice on several occasions over the past year and saw at first-hand how critical the service is for those who will, unfortunately, need to use it during their young lives. The importance of the provision of palliative care has been agreed as a priority for the Health Committee, and we intend to launch our inquiry into palliative care in the coming weeks. That important piece of work will include an exploration of the funding models for hospices.

For the Children's Hospice specifically, the abrupt decision of the Department in June 2023 to end funding that helped to provide invaluable respite to children and families is one that it has worked extremely hard to manage. It has consistently ensured that it was as self-sufficient as possible, with a large part of its financial income coming from charitable donations. However, with a hugely challenging economic climate, along with cuts to its non-recurrent funding, its ability to continue to deliver those full respite services has become unsustainable. Palliative and end-of-life care should not be a "would like"; it should be a necessity. It is something that we really must move to secure, especially for babies and children, through some of the most difficult times of their lives.

The Assembly recognises the enormity of the budgetary situation, and we will continue to fight for the funding that we are entitled to and deserve to deliver those public services. However, we must not be penny wise and pound foolish. The value of the provision of the excellent palliative care that is delivered by the Children's Hospice goes much further than just a bed. We must give all the children and their families the highest quality of care at that time of their lives and support them through all stages of that difficult journey.

Mr Chambers: I have nothing but admiration for our hospice and palliative care staff. Their contribution can have an enormous impact on not only the people whom they directly support but those people's loved ones. That is especially important in the case of the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice.

As is the case with the delivery of so many parts of health and care, end-of-life care has been greatly impacted on by inflationary pressures and rising demands, but it is a system that we simply could not do without. As such, there is a perfectly reasonable expectation that the state will provide funding towards its costs. The Department of Health already commits significant funding to it each year. I was glad that, within days of the restoration of the Executive in February, my party colleague Robin Swann was able to move quickly to reinstate funding that was at risk of removal and to place some of the other funding on a recurrent basis.

I am sure that many of us wish to see even greater funding being invested not only in end-of-life care but in the hugely important work that the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice does through its respite and short breaks services. Week after week, the Assembly debates motions calling on the Minister of Health to fund one thing or to increase funding for something else. It is almost as if some parties and some MLAs have forgotten how they voted on this year's Budget. We sit through non-binding debates and Question Time, with MLAs asking the Minister to do things that their very actions have prevented. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that funding for the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice will be on the Minister's radar, as will be all the other remaining issues, because, as I said, it is an incredible service that we simply could not do without.

Mr McGrath: Of course, the SDLP will support the motion and the amendment. We recognise the sterling work that is carried out by the Children's Hospice and acknowledge the financial pressures that it faces. We also agree that palliative care should be a core HSC service and would like the Minister to prioritise the inclusion of additional funding in future Health budgets. Of course, we would also like to see the Minister commit to funding 50% of the hospice's costs. Who could not support all that, given the nature of the hospice's work? It is entirely acceptable and appropriate to call for that, and that is why we are glad to support the motion and the amendment.

It would, however, be disingenuous of us, as legislators, not to fully scrutinise the motion and identify any issues with it. Today, we spent just over an hour scrutinising actual legislation and will probably now spend longer debating a motion that has no binding effect and will not result in a tangible outcome; it is simply the Assembly giving its view on the matter. Once again, we are being treated to a motion from one Executive party calling on another Executive party to do something, and we have another Executive party amending that motion so that the Executive party that tabled the motion has something else to do. I will make an effort to clarify what is taking place: we have a motion that calls on a Minister to do something and an amendment that aspires to see something further done, and, if the motion and the amendment are approved, they will be contained in a non-binding motion, meaning that the Minister does not have to do anything at all. Meanwhile, the Executive party with the financial brief is not contributing to the back and forth on the motion and the amendment.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that Executive parties are literally going through the motions?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr McGrath: A better way of putting it is that they are literally going through the amended motions.

This does not feel normal. All four Executive parties are participating in a debate with each other on a motion that has no binding effect. There will be no tangible outcome for the Children's Hospice, for the children and families who use its services or for any other service provider in the sector. The parties that brought forward the debate and the amendment today and that sit around the Executive table with one another know that the motion will not change the Budget allocation to the Department, which cannot survive on the budget that it has. Why is the issue not being debated around the Executive table? Why are no resolutions being brought to that forum? All that we have here today is a talking shop. At the end of the debate, the Minister could say that he will do all the things that are in the motion and the amendment, but there is absolutely no obligation on him to do so. Of course, the Executive parties all know that; they signed up to a Budget that does not give them the money to do anything further.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In advance of calling Órlaithí Flynn to speak, I remind you all that the motion is about the Children's Hospice.

Ms Flynn: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I support the motion with a deep sense of responsibility and, of course, urgency. The urgency is why we are discussing it today. The Children's Hospice provides vital life-affirming palliative care for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. As we know, it supports not just the young patients but their families, offering comfort and compassion during the most difficult times. Families often describe the Children's Hospice as their lifeline. It offers them a chance to catch their breath, knowing that their children are in the best possible hands. The service goes far beyond medical care, wrapping a blanket of support around families and helping them to navigate the most difficult of journeys.

The hospice has also been a place of innovation and resilience, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite such immense challenges, the organisation continues to adapt and provide essential services. It conducted 725 home visits and over 1,600 phone or video consultations, ensuring that no family felt isolated at a time when all the in-person support was severely limited. That determination to meet families' needs, even in the face of a global crisis, underscores the critical role that the hospice plays in our communities.

However, as has been said, the hospice is, as we know, facing significant financial pressures. The 2021-22 impact report highlighted that it took over £18 million to run the NI Children's Hospice that year. More than £6 million of that was generously donated by the public, including a local GAA club in west Belfast, O'Donnell's GAC, which raised over £90,000 through a sleep-out event. Although that public fundraising is fantastic and raises massive amounts of money, that level of funding, even with such public generosity, is not sustainable for the hospice in the long term, given the rising costs of care, inflation and the increased demand on its services. The hospice should not be left to rely primarily on the public's generosity to keep its doors open. The point has been made that, while we know that the hospice is the responsibility of the Department of Health and the Executive overall, everyone has a stake in it. No one wants to see the service fail or any of those families or children being let down. That is the reason for today's debate. We are highlighting the issue to, hopefully, show the public that we genuinely care. We know that, my God, the budgets are completely constrained and that the Health Minister is finding it very difficult to prioritise where he should put his money. We all get that. However, it is important that everyone in the Chamber, as elected representatives from right across the North, has the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns. Hopefully, we will get a resolution and see some action following today's debate.

The motion proposes that the Minister for Health try to cover 50% of the hospice costs, but this is not just about the shortfall in the budget; it is about affirming the right of every child in the North who needs specialist end-of-life care to receive it. Appropriate funding would not only sustain the hospice but enable it to continue alleviating the strain on our healthcare system by providing specialist end-of-life care at home and in the community.

Without that support, many families would face traumatic experiences of seeing loved ones suffer in pain without adequate help.

I call on the Assembly to support the motion and the amendment and advocate sustainable funding for the Children's Hospice. It is our duty to ensure that that lifeline for so many families not only survives but thrives, every child in need can access world-class palliative care and every family can find the comfort and support that they deserve during the hardest times.

Ms Mulholland: I recognise the essential role that the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice plays in the lives of children with life-limiting conditions and the families who love and care for them. The hospice provides not only critical palliative care for those children but much-needed emotional and practical support for families navigating the most challenging circumstances, as my extended family, unfortunately, has had to know.

The service is not just vital; it is absolutely irreplaceable. We know, however, that the hospice faces enormous financial pressures driven by rising costs and inflation. It is deeply concerning that a service that provides such crucial care to our most vulnerable children has to rely on charitable donations to survive. The Government must take responsibility for ensuring that care is funded sustainably and consistently year after year. We propose that children's palliative care should be formally recognised as a core part of the Health and Social Care system with guaranteed funding that keeps pace with inflation so that the burden of fundraising does not fall on the hospice or the families who depend on it.

The Northern Ireland Children's Hospice receives £1·9 million in core funding from the Department of Health, alongside that one-time payment of £85,000, yet rising costs, particularly due to inflation, have not been matched by that funding. As a result, the reduction in the number of beds that it offers represents a heartbreaking reality for children and families who need the hospice most. The hospice is the only service of its kind. There is nowhere else in Northern Ireland for them to go. It requires an investment to continue its life-saving work.

If we look at how children's palliative care is funded in other regions where Governments have stepped up in some way to support those essential services, we see that, in the past two financial years, the Scottish Government have covered Children's Hospices Across Scotland for up to 30% of its costs and the year before that it was 41·6 %. In Wales, they covered almost 20%, and, in England, they covered over 30%. In Northern Ireland, it is less than 10%. Those examples show that children's hospices in Great Britain are recognised as a fundamental part of healthcare, not just as optional charitable services. Northern Ireland must adopt that approach, but we are not there yet.

While the £85,000 cut from the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice's budget was reinstated for the rest of the financial year, the hospice faces significant financial pressure. Even with that core funding being guaranteed annually, it is not enough to meet the rising demand and costs. Without long-term, sustainable financial solutions, the hospice will continue to face the threat of cutting services, which no family relying on that care should ever have to hear about or worry about during that time. We cannot lose sight of the fact that behind the numbers that we are talking about are children and families who are already facing unimaginable challenges that no parent or child should ever have to face. They should never have to consider the added worry of whether a hospice will be in a position to provide care for their dying child.

The Northern Ireland Children's Hospice brings dignity, compassion and comfort to those families in their most vulnerable moments, and it is our duty as public representatives to ensure that the hospice has the financial support that it needs to continue that vital work. I call on the Minister of Health to make that long-term sustainable funding a priority and a permanent commitment, not a temporary solution or sticking plaster. My party, for its part, will continue to push for comprehensive funding that will allow the hospice to focus on what matters most: caring for children and families, not fundraising.

Ms Hunter: I hope that none of us in the Chamber ever find ourselves at the Children's Hospice, but its staff do exceptional work. I have spoken with some of its staff, and I know that it is a difficult job but it gives them a sense of fulfilment and purpose. It is crucial that we fund the service.

Few worse things can be imagined than for a parent to see their child suffer from a debilitating or life-threatening condition. There are few greater tragedies than for an infant to have had their childhood robbed from them due to illness, as they struggle to enjoy the quality of life and happiness that every child deserves. The work of the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice represents some of the most difficult work that can be done in our society and, surely, some of the most meaningful, helping parents to navigate or prepare for grief. I am happy, therefore, to support the motion. I ask that the Minister endeavours to do everything in his power to ensure that his Department prioritises future funding for the Children's Hospice and recognises the fact that that deeply valuable work has been made all the harder because it has not received funding in line with inflation.

Everyone in the Chamber is conscious of the challenges that the Department faces. Hard choices have to be made, but children should never be made to pay the price for those choices. Every child deserves to have dignity in life and dignity in death. A hallmark of any civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. In a place as relatively wealthy as ours, providing first-class palliative care for children is an obligation to ensure that families — mothers, fathers and siblings — are afforded the emotional and psychological support that they require as they manage life in the most cruel and tragic circumstances. I note that the motion rightly mentions the financial pressures faced and the urgent need that we have behind every one of us to ensure that we have investment for the service. The Executive must find the money.

Mr Gaston: I begin by commending the Members who tabled this motion on a very important matter and, indeed, the Alliance Party for its sensible amendment.

The Northern Ireland Children's Hospice does vital work that is, sadly, often overlooked by this place. It is left to community, grassroots organisations to raise the money that is essential to keep it operating. I think, for example, of an event in which my party colleague Alderman Stewart McDonald is heavily involved in my constituency. In recent years, Stewart's beloved Ahoghill Thistle FC has run a gala ball in aid of the Children's Hospice. I will give this year's event a small plug: it will take place on 2 November in the Galgorm, and everyone here would be made very welcome. Over the past four years, the annual event has raised an incredible £34,000, with last year's event raising over £13,000 alone.

I note with regret, however, the shortfall in statutory funding, which has failed to keep pace with inflation, as noted in the motion. I support the amendment, which is very much in line with the NHS's stated objective of providing a cradle-to-grave service for us all. In fact, without providing palliative care as a core Health and Social Care service, we cannot say that the NHS provides what its founders promised.

Without a doubt, the Health Minister will cite pressures on his budget, but the Department of Health is failing the whole hospice sector, including the Children's Hospice, not just when it comes to funding but on an even more basic level by failing to produce an up-to-date palliative care strategy. The production of a strategy does not require any great financial outlay. It does, however, show that the Department has a long-term vision and plan for the sector.

It is a sad reflection on the priorities of our society when there is a live debate about assisted suicide, yet those who care for people at the end of life are completely forgotten about. Will the Health Minister, when he is summing up today, confirm when he will publish an updated palliative care strategy? Those coming to the end of their life need to know that they are loved and appreciated. There is a real risk that what is being discussed in the media and, soon, in the Commons could result in the work in the palliative care sector being devalued to the point where assisted suicide is seen not so much as a choice but an expectation.

While the Assembly will today hear many fine words about the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice, I want to make it clear that the invaluable work that it does is not just appreciated with a nod during a debate such as this but is recognised as an integral part of the whole health service in Northern Ireland. I trust that, today, the House will send a strong message of love and compassion for the children who, sadly, find themselves in need of hospice care. It can do that best not merely by agreeing the motion in the Order Paper but by the Minister making a commitment that will be reported in Hansard that he will soon bring forward a palliative care strategy.

Mr Carroll: Like other Members, I commend the work done by the Children's Hospice and all the important and essential care that it provides, the palliative care that has been mentioned and the life-enhancing work and care provided to people with life-limiting conditions. I agree with the motion and the amendment that provision of that care and those services should not depend on charity or fundraising. Of course, that is not to knock the people who give up their time and efforts to volunteer: the point is that this should be a key and core aspect of public health, and the key word here is "public".

It is unacceptable in an organisation like the NHS, which is supposed to be, as has been said, from the cradle to the grave, that often, at both ends of that journey, services are either limited or are completely non-existent. The hospice and all health services should be fully publicly funded. Some might ask, "How?". I am sure that Members are preparing interventions to say, "You cannot do it", "There is not enough money", "Budgets are tight" and all that. That is really saying that it is OK to operate budgets and services on a shoestring. As to where the money should come from, briefly, Apple has robbed taxpayers of €13 billion in unpaid taxes. Globally, $2 trillion could be raised if the example of Spain was followed by imposing a feather-light wealth tax on the 0·5% richest households. Despite the panic often predicted around such measures, targeting extreme wealth has not resulted in the super-rich fleeing.

That is our choice: more of the same bean-counting approach or a rapid shift in direction that recognises the need to properly invest in all public services. In this context, we are discussing the fact that the hospice faced a budget cut of £85,000 last year. That was completely cruel, uncalled for and shocking. The hospice needs to be put back on a financially sustainable footing. The best way — the only way — is to make sure that it is fully publicly funded. That is the only way to make it properly sustainable.

It is concerning to find that, even in the aftermath of that cut being reinstated, the bed capacity of the hospice was reduced and limited, particularly at weekends. It is remarkable, when you think that around 350 children and their families use the hospice every year, that this is the only service of its kind. You cannot value the service or measure it in crude economic terms; it is completely invaluable. We know that, as has been said, families who have experienced its end-of-life and respite care have found it transformative and called it "a home away from home".

The hospice helps ease pressure on family relationships, improves mental health and gives time and space to plan the end-of-life care that is essential. Families who have used respite services have described them — it has been said already — as a lifeline. I pay tribute to someone I know, Matt Rooney, who has been so vocal on the benefits of respite services for himself and his family. He spoke out publicly last year about the enforced cuts. Care in all aspects should be socialised and should not fall on the shoulders of families or individuals.

It would, of course, be remiss not to mention the continuous austerity Budgets in this place, when it has sat, impacting on the healthcare and services that should be in place. It has been mentioned in passing, but the fact that there is no paediatric pathology service in the North is completely shocking. It is beyond tragic that, since 2019, paediatric post-mortem examinations have been carried out in Liverpool and around 240 families every year are forced to travel to England in the aftermath of the traumatic loss of a child. I want to know what the Minister is doing about that. There is more and more pressure —.

Ms Flynn: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Carroll: Sure.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Member for raising the issue of the paediatric pathology service. The Health Committees, North and South, held a joint meeting in Dublin last week at which the issue was raised. We hope that we might be able to find some sort of resolution. If there is an all-island resolution, regardless of what it is, we should work towards it.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for her intervention. I know —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: Thank you.

I know that the Member and others were at that meeting. It is good that the issue was raised. I hope that the issue of Apple, extra money and billions was raised. There may be certain Ministers in the South who do not want to invest in these services, but I am sure that that point was raised by the Member or someone else. To be serious, it is an important point to raise. People should not be forced to travel any great distance, but especially having to get on an aeroplane and travel to England or elsewhere is unacceptable.

If services prove to come out of that conversation, as hopefully they will, that is positive news.

More and more pressure is, in a general sense, being put on the community and voluntary sector to fundraise and to provide services, when all those services should instead be provided by the state through the public sector. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, it is completely unfair and quite twisted, to be frank, for struggling people to be told that they are being forced to pay for services on which they are more likely to rely.

I support the motion and the amendment, but I have to diverge somewhat from its call by saying that 100% of funding for the Children's Hospice should be provided by the Department of Health and the Executive.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Health, Mr Mike Nesbitt, to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. In recognition of the motion and the amendment, I will state something clearly and up front: if I had a magic wand, the Children's Hospice would have no financial issue today, tomorrow or in the future, no concerns about resources and no shortage of staff and volunteers. That, however, is in an ideal world, which we do not inhabit, so I will start by setting out a number of important facts about the motion.

First, statutory funding for almost every aspect of Health and Social Care and, indeed, all public services has not risen in line with demand and inflationary pressures. That is the unfortunate reality of the situation that all our services are currently in, and it is the nature of the challenge that Health and Social Care faces day and daily. There are no easy solutions.

Secondly, palliative care for children and adults is a core health and social care service. All our trusts are commissioned and work with other sectors to provide palliative care in a variety of ways, including in hospitals, in the community and at home. The Northern Ireland Children's Hospice is a vital part of that landscape, and I recognise the sustainability issues that it and many other voluntary-sector organisations are facing today.

Thirdly, the palliative care services that are currently commissioned through the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice are already funded up to approximately 50% of their cost, and working in partnership with the voluntary and community sector has been very successful across many health and public services, with many successful models built on some degree of charitable fundraising. I therefore suggest that such a model is not to be disposed of, but I do recognise the extremely challenging environment in which the sector is operating.

Miss McAllister: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: It is important that the context be understood by Members for the purposes of the debate.

I will give way to the Member.

Miss McAllister: On a point of clarification, I do not know whether I misheard you. Did you say that there was 50% funding already for the hospice. I thought that I heard you say that.

Mr Nesbitt: I said "up to approximately 50%".

The issue of access to paediatric palliative care for seriously ill children and young people in Northern Ireland is extremely important to me and to the work that is being done in my Department.

On that, I will pause to address an issue that Mr Carroll raised. It is wrong and deeply regrettable that parents have to go to Alder Hey for paediatric pathology, but the fact is that it is very difficult to attract consultants into that area of work. Globally, it is being concentrated in specific areas, and, without wishing to raise expectations too high, I believe that the most practical answer will be an all-island solution. I assure the House that those discussions are going on quietly in the background and that, if there is something to report in due course, I will be delighted to report it if it is a positive message.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for the clarification. I appreciate that he has said that conversations are ongoing, but does he have a time frame for when there will hopefully be an announcement on a decision? Quiet conversations are important, but people want to hear public announcements.

Mr Nesbitt: I know that the Member wants to hear an announcement. I also want to hear an announcement, but there is a process to go through. It is not just down to me and my Department, and I would like the Member perhaps to be a bit more realistic and accept that those quiet conversations are the only way in which to start on a path to success.

I was recently invited to visit the Children's Hospice. I have accepted the invitation as I want to see and acknowledge at first hand the exceptional work that it undertakes in supporting children who have life-limiting conditions and their families. The Children's Hospice is a local charity providing specialist respite, palliative and end-of-life care to children and young people living with life-limiting and life-threatening illnesses. It is the only children's hospice in Northern Ireland, as we know, and it provides care and support to children from across the region. The needs of life-limited children are often complex and require the collaboration of a range of professionals to be met. Children's palliative care services are largely provided by the health and social care trusts in hospitals and community settings. Alongside that, there are services that are provided by the hospice.

The 'Strategy for Children's Palliative and End-of-Life Care 2016-2026' was published in 2016. It was developed in consultation with all relevant stakeholders across the sector, in Northern Ireland and beyond, to ensure that it was a comprehensive document. The strategy includes 23 ambitious objectives that cover the full range of issues in paediatric palliative care, from diagnosis of a palliative or life-limiting condition to bereavement support for families of children who have passed away.

Although the strategy was published in 2016, associated funding to support the implementation of the strategy was not secured until 2019 with transformation funding. As a result of that funding, the regional paediatric palliative care network was established. That network is shared by a palliative clinical care lead. The health and social care trusts, under the direction of their palliative care lead, hold trust-wide multidisciplinary team meetings to consider cases within their trust. Regional meetings are held between local and regional specialists to ensure that high-quality care can be provided for children, irrespective of where they live in Northern Ireland. The network is made up of key clinical and nursing leads from each health and social care trust, as well as the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice. The network also includes representatives from Together for Short Lives. That UK-wide charity's aim is for children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions, and their families, to have as fulfilling lives as possible and the best care at the end of life.

The network works closely together in two main areas. First, it identifies the key priorities for delivering in line with the strategy and puts measures in place to deliver the same. Secondly, the network acts as a vehicle for the region to identify areas of best practice and share clinical opinions on specific cases. To date, the network has developed antenatal care pathways, rapid discharge plans and advanced care plans, and agreed pathways for pain relief amongst other things. The network is also working on other key issues, including provision of 24/7 end-of-life care and examining how to best develop closer ties with colleagues in the Republic of Ireland.

To support the delivery of paediatric palliative care, each health and social care trust has a paediatric consultant clinical lead. Those consultants work collaboratively across the health and social care trusts to lead paediatric palliative care in their trusts, ensuring that best practice is shared with colleagues in other trusts and, indeed, regionally. A regional paediatric palliative care consultant, who is based at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, works across the region to assist children and clinicians to ensure optimum care for children. The consultant also acts in a leadership role across paediatric palliative care in Northern Ireland.

Mr Gaston raised the issue of a strategy. There are many strategies in the Department of Health. One that I am particularly focused on is the mental health strategy. I have campaigned for good mental health all of my time in this Building. We have a mental health strategy, but, if you speak to the mental health champion, she will tell you that she has about one eighth of the budget required. The Department has about one eighth of the budget required to deliver this year's action plan rolling out from that strategy. I am not in the business of raising false expectations by promising a new strategy when I know there will not be the funding to make it happen.

Funding for a paediatric and life-limited nurse was made available by my Department. The nurse works in the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice and has a crucial role in delivering care for children right across Northern Ireland. The role was developed as a result of a need that was identified by clinicians and others involved in paediatric palliative care in Northern Ireland.

Almost £195,000 has been made available annually for the provision of paediatric palliative care in Northern Ireland. That sits alongside £1·7 million for the Northern Ireland Hospice. As has been noted, my predecessor, Robin Swann, took steps in February of this year to stabilise the annual funding allocation to the Children's Hospice within the resources available at that time. I agree with Mr Kingston that the objective, as he said in his opening remarks, is to stabilise the Children's Hospice.

My Department has service level agreements in place with the Children's Hospice for the delivery of agreed commissioned services. This year, my Department has provided funding of £1·7 million to commission the Children's Hospice to deliver bed nights in Horizon House, an inpatient unit that offers supported short breaks; a specialist community team, including a 24-hour on-call service; family support services, including bereavement support; the palliative and life-limited service, with nurses available to facilitate the transfer of children from hospital to non-hospital settings, which could be their home or the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice for step-down or step-up care or, where appropriate, end-of-life care; and the hospice at home service, which provides practical nursing care, support and short breaks to children in their home or community.

I understand that the Children's Hospice has faced financial sustainability issues that, it has advised my Department, are linked to increased operational costs and fundraising challenges. To move towards sustainability and a reduction in operational costs, the Children's Hospice advised staff of the need to reconfigure services to reduce the number of beds at weekends to manage costs related to special duty payments. I reiterate that there has been no reduction in recurrent core funding for services that are provided by the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice.

With regard to fundraising challenges, the hospice, like all charities that fundraise, has encountered an increase in the costs of doing so. The Children's Hospice has advised that the annual cost of generating fundraising income has more than doubled, from £1·2 million to £2·6 million. The Children's Hospice anticipates that this year's operational costs will be in the region of £5·062 million. It has advised my Department that, to maintain financial stability, it requires an additional £860,000 or thereabouts that would need to be linked to future pay awards in order to ensure sustainability. Over the past number of months, my Department has engaged with the hospice to understand the operational costs of running the hospice, the cost of the services that my Department commissions and the extent of increased operational and fundraising costs. While I recognise the challenging financial context in which all hospices currently operate, I am conscious that many other health and social care and voluntary and community providers are grappling with their budgets.

Finally, on the issue of budgets, Mr Kingston said that the Department has to:

required by the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice. He also said that the current financial settlement is simply not sustainable. I tend to agree with him, but those statements could also be made about the budget of the Department of Health, and I could say that it is time for MLAs to step up and provide the quantum required by the Department and that the current financial settlement is simply not sustainable. The irony klaxon in the Department has sounded long and hard to those remarks.

I do not say that because I think that we can go on delivering health and social care by simply demanding more money, which is the way that we currently deliver it. We have to reform. Professor Bengoa sat down last week with the First Minister, the deputy First Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and me; Ministers representing the four parties of the Executive. He made it clear that, if we do not reform, eventually — by about 2040 — the Department of Health will need the entire Budget — 100% — which will leave no money for education, roads and schools.

We cannot go on like that. It is my duty to bring forward the reforms that have been needed for so long, and I am determined to do so.

Finally, Órlaithí Flynn said that it is important to have the debate because, in doing so, we send a message to society that we care and that it is an important issue for us. I do care. I care, but I do not have the magic wand. All that I can promise Members is that I will do what I can as soon as I can.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Nuala McAllister to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Nuala, you have five minutes.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for the comments that he has just made, and I thank the DUP for tabling the motion. We hope that, after listening to all the comments, all Members will support the amendment and the motion.

From the outset, I want to highlight the fact that I agree with a lot of the points that have been made across the Chamber. This issue absolutely deserves attention and deserves to be spoken about on the Floor of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It deserves the attention of every legislator, whether in or outside the Executive, because it is a fundamental issue for families across Northern Ireland who have to work with the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice and every hospice that we have in Northern Ireland. It is a privilege to speak to the motion today to highlight how much each of us, as MLAs, care about the issues that affect vulnerable families across our constituencies.

I also want to talk about a visit with party colleagues to the Children's Hospice a while ago. It was a beautiful visit, and it was an opportunity to talk to families, children and young people about what the hospice means to them. We talked to families who had been offered the respite care that they needed for their children with life-limiting conditions. We had a tour of the building and spoke to nurses and some of the other health practitioners. We also spoke to the holistic care providers: the hospice does not provide just health services, and it is about not just the individual but the entire family. The whole family unit is looked after in the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice, and nothing is spared when it comes to taking care of them. I put on record our support for every person employed by the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice as they do that particularly important work.

While at the hospice, we looked at the bereavement room and the remembrance garden. It was a poignant experience to think about the families going through some of the darkest days and hours of their lives, but they are supported by a fabulous, wonderful team of staff. I agree with many of the comments: it is a cause worthy of discussion and of being highlighted to the Minister and the Department. I also want to acknowledge that not only the Children's Hospice but the adult hospice are located in North Belfast. For anyone who has not visited the adult hospice, you can contribute to its efforts by using the on-site cafe. There is an opportunity for the Minister also to visit the adult hospice if he visits the Children's Hospice.

I will turn to some of the comments that were made. Many contributions mentioned the Budget. We understand the Budget situation that we are experiencing. Looking to the wording of the motion, I note that it does not say that the Minister or the Department had reduced funding to the Children's Hospice. There is a recognition that it had funding. Unfortunately, however, costs have risen, meaning that the service is no longer sustainable. That is not to say that the Department is at fault, but the hospice provides statutory services that must be provided. We all know that there are statutory services, and, on paper, hospices may be a core part of the health and social care trusts' palliative care services. However, from speaking to the families of children and adults with a terminal illness, we know that admission to a hospice takes a referral, whether it is to the Marie Curie Hospice or the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice, for end-of-life care. Whilst we recognise that there is community care and hospital care, more often than not, there is a referral to the likes of the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice or the Marie Curie Hospice, and that is why we want to draw particular attention to the amendment.

The issue matters to the 350 families that the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice services not just during their time with the hospice but long after it. It is often those people who go on to do the fundraising. People who have had the experience of the hospice providing for their families then feel that the onus is on them to give back. That should not be the case, even though it is a worthy cause that each individual does that for.

I look forward to the Committee's inquiry, when we will be able to hear more from the palliative care network that the Minister outlined and will have an opportunity to ask questions. We look forward to hearing more about the implementation of the recommendations that are in the palliative care strategy so that we can have more of a network.

I am hopeful that the House will not divide on the issue. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to speak about this worthy cause, and I commend the amendment to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that, Nuala. I call Phillip Brett to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. Phillip, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Brett: Thank you very much indeed, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the House for a very useful debate. Members from across the House have spoken eloquently about the importance of the hospice service, and I know that many of the staff, patients and, indeed, families who are impacted on by the hospice's work are watching the debate and will be heartened by many of the remarks that have been made.

As someone who represents North Belfast, I am immensely proud that the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice is based in our constituency. As Members across the House pointed out, its services and work have an impact on the lives of people right across our Province. The hospice is a very special place. I am delighted to have worked alongside it and to have supported it for many years. One of my first acts as a councillor was to help ensure, alongside Councillor Billy Webb, that the Children's Hospice was awarded the freedom of the borough by Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council. Billy Webb continues to be an honorary president of the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice, and I pay tribute to him as a North Belfast constituent for the work that he continues to do, day and daily, to raise vital funds for the hospice.

It is easy to say that the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice does important work, but, when we look at the numbers detailing the work that it does, we see that there is a family and a patient behind every single story. On average each year, its nursing services carry out 7,000 unique appointments; 725 families from the length and breadth of Northern Ireland receive a visit and support from the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice; and around 100 families feel the benefit of the family counselling service that it runs.

I must say that the ongoing discussion on the issue is hugely frustrating, as is the fact that we have not got to a solution or proposals for it. I have tabled a number of questions for written answer on it, and I continue to receive contradictory replies. On 2 February this year, I received a response from the then Minister of Health to say that his officials were working on new funding proposals for the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice. On 15 March 2024, I was told by the then Health Minister that his officials would meet the Children's Hospice on 3 April and 9 May and would bring forward new funding proposals. On 26 March, I was told by the then Minister for Health that discussions would be ongoing with the Finance Minister to make a bid for additional funding. Responses from the Finance Minister make clear that she had:

Those words stand in stark contrast to some of the information that I have received to date. I encourage the Minister to reflect on the previous Minister's answers as we continue to try to move the situation forward. It is important that we all put our best foot forward and recognise the hospice's important role, but we now need to step up to the mark.

Mr Kingston, who ran a marathon recently for the Northern Ireland Hospice, spoke eloquently of the vital role that it plays. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to fundraisers right across Northern Ireland for the vital role that they play, and we encourage them to continue to do that.

Mr Donnelly spoke eloquently of the importance of the provision of palliative care for our health service here in Northern Ireland. He spoke of his role and the work that he has done, on a personal level, providing palliative care to patients during his professional life as a nurse. I thank you, Mr Donnelly, for the work that you have done, because I know that it is vital for families across Northern Ireland.

The Chair of the Health Committee has been a strong champion for the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice and, I know, has been to visit it on a number of occasions. I thank her and the entire Health Committee for the work that they continue to do.

Mr Chambers recognised the vital role that the Children's Hospice staff play and the rightful expectation among the public that we continue to support them. He pointed out the budgetary constraints in the Department of Health — of course, he voted against the Budget, so he is able to make those remarks — and continues to make an important argument for further funding for the Department of Health.

Mr McGrath said that he would like to see this commitment from the House but that, in his view, the discussion here would have no tangible outcomes. I respectfully disagree with Mr McGrath. As I said at the start of my contribution, I know that patients, staff and users of the service are watching today's debate because they want to see the House discuss the important role that the hospice plays. We send out a clear message to fundraisers, staff and the public that we value the service. Even the Health Minister, in his remarks, recognised the vital work that they do and spoke of his ongoing and clear commitment to that. It is important that we send a clear message from the House that the work that they do is vital.

Órlaithí Flynn, rightly, referenced the impact study that the Northern Ireland Hospice publishes annually. I encourage every Member to read that, if they get the opportunity. It provides the details of the countless families across Northern Ireland whom the hospice supports, and it drills down into the great work that it does.

Sian Mulholland, a Member for North Antrim, spoke about the personal circumstances that she and her family have faced and the irreplaceable service that the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice provides. She spoke eloquently about how it is our duty as elected representatives to champion the cause of the Northern Ireland Hospice. I could not agree with her more.

Cara Hunter, rightly, recognised the vital role that the staff of the hospice play. We are blessed to have such excellent staff across Northern Ireland.

Mr Gaston spoke of the vital work of fundraisers and, in particular, spoke of the work that is done by his party colleague Alderman Stewart McDonald. Mr Gaston spoke of the fabulous amount that they have raised through their work. I congratulate Stewart and others who continue to fundraise. Mr Gaston even described the Alliance amendment as hugely "sensible". That shows how important the issue is: it brings all parties together to support the work of the hospice.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned the importance of fundraising. I want to mention Madison Wright, the NI youth ambassador for the hospice, and acknowledge the essential work that she has done. I think that she has raised over £50,000 — potentially, a lot more — and continues to raise awareness of the need for the hospice and, of course, for vital funds.

Mr Brett: I agree. Madison does amazing work in highlighting the work of the Northern Ireland Hospice. I think that she has raised almost £60,000, to date. Ms Brownlee, as a representative for East Antrim, is right to continue to champion the work that she does. I thank the Member for doing that.

Mr Carroll made clear the ongoing commitment that the health service should have to palliative care. Again, we agree with those remarks.

Health Minister, thank you, first, for being here and, secondly, for your commitment to the hospice. When you were appointed to the office, I wrote to you, on a number of occasions, and you committed to visiting the hospice. You will honour that commitment, next month. Minister, I do not think that anyone doubts your commitment to the role of Health Minister or your integrity and dedication to the role. Thank you for the work that you do. We may disagree on budget allocations, but I know that, working together, we can continue to promote this important cause.

Miss McAllister, a fellow North Belfast representative, alongside her colleagues, put forward a sensible amendment, which we as a party will support. She spoke of the importance of seeing at first hand, when visiting the hospice, the important impact that it has.

It has been a really useful debate. Members have shown their clear commitment to the issue. There is an opportunity for us to send a strong message to the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice, the families, staff and service users that we, as a House, value the vital role that they play. Collectively, we will continue to do all that we can to ensure that the Children's Hospice receives the funding that it deserves.