Official Report: Monday 21 October 2024

Mr Speaker: Before we commence business today, I have six matters to deal with. I trust that you will bear with me.

Mr Speaker: First, I inform the House that the Budget (No.2) Bill received Royal Assent on 18 October 2024. It will be known as the Budget (No.2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2024, and it is Chapter 4.

Mr Speaker: Secondly, I note that points of order have been a more frequent occurrence in the past few weeks. Where it is necessary to raise procedural points, it is right that Members do so. However, a number of points of order have fallen into the territory of seeking to take the Chair into political issues and the potential abuse of points of order.

I remind Members that if they wish to increase the likelihood that they will receive a meaningful response to a point of order, it is a courtesy to give the Speaker's Office advance notice. Some of you have been doing that, but I gently suggest that, where Members might not have given such notice, it might well be inferred that they are more interested in their own remarks than in a response from the Speaker.

Thirdly, it has been a developing trend over the past few weeks to seek my response to Committee issues. I want to record again that the Speaker has no role in the proceedings of individual Committees. Members have access to the advice of officials on Committees, which should be impartial at all times, and they should seek it as required to allow each Committee to consider issues as they arise. That is the place to deal with them, and I do not expect Committee matters to be routinely brought to me, particularly when the Committees are in the process of dealing with them.

Fourthly, Jonathan Buckley raised a point of order with Deputy Speaker Aiken in the Assembly last Tuesday, 15 October 2024, in relation to the First Minister coming back to the House to give a statement on recent revelations regarding her party and safeguarding issues. On a procedural point, I appreciate the concerns that have been raised but, again, I remind the House that the issues involved have arisen in the context of the business of a political party. For the First Minister to respond to them in that capacity, they have to be raised in a way that is connected to the responsibilities of the First Minister and deputy First Minister's office and the functions of that Executive Office. If that connection can be made, Members know that Ministers can give notice that they wish to make an oral statement to the Assembly. Members can also ask a question for urgent oral answer of the Minister, as I was content to accept on 7 October 2024.

For today, I note that the First Minister is already scheduled to answer Executive Office questions in the Chamber, and that one of the listed questions deals with these matters. I am also aware of reports that the Executive Office Committee is considering how to approach these matters. That is for the Committee to resolve.

Fifthly, Matthew O'Toole raised a point of order with the Principal Deputy Speaker on 15 October in relation to the availability of Ministers on a sitting day. There is no requirement to make a new ruling, as I have already dealt with the matter on several occasions, including in writing to Ministers in February and the Business Committee in March. It is the long-standing position that Ministers are accountable to the House and should be available for plenary business, including for questions for urgent oral answer etc, on Mondays and Tuesdays in all but exceptional circumstances. In relation to exceptional circumstances, it is, of course, understood that there may be occasions when ministerial business or an extraordinary personal commitment makes it unavoidable that a Minister is absent from plenary sittings. Indeed, that arises for me tomorrow. However, those situations should be exceptional, and I have been clear that, in those cases, Ministers should make contingency arrangements for business from their Department to be dealt with in the Assembly. The absence of a Minister should not prevent the Assembly from discussing issues.

Mr Speaker: Finally, on a similar note, in line with convention, I inform the House that I will be absent from the sitting tomorrow for a family engagement.

Ms Sheerin: I will speak about an issue that brings me no joy whatsoever. Forty-two women and girls have been murdered in just under eight years in the North of Ireland: 42 women and girls, with their lives ahead of them, destroyed in a heartbeat. The North is, and has been for some time, one of the most dangerous places in Europe to be a girl, and the most dangerous place for many women is in their own home. After every death — every brutal murder — a lot of well-meaning people go to vigils, do a lot of hand-wringing and send condolences and sympathies. All those things are important, but they are not enough. We have to take action. Violence against women and girls is ingrained within our society, it is ingrained within all societies worldwide, and it has been for centuries. Misogyny, rape jokes, sexist remarks, commentary about women's appearance, the othering of women and the subjugation of women are commonplace in the North of Ireland. It is our job to tackle that situation; it is our responsibility to call it out and to see an end to the behaviours and the attitudes that lead to another newspaper article about another tragic loss.

I want to see our strategy implemented, and I want to see us all working together so that we no longer have to stand in the Chamber and send condolences to another family. This afternoon, I take the opportunity to tell everybody affected by the most recent loss on the streets, just last week, that we hear their stories, feel their pain, send our deepest sympathies and commit ourselves to never seeing this happen again.

Mr K Buchanan: There is increasing concern in my constituency regarding the provision of GP services. Over the past number of weeks, I have been made aware of the potential closure of Fairhill medical centre in Magherafelt. That proposed closure will affect more than 2,300 patients. Patients recently received a letter stating the Department of Health's intention to place them with other surgeries from 1 November. There is lots of anger within the community as to why this busy practice has been left without a permanent GP. While patients and staff are sympathetic regarding the circumstances of the closure, they are unsure why the Department of Health has taken so long to inform them of its decision to close the practice. Questions are being asked as to why the Department of Health has not kept patients regularly informed or updated. Many found out that the practice was permanently closing via local social media.

Patients were informed of the potential problem by letter on 7 August and were asked not to try to change surgery or move to another one. Indeed, those who have tried to move surgery have found that to be difficult, as surrounding surgeries have stated that they are at capacity and can no longer accept new patients. It is my understanding, after speaking to those within the GP practice, that not one GP from Ireland or the United Kingdom applied for the position at this single-handed GP practice, to take on the general medical services contract for Fairhill medical centre in Magherafelt.

I will continue to work for my constituents to ensure that they have GP services and will ask the Minister of Health and his Department to engage urgently with the community and local surgeries to ensure that patients and staff are accommodated.

Mr Honeyford: On Saturday night, I had the pleasure of being at Windsor Park to cheer on Lisburn Rangers Ladies in the Women's Challenge Cup final. What a story and journey those girls have been on. Four years ago, they were in the lowest division, just starting out. After being promoted year-on-year, this season was their first in the Premiership. It is a really young team, and many of the girls have come through the youth age grades. They secured fourth place in their first season in the Premiership and went through to the Challenge Cup final. While they came up short on Saturday night, they should be massively proud of their achievements.

Life is a journey, not a destination. It will be exciting to support a team like this in the years ahead, as the girls have a big future in the game. I want to say a massive congratulations, not only to the girls but to those behind the scenes who have helped to create the platform for the girls to perform on. A special mention goes to Ali Dickson and Nigel Farr, the coaching staff and the rest of the committee at Lisburn Rangers. They have helped to create an inclusive environment that brings people together.

Throughout Lagan Valley, there are great sports clubs full of volunteers who work tirelessly for our community. Sport unites our community, gives people opportunities and brings our community together, but grassroots sport urgently needs investment. Unfortunately, that has been seriously lacking in recent years, which continues to prevent growth and the development of the facilities that people deserve. Lisburn Rangers are a great example of what could be achieved if match funding were there to help them to realise their dream. With the massive investment in sport that we see in the South, I have repeatedly raised with the Shared Island unit and the Irish Government the question of investing Shared Island funds in sporting clubs in the North. I call on the Minister to engage with Ministers in the South to explore opening Shared Island funding to grassroots clubs in Northern Ireland.

Mr O'Toole: I want to raise, as Emma Sheerin did, the epidemic of violence against women and femicide in this society. On the front of the 'Belfast Telegraph' today, we see listed the 42 women who have lost their lives in recent years. They did not just lose their lives; they had their lives violently and brutally taken from them. It is extremely important that the cancer of violence against women and femicide is dealt with. That will require a multi-level approach, led by the Executive. I welcome the fact that the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Executive writ large have set that as a priority, and I say that sincerely. It is extremely important.

In my constituency in recent weeks, we have seen murders, including that of Mary Ward, who was taken violently. What is happening and has happened to women is almost beyond comprehension and words. It shames us all. It calls on us to do everything that we can, as legislators but also as human beings, to stand for both a serious criminal justice response and a more fulsome policy response that tackles the root causes of misogyny.

I raise specifically a connected issue that touches on the work of the Justice Minister and the Justice Department. It is one that, I hope, the Executive and the Minister will take forward. The Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was passed in the previous mandate, included a provision, which has now been in part disapplied after a court ruling, relating to anonymity of suspects after their death. A court rightly ruled that that was not just a violation of press freedom but was wholly counter-productive. Section 8 of that Act includes a provision for post-death anonymity for victims, which, in many ways, is understandable. Lifetime anonymity for victims of rape is, of course, something that we all support, but there is a concern that has been brought to me by members of the media in Northern Ireland that we face a serious situation: in a case where a woman has been raped and murdered, the media is now, legally, not able to report the fact that she was raped.

It is a grim subject to have to discuss, but it is important. A high proportion of women who are murdered by men are also raped by them. As we deal with issues surrounding sexual violence and violence against women, we must understand the full scope of it. We must understand how serious it is. The law makes it illegal for media organisations to report that a murder victim has also been raped. I would like the Justice Minister to address that legislation urgently —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — and see what can be done to either repeal or amend it.

Ms Reilly: Ba mhaith liom aird a dhíriú ar eagraíocht phobail Ghaeilge i mo thoghlach, Glór na Móna, atá ag céiliúradh 20 bliain ar an fhód. Eagraíocht phobail agus óige Ghaeilge í Glór na Móna a bunaíodh sa bhliain 2004 le deiseanna oideachais agus sóisialta a chur ar fáil do phobal Gaeilge Chluanaí uachtair.

Ó bunaíodh í, tá scoth na hoibre déanta ag Glór na Móna. Bíonn siad ag obair leo ag eagrú ranganna Gaeilge, club óige, scéimeanna samhraidh, Fhéile na Carraige agus Fhéile na gCloigíní Gorma, agus níl iontu sin ach cuid de na rudaí a bhíonn idir lámha acu.

Ní hé amháin go mbíonn gníomhaithe Ghlór na Móna ar a ndícheall ag cur seirbhísí Gaeilge ar fáil i gCluanaí uachtair, bíonn siad i mbun feachtais ar fud na cathrach: d’imir siad ról lárnach in An Dream Dearg, agus bhí ról acu fosta ag déanamh cumann neamhspleách de chuid Chumann Lúthchleas Gael de Laochra Loch Lao. Arís, níl sa mhéid sin ach cuid de na héachtaí atá curtha i gcrích acu.

Comhghairdeas libh, a chairde: bhí Féile na Carraige eagraithe go hiontach agaibh i mbliana, le himeachtaí thar a bheith suimiúil. Bhí ócáid chéiliúrtha den scoth eagraithe agaibh i Halla na Cathrach, agus ba mhór an pléisiúr liom bheith libh oíche Shathairn. Tá bród orm bheith i mo bhall de phobal na Gaeilge. Go maire sibh an chéad 20 eile bliain.

Ms Brownlee: I welcome the positive news regarding the recruitment of a new Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland. That development, which follows commitments secured during a debate at Westminster, is an essential step forward for veterans in Northern Ireland. The creation of the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland flowed from the 'New Decade, New Approach' agreement. Our veterans, who have given so much in service, deserve to have their voices heard and their needs represented every day. The appointment of a dedicated commissioner ensures that veterans in Northern Ireland are not left behind and that their concerns are brought directly to the forefront of government policy.

Earlier today, I had the privilege of spending the morning with Carrickfergus Royal British Legion, where we launched its poppy appeal. It was an incredibly moving experience to stand alongside those who continue to honour the memory of our fallen and to support the veterans who still live among us. The work of the Royal British Legion is critical in providing much-needed assistance to veterans and their families, and the poppy appeal plays a key role in raising awareness and funds to deliver those vital services.

As we approach remembrance events in the coming weeks, the reminder of the sacrifices that were made is even more poignant. We must also take a moment to acknowledge the work of the previous Veterans Commissioner, Danny Kinahan. He served the veterans with immense dedication and advocated for their rights with integrity. His departure has, understandably, left many veterans feeling that they are not treated equally to their counterparts across the rest of the United Kingdom. That is, of course, unacceptable, and it is our duty to ensure that veterans in Northern Ireland receive the same support and recognition.

I am pleased that the Minister has now committed to a swift recruitment process for a new Veterans Commissioner, with advertisements already under way. That is encouraging, but what is most important is that the new commissioner is given the independence and the resources to perform the role effectively, free from unnecessary constraints. Veterans here need an advocate who will speak for them, who understands the unique challenges that they face and who will work to ensure that they receive the support that they have earned. As we prepare to mark remembrance events in the coming weeks, let us remember those who have served and sacrificed and commit ourselves to ensuring that the veterans in our midst have a clear voice and the respect that they deserve. We owe them no less.

Ms Nicholl: The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has reached a point of unimaginable suffering. I know that I am not alone in being deeply pained by the images and stories of innocent people who have lost their lives. The numbers are staggering, but the impact goes far beyond the statistics. They are people whose futures have been stolen, their families torn apart and their communities left in ruins.

I have spoken several times during Members' Statements about the need for a ceasefire in Palestine, for humanitarian aid, for the return of the hostages and for the ending of arms sales to Israel: today, I renew that call with even greater urgency. Right now, millions of people across Gaza, Lebanon and the wider region are in need of food, shelter and medical aid.

The international community must not stand by as the atrocities continue: we must demand immediate action, an end to violence and bloodshed and a commitment to a just and lasting peace for all.

Last week, the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) launched an urgent appeal to provide life-saving aid to those affected. The DEC brings together 15 leading aid charities at times of humanitarian crisis overseas. I know that times are tough for many, but if people are able to contribute, their donation, no matter how small it is, will make a difference. The UK Government will match, pound for pound, up to £10 million donated by the public to that appeal.

Right now, an overwhelming 2·1 million people — almost the entire population of Gaza — do not have enough to eat. Homes, schools and hospitals lie in ruins, and people are struggling to access the most basic necessities of food, water and medical care. The situation is especially dire for children, many of whom are suffering from malnutrition, injury and trauma. We owe it to them to act. Charity alone is not enough: we need more than temporary relief; we need long-term solutions. We must hold our Governments accountable, demand diplomatic action and insist that international leaders come together to broker a ceasefire that respects human rights and upholds the dignity of all people. We also need to stop looking away from the images on our screens and use them to motivate us to act. Please speak out, pressure our Government to act and, if you can, support the DEC's appeal. Our voice and support can literally help to save lives.

Mr Gildernew: Unfortunately, I rise to address an issue that touches on the one raised by Emma Sheerin: the absolutely unacceptable nature of violence against women and girls in our society.

Yesterday, I attended the funeral of baby Tavia Michella Ximenes Da Costa. I want Members to know that the East Timor community is a huge asset to the community in Dungannon and the South Tyrone area: it is a wonderful, close-knit community of hard-working people who bring a deep and rich culture to our shores.

I was struck by the dignity and poignancy of the funeral service, which was hugely impactful on our community. I also acknowledge Lisnahull Residents Group's holding of a vigil on Saturday evening. That also sent a poignant and powerful message to those in that community about the support that they have in our area. In their native Tetum, I say this to that community: Ita-nia lakon mak ita-nia lakon no ita-nia laran-susar mak ita hamriik hamutuk ho ita iha momentu triste ne'e. That translates as, "Your loss is our loss, and your pain is our pain. We stand with you in this time of grief".

Mr Buckley: Seventeen years ago, 21-year-old Paul Quinn was lured to a farm just over the Monaghan border and brutally set upon by what appear to have been 10 to a dozen men. They beat him with iron bars and nail-clawed pieces of wood, breaking every major bone in his body from his neck down. Members in the House will have been introduced to and met Paul's mother and father, Breege and Stephen, on previous occasions. Their campaign for justice for their son, some 17 years on, is truly heartbreaking.

Many comments have been made since Paul's passing. The most disturbing of those comments were made by our now Economy Minister shortly after the brutal and barbaric killing of Paul. He claimed that everybody knew that Paul was up to criminality anyway. Imagine a member of the cartel having the audacity to tell anybody that they were up to their neck in criminality. Reporting in 2007, John Grieve of the Independent Monitoring Commission stated:

I do not need to bear on the point. We will have seen in today's media that the PSNI assesses that the 2015 assessment of the status of the Provisional IRA is unchanged and that the army council continue to oversee Sinn Féin activity, so I reiterate the call of Breege and Stephen Quinn.

The gardaí have launched another investigation and an appeal for information, so I say to the Benches opposite that people are sick of the cover-ups and the denials. Help that family to get justice. To anybody who conceals information about the acts of those involved in the murder of Paul Quinn or any other murder, I say come forward and give those families the justice and respect that they deserve.

Ms Mulholland: I congratulate Carey Faughs GAC on winning the intermediate hurling final on Saturday afternoon. First, though, I want to send commiserations. It was the beeziest pitch-side experience I have ever had, yesterday afternoon, when Dunloy faced Cushendall. I have been told to congratulate Cushendall on behalf of my colleague Danny Donnelly, but, obviously, I want to pay tribute to the North Antrim team of Dunloy first.

To prepare for a county final, you have to sacrifice nights with your family. There are days heading to the pitch when you would really rather just be in the house doing something, but you work so hard, and that moment is everything to the team. However, the win on Saturday was so much more for the community of Carey, and I just want to make a few comments as to why.

On August 16 this year, as the local MLA, I started to receive text messages and phone calls that something really bad had happened in Ballyvoy. I could not have prepared myself for the fact that, in a phone call, it was confirmed that the little boy who lost his life was a teammate and friend of my son. Wee Joe Hegarty had boundless enthusiasm. He was full of inquisitiveness, and fearless. As someone at his funeral said, five minutes after you met Joe, he knew you and you knew him. Having moved to Ballycastle a year ago, I can wholeheartedly say that.

You would be forgiven for thinking that it was just Joe's father, Michael, who was the coach of the young team when, actually, it was wee Joe as well. Never more has a team and community needed a win like they did on Saturday.

I pay tribute to the community. What I have seen over the past few months has been the best of rural community life. The Naomh Padraig and Carey Faughs GAC family did not let the Hegarty family walk a single inch of their journey from their home to the chapel to the grave alone. They walked every inch with them and have held them in that journey of grief ever since.

As the cup was raised on Saturday, I looked around and saw quite a few teary-eyed people who said that it was a win for wee Joe. I pay tribute to the community, to our parish priest, Father Con, who has supported us all throughout this horrendous time, and to the Carey hurlers. After they lifted the cup on Saturday afternoon, and unfurled the banner that read, "No. 26, Wee Joe, always with us", I think that more than one mind went to that boundless little man, who would have been cheering the loudest from the stands.

Mr Sheehan: Tá cúrsaí in Gaza ag dul chun donais gach lá dá bhfuil ag teacht. Tá Iosrael ag cur bac ar chabhair dhaoiniúil agus ar lón bia ag gabháil isteach i dtuaisceart Gaza ar gach aon chor. Ní mise atá á mhaíomh sin, a Cheann Comhairle, ach ardoifigeach de chuid na Náisiún Aontaithe.

Ach cá bhfuil mé ag caint? Nach bhfuil na Náisiúin Aontaithe ina namhaid ag Iosrael anois? Sin an fáth arbh éigean d’Iosrael beagnach 230 ball foirne de chuid na Náisiún Aontaithe a mharú le bliain anuas. Sin an fáth arbh éigean dó túr faire leis na Náisiúin Aontaithe a scriosadh agus campa de chuid na Náisiúin Aontaithe a ionsaí le tanc ar na mallaibh.

Níl a fhios agam cad é a rinne na hoibrithe eile cabhrach as cosán nuair ab éigean d’Iosrael iad a mharú, ná an 800 oibrí sláinte a mharaigh siad ach oiread. Cibé ar bith, tá an pobal idirnáisiúnta go fóill ag díol arm le hIosrael le caitheamh leis na naimhde úd. Tá 400,000 Palaistíneach i mbaol a maraithe i dtuaisceart Gaza. Mura dtuga Iosrael a mbás le buamáil, tabharfaidh siad a mbás leis an ocras.

Ní mise atá á mhaíomh sin, ach an grúpa, Jews for Justice for Palestine. Is fiú spléachadh a thabhairt ar an tsuíomh gréasáin s’acu. Gheobhaidh tú eolas ansin ar Sha’ban al-Dalou, mac léinn Palaistíneach, 20 bliain d’aois, a loisceadh ina bheatha an tseachtain seo caite nuair a bhuamáil Iosrael otharlann al-Aqsa arís. Gheobhaidh tú eolas ansin ar "phlean an ghinearáil", plean lena gcuirfear na Palaistínigh uilig go léir amach as tuaisceart Gaza le gorta agus le cibé duine a fhanann ann ina dhiaidh sin a mharú.

Tá an plean sin á chur i bhfeidhm cheana féin ag Iosrael. Ní scéal rúin é. D’fhógair Iosrael féin do na meáin chumarsáide go raibh siad le plean an ghinearáil a chur i gcrích. Má éiríonn le hIosrael na Palaistínigh a dhíbirt ó thuaisceart Gaza, tiocfaidh sé chun milleáin ní hamháin d’Iosrael, ach don phobal idirnáisiúnta ina iomláine. Ní mise atá á rá sin — ach an grúpa Iosraelach B’Tselem, eagraíocht Iosraelach atá ag obair in Iosrael ar son chearta an duine.

Féadann lucht tacaíochta Iosrael an chluas bhodhar a thabhairt do na Náisiúin Aontaithe, do Amnesty International, do Human Rights Watch agus do na céadta eile eagraíochtaí atá ag éileamh deireadh a chur leis an chinedhíothú ach nuair atá Iosraelaigh iad féin ag éileamh ar a Rialtas deireadh a chur leis an chinedhíothú, nach bhfuil an t-am dearg ag an phobal idirnáisiúnta —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Sheehan: — cluas a thabhairt le héisteacht?

Mr Speaker: The Member must resume his seat, please.

Mrs Erskine: I bring the attention of the House to something that has been bubbling under the surface for quite some time and will have a major impact on drivers in Northern Ireland: the news that the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) has terminated its contract with Worldwide Environmental Products Inc, which was to service the new test centres at Hydebank and Mallusk. It now seems clear that a legal challenge will ensue between the Department for Infrastructure and the company. As we all know, legal challenges do not resolve themselves quickly. It is wishful thinking to believe that the legal issues will be resolved within the four-month period of the new procurement process, which seeks to employ a new company to resolve the equipment issues.

The new test centres were to take a capacity of over 200,000 vehicles per year. Many in the Chamber will have heard it said in the past that those test centres would give a major boost to DVA work streams and deal with MOT backlogs. Instead, the delays in getting those test centres up and going caused the Minister to implement temporary exemption certificates from June. While we can see that that has eased some of the backlog issues, this fresh crisis in MOT testing raises many questions for the Minister. When will we see these new test centres open for MOTs? What impact will this have on other test centres. Could we see an impact on contracts for other test centres? What measures will have to be put in place should the legal challenge take longer than the duration of the temporary exemption certificates? Now, more than ever, the Assembly is conscious of budgetary pressures. That legal challenge will cost the Department millions of pounds. What knock-on impact will that have on the budget and, indeed, the ability to deliver projects? We could see projects being cut in order to pay for litigation.

It is clear that the MOT saga continues. The public will, rightly, want to know how and why that has come to be.

Mr Speaker: Mark Durkan, you have two minutes.

Mr Durkan: I rise to address an issue that is a source of frustration across the North, but I will speak specifically about Derry, particularly the periphery of the city centre, where the need for comprehensive residents' parking schemes is long overdue. For years, constituents have been dealing with the daily challenges of finding parking near their home due to congestion from commuters, shoppers, students and visitors. Those pressures have increased with the expansion of our city, placing added strains on residential areas. While it is great to see that growth in the north-west, albeit that it is slow, public transport and general connectivity have not kept step in accessibility or affordability. We need to offer solutions that will get people out of their cars and drive that modal shift.

Minister O'Dowd has confirmed that the review of the residents' parking scheme pilot on Belfast's Rugby Road will be published soon: where is it? I am in no way blaming the Minister for the delay, but he has a responsibility to act now. That pilot began eight years ago, and it was in the pipeline for a decade before that. I understand that no additional scheme in Derry will be progressed until that pilot and a scheme in the Bogside are progressed and assessed, but parking continues to be a growing problem. In those intervening eight years, Rosemount, the university area and Bishop Street have become impassable and impossible for residents. Access to a space, even in a neighbouring street, is a real bonus. For young families, older residents and those with limited mobility, that is more than just an amenity. Competing for a space near their home is exhausting and creates unnecessary stress in their daily lives. It makes tasks such as unloading groceries or prams a nightmare, and it strips people of their independence.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Durkan: It is long past the time to prioritise the needs of local residents. We implore the Minister to act.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Education that he wishes to make a statement.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Today, I wish to set out my Department's response to the independent review of education in Northern Ireland.

Education is the cornerstone of our society. It shapes the future of our children and, in turn, our communities, our economy and our society. Like all systems, it requires regular reflection, evaluation and improvement. The independent review was commissioned by the Northern Ireland Executive to do precisely that.

I express my immense gratitude to and admiration of each member of the review panel: Keir Bloomer, Sir Gerry Loughran, Isabel Nisbet, Marie Lindsay and Robin McLoughlin. I commend their tremendous effort and dedication in carrying out that comprehensive review of our education system. It is, as one school principal described it, the most important education report in Northern Ireland in decades. Two years of engagement, consultation and consideration of a wide range of international perspectives has produced a thorough and evidence-based report that will act as a platform for the transformation of our education system. The panel's commitment to that task speaks volumes about their passion for education and their belief in its transformative power.

The review required the careful consideration of diverse perspectives, a deep understanding of the many challenges in our education system and, most importantly, the ability to produce a vision for the future. The panel has set out a vision for the transformation of education over the next 20 years. I endorse and commend that vision for educational excellence. It is a vision for a well-designed, efficient and adequately funded system of education that continues to provide choice, is inclusive, encourages collaboration ahead of competition and will offer greater opportunities for young people from different communities to learn together.

The independent review outlines that Northern Ireland should be proud of its track record of high achievement and can build on many areas of strong practice in promoting excellence and reducing failure. We have a highly trained and highly motivated education workforce that is the envy of many nations across the world. However, much more could be done to support those vulnerable to disadvantage. Too many young people impacted by poverty continue to leave education underskilled and underqualified. Equally, the current system is not working for many children with special educational needs (SEN). Expenditure continues to grow, but planning is poor, with a focus on process rather than children. The panel was also particularly concerned that a prolonged period of action short of strike has resulted in a lack of performance data and an erosion of effective systems of school accountability. We need comprehensive measures of pupil and system performance to give better assurance to learners, parents and the taxpayer that money is being spent effectively and that the system is achieving its objectives.

The review report centres on 25 key recommendations underpinned by a further 106 areas for action. The watchword of the review is "reform". The key recommendations focus on reform and greater investment in early years provision; major reform of the curriculum, accompanied by greater ongoing investment; reform of statutory assessment to measure learners' progress throughout their educational journey; reform of the qualification system to meet the needs of learners and employers; reform of area planning to create an efficient network of schools where more learners are educated together; reform of service delivery for learners and schools, including a new approach to school improvement and the reorganisation of the Education Authority (EA); reform of SEN services, so that learners with additional needs receive tailored support at the earliest possible opportunity; and reform of the age of education participation, so that all children remain in education or training until they are 18 years of age. The panel stresses that all those reforms must be underpinned by significant investment in the workforce and a sustainable model of funding for our education system.

Together, the panel's recommendations form an important blueprint for the next two decades of educational improvement and reform. Today, I have published my Department's response to the report's recommendations. A copy has been provided to Members and laid in the Assembly Library. It is intended as a summary document setting out the direction of travel. You will note that I have accepted almost all the recommendations falling within my remit, though, in some areas, the approach to implementation may vary. The review clearly recognises that the report provides a longer-term framework for progressive reform and will require a plan for phased implementation. I am therefore drawing on the report today to set out my immediate priorities for the current mandate.

My priority is a sustained, evidence-based approach to the improvement of the education system that is focused on the core areas of curriculum, assessment, qualifications, school improvement and tackling educational disadvantage. Reform in each of those areas will be underpinned by investment in high-quality initial teacher education, teacher professional learning and leadership development, all wrapped, as the panel has recommended, in an intelligent accountability framework.

The curriculum is at the centre of every classroom, every school and, indeed, our entire education system. The independent review is clear: we have not invested sufficiently in curriculum review, advice or resources. That needs to change. High-quality curriculum design and content must be reinforced by strong implementation, enabled through high-quality teacher professional learning and excellent resources. I have therefore commissioned Lucy Crehan to carry out a focused, time-bound curriculum review that will examine curriculum design and delivery in Northern Ireland.

I want to ensure that every child is taught a broad, ambitious and knowledge-rich curriculum. As the panel's report highlights:

The panel is clear that:

All pupils, regardless of where they were born or how much money their parents have, deserve an education in the best that has been thought and said. Knowledge is transformational. A knowledge-rich curriculum has been demonstrated to reduce inequality in education by empowering children to acquire invaluable information, which inspires and motivates them beyond their own life experiences and develops their learning in a well-sequenced and explicit manner. By ensuring that all children have access to high-quality content, we can bridge the gaps in knowledge that often arise from socio-economic disparities. Such an approach will also provide our teachers with a clear progression framework and high-quality resources.

Curriculum review will be accompanied by a new literacy and numeracy strategy for Northern Ireland. There is a substantial body of evidence that demonstrates that systematic synthetic phonics is the most effective way of teaching children to read. We must ensure that our teachers are supported and guided on best practice throughout their careers.

Curriculum and assessment are two sides of the same coin. The independent panel described in detail how action short of strike had impacted on our education system, leaving us without effective measures of system, school and pupil performance. In line with the panel's recommendation, we will put in place arrangements to ensure that assessment takes place throughout a learner's time in school. My officials have therefore commenced an immediate review of assessment arrangements.

I also wish to begin a wide-ranging conversation on the future of our qualifications system. We need to ensure that qualifications are accessible; are fit for purpose; can be easily understood by pupils, parents and employers; and remain comparable with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I will refine and improve accountability measures to remove perverse incentives for schools to enter pupils into low-value qualifications and instead reward schools for providing all pupils with a stretching curriculum.

Underpinning all the reforms is the need to support the education workforce effectively. Investment in teachers is at the heart of the panel's vision for education. No education system can be better than the quality of its teachers. The independent review is clear:

We have not invested in professional development in a sustained and systematic fashion. In line with the panel's recommendation, I will invest in increased resources to support an effective and coherent approach to professional development. Teachers are demanding practical research that is relevant to their teaching practice, and we need to provide it. I want to support our teaching profession to be plugged into learning and thinking about pedagogy.

Over coming weeks, I will publish a clear and cohesive strategy for education that sets out in detail my plans for education transformation. I will also appoint a ministerial advisory panel made up of key individuals with national and international expertise to support the transformation of our education system. I am therefore delighted to announce today that, in line with the panel's recommendation and subject to Executive agreement, I will legislate to ensure that all children remain in education or training until they are 18 years old. Over 100 years ago, in 1918, the Education Act not only raised the compulsory school leaving age to 14 but included provision that all young people should participate in some form of education until they were 18. It is unacceptable that, in 2024, that is not the case. Participation in education beyond the age of 16 directly impacts on young people's life chances. Regrettably, a young person's background remains a key factor in whether they progress to post-16 education. Compulsory education or training ending at 16 is a remnant of a manufacturing society with many unskilled jobs that no longer exist. Jobs today require high levels of skill and education. By mandating education or training until 18, we can create a minimum offer for all young people, particularly our most vulnerable, and ensure that they have equity of opportunity and a structured pathway of support and guidance. That is a commitment to our young people and our future, and I ask all parties to work with me to make it a reality.

Before I conclude, I wish to reflect on the message at the very core of the review report: the need to adequately invest in education for the good of everyone in society. The report is clear that education has been and remains underfunded. The panel describes a financial crisis caused by:

The review has identified an annual gap of £155 million to address the per-pupil funding gap with England and Wales and a further £136 million shortfall to address the higher levels of support now required for learners with a statement of educational need. The report is clear that the legacy of historic underfunding needs to be reversed. I give you my commitment that increased investment will be accompanied by service reform, particularly in the areas of school improvement and special educational needs.

I say, therefore, to Members of all parties: let us commit ourselves to making education a top priority. It is the key to economic growth, social mobility, political stability and global competitiveness. What can be more important than the future of our children and society?

Investment in the education sector is crucial to building a prosperous and sustainable future. It is the foundation of all economic, social and political development. It is how we educate citizens and create social cohesion. By prioritising education funding, as an Executive and an Assembly, we are not just investing in the present but securing the future for generations to come. As the panel indicated, the more we invest, the quicker we can move forward. An old Chinese proverb states: "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now." Be under no illusion. Investment in education requires urgency. We do not want to look back in 2044 and wish that we had acted differently. The time for action is now.

I reiterate my gratitude to everyone who contributed to the independent review. Their insights and perspectives have been invaluable in shaping the future of education in Northern Ireland. To the panel I say that their findings and recommendations will serve as a crucial guide as we move forward, ensuring that our education system is truly world-leading, excellent, equitable, inclusive and able to meet the needs of all children and young people in an ever-changing world.

I approach the task of reform with a sense of ambition and energy. I have set out, as a first phase of reform, a vision for educational excellence based on a renewal of curriculum, assessment, qualifications and school improvement with a relentless focus on tackling disadvantage. These elements, together, form the cornerstone of our education system. To keep pace with the best education systems in the world, we must refresh, adapt and renew, otherwise we risk stagnation and decline. To borrow from the review report:

I look forward, during the remainder of the mandate, to working with all representatives, parties and stakeholders to transform and improve education delivery in Northern Ireland.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, there is lots in the independent review, lots in your response and, indeed, lots to support. I particularly single out the move to raise the leaving age to 18. That is an important step forward, and I commend you on it.

However, one thing that is not in the independent review at all is something that you have signalled an intention to do: to create a separate authority for controlled schools. You also said that the Education Authority had failed controlled schools. The independent review did not find that. Indeed, it said that the system should be simplified, and it wanted a specific directorate within the EA, rather than a new one to bring new complexity. Why are you doing something that contravenes what the independent review recommended for simplifying our education system rather than creating more complexity and more bureaucracy?

Mr Givan: I welcome Mr O'Toole's support for some of the recommendations that have been highlighted in the statement. That is important. The independent review touches on the Education Authority in comments and proposals in relation to that issue. It also reported its findings that the controlled sector is not getting the support that it needs. That proposal is evidence-based, and the independent review of education speaks to that particular issue.

The EA was also subject to a landscape review, which drew attention to "significant failings" and identified improvements that need to be made. My proposal in establishing a task force, which is now meeting and will report at the end of the year, is very much in line with the evidence that was highlighted, both by the landscape review and through the independent review of education, that documents failings that exist in that organisation, particularly in relation to the controlled sector.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I thank the Minister for his statement. It is particularly welcome as, in the New Decade, New Approach agreement, there was a strong emphasis by the Alliance Party on the need to bring forward this review. We welcome the statement.

What is notable is that he is taking forward many welcome recommendations. However, I note what he is not taking forward, among which are the recommendations around transition, particularly on the post-primary transfer process. Given that the ending of that process could have a key role in improving pupil well-being and tackling educational disadvantage, will the Minister outline the rationale for not taking forward those recommendations of the panel? Will we be looking at another mandate in which this issue is, yet again, kicked into the long grass?

Mr Givan: The Chairman acknowledges that a lot of these recommendations are worthy of support, and I look forward to engaging with him and the Committee as we take forward the measures that I have announced today. Obviously, the independent review touches on the transfer process. It recognises the political contention that has surrounded that issue for many years. The transfer test is not the most important part of our education system, yet it has attracted the most political debate. I am interested in making progress in areas where we can achieve political consensus rather than continuing to talk about an issue where it has been shown that there has been contention for many years. That is why the focus is on the measures that I have outlined today that I want to take forward around the curriculum and supporting that review to make sure that what is being taught in every school matters. How we support teachers in every school matters, rather than going round in circles on the particular issue of the transfer test.

Mr Baker: Minister, in reference to your answer to the Chair, I think that it is very important that you come to the Education Committee as soon as possible to really delve into some of the issues in the statement. How do you intend to include young people with special educational needs, given that many educational settings are already under-resourced or have no suitable provision for those young people?

Mr Givan: I have attended the Education Committee more than Conor Murphy has attended the Economy Committee.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: I have attended the Education Committee twice as many times as one of your own Ministers has attended his Department's Committee. I have attended the Committee more than the leader of the Alliance Party has attended her Department's Committee. I am quite happy to attend the Committee. I am sure that we will be able to find a space in the diary where we can accommodate that. I realise that the Committee is very busy dealing with its inquiry into relationships and sexuality education and has had a lengthy consultation period now extended. Whilst its priority is on a very niche area that principals actually do not raise with me as an area of concern, I would love the Committee to get involved in special educational needs in much more detail. I would like it to get more focused on the curriculum, qualifications and supporting our workforce rather than pursuing the Alliance Party's pet project around sex education.

I will be happy to engage with the Committee on these issues. The transformation of special educational needs is absolutely critical. That is why I announced a change in how we approach capital spend for special schools. All 39 are being assessed as to how we can enhance that provision. That is why my focus was on establishing 1,450 placements for children who require additional support. We achieved that, and those placements are being filled. That was the day-1 pressure that I had to take up, so I very much welcome a renewed focus on the Education Committee wanting to support me in those areas, and I look forward to engaging with it on them.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for the proposals that he has laid out today. It is an ambitious plan to progress our education system. Does the Minister feel that the education system in Northern Ireland is properly funded?

Mr Givan: Do not take my word for it; the independent review of education indicated very clearly that we are not properly funded. Indeed, the per pupil spend in Northern Ireland is not equivalent to that of England. Addressing the financial deficit will be a real challenge for the Executive. I have advocated on many occasions for the additional financial resources that we need. We successfully resolved industrial action, but that has a resource consequential that needs to be met. That is not just a challenge for the Executive. I recognise that every Department has pressures. We need to have a proper financial settlement from Westminster. We have identified the fiscal needs that exist, and we need to have those met. That will assist every Department, but Education in particular has been underfunded for many years. If we are going to invest in the future, we need to invest in the Department of Education.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his statement. He will be aware that Castle Tower School in my constituency has recently had to expand into the former Ballee High School site due to increasing need. Minister, will young people between 16 and 18 who have a special educational need also be included, and what additional resources will be available?

Mr Givan: The Member speaks to the wider issue of how we support children and young people aged 16 to 18, including those with additional needs. Of course, we have to support young people until the age of 18 to 19 in special schools, but there are concerns about the transition period when they move from Education to other Departments, including the Department of Health. It is vital that that transition is addressed, and work streams are taking place to try to address the concerns. Members have highlighted, as an area of concern, how we can support young people, particularly those with additional needs, with the transition years.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his statement. His Department has already engaged in some really good work around early intervention and early years, which was a recommendation from the independent review. Does the Minister have any plans to do more in those areas in the rest of the mandate?

Mr Givan: The Member brings me to an important area. It is one of the key measures that, as I have highlighted, we need to address in the rest of this mandate: educational underachievement. 'A Fair Start' highlighted a number of areas where support is needed. The funding that we have secured to take forward the RAISE programme will be very important in addressing educational underachievement. That requires a whole-community response. We have appointed the area coordinators in each of the areas, and people are being invited to workshops to design that response. As they design that whole-community response, decisions will be taken on funding. No decisions have been made yet on what should be funded in respect of the RAISE programme, because we are designing the particular projects that will be supported in the areas where it plans to operate.

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

In light of the Minister's announcement this morning that young people will have to remain in education or training until they are 18, will he tell us what discussions he has had, and what work he has done, with the Minister for the Economy? Will he also tell us when he will come to the Committee to discuss these issues, given that he has already informed us that he will not be available until 2025?

Mr Givan: I refer the Member to a previous question from Mr Baker about appearing before the Committee. I have made the point —

Mr Sheehan: I am interested in you, Minister.

Mr Givan: I am glad the Member is actually here, because he has spent more time sniping when I have not been in the Chamber. At least, now, he is doing it in front of me. It is of no surprise that that is how the Member conducts himself.

When it comes the issues that he raised around how we engage across the Executive, he is right. This will require other Departments to respond. I am outlining my Department's response to these issues, but others will also need to respond. Some recommendations sit exclusively outside my Department and are for other Ministers — the Minister for the Economy is one of those.

On how we meet the needs of young people aged from 16 to 18, obviously, we have the formal settings of sixth forms in schools, but we also have higher educational colleges. Creating the pathways will be important. If you look at how this was taken forward in England, you will see that 20 hours were required in addition to employment. That can be met through apprenticeships and traineeships and in educational settings. We need to take forward the legislation first. That will require Executive agreement, and all Ministers will have to engage in that process. Then, we will need to find a way to give effect to and implement that. When the legislation in England was introduced, it gave a very clear focus to Departments to collaborate. It gave a priority in law that education is important. This sends out a powerful message that the Assembly and Executive recognise how critical it is for 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds to be engaged in training. There are consequences of not staying in education. Whilst 85% of 16- to-18-year-olds stay on in some form of education or training, a minority do not, and, typically, they come from more socially deprived backgrounds. Therefore, their opportunity to develop and their economic potential as they get older are greatly disadvantaged. That is why taking forward the steps that were announced today is very important.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for his statement and answers. When I was on the Education Committee, we heard from the independent panel, and there was an acknowledgement that special educational needs were a priority for the Committee, so I take exception to the implication that the Committee did not care about that.

Will the Minister say what the specific timeline will be for the work on curriculum, which was a priority of the panel? What engagement will there be on that? How broad will the scope be, and will it include early years careers education for primary-school children, for example? Will he give a sense of what the curriculum review will be?

Mr Givan: I have laid out in more detail the scope of the terms of reference for the curriculum review that Lucy Crehan will take forward. Time will be needed for that, but the time frame is for a report to be provided in the spring of next year. I have highlighted key areas around literacy and numeracy that I would like immediate focus on. The curriculum review is important.

I know that Ms Nicholl is no longer on the Committee. I will miss her being there. We worked closely on the childcare strategy, the delivery of which was important. I take assurance from the Member that the Education Committee wants to move on to broader issues, having announced as its first priority an inquiry into relationships and sexuality education (RSE). It could have announced that its first inquiry would be on the curriculum or special educational needs: it did not. It chose to focus on an area that principals do not raise with me, and it did so because of an agenda that the Alliance Party wants to pursue. It is a welcome development that the Education Committee and the Alliance Party want to move away from that issue and get into substantive issues that impact on the most important people in our society.

Mr Buckley: Minister, the headline in the statement is that you will legislate to ensure that children will remain in education or training until they are 18 years old. Are there specific case studies that the Minister or, indeed, the independent review panel looked at to suggest that that delivers the best outcomes? Will the Minister estimate how many young people would be affected by that change?

Mr Givan: I will take the last point first. The number impacted is about 15%. Of Northern Ireland's school-leavers, 85% entered higher or further education post 16, and about 11% commenced employment. The proposal will promote the value of education. Other jurisdictions have adopted a similar approach. It is vital that we take that step. It will take a number of years to give effect to it, but, as Education Minister, I support the principle behind the recommendation.

I will take legislative proposals to my Executive colleagues, and we will then need to implement them. When it was introduced in England 10 years ago, a positive impact was shown in the reduction in the number of post-16 school-leavers who did not engage in formal education or training. That is important. People often talk about "NEETs" — those who are not in education, employment or training — and efforts are made to address the issue of NEETs, but giving effect to the legislation will really focus Departments on their legal requirements to get into the issue in a better way than we have done.

Mrs Mason: Minister, you referenced the recommendation about reform and greater investment in early years provision, and you went on to highlight the work that you will do on professional development. Will that include the professionalisation of the early years sector, which desperately requires support with its workforce recruitment and retention?

Mr Givan: That is a really good question. The Executive can point to the early years strategy that we are taking forward as something that, collectively, we have worked on well together. The Finance Minister very much supported the proposals that I brought to the Executive. We have been rolling out the childcare subsidy scheme, which is a £25 million programme that we are developing as the next stage in the process of supporting the early years sector. When it comes to the overall strategy that we need to develop, I hope that, around the spring of 2025, we will announce a draft strategy that will cover a lot of the issues, including how we can support the workforce in those early years settings.

Mr Chambers: Minister, I welcome the fact that you have commissioned a curriculum review. Will any recommendations from the review be subject to any level of public consultation? Will you, Minister, be the final arbiter when signing off on any of those recommendations?

Mr Givan: As part of the process, Lucy Crehan's review will have to engage with all the key stakeholders. It is not intended to be a lengthy or protracted piece of work. The independent review was a two-year process and is a strong evidence base for the recommendations. As the curriculum review is taken forward, there will, of course, l be stakeholder engagement. Yes, what the revised curriculum looks like across Northern Ireland will, ultimately, come back to the Department, and the earlier phase is about literacy and numeracy. Yes, it will come back to me as the Minister for final sign-off.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his statement. The Minister mentioned the need to value our workforce and the need to attract and, of course, retain teachers. Will the Minister seek to maintain parity with teachers' pay and conditions in the rest of the UK?

Mr Givan: The Member highlights, as I laboured in the statement, the point that we will be only as good as the excellent teachers whom we have. We need to invest in our teachers. We need to be able to recruit the best people into the profession, and we need to retain people in the profession. We will do that only with the right terms and conditions. That is why I was pleased to have a very early engagement with the unions. We resolved the industrial action. We had a double-figure percentage increase in pay, and action short of strike ended. What is important is that we see the outworkings of that process. We need to stand up the assessment processes in schools, so what we can measure what we do, which will inform any changes that we need to make. That is important.

Pay parity is important. We know that, in England, there has been a 5·5% increase in teachers' pay. I want to take that forward in our discussions with the unions, but, of course, how we work through the various public-sector pay processes that we need to come to decisions on this year is a wider matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. I very much recognise that society has to show the value that we place on the teaching profession and on our support staff, who will start on their new terms and conditions in November. Again, that successfully resolved the industrial action that had been disruptive to the education of our young people.

Mrs Guy: At the Education Committee last week, I asked when we could expect the Department's response to the independent review, so it is great to see an initial response today. I also welcome it that the Minister will come to the Committee soon. I also noted at the Committee that he had a propensity to launch political tirades when answering Alliance Party questions, and I see that he is continuing that today.

Can the Minister confirm that there will be a "SEN first" model for school placements? When will that be in place?

Mr Givan: This shows the powerful impact that the Member's contribution had on me at the Committee: within a week of asking for a response, she got it. I like to respond to Members as effectively and efficiently as possible, and I am sure that that will continue to be the case.

The transformation of special educational needs is hugely important. There were 200 recommendations in the end-to-end review, and I am pulling together a delivery plan, because we need to identify not just the issues but the solutions and how we put actions in place. I hope that, in the not-too-distant future, we will have an effective delivery plan to take forward the changes that we need in special educational needs provision. It touches on the matter that the Member raised about placement and the timeliness of placement. We do not want to be faced with the situation that we have had for two years in a row of still trying, coming into September, to get children and young people into a school. We need to make sure that it is the right school, but it has to be provided at the right time as well.

Mr McGrath: The Executive Office strategy to end violence against women and girls cites RSE as an incredibly important tool to help reduce such violence. Given the weeks that are in it, we should try to depoliticise and not trivialise such matters.

Minister, will you commit to ensuring that further education colleges and schools work together to ensure that there are increased pathways for children and young people on their educational journey? Too often, those two sectors compete with each other, which causes duplication and reduces the offer that is available.

Mr Givan: I agree with the Member. That is why I provided advice around RSE. That is why my Department is very much part of the Executive-agreed strategy for ending violence against women and girls. The strategy provides clear recommendations for my Department, and I will very much take those forward.

The Member raises the issue of collaboration. The report speaks to the need for much better collaboration on what the pathways for 16- to 18-year-olds will look like. When it comes to careers advice, you have careers advice in schools, and then you have the Careers Service in the Department for the Economy. I met Minister Murphy about this. We have a 14-19 framework when it comes to careers advice. We hope to make progress on the issue to ensure that there is that collaboration.

The Member is right. Education has many different parts that are not meant to be in competition with one another, whatever the sector is. We have many sectors in education: Irish medium, controlled, Catholic maintained and integrated. They are not to sit in competition with one another: they are to collaborate with one another. I believe in an inclusive education system, but I also believe in choice. That is a fundamental human right that is underpinned by the European Convention on Human Rights. However, that should not mean they are competing in the education system; it ought to mean that they work in collaboration. A school should reflect the community that is around it. If there are barriers to attracting individuals to a school, how is the school working to address those barriers? I very much support the tenet of the Member's question on the need for much greater collaboration, which is necessary.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he provide some more detail on the curriculum review and, in particular, how better outcomes can be achieved on literacy and numeracy?

Mr Givan: I have spoken about the curriculum review on a couple of occasions. Work started today. I have announced publicly who will take that forward for me. The report will come to me in due course, and then we will see the outworkings of the review. It is absolutely vital that we look at how the curriculum is delivered as children and young people progress through education. If you have a rich, knowledge-based understanding of a subject matter, you grow in confidence and develop skills that you can then utilise to put into effect, in a practical sense, the outworkings of that knowledge. You develop those skills through a knowledge-based approach. That is where the curriculum review will help. It will assess our current curriculum and what changes we need to make to it.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for your answers so far. We have waited 10 years for the online careers portal, and progress on the 14-19 framework has been heavily criticised in a Northern Ireland Audit Office report on skills. What is the Minister planning to do to get that back on track?

Mr Givan: I touched on that issue briefly. My Department and the Department for the Economy are working on the 14-19 framework. I met Minister Murphy about that. Our officials are engaging and are finalising an updated framework. That is to make sure that the careers advice that is being provided in schools and colleges aligns and that it aligns with the needs of the wider business community and with what our economy needs from the young people who are coming forward. It is about giving that advice at the right time. It is important that that advice is provided as early as possible, because young people pick their GCSE subjects in year 11 on the basis of conversations that they have already had with family and friends about the kind of job that they want. The provision of careers advice at 17 is too late for many young people, given that they will have already chosen their subjects. We therefore need to provide that advice as early as possible, but it needs to be aligned between the two Departments and with the needs of our economy as a whole.

Mr Kingston: I welcome the Minister's important statement and the key areas for reform that he has identified. Can he say more about the basis for increasing the age of participation in education and training to 18?

Mr Givan: The evidence around why we need to move on that issue is very clear. For a small minority, there is a disproportionate impact on economic outlook in life and potential if we do not provide greater training and support to them. I have covered that point in previous answers on why we are changing the age limit.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement. He mentioned reform of area planning. What does he envisage will be involved in that reform? Will there be a rural needs assessment, with the engagement of the community?

Mr Givan: That is an important question. The independent review talks in detail about what a sustainable school looks like and what kind of offering it should make. In Northern Ireland, the development proposal (DP) process for how we consider the way in which schools can increase their enrolment or which schools should open, close or transform can be quite bureaucratic and often takes a long time. A task force will be established to look at area planning and the DP process in particular to see how we can better align the decisions that we take on how we meet the educational needs in communities.

Mr Gaston: Minister, classroom assistants play a vital role in the education of many children, yet they merit no mention in your statement, and your Department's response to the review talks merely about reducing their number. What will you do for that vital sector of the education community, particularly for their security of employment and proper pay, an issue identified in paragraph 1.35 of volume 2 of the 'Independent Review of Education in Northern Ireland'?

Mr Givan: Classroom assistants play an important role; absolutely. That is why I engaged with the unions, successfully resolved industrial action and secured a pay rise for classroom assistants and other support staff. I gave priority to addressing the issue. I did not wait until today's announcement of the review to get on with the job for the past eight months; I have been getting on with the job. Pay scales will be put in place in November and payments will be made to classroom assistants, because they are vital in our education system. I pay tribute to them, but it would be remiss not to explore how we can improve the model of support for children on the basis of a child-centred approach that considers the individual needs of the child.

I do not envisage the removal of classroom assistants. I agree with the panel's view that classroom assistants play a vital role in supporting learners and teachers but that a blanket use of classroom assistants can be inappropriate. Interventions and support should be needs-based and focused on the individual learner. That is an area where we need to make sure how best to support our children and young people, but I absolutely agree that classroom assistants play an important role, and I put on record my appreciation and thanks to them for the job that they do.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister. I hope that the Loyalist Communities Council was not forewarned about his announcement and that it had no role in shaping it.

On raising the age of educational participation, what work has the Minister done to secure extra funding for schools and colleges, including education support workers, and to support implementing a living wage for apprentices, who are paid far too little?

Mr Givan: Perhaps the Member did not hear the responses to questions on the statement or chooses to ignore them. I engaged with the trade unions. As a socialist, he should thank me for what I was able to do with them. I met them. I sat down with them and talked through the issues. We resolved industrial action. I achieved a double-figure percentage pay rise for teachers. I am sure that Mr Carroll will put out a statement commending me for that. I resolved industrial action for our classroom assistants. Their new terms and conditions start in November. Perhaps the Member did not hear that, but hopefully he has heard the message today. I champion and support our teaching profession and our classroom assistants. That is why I have achieved real increases in their pay.

Ms Sugden: The Minister has acknowledged that there is a cliff edge at 18 years for those with special educational needs. Is there scope to extend his proposed legislation for those with special education needs, not necessarily to compel them to stay in education to an older age but to enable them to do so where a special school is the right setting for their needs?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for raising that, because it is a genuine concern for families. I have met a number of families who are concerned about that cliff edge. It is absolutely important that the right support is provided at the right time for children and young people, and various Departments have legal responsibilities in that regard. The solution should not be that simply because people are concerned that the Department of Health cannot meet the need, the Department of Education has to meet the need. Whichever Department is legally responsible should meet the need. As things are prescribed in law, we have a legal responsibility until the age of 19, and, then, other Departments have a legal responsibility. We are involved in that transition process.

If Members and families are saying that they do not have confidence in the Department of Health and others, but that they do have confidence in the Department of Education, we need to ask this hard question: why are they not getting the support from the Departments that, under the law, should be providing them with the support? It is an important point, because it is real for the families concerned. I absolutely believe that the right transition process is needed, but simply putting up, as the solution, that the Department of Education becomes legally responsible until the age of 25 needs to be explored. We need to ask why we do not have confidence in the current system and why we would campaign for that change.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome a number of the recommendations that you have brought forward. I appreciate that the issue has been touched on, but I want to go into a wee bit more detail on your recommendation for an additional managing authority. I would like a better understanding of that. You flagged up some of your concerns. I am keen to understand why those could not have been dealt with by the Education Authority. Surely, attempts to deal with those concerns within the Education Authority would have been the preliminary step and, if they did not work, then progress to other steps. Will you provide more detail on that?

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member raising the issue. The independent review highlights the real challenges that the EA has, structurally, as an organisation. I know that when Members receive a call from the principal of a school, they are frustrated to hear about the length of time that it can often take for the EA to do what it needs to do when it comes to maintenance programmes and taking forward feasibility studies for enhancement schemes. Furthermore, the EA has a unique and distinct role for controlled schools. The Catholic maintained sector has its Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS). That does not exist for the controlled sector; it has the EA. The EA provides services to all schools, but it has a distinct role as the managing authority when it comes to area planning for controlled schools, which does not exist for other sectors. There is an evidence base that highlights why there is a challenge and problem with that arrangement.

Let us allow the task force that has been set up to produce its report. I have challenged it to do that by the end of this year. Its work will include looking at what interim steps the EA could make to address the concerns as we move towards trying to establish a managing authority for controlled schools. The premise of taking this forward is evidence-based, but also grounded in equality. I hope that we do not get to the point where Members will say, "It's OK for the Catholic maintained sector to have its managing authority, but we're not going to let the controlled sector do it". People would see through that argument.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister.

Mr Mathison: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note that comments have been made by the Minister in relation to the work of the Education Committee. I would like the Speaker to make a ruling on the need for Ministers to be accurate in their statements in the Chamber around the work of Committees. He said that the RSE inquiry that is running is a "pet project" of the Alliance Party. It was voted for, unanimously, by all members of the Education Committee, including members from his party. The Minister will be aware that we are hearing evidence from his Department on the key issues discussed today, including tackling educational underachievement and special educational needs —

Mr Speaker: Can we get to the point of order, please, because it is not going to be an opportunity —.

Mr Mathison: — and he will be aware of the —.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is not an opportunity to make a statement. If you want to make a point of order, make a point of order by all means, but we are not getting into a lengthy statement.

Mr Mathison: To conclude, the Minister is aware of the Committee's strategic priorities, which, again, have all been touched on today, so I am asking whether a ruling can be made on the need for the Hansard report to be accurate when Ministers refer to the work of the Committees.

Mr Speaker: I am happy to look at the issue. It may not be something that I need to get involved in, but I am happy to look at it and give a ruling in due course.

I ask Members to take their ease while the Chair changes for the next item of business.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): I beg to move

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

Ms Reilly: Today, we seek the Assembly's approval of the draft Period Products (the Executive Office Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. The introduction of the draft regulations is required under the Period Products (Free Provision) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which began as a private Member's Bill that was sponsored by former SDLP MLA Pat Catney.

The draft regulations mark another important step in the journey to making universal access to period products a reality for all who need them. They will complement similar legislation from other Departments. That will mean that more arm's-length bodies will make free period products available to all staff and visitors who need to use them while on their premises. In due course, each body will carry out its own consultation exercise and publish statements on the arrangements that they will put in place. I thank those bodies for their cooperation to date.

The draft regulations sit alongside the Executive Office's separate duty under the Act to make period products publicly available. Our officials have worked with Libraries NI to ensure that period products are freely available in all public libraries for anyone who needs them. Junior Minister Cameron and I were delighted to attend the launch of that scheme in May this year, and we understand that feedback on that has been positive. We thank the Executive Office Committee for its prompt scrutiny of the draft regulations.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): The Committee considered the draft regulations at its meeting on 11 September 2024. The Committee accepted that the draft Period Products (the Executive Office Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 are a technical piece of legislation to designate the relevant public service bodies that are required to make available free period products. The Committee had no concerns about the draft regulations and was content for them to progress.

At its meeting on 9 October 2024, the Committee considered the final version of the draft regulations, which did not differ from the draft that had been presented in September. The Committee therefore recommends that the draft Period Products (the Executive Office Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 be approved by the Assembly.

Ms Sheerin: I welcome the draft regulations. As referred to by the junior Minister and the Chair of the Executive Office Committee, a lot of work has already been done on this important piece of legislation. It would be remiss of me to not honour the work of former MLA Pat Catney, who invested a lot of time and energy in the issue. It is a good example of how we can deliver for people when we all work together across the House. In so doing, we tackle a real struggle for women, particularly women who are living in poverty. It gets to one of the intersectional elements of discrimination against women and girls.

The regulations will bring some ease to people's daily lives. At one of the most challenging times in any woman's life, they will make women's lives that wee bit easier, and that is to be welcomed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call junior Minister Reilly to conclude and make her winding-up speech on the debate.

Ms Reilly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions. The regulations mark a further step in the implementation of the Period Products (Free Provision) Act 2022. As I stated in my opening remarks, the regulations will sit alongside the Executive Office's separate duty under the 2022 Act to make period products publicly available.

As I stated, Libraries NI, in partnership with our Department, has been making products available for people to take home since May 2024. It also allows for others to collect products for someone else who needs them. The regulations will ensure that staff and visitors in TEO's arm's-length bodies are able to avail themselves of free products, if they need them while on those premises.

Once the regulations are made, there are several further steps that the Executive Office and its arm's-length bodies will need to complete. First, the Department will consult the relevant bodies on the guidance to be issued. Arm's-length bodies will then consult their product users on the ways in which products can be obtained, where they will be located and the types of products that will be available. Following that, the ALBs will publish a statement on the arrangements that are to be put in place.

ALBs will be required to make sure that products are made available in a way that respects the dignity, privacy and confidentiality of the person accessing the free products. Those who may need the products — any person who menstruates — should, therefore, be able to pick them up, without having to ask someone, from an accessible location in the ALB's premises: for example, from a disabled bathroom. Arm's-length bodies will also be required to consider using environmentally friendly, sustainable or biodegradable products. The 2022 Act also requires that those bodies have regard to products that are reusable.

Our officials have been liaising with the arm's-length bodies as to how the regulations will be implemented, and I am pleased to report that the Department's ALBs have fully embraced the scheme. In advance of the regulations coming into effect, all our ALBs have undertaken to make free period products available on a pilot basis. That will, no doubt, assist them in establishing arrangements as required by the 2022 Act. Our Department has also undertaken to make free period products available to its staff and visitors. Our officials, working with the ALBs, estimate the costs to be negligible, and it is likely that those costs will be absorbed within the arm's-length bodies' existing baselines. Our officials will also monitor the roll-out of the scheme in our ALBs and the wider provision in public libraries to ensure that those who wish to access products can do so.

To clarify, the arm's-length bodies will make free period products available for those who need them, such as employees or visitors, while on their premises. On the other hand, public libraries are providing products for everyone who needs them. It is still early days for the scheme, but the feedback has already been very positive, and we are confident that it will benefit our citizens' well-being and promote period dignity. I thank Members for the support that they have signalled for the regulations, and I commend the regulations to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The next item of business is a motion to approve a draft statutory rule. I will give the Minister a moment to arrive, as we have moved slightly ahead of time. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment or two.

Mr C Murphy (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move

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

Mr C Murphy: I seek the Assembly's approval of the draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. The 'New Decade, New Approach' document, which was published in 2020, states:

The current Executive have agreed to the closure of the scheme, with an interim increase in tariffs. That decision was taken by the First Minister and deputy First Minister over the summer and under urgent procedure. The scheme closure will include a payment mechanism that is fair to scheme participants and to the public purse. Work is ongoing to develop the proposals. When that work has been completed, I will bring the matter back to the Executive and, subsequently, to the Assembly for approval.

The draft legislation relates to the interim increase in tariffs. The current tariffs for small and medium biomass boilers were introduced in 2019 using information that was available at that time. However, substantial volatility in fuel prices means that it is appropriate to increase the tariff. The draft regulations therefore substitute a new schedule 5 into the principle regulations, the effect of which will be to increase tariffs for accredited biomass boilers within the small, lower-medium and upper-medium biomass bands from 1 November 2024.

The tariffs represent a significant increase: for example, the tier-1 tariff, for owners of lower-medium biomass installations — a group that represents the vast majority of boiler owners — will be uplifted from 2·1p per kilowatt-hour to 5·1p per kilowatt-hour. That is over double the current tariff and an increase of in the region of £5,000 per annum for a typical participant in that band.

The revised tariffs are based on updated assumptions. In particular, fuel cost assumptions have been based on a fuel reference period over a number of years, as opposed to a spot price, in an attempt to provide greater accuracy.

It is important that the higher tariffs are introduced and are in place from 1 November in time for the winter period. If the tariffs are not in place by 1 November, the next opportunity to increase them will be well into 2025. I hope that Members agree that enabling participants of the scheme to benefit this winter is an urgent priority. The increase is calculated in a way that is fair to the taxpayer and scheme participants. I hope that Members agree to provide those participants with a substantial uplift to the tariffs as we work towards the scheme's closure.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): As the House is aware, the draft statutory rule (SR) deals with the tariffs to be paid to biomass boiler owners under the non-domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme. In order to enhance its understanding of the regulations, the Committee considered oral and written evidence from the Renewable Heat Association and the Department for the Economy on two occasions.

On 25 September 2024, when the Renewable Heat Association gave evidence, Committee members noted that the 2,000 or so good-faith boiler owners were reportedly compliant with audit requirements and with the terms of the RHI scheme. As the Minister indicated in his remarks, the draft rule will amend the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 in order to more than double the tariff for the tier-1 support payments to compliant and accredited small and medium biomass installations. The increases are for heat that is generated from 1 November 2024, and the proposed rule will fix the tariffs until the end of March 2025. Those tariffs will then be adjusted in line with the consumer prices index. It is anticipated that primary legislation will be introduced to terminate the RHI scheme, but that matter is not before the House this afternoon.

The Committee considered evidence from the Department on 11 and 25 September 2024 and noted a draft report on the departmental consultation from 2021. The Department advised that the final consultation report would be published when the primary legislation to terminate the scheme was introduced.

Members noted that the Department estimated that the revised tariffs would increase the cost of the scheme from £5 million to £15 million per annum. They noted that that was well within the £33 million of annually managed expenditure (AME) that is ring-fenced for renewables. The Committee was thus assured, on that issue, that the proposed tariff increase would not lead to increased liability against the Northern Ireland block grant. As indicated, the proposed revised tariffs apply from 1 November only and not from 2019 to the present. The Department indicated that a public interest business case was not made for backdating revised tariffs to cover that period.

The revised 2024 tariffs covered by the rule appear to be based on the Cornwall Insight reports that were used in 2023-24, with kerosene prices as the counterfactual, which was then adjusted with the consumer prices index. I must be clear, however, that the Department has not provided detailed clarity on the economic viability of the new tariffs. The Department also declined to provide comparison with GB RHI tariffs, citing complexity and scheme differences and declined to confirm whether any unspent AME could be used for other renewable energy purposes, citing the need for Treasury approval.

The Department indicated that the revised tariffs would generate an internal rate of return (IRR) of 12%. It appears that the methodology for calculating that IRR for the revised tariff is either not the same as that adopted when the non-domestic scheme was originally launched or has been greatly affected by relative changes in fuel cost. However, the Department has not specified whether the IRR calculation of the 2012 tariff using the 2024 methodology would or would not have been in excess of state aid rules.

The Committee noted the importance of the careful consideration of this complex matter relating to RHI tariffs, the value for money in allowing the relevant parties the opportunity to set out their views so as to inform Committee deliberations and departmental assurances that the proposed rule would likely meet legal challenges while providing a fair settlement for good-faith boiler owners and value for taxpayers.

Members indicated their dissatisfaction with the absence of detailed answers. However, the Committee agreed that the matter be brought, with the regulations, to the Assembly for debate and wider scrutiny and that any member of the Committee had the ability to oppose the delegated legislation in plenary.

I will speak briefly as DUP economics spokesperson and MLA for North Belfast. The RHI inquiry found that documents and advice provided to Ministers were often inaccurate, incomplete or misleading in important aspects. It also cited concerns about skill gaps and questionable financial literacy in some Departments. In that context, it is essential that we take our obligations in scrutinising draft regulations extremely seriously.

The Democratic Unionist Party is not satisfied that the Department for the Economy has provided the necessary information to allow Assembly Members to make an informed judgement on whether the proposed tariffs are legally sound, provide a fair and reasonable return for scheme participants or protect the public purse. We want to see an outcome that balances the rights of scheme participants with the requirement to provide effective stewardship of public funds. That will not be achieved by pressing ahead with regulations and revised tariffs that lack clarity or full scrutiny.

The Court of Appeal judgement in February 2023 was clear and expressed a clear preference that any settlement on future tariffs should be on a consensual basis. The DUP regrets that that has not happened to date. Ultimately, changes to the RHI regulations must be robust and justifiable. We are clear that Assembly Members should have access to greater detail on how tariffs in the regulations were calculated, including the metrics used by officials and the steps taken to ensure that they are legally defensible. It is our careful assessment, following deliberations, that the proposals should be withdrawn by the Minister to afford space and time for further scrutiny. The Department needs to be open and transparent about this policy development. In the absence of that, the Democratic Unionist Party will not vote for the regulations.

Ms McLaughlin: I and my party have deep concerns regarding the draft RHI scheme regulations 2024 and will therefore vote against them. The Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2019 outlined a commitment to a 12% average rate of return, yet the new tariff falls short. We know all too well the deficiencies of the RHI scheme. It was poorly designed from the start and did serious damage to public trust in the institutions. However, for the many operators, we cannot allow the overall failure of the scheme to allow government to act with impunity on the issue. Businesses invested in the scheme in good faith, and we must reach an agreement on the way forward that is also fair to them. The tariff fails to account for capital and operational expenses adequately and uses 2020 as a baseline, ignoring the significant inflation and energy price hikes since late 2021. That oversight threatens to leave many scheme participants running at a deficit. The regulations do not address years of under-compensation, and there is no provision for backdating payments or incorporating past losses into the new rates. Those failures leave many who invested in good faith in renewable heating feeling short-changed and betrayed.

A central issue is the lack of transparency. In 2021, a consultation was held to chart the future of the RHI scheme, but, as we know, its findings remain unpublished. We are now asked to support regulations without having seen the consultation results. How can we make an informed decision when the evidence base is hidden from us? That not only undermines public trust but raises serious questions about due process.

We have learnt hard lessons from the original RHI scheme, which suffered from poor design and excessive financial incentives, yet we are here again, potentially repeating the same mistakes. Just last week, the Northern Ireland Audit Office condemned the dither and delay in implementing the recommendations from the RHI public inquiry. Now, we face new regulations that seem to ignore those hard-earned lessons.

I urge Members to consider the consequences of supporting the amendment. It risks breaching commitments that were made to investors in renewable energy and undermines our progress towards a net zero transition. The RHI scheme's history is a painful reminder of the dangers of rushing legislation without proper oversight. Let us not allow history to repeat itself. We must demand transparency, accountability and a fair deal for all participants as well as for all taxpayers.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Pádraig Delargy. I remind the Member that we will move to Question Time at 2.00 pm. He might want to bear that in mind when he makes his remarks.

Mr Delargy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I intend to keep my remarks short.

I welcome the Minister's proposal to close the scheme in order, as has been highlighted already, to be fair to participants and the public purse and so that there is no increased liability. It will obviously touch on the vast majority of participants, and I am conscious that it is to benefit people this winter.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call David Honeyford, with a reminder of the remarks that I made a moment ago about time limits as we move towards 2.00 pm. The Member can judge that.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

I want to set out my party's position. It is with regret that we debate this. The controversy around RHI alone warranted better engagement with the Committee and the groups that represent RHI boiler owners.

"RHI": three letters that terrify some people, horrify others and, further, have left a group of people suffering financially. My concern is for those people. RHI has brought the Assembly down in the past. Not only has it left some people who honestly engaged in the scheme in debt but it left the people of the whole region without a Government for three years. Everyone suffers now from the lack of reform in Departments as a result. Let us also not forget that it helped to finish the political career of the former DUP First Minister, who was the Minister who brought us the scheme in the first place. RHI has been a disaster from the start. There have been years of failure and the suffering of many people.

Where are we now as we start to look forward? Given that Alliance had no part in the design or implementation of RHI, our concern is primarily for the people caught up in the scheme. They honestly entered a government scheme and are now at financial loss. First, we are not talking about closure of the scheme, as the Committee Chair, Phillip, said.

We are looking to scrutinise the legislation, and we look forward to its coming forward in 2025. Alliance supports the closure of the RHI scheme. It needs to be closed, and we need to move on.

The tariff uplift and the closure are two separate issues, but, equally, we cannot separate them because they are linked. Northern Ireland needs to move forward with renewables at the centre of our energy policy and net zero delivery. Delivering energy security is key to this region, but RHI is a failed scheme of the past. Industry and investors must be able to move into a new scheme with absolute confidence that the lessons of RHI have been learned and the debacle of RHI is firmly behind us. Without its closure, we cannot access the UK renewables energy fund.

The development of a new energy scheme will be critical to delivering our legal and moral climate obligations. I have raised in Committee many times the need for the scheme to include energy that is generated by small wind sources. I clearly put on record Alliance's position while the Minister is here with us: we have an all-island energy market, and the entry point for any new scheme that we move into must be the same as that in the South. We cannot disadvantage investment in Northern Ireland. I urge the Minister to look at that again in the Department. Alliance will keep lobbying for the same generation levels and standards, North and South, for the benefit of all of us. We share this island. Alliance believes in enhancing North/South cooperation for the betterment of everyone across it.

The second, and equal, issue is that of the rate. We must recognise that many people engaged in the RHI scheme legitimately and in good faith. I have said that my concern is for them. They deserve a fair rate for the scheme's lifespan.

The place for scrutiny was the Committee for the Economy. The information that came to the Committee was, at best, limited and lacking. It felt as though we were trying to draw blood out of a stone.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Member very much indeed for giving way. I was on the Enterprise Committee when the RHI scheme was brought through, and I sat across the way for a good part of the inquiry. Members have talked about documents being inaccurate and misleading, consultations not being available to them, evidence being hidden, full details not being presented to them, and, as you have just mentioned, major inadequacies in what was presented to the Committee. Is this déjà vu, or Groundhog Day? Seriously, what has been learned? Very little, it appears.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I remind the Member that I might have to interrupt him at 2.00 pm.

Mr Honeyford: No problem. Thank you for the intervention. It has felt like we have been trying to draw blood out of a stone: information has been withheld, we have been given as little detail as possible, and there have been deflective and evasive answers. It has felt as though there is a fear of answering questions, and that we have not been given the information that we asked for to make a judgement. It is hard to build trust when it feels like the information that you are asking for is being withheld, you are being given different answers to the same questions at different times or you sense that you are simply not being given a straightforward answer or an answer that is in language that you can clarify simply.

When I left the Committee two weeks ago, I was not in a position to be able to support the proposal, or to recommend to the party that it should do so, but I have continued to work outside of the Committee to try to get answers and get to a place where I can recommend a direction of travel. My gut, and part of the Alliance Party's DNA, is to support and work with any Minister for the betterment of all of us. That is the place that I come from, and from which I want to start to work through the process. I have said many times that this place works best when we work together, but we are not getting information —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Will the Member conclude his remarks, or indicate that he wants to continue them after Question Time?

Mr Honeyford: I will continue after Question Time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when David Honeyford will continue his remarks.

Mr Speaker: Questions 1 and 11 have been withdrawn.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): The investment summit was an opportunity for us to make clear that our economy is very much open for investment. It allowed us to be visible to a wide range of global investment stakeholders and to engage directly with companies that might consider investing here, as well as those that already have a presence. We were able to hear about the latest developments from the Government in their plans to support investment and remove barriers. The summit also gave us the opportunity to reinforce the message of why this is a great place as an investment option and to highlight the unique benefits of dual market access.

Miss McIlveen: There was next to no media coverage of the First Minister and deputy First Minister's attendance at the international investment summit in London or, indeed, of the Council of the Nations and Regions last week in Edinburgh. Why were local media not given access to those events? Was it related to the First Minister hiding from media scrutiny because of the safeguarding scandal in Sinn Féin?

Mrs O'Neill: It is unfortunate that the Member has decided to take away from that great opportunity for us to sell our wares and let people know that we are very much open for business. It was an investment summit that we turned out to and participated in. We had a great conversation on the Friday at the Council of the Nations and Regions, and we were back to London on the Monday for the investment summit, where we met representatives from numerous businesses that potentially want to invest here, so that we could set out our unique selling points. It was not within our gift to decide that local media would not turn up to do interviews in London, as was the case last Monday at the investment summit.

Ms Bradshaw: Last week, at the Executive Office Committee, we had some presentations on the draft investment strategy. Will you lay out the timescale for you and the deputy First Minister signing off on that?

Mrs O'Neill: We are working our way through that. A previous submission was put out to consultation, and we will come back on that. I hope that it will be in the immediate period ahead. I cannot give you an exact date, but we want to bring it forward, because it is important that our investment strategy aligns with the Programme for Government work. As we finalise the Programme for Government, it is appropriate to have the investment strategy alongside it as an enabling plan that will allow us to get the work moving. I look forward to engaging with the Committee on the outworking of all that work.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the First Minister for highlighting the North as a place for investment. Will the First Minister indicate the future benefit for the North as a result of the investment summit?

Mrs O'Neill: The purpose of the summit was to engage with international trading partners and demonstrate that we are very much open for business. We are confident that our positive engagement with stakeholders at the summit and the very clear message about our ability to support innovation and high-quality jobs will drive future investment. Naturally, some of that will take time to deliver. Unfortunately, you do not have one engagement at those investment conferences and quickly translate it into an investment plan. It is, however, important work as part of building up networks and contacts, making sure that we are doing everything that we can to attract investment and getting on with local delivery.

Recently, the Department for the Economy published the subregional economic plan. A key element of that is the establishment of local economic partnerships that focus on the areas that are important across the different council areas. The new £12 million skills fund has been established. We are working to improve careers advice. We really have a very good news story to tell. We certainly took the opportunity to make that very clear to all those potential investors, because, when it comes to investment opportunities, we have a lot to be optimistic about. As I said, our story and our selling points as a strategic location with dual market access, a youthful and growing population and a highly-skilled and cost-effective workforce were all the types of points that we made to those potential investors. I look forward to having even more of those connections in the time ahead, because we have already been able to follow up on some of the opportunities that were identified at the investment conference, not least when it comes to Studio Ulster and the opportunities that we will have for that next year with the big announcement.

Ms D Armstrong: First Minister, what additional plans does the Executive Office have to promote Northern Ireland on the world stage and to help attract inward investment?

Mrs O'Neill: The conference gave us an opportunity to set out our stall. I mentioned some of the selling points that we have, such as our strategic location. Dual market access is a unique selling point now and will attract investors. Look at some of the stats on our economic performance. In the past year, manufacturing exports to the EU grew by 14%. That is in comparison with what happened in England, Wales and Scotland. We have made some good progress there. Sales to Britain have increased and were up by 17% in 2022. Cross-border trade has more than doubled over the past five years.

We need to do everything that we can to exploit our dual market access and make the case, so, as First Minister and deputy First Minister, along with Executive colleagues and the Economy Minister, we will continue to repeat the message that we are open for business, that we have political stability and that we want you to come and invest here. That will align with the work that is being done within the Minister for the Economy's remit and also with what the deputy First Minister and I will do through diplomacy — by going out and making contact with people and following through on the investment opportunities. I think that we can be very optimistic about growing the economy.

Mrs O'Neill: We are fully committed to protecting all children from harm and ensuring the highest standards of safeguarding and child protection. All staff in our Department must adhere to the NI Civil Service (NICS) child protection policy and guidance, and established procedures are in place for reporting concerns and disclosures.

We are also committed to continuing our important work with victims and survivors. Since February, we have engaged with the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse, and we will shortly meet victims and survivors groups to discuss the issues that matter to them. We met those affected by mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses before the launch of the public consultation, and we are also committed to direct ongoing engagement as the process continues.

We have secured the Executive's endorsement of a new strategy for victims and survivors of the Troubles conflict and the new strategic framework for ending violence against women and girls. That framework was developed through co-design with the input of the community and voluntary sector, including the most valuable participation of women who have lived experience. In support of that, the junior Ministers visited grassroots women's organisations and met victims and survivors of violence. They have also met victims and survivors of historical clerical child abuse to discuss ongoing research and to attend an event to recognise the work of the regional trauma network. Across all those areas of work, we will continue to focus on delivering for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Ms McLaughlin: First Minister, when were you first made aware of the reason for Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile's suspension from your party?

Mrs O'Neill: On 13 September, in line with our child protection guidelines, and given that the complainant was under the age of 18, Niall Ó Donnghaile was suspended from the party and the issue was referred to the PSNI and social services in the North to investigate. At that point, I was made aware.

Ms Sheerin: Following the further tragic news of yet more deaths of females in the North — indeed, I was on my feet earlier today in the Chamber to speak about that — can you outline your commitment to the ending violence against women and girls strategy on which your Department is leading?

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that. I commend the Member for the statement that she made earlier. Of course, we all send our heartfelt condolences to the families of each and every one of those women who have lost their lives because of violence against women and girls. Twenty-four women have been murdered since 2020. They were daughters, mothers, sisters and friends, and those figures absolutely speak to an epidemic of violence against women and girls. Let me outline again today the message that we delivered when we launched our strategy: words are not enough. Now is past the time for talking, and that is why ending violence against women and girls has been a day-1 priority for me and for the deputy First Minister and why it is a priority in the draft Programme for Government.

Our seven-year strategic framework and our first delivery plan, which were launched last month, will work to end this scourge on society, but, as the Member will know, at the heart of that plan is the preventative work and the education piece that must be carried through. This will take some time, but it is the beginning of what may well be a generational journey where the end point must be the building of a society where women and girls live free from all forms of violence, abuse and harm. Together, we must make that work happen.

Mr Buckley: In the interests of transparency for victims and survivors, just last week, the First Minister's party leader, Mary Lou McDonald, faced calls to correct the record in the Dáil after she appeared to have misled the House in relation to the age of the victim of former Senator and former Sinn Féin Lord Mayor of Belfast Niall Ó Donnghaile who was the subject of inappropriate texts. For the purpose of clarity, will the First Minister tell the House the age of the schoolboy involved?

Mrs O'Neill: I repeat that all child protection protocols were followed, with an immediate referral to the PSNI and also to social services. The protection of the young person was absolutely our primary concern. Niall Ó Donnghaile was held accountable and faced serious consequences for his totally unacceptable and inappropriate behaviour. I am deeply sorry and angry that that young person had to endure any of that inappropriateness or unacceptable behaviour. I confirm that, according to our records, the young person was, in fact, 17. That is the record that we have in our membership files.

Ms Egan: Minister, last week the Executive Office Committee issued an invitation to you to attend the Committee this week with regard to safeguarding and representation of victims and survivors. Will you be coming to the Committee this week?

Mrs O'Neill: I am very happy to engage with the Committee. I know that the Committee is seeking legal advice. I look forward to seeing that. I am happy to clarify the record in terms of the questions that were put to me.

Mr Gaston: First Minister, the last time that you came before the Executive Committee, you told us that you did not see Michael McMonagle at an event in this Building on 14 February, even though photographs emerged a few days later showing that you were within feet of him. You told us that you did not engage with the British Heart Foundation on that day. Photographs later emerged, after a few days, showing that you had had conversations with Fearghal McKinney. When I asked you a question in this place about when the next Sinn Féin paedophile scandal would hit the party, you would not answer . Now we know why.

Mr Speaker: Ask a question, Mr Gaston, please.

Mr Gaston: Is it not the truth that, given the remit of your office, you have lost all credibility, or does the fact that, with all other unionists in this Chamber seemingly having confidence in you to hold office —

Mr Speaker: You are moving into a statement, so I call the First Minister.

Mr Gaston: — mean you have calculated that, like so often before, you will get away with it?

Mrs O'Neill: I am always more than happy to answer questions that are genuinely about safeguarding, because it is so important that we get this right. I have clarified my position in relation to engaging with Fearghal McKinney and the British Heart Foundation. The Member knows that only too well, so he is just standing on his feet to make a party political statement, as opposed to being genuine and asking questions that are legitimate for me to answer, which, I think, I endeavour to do in this House.

Mrs O'Neill: We attended the inaugural meeting of the Council of Nations and Regions in Edinburgh on Friday 11 October 2024. The council has been established to bring together Governments and authorities with devolved responsibilities to determine actions for tackling some of the biggest and most cross-cutting challenges that we face.

The meeting was chaired by the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. Also attending were the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, the Mayor of London and the mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities. This first meeting focused on economic growth and inward investment. The theme was chosen in the light of the international investment summit which was then held in London on 14 October and which the deputy First Minister and I also attended. The council received an update on the industrial strategy green paper, 'Invest 2035', and we discussed opportunities for attracting long-term inward investment. Council members confirmed their commitment to working together to maximise investment and support economic growth. It is envisaged that the council will meet again in spring next year.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the First Minister for her answer. I welcome the fact that the First Minister and deputy First Minister attended this event and are engaging with the Prime Minister and other UK regions. Will she commit to me and this House to make a full statement on the back of that meeting to outline its benefits to this region?

Mrs O'Neill: We are happy to report, as I have just done by answering the question. However, this falls outside the normal structures of reporting to the Assembly. We need to take advice with regard to that. However, we are very happy to inform the House that we saw it as a good opportunity to engage and discuss investment, shared challenges and shared opportunities. We look forward to building on the work that has now commenced with this new structure, but it is not a substitute for other formal structures of intergovernmental engagement, including, for example, the British-Irish Council or the East-West Council structures.

Mr McHugh: Minister, did you have the opportunity to raise the city deals with the Prime Minister during the visit?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, while we were in Edinburgh, the deputy First Minister and I had the opportunity to meet Keir Starmer privately in advance of the meeting with the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales. We raised the issue of funding for city deals. We absolutely underlined and stressed the importance of urgently securing the funding for those city deals that remain paused, the Mid South West and the Causeway Coast and Glens deals. The British Government's refusal to honour their commitment to the Mid South West and Causeway Coast and Glens city deals is inexcusable. We really wanted to underline their importance. If Keir Starmer is on his feet speaking about economic growth, that needs to be felt across the board. We cannot have a disparity in these deals. They are economic generators and, crucially, will drive investment and increase numbers of jobs. The need for the pause to be lifted and for them to get on with putting the funding back in place was certainly one of the areas that we raised. We are hopeful of having some indication in that regard at the end of the month with the Chancellor's statement. Hopefully, that will shed some more light on the pathway for those deals to be resumed.

Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister Reilly will answer that question.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): To date, £16·3 million has been invested in North Belfast in Urban Villages capital projects, 13 of which are now complete. Four projects are being progressed in the area, including the Ardoyne Bone Community (ABC) Health and Leisure Trust hub, which is on-site now, and the redevelopment of Ballysillan playing fields, where construction is due to begin on-site in November of this year. A Westland community centre is being explored. Westland Community Group has invited us to meet it to talk about the community centre, and we hope to take that offer up in the near future. More than £2 million has been invested through revenue projects to improve good relations outcomes in the North Belfast Urban Villages area. The impact that the Urban Villages programme has had in the North Belfast community is significant. Successful delivery of the remaining capital projects will increase access to shared space facilities and continue to promote integration across the area and beyond. We recently set out the strategic direction for Urban Villages, which will include completion of the remaining capital projects on the current plan.

Mr Brett: I thank the junior Minister for her comprehensive update. I agree with her that the impact that Urban Villages has had in North Belfast is significant. Junior Minister, there are other parts of North Belfast that would hugely benefit from a scheme. Is the Executive Office scoping the creation of a further Urban Villages programme across Northern Ireland so that we can ensure that all communities have the right to benefit from that important work?

Ms Reilly: As the Member knows, Urban Villages, by design, was not supposed to be a long-term funder. We have to learn from what has worked throughout the programme and how we can improve. It has made a real impact on communities by improving good relations and supporting regeneration. Alongside junior Minister Cameron, I have visited numerous sites, met organisations and witnessed the positive changes that have taken place as result of the programme. Work on the ground continues, with those local communities playing a vital role in shaping the projects and benefiting from their delivery. I look forward to working with officials in the Department on the development of Urban Villages.

Mr Delargy: I note the hugely positive work that has come out of Urban Villages, particularly in my constituency in Derry. I appreciate that the junior Minister has already answered this in part, but can she outline specifically the next steps for the project? Also, what thought has been given to Urban Villages phase 2?

Ms Reilly: Since coming into this position, I have had the great opportunity, alongside other Ministers, to visit numerous sites throughout the North. We were at the New Gate Arts and Culture Centre in the Fountain area of Derry, and at Hosford Community Homes in east Belfast. I commend the great work that is done by the East Belfast Mission and at the community garden and family sheds in south Belfast. There is also the Lockhouse development that will be delivered. Just last week, I attended another great event in the City Hall that brought schoolchildren together. It was a buddy-up initiative celebration. That really showed that good community relations are beneficial not just for the schools and teachers but for the kids and the parents.

As you have already heard, the programme has clearly delivered a tangible benefit across participating communities. Successful delivery of the remaining capital projects will increase access to shared space facilities and continue to promote integration across the five Urban Villages areas and beyond. We have set out a strategic direction for Urban Villages in the time ahead. That will include completing the current Urban Villages plan, with a focus on delivering the remaining capital portfolio projects; investing in securing the sustainability of capital projects; working on capacity building to support community organisations that are taking forward large capital projects; and planning for the future by establishing a working group to take forward the development of phase 2. Ministers are reviewing the areas where Urban Villages phase 2 will have the most impact, including more rural areas. We will keep Members informed as that process progresses.

Mr Durkan: Is it, and has it always been, imperative that all Urban Villages projects, and the work that they do and fund, improve good relations outcomes and promote integration?

Ms Reilly: I have outlined the good work that Urban Villages has done throughout the North. It has had a wide reach, and it has been impactful for people of all ages. We are focused on investing in securing the sustainability of remaining capital projects. As I said, we will keep Members up to date.

Mrs O'Neill: With your permission again, Mr Speaker, junior Minister Reilly will answer that question.

Ms Reilly: One of our key priorities is building a society where racial equality and diversity are supported, valued and respected. Work is continuing to deliver the commitments in the racial equality strategy. Beyond 2025, it is important that there is a clear mechanism and overarching framework for achieving racial equality and eradicating racism in our society.

On 11 September 2024, I attended a workshop with the racial equality subgroup and the Travellers and Roma thematic groups. The purpose was to gather initial thoughts on the way forward. Feedback from that workshop along with input from key stakeholders, including the wider minority ethnic sector, will inform any future strategic approach. We all want to see the end of racism and to make this a fair and inclusive society where everyone is made to feel welcome and safe.

Ms Flynn: I thank the junior Minister for her response. Will she provide us with an update on the minority ethnic development fund?

Ms Reilly: The minority ethnic development fund continues to be a key element of policy for racial equality and good race relations. It is intended to align with and support our racial equality strategy 2015-2025, and it is a vehicle for delivering aspects of the vision and shared aims. In line with a review of the fund, a three-year funding scheme is in place from April 2022 to March 2025 to help provide successful groups with greater stability and enable longer term planning and support.

There are 31 successful applicants being supported through the fund, which is worth approximately £1·1 million per annum. We recognise the value that the sector places on the fund and how it can support organisations to provide critical services to minority ethnic communities here. Subject to budget, we will extend the fund for current recipients by one year during 2025-26 to align with a new strategic approach, and officials are working through the procedures that are required to implement that.

Ms Mulholland: Will the junior Minister give us an update on when the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 will be updated?

Ms Reilly: A consultation on a review of the Race Relations Order started in March 2023 and formally closed in June 2023. A report on the responses and feedback from the consultation was published in August 2024. We aim to bring updated race relations legislation to the Assembly, through the legislative programme, in the 2025-26 session. The report considered over 50 amendments and will inform the basis for any legislative changes. It will move us a step closer to providing the best possible legal protection against racism and towards a more equal society.

Mr McGrath: Does the Minister agree that a stand-alone hate crime Bill would assist the racial equality strategy?

Ms Reilly: All forms of violence, hate and discrimination have to be tackled head-on and called out. There is no place for racism in our society. We need to support inclusion.

We must challenge and confront any form of prejudice and ensure values of respect and equality for all. Our collective goal is to build a society where every individual, regardless of their background or identity, can live free from fear, hate and intolerance. We should all work actively and together to make sure that our communities are safe and welcoming for everyone.

Mrs O'Neill: The public consultation on the proposals for a public inquiry and a redress scheme closed on 19 September. We thank all those who responded and attended one of the 16 public events. In total, 269 responses were received, and we are committed to publishing an analysis of them in the coming weeks. Whilst we need time to consider the responses in full, there are many areas of broad agreement where positive amendments can be made. However, there remain many sensitive policy issues that will require discussion with Executive colleagues before any final decision can be taken. It will also be important for us to engage with and listen to victims and survivors in this period.

We aim to do the majority of the work before the end of 2024. Once the draft Bill is agreed by the Executive, it will be introduced in the Assembly to be fully considered. In parallel, we continue to establish the practical requirements for the inquiry and redress service. We remain committed, along with many Members of the House, to helping people and their loved ones to get the answers and the support that they deserve.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, can you give us a rough idea of the timeline? As we know, many of the women, who were girls at the time, are part of an ageing population.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I accept that. We want to move it on as quickly as possible. Given the enormity of the policy decisions and their emotive nature, we need to work our way through them as quickly as possible. We will continue to engage with victims and survivors throughout, which is also very important. As we have said, by the end of the year, we want to have got to a juncture where we have considered in full and discussed with Executive colleagues the policy positions that we may take. We will come back to the House, obviously, for scrutiny and for conversation with Members.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, the fact that this and other victims-, survivors- and abuse-related issues sit in the Executive Office underlines the importance of your credibility in relation to safeguarding and related matters. Further to Connie Egan's question, can I be absolutely clear on the point that you will appear before the Executive Office Committee this Wednesday?

Mrs O'Neill: I intend to go before the Committee, but the matter of timing is one that I need to work out with the Committee. It has invited me to come back this Wednesday, but I am acutely aware that it has asked for legal advice. Let us get that, but I am more than happy to answer questions from the Committee.

Mrs Erskine: The First Minister rightly said that institutional abuse is a source of shame and that the inquiry focused on the need for truth. She mentioned listening to victims and survivors. It is also a source of shame that, last week in the House, the First Minister refused to say that she believed Máiría Cahill. Will she answer the question this week rather than dodge it: does she believe Máiría Cahill when it comes to the abuse that she endured?

Mrs O'Neill: I believe that I was asked that question at the Committee and that my answer was yes. There is no stepping away from that. I have answered the question before and am happy to do so again for you.

Mrs O'Neill: Establishing the office of climate commissioner here is a key requirement of the Climate Change Act 2022 that falls to this Department. When established, it will be an important element of our support to transition to net zero. Prior to February 2024, officials took forward significant development work on the options for the commissioner, including how they will complement existing advisory bodies, and began drafting the required regulations. In recent weeks, the deputy First Minister and I have agreed that the necessary procedures should be undertaken to have the regulations laid and made in the Assembly as soon as possible. That will be an important first step in establishing the office of the commissioner. Our officials are undertaking the work required to have the regulations laid and made. The Committee for the Executive Office will also consider them in due course. The appointment of the climate commissioner will follow once the Assembly procedures are complete and the regulations are in place. Although there is no date stated in the Act for when a climate commissioner should be appointed, once the regulations have been approved, we will move as quickly as possible to see that that appointment is swiftly made.

Mr Speaker: Mr Blair, you have a few seconds.

Mr Blair: Thank you. Will the First Minister indicate why it has taken so long to appoint commissioners on a range of issues from climate to victims to languages, given that that was supposed to have been done within 100 days of restoration?

Mrs O'Neill: There has perhaps been a bit of confusion about what was presented by officials in terms of the first 100 days, but it was not a work programme set out by me and the deputy First Minister. Suffice to say that, when the legislation was brought forward, Ministers were not in place, so a lot of work was happening in their absence. It is important that we get it right, and that is why we have revised the timeline for laying the regulations. It is complex, and we need to make sure we get it right. We restated our commitment to bringing it forward as part of the environmental improvement plan.

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Mrs O'Neill: We are moving at pace, and, hopefully, it will be by the end of the year.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions. I call Justin McNulty

Mrs O'Neill: As I said when I answered questions in the House, I want to be open and transparent and answer the questions that are posed to me, and I have endeavoured to do so. It is important that I repeat my assurances that safeguarding is of the utmost importance to me, and I have said that in the Chamber over the last number of weeks as a mother, a grandparent and a Minister of government. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we uphold the best possible standards that we can.

I have set out what we will do internally and the personal responsibilities in terms of our party. I have said clearly that we will overhaul our systems and structures, but I also recommend that the public judge me on the actions I take as First Minister to fulfil all my responsibilities to support victims and survivors.

Mr McNulty: I thank the First Minister for her answer. The House recognises that your credibility as the northern leader of Sinn Féin overlaps with your credibility as First Minister for all. To help restore trust in your ability to hold the highest office in the Assembly and in keeping with the Nolan principles, will you consent to a senior counsel scoping exercise with a view to assessing the need for an independent inquiry on how Sinn Féin, as a party, has dealt with complaints of abuse by those in positions of power and trust?

Mrs O'Neill: There are mechanisms in place — this is one of them — for Members to ask me questions. I am being as open and transparent as I can be, and we have answered the questions that have been posed by Members here and in the Assembly Committee and, likewise, in the Dáil.

I take the opportunity to make a plea to all political parties that we are all part of society, everybody needs to do their due diligence and everybody needs to be very sure-footed in their child protection policies. I will bring that approach to our party. I am confident that we followed the child protection policies as we needed to, but I encourage that across the board. Let us all question ourselves: is everybody fit for purpose? If we are all serious about safeguarding, that is the remit that falls to every one of us.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. Absolutely. I thank the Member for his question and for being vocal on the issue, as are other Members of the House. Farmers were told that the funding would be replaced pound for pound, and they are still not sure where they stand. The cut to farm support, particularly for small family farms, will have a negative impact on our local farmers and our agri-economy. Since Brexit, our agricultural community has faced significant uncertainty, first with the loss of the single farm payment under the EU common agricultural policy (CAP) and now with the cut to the basic payment scheme. The scheme is a lifeline for farmers, and it must be protected. I assure the Member that we have raised the matter at British Government level and will continue to do so.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for her response; she has partially answered my second question. Will the Minister and the Executive recommit to pressing the British Government for fair funding for the Executive and for guaranteed long-term funding for our farming community?

Mrs O'Neill: Since the Executive were restored, I and other Ministers have used every opportunity to urge the British Government to fairly fund the Executive so that we can, in turn, support our local economy and our public services. We know that, prior to the election, we were dealing with 14 years of cuts and chaos under the Tories that, combined with Brexit, put immense pressure on farmers and rural communities. Without that investment, the survival of our rural economies and livelihoods will certainly be at risk. These payments to farmers are under the direct control of the British Government. As I said, we will continue to take every opportunity to press for fair funding for farming and to ensure that that is put in place immediately. As a matter of fact, we raised that with Keir Starmer when we met him on Friday of last week.

Mrs O'Neill: There is a danger of just repeating and repeating. We have answered this question very clearly. All child protection protocols were followed. All child protection protocols were followed, with the immediate referral to the PSNI and social services. The protection of the young person was our primary concern, as it always would be. Mr Ó Donnghaile was held accountable and faced serious consequences — rightly so — for his inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour. As I said earlier, I am deeply sorry that that young person went through that experience. It is totally unacceptable by anybody's standards. As we said at the weekend in terms of the young fella himself, Mary Lou McDonald clearly stated on the public record that any commentary that she made was never designed to cause additional distress to the young person, and that remains our position.

It is so, so important that people do not play games with people's lives here. This is so, so delicate in terms of the young individual. It is important that I am open and transparent, as we have endeavoured to be. It is important that people do not play games, please, with people's lives whenever they come to talk about this subject.

Mr Brett: First Minister, I will try that again, because transparency is important. I ask you again: why did you, as deputy leader of Sinn Féin and First Minister designate, allow Niall Ó Donnghaile to remain as one of the most senior members of Sinn Féin and the leader of your party in the Seanad for three months — three months — despite you knowing that he had inappropriately contacted a schoolboy?

Mrs O'Neill: Again, we are on the public record as having said that the party received legal advice that naming the individual would not have been appropriate, given that no criminal charges were brought against him. However, we also stated clearly that he was dealing with a severe mental health crisis and was deemed to be medically unfit by his doctor. Therefore, there were concerns about the individual's mental health. Again, we have said that clearly on a number of occasions.

Mrs O'Neill: I assure the Member that there will be plenty of disagreements between me and the deputy First Minister: that is the cut and thrust of politics. There may be a different policy emphasis at different times, but we are working our way through those issues. There are times when we have differences in approach, but, given the "jointery" of the office, we try to find a way to work through those. Where we have come up against any difficulties, we have been able to manage our way through those. I have no doubt that we will have many a challenge in the time ahead, but we will continue to work our way through them.

Mr Crawford: I thank the First Minister for her answer. What assurances can she give us, as Members, and the public that the Executive Office will provide a strong, strategic agenda between now and the end of the mandate?

Mrs O'Neill: We have already demonstrated that that is what we are absolutely committed to doing, when you look at what we have been able to do. Our draft Programme for Government is out for consultation. We have had the first-year legislative programme. We have made advances in childcare. We have made advances across a raft of areas on which we can be collectively proud that we are making progress. Of course, there is a large volume of work to get through. It is important that we get the right strategies and policies in place. It is important that we demonstrate to the public the value of local institutions delivering for them. That is my resolve and, no doubt, that of the deputy First Minister in the Executive Office. We will always come to the House to talk to Members about all the areas that we cover.

Mrs O'Neill: That is a policy responsibility for the Department of Education, so the Education Minister will be best placed to answer that question. He has not, I believe, asked for support on it, but I would need to double-check to be sure. Obviously, the policy responsibility falls to the Education Minister.

Mr Harvey: I thank the First Minister for her response. Will she commit to engaging with Treasury to secure Northern Ireland's exemption from the policy, if that is suitable?

Mrs O'Neill: First, the Education Minister will need to contact me to raise any concerns that he has. We can see where it goes from there. Having not been over the policy remit, I cannot comment in more detail.

Mrs O'Neill: We are working our way through that. It comes to an end in the early part of next year. We are keen to get to the juncture where we work with the Irish Government, because, obviously, they are a major funder. We want to build on the good progress that has been made to this point. Nobody can dispute that the north-west development fund has been effective, but there is a lot of scope for us to build on it. We need to communicate and are communicating with the Irish Government on what the next iteration looks like.

Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat.

Minister, I am sure that you will agree that addressing regional imbalance is key to a thriving, progressive economy in the North of Ireland.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. I talked earlier about growing our economy and its benefits and selling points. The fact that we are focused very much on regional balance and ensuring that we have a fair economy is a strong point to make. I welcome the fact that the Economy Minister has put forward proposals to ensure that there is regional balance across the board. They are a game-changer.

Everybody must enjoy the prosperity that we create. We can do a lot more in that regard, but the legislation that has been introduced and recent developments such as the A5 project going ahead speak to regional balance and an improved picture whereby we ensure that there is fairness across the board. I assure the Member that regional balance — creating more jobs and ensuring that everybody gets their share of them — is an absolutely laudable policy choice that, I know, we will continue to pursue.

Mrs O'Neill: Of course. As the junior Minister said, there are so many excellent projects out there that really improve community relations. No doubt the museum plays its part in that. That goes without saying.

Mr Durkan: I thank the First Minister for her answer. She previously told the Assembly that the museum had nothing to do with TEO despite TEO having spent the money to build it. I did not notice any representative from TEO in the photographs of the official opening. Were Ministers invited, and why could none out of four attend?

Mrs O'Neill: I am not aware whether we were invited. I look at every invitation favourably. As the Member will know, I spend my days, evenings and weekends out and about, engaging with excellent projects. I do not know whether we were invited. I do not remember declining an invitation to attend. As I said previously, we need to be clear about what we fund and do not fund. I made a distinction at that time, as the Member is acutely aware.

Mrs O'Neill: I do not agree with the assertion that it was "glowing"; it was a statement on the role that he held —.

Mr Buckley: Diligently?

Mrs O'Neill: It was a statement on the role that he held and the different positions that he served in. It also wished him well with his health.

Mr Speaker: Very quickly, Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: Does the First Minister stand over the release of the statement in the manner in which it was released?

Mrs O'Neill: I have tried to answer that in terms of the individual's mental health and the sensitivities around that. I have tried to answer the question for you.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister for Infrastructure): My Department has provided NI Water with nearly £500 million of public money this year to enable it to deliver essential water and sewerage services for all areas, including Newry. NI Water has developed a strategic outline case to access the options for upgrading the Newry waste water treatment works. That project will represent a significant investment in Newry and provide additional capacity to the sewer network to protect the environment and enable economic development.

NI Water estimates that over £100 million of capital investment is required to upgrade the Newry waste water treatment works to the required standard. NI Water had planned to commence the upgrade to the waste water system in the PC21 investment cycle from 2021 to 2027, and it is prioritising its capital investment programme in line with this year's capital budget allocation. As the Member will be aware, my Department has been operating in a very difficult financial environment for a number of years due to continued underfunding and austerity by successive British Governments. I will continue to work with Executive colleagues to ensure that appropriate investment for NI Water is achieved.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that the water and waste water infrastructure is, increasingly, becoming a barrier to housing and commercial developments in Newry. Does he recognise that addressing those issues inadequately will impede the success of projects to develop and enhance Newry city centre and increase the housing supply there? Will he outline what engagement he has had with developers on such projects?

Mr O'Dowd: I have not had direct engagement with developers regarding Newry town centre specifically. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet Newry Chamber of Commerce and Trade. That was a useful and informative discussion with a cross-sectoral group of businesses and interests in the Newry area, and they highlighted their concerns about waste water infrastructure in the Newry area.

I encourage everyone with planned developments to engage with NI Water at the earliest stage possible. I assure the Member that I am working on a three-pronged strategy: I am working with my Executive colleagues to secure further funding for NI Water; I have brought proposals to the Executive, which have been accepted, on a sustainable drainage programme; and I am looking at how we can introduce developer contributions. All of those measures will assist us in ensuring that we continue to move forward with developments, whether they are in Newry or elsewhere.

Mr Boylan: What policy measures is the Minister implementing to mitigate the impact of surface water?

Mr O'Dowd: As I mentioned to Mr McNulty, a key piece of policy that has been passed by the Executive and will allow me to bring legislation to the House relates to sustainable urban drainage. That will be an exciting way forward in how we hold surface water and rainfall in certain areas and release it more slowly into the system, meaning that the waste water system will not be overpowered by storm water or rainwater.

Mr O'Dowd: The first residents' parking scheme, on Rugby Road and College Park Avenue in Belfast, came into operation in April 2018. My Department has completed a review of the scheme and our wider approach to residents' parking. I am content with the findings of the report and have asked officials to arrange for the report to be shared with the Infrastructure Committee and then published.

I can say that the review has found that the scheme introduced at Rugby Road, Belfast, has been generally well received among the residents of the area. However, the review also highlights that other such schemes have been difficult to implement and that Rugby Road is the first and only scheme that has been able to be implemented since the policy was introduced in 2007. The review also highlights the resource-intensive nature of the scheme's implementation, which is particularly important given the significant constraints on my budget at this time.

The report concludes that a more streamlined approach to delivery is required and that a strategic approach to parking, including residents' parking schemes, needs to be developed. That needs to be linked with the local parking strategies that are being developed in support of the proposed transport plans.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he provide an update on residents' parking schemes in Derry, please?

Mr O'Dowd: My Department is aware of the parking difficulties caused by commuter parking in the Bogside area in Derry. In 2011, work started on the development of a potential residents' parking scheme for that area. The scheme, known as the Rossville Street residents' parking scheme, was to cover an area of the city centre comprising around 650 dwellings. However, when the proposal was consulted on, there was a high level of opposition: of the 226 responses that we received, 212 were objections. Similar to the Rugby Road scheme, the consultation process involved a substantial staff resource. As a result, consideration is being given to developing a much smaller scheme in the area.

Mr Durkan: I look forward to reading the long-awaited report on Rugby Road, given that the development of any residents' parking scheme across the North has been contingent on the publication of that review's report.

My Foyle colleague mentioned the Bogside parking scheme in Derry. Is the Minister aware that all our parking schemes in Derry have been delayed even further and are contingent on the success of a Bogside scheme? Will he commit to looking at those issues in parallel?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his question. As the Member rightly says, that long-awaited report will be published, and the Committee will have an opportunity to see it. It will set out the pathway for how we deliver future parking schemes, whether in Derry or elsewhere.

While I am keen to move forward with as many schemes as possible, there is always the challenge of resources: the availability of people in my Department to manage those schemes. There will also be challenges: residents may or may not wish to proceed on the basis that the scheme outlines. There are a number of steps to be taken in each facility, but I am happy to work through them and, where we can, deliver as many schemes as possible.

Mr K Buchanan: On parking schemes, Minister, are you aware of any tactics used by individual companies that are privately managed and privately run to get money out of people? There are several parking places in Cookstown that you drive into that have no signage or very small signage, and then you are fined £100 for a two-hour stay. There are also the tactics that debt recovery agencies use to get money out of frightened people. Are you aware of that? Is there anything that your Department can do to control that in any way?

Mr O'Dowd: I am aware of it. As a constituency MLA, I am aware of the practice. It does not fall under the direct remit of my Department, but I am more than happy to go back and enquire of my departmental officials what role, if any, we can play. It is vital that drivers who use those schemes be treated fairly and equitably under the law.

Mr O'Dowd: I recognise the current waste water capacity challenges and am taking a three-pronged approach to the matter. First, I continue to work with my Executive colleagues to ensure appropriate investment for NI Water. Secondly, I am introducing new legislation on sustainable urban drainage, which will help to store storm water so that it releases more slowly into the waste water network. Thirdly, I have asked my officials to examine the legislative change required to introduce developer contributions. The impact of developer contributions will be fully assessed through the stakeholder engagement and consultation. In the meantime, I encourage developers to engage earlier with NI Water, through its pre-development enquiry process, to identify solutions, where they exist.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, what do you say to those who raised concerns with me recently that they fear that developer contributions to address our waste water system capacity risk creating a two-tier system for development and passing costs on to house buyers?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said in my answer, that will require legislative change, and part of that change will involve a consultation process where views can be aired and taken on board, whether from the point of view of the developer, the house purchaser or whoever it may be. The House will have to vote on the legislation. There are a number of steps to be taken — accountability measures will be built into those steps — before any final decisions are made.

Mr Baker: What current obstacles are preventing developers from contributing financially to NI Water in order to facilitate development?

Mr O'Dowd: The current obstacle is the legislation that we have available to us, which does not allow us to take contributions from developers in order to pay directly towards waste water treatment works. It is common practice that developers will pay for the separation of storm water and sewage and foul waste but, at the moment, we cannot allow for contributions to be taken from developers for the purpose of waste water treatment works.

Mrs Erskine: Developers are saying that they already contribute. We have a number of unadopted sites in Northern Ireland, yet developers say that they have contributed in some way. Is the Minister working on anything to try to combat that?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that developers pay a bond towards roads and other public services maintenance in areas. Before any bond is used to complete a site, however, I believe that it is only right and proper that my officials explore to the nth degree why a developer cannot do that themselves. In itself, the bond is very rarely sufficient to complete the site. It is only right and proper that when we come across those challenges, my officials engage with the developer to challenge them to complete the site, rather than dipping into the public purse.

Mr McGlone: Has the Minister engaged with the Minister for Communities regarding the cost consequences of this proposal and its potential negative cost impact on the provision of social housing?

Mr O'Dowd: I have not engaged directly with the Communities Minister at this stage. As I said to one of your colleagues, however, we are at the start of this process rather than at the end of it. It will require legislative change, and consultation takes place, as part of any legislative journey, with fellow Ministers, other key stakeholders and the general public.

Mr Speaker: Questions 4 and 5 have been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd: My Department has been operating in a difficult financial environment for a number of years due to underfunding and austerity by successive British Governments. As a consequence, new maintenance regimes have been adopted that are commensurate to the levels of funding that are available to my Department. That, ultimately, determines the frequency with which departmental maintenance activities will be undertaken. That also means that only the highest-priority defects are repaired, so that the budget can cover the entire year.

Resurfacing schemes are funded through my Department's structural maintenance programme. Regrettably, for some time, the available investment has not kept pace with what is required, and we have not been able to keep all roads in the reasonable condition that we would wish. While there are many roads that would benefit from investment, our limited resources budget means that resurfacing work has been taken forward through the prioritisation of those that are deemed most in need of intervention.

Resurfacing schemes that were completed in the previous financial year and those that are programmed for the current financial year will be listed in my Department's 2024-25 annual report to councils in due course.

Ms Brownlee: Only yesterday, I got an email from the Department in relation to the lack of budget for dropped kerbs. How is the Department prioritising safe crossing points for people with disabilities or those who are using prams, and how will we see that reflected in investment in East Antrim?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member raises a very good point about ensuring that my Department is using its budget to guarantee accessibility and inclusion for all citizens in our society. That is one of the key areas that I am bringing forward in the Department. I can assure the Member that I am acutely aware of the need to prioritise budgets in an inclusive way.

Mr Kearney: Minister, I welcome your Department's efforts to address structural maintenance priorities in my constituency of South Antrim, particularly in a number of rural locations. I remain deeply concerned, however, about the defects in the structural maintenance programme, not only in South Antrim but across the North more generally. To what extent have British Government underfunding and austerity had a direct and immediate impact on your structural maintenance programme?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for the question. I have no doubt that, at some stage, we will move on to the roadworks that are going on around Belfast. Members will have noted that there has been increased activity on the ground, from DFI staff and contractors, to repair, renew and correct defects across the network. I welcome that continued effort and investment, but it is quite simply the case that, after over a decade of austerity, my Department and others cannot keep pace with the challenges, and therefore have to prioritise more rigidly than we would have previously when delivering schemes.

I assure the Member that I am looking at every option that is available to me to get more works carried out on the ground and to secure more investment, particularly in our rural network where people often feel, quite rightly, that they have been left behind. I intend to correct that where I can and ensure that rural roads are appropriately maintained.

Mr Donnelly: The Minister mentioned issues with structural maintenance across the road network. I ask the Minister for a bit more detail on what his proposals are for ensuring that the roads are of a quality that is safe for all users, specifically cyclists.

Mr O'Dowd: It is clear that we have to provide a good surface for all road users. I suppose that that is often categorised as being simply motorists, but it is right and proper that we provide a surface for all road users, whether they are motorists, motorcyclists, pedestrians or, as in this case, cyclists. I will endeavour to do that within the budget that is available to me.

Mr O'Dowd: Major road schemes are an important part of the work that is delivered by my Department as it seeks to reduce journey times, increase reliability and improve road safety. In October 2022, I published a report on the placemaking and active travel review (PATR) of the scheme and asked my officials to carry out further work on three scenarios that were recommended in it. The work to prepare a placemaking and active travel development report has now been completed. Due to underinvestment in major road schemes and the constrained budget position, the scheme was considered as part of the prioritisation of major schemes, and further works were paused as part of the outworking of that review.

I met officials on 9 October 2024 to review the report, which allows me to consider the way forward for the scheme. Any subsequent decision to proceed with the York Street interchange project can only be made when I am confident that there is budget certainty for the scheme and that its delivery is in line with my Department's emerging transport plans.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, do you accept that the delay in progressing the project causes serious environmental issues at various bottlenecks and economic delays for constituents in East Antrim in particular, and that it restricts the future and enhanced use of the Belfast-Derry and Belfast-Larne railway lines and the potential for a Belfast International Airport railway connection?

Mr O'Dowd: I accept that the status quo is far from ideal. We need to make a significant investment in the York Street area and move forward with a project that benefits not only commuters who travel through the area but those who live in and do business in the area. That was the reason for the placemaking report. I am studying how to move forward on a number of major road projects, and I keep coming back to the question of how to finance them. That is the part of the equation that is missing. The Budget statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer might shed some light on options for the Executive, but, until new options are available to me, I am very restricted in what further projects I can deliver.

Mr O'Toole: Clearly, there are big projects that need to happen. I will touch on two projects that are happening — the maintenance at the Sydenham bypass and Belfast Grand Central Station — and on all the disruption associated with them. I support both those things happening — I am clearly a huge supporter of Grand Central — but there is a risk of the entire city grinding to a halt. What are you doing, Minister, to ensure that the best possible information gets to people who use public transport? I tried to get on a bus the other day, near my constituency office in Botanic Avenue. The display at the bus stop said that no buses were running, but a bus showed up 10 minutes later. We need to get proper information to commuters who are in the city or coming into the city. What are you doing to minimise disruption?

Mr O'Dowd: I remind Members that I provided them with a written ministerial statement as early as, I think, April or May, which outlined the challenges that Belfast would face as a result of the works that would have to be carried out as part of the public realm works for Belfast Grand Central Station. Members have been briefed on this since that time.

What am I doing? We are bringing forward measures to allow taxis into the bus lanes, which will free up some commuter travel in the area.

I have asked my officials to engage with Belfast City Council directly to see what measures we can take jointly to inform citizens and promote Belfast. I have also asked them to respond to a request from Retail NI and Hospitality Ulster for a further extension to the moratorium on roadworks around Christmas. I have asked my officials to see whether we can do that. If it is an option, let us do it to support traders.

We are in danger of sending out a message that Belfast is closed for business. It is not. Belfast is extremely busy, which is great. My responsibility is to get commuters in and out of the city in an effective and efficient manner. The investment that we are making in the Sydenham bypass will do that; the investment that we are making in Belfast Grand Central Station will do that; and other measures, including the eastern transport plan, which is an all-encompassing plan around Belfast, will do that.

Mr O'Dowd: As the Minister responsible for promoting and improving road safety, I want, with partners, to actively reduce death and serious injuries on the roads. Following the Adjournment debate on 12 March 2024, I asked my officials to take forward a review of the A20 Portaferry Road from Newtownards to Teal Rocks to establish whether engineering measures could be undertaken to enhance road safety.

I am pleased to advise that nearly 1 kilometre of resurfacing from Newtownards to just beyond Teal Rocks was recently completed. The scheme includes a new bus lay-by, bus shelter and footway opposite Strangford filling station as well as a crossing point for pedestrians, which provides a safer facility for vulnerable road users to access public transport. A localised section of footway on the Newtownards side will be widened. The resurfacing scheme has provided a better road surface as well as refreshed road markings to aid driver visibility. The road surfacing is part of a wider 10-year plan for resurfacing along the A20 Portaferry Road.

My officials are reviewing a recently completed traffic assessment of the extension of the 40 mph speed limit from Newtownards to just beyond Teal Rocks. It is hoped that the review will be completed over the coming weeks. A 320-metre footway near Cunningburn Road is being considered to provide a continuous footway between Newtownards and Greyabbey. Following the release of the latest PSNI collision data, my officials will assess the Portaferry Road to identify any common causation patterns that could be addressed by engineering measures.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for his answer. I look forward to the results of the assessment of the 40 mph extension. Minister, in light of the recent road accident involving a bus transporting children from Strangford College, will you reassure families that your Department is working to maximise safety on those rural links?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, and my thoughts go out to all those involved in that accident. Thankfully, there were not more serious injuries than those that did occur, and everyone will have a full recovery. I assure the Member that road safety is the priority for my Department. We will cooperate fully with the police investigation into that incident, and help them to understand how it came about.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, after Storm Ashley, I thank you and your Department for the quick clean-up of the seaweed and all the mess that was thrown onto the A20.

I welcome the long-awaited road improvements near Teal Rocks, because it is an accident black spot. Shell grip has been removed from the road in that area. Will the Minister explain why, with the resurfacing, the shell grip was removed? That is the area that has had most crashes recently.

Mr O'Dowd: First, I would like to add my thanks to those of the Member to my staff who worked over the weekend dealing with Storm Ashley. I commend them for their work, whether they were working in the background providing information to the public or on the ground clearing up during the storm and after it passed.

I do not know why the shell grip was removed. I will ask officials to respond to the Member directly.

Mr O'Dowd: Our preferred route for a Ballykelly bypass was announced in 2010. However, in advance of any decision to prioritise the scheme, officials would need to undertake a reassessment of the route due to the passage of time.

The estimate for the bypass that was compiled back in 2008 was in the range of £35 million to £40 million. That would need to be brought up to date, and would be subject to high levels of inflation and the cost increases that have been experienced by the construction sector in recent years.

My Department is developing a new transport strategy that will help to shape the vision and strategic priorities for transport through to 2035. Once published, that will help inform the transport plan for the regional strategic transport network, which includes the A2 at Ballykelly.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, you will be aware that, over the past few years, there have been three road schemes on that route, which have caused many delays and detours. Given that it is 16 years since I attended the public consultation on the proposed A2 Ballykelly bypass, at a time when 16,000 vehicles per day were travelling through Ballykelly, when will the Department turn its attention to that bypass, and when will we see the much-awaited regional transport plan?

Mr O'Dowd: I suppose that the same answer can be given to both questions. The transport plan will determine whether a bypass is still required around Ballykelly. I cannot give you a firm date as to when that transport plan will be delivered. We are working our way through those plans. They are quite staff intensive. A lot of data has to be collected and a lot of consultation is involved. The transport plan will provide a definitive way forward, not only for Ballykelly but for many other towns, villages and, indeed, cities across the region.

Ms Sugden: I echo the comments of my constituency colleague. Many people in Ballykelly are quite frustrated with the ongoing scheme and would like to have seen the investment being made in a bypass. I appreciate that a bypass would probably require substantially more investment. Will the Minister commit to come to Ballykelly to see the work that needs to be done and why people are advocating for that?

Mr O'Dowd: If the Member wishes to write to my private office, I will consider the invitation and respond in due course.

Regardless of where roadworks are taking place, I understand commuters' frustration when they are caught up in them. However, they will see the benefits of not only the roadworks when they are completed but the associated active travel route, which will be hugely beneficial to the people of Ballykelly.

Mr O'Dowd: Apologies.

On 10 October 2024, I announced a bilingual traffic sign pilot scheme for the Gaeltacht Quarter in west Belfast. As part of the pilot, bilingual traffic signs and road markings will be installed on the Falls Road between the Springfield Road and Whiterock Road. The majority of signs and markings relate to bus lanes, and the remainder will be mixed parking and direction signs. The Gaeltacht Quarter is an ideal location for the pilot. The provision of traffic signs and road markings in Irish and English will complement the use of those languages by businesses and organisations in the Gaeltacht Quarter.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Minister for his response. I welcome the pilot scheme in the Gaeltacht Quarter. Does the Minister agree that the Irish language should be more visible across all areas of our public sector?

Mr O'Dowd: I do agree. When you look at Belfast's Gaeltacht Quarter, you see that it has a thriving Irish-speaking community where the language is used and visible. It is only right and proper that Departments such as mine support and promote it in line with the work that is being done by many in the voluntary and business sectors.

Mr O'Dowd: The computer cannot keep up with you.

On 9 September 2024, I met Minister Nesbitt and Minister Muir to discuss the cross-departmental working group on community transport, which I established during my previous tenure as Minister. We collectively agreed that the group will consider whether transport in the community can provide a more cost-effective, value-for-money service delivery model to meet the needs of users and investigate the potential for community transport providers to be part of a collaborative group of transport options and pathways that can be accessed by the population.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Rural community transport providers do vital work. They pick up in places that general public transport does not. However, information that I have received from the Northern Health and Social Care Trust shows that it spent £2·3 million on private taxis and, to be fair, private ambulances in 2023-24.

Across all trusts, there have to be savings from using community transport, making it more beneficial to the public purse.

Mr Speaker: Minister, you have half a minute.

Mr O'Dowd: One of the reasons why we set up the working group and tasked officials was to interrogate questions such as that. On the face of it, you would imagine that there are opportunities to use community transport and achieve savings. Investment in community transport is investment in the local community. We want officials to investigate that and engage with Community Transport and others to identify the most practical way in which it can support other Departments in the delivery of their services.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions. Cara Hunter's question has been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd: A controlled parking zone was introduced in Lisburn in 2008 following an approach from the council to review the on-street car parking arrangements in the city. Controlled parking zones aim to manage demand in an appropriate way, deterring all-day parking and facilitating improved customer access to businesses by encouraging the ongoing turnover of parking spaces. As the Member will be acutely aware, the current tariff for on-street parking in Lisburn in the controlled parking zone is £1 per hour. Three traffic attendants are currently deployed from Monday to Saturday between 8.00 am and 6.00 pm. There was a rationale for the introduction of the original scheme, which was brought in after engagement with the council. Part of the transport plans is about how we manage our parking in an era in which we are trying to reduce carbon emissions etc. I will certainly engage with my officials to see whether we can fit the review that the Member referred to into what is currently going on and, if not, how we move the situation on in Lisburn and Newry. That will have to be done in conjunction with the local councils.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for addressing the issue. It comes down to having the worst of both worlds. What proposals will he bring forward to address the issue, even in the new year, and level the playing field for Lisburn traders?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, we are reviewing parking as part of the transport plans. If the terms of reference do not cover the Member's concerns, we may need to do a separate review of Lisburn on its own. I have no doubt that some of my Newry colleagues will ask, "Well, what about Newry?", but let us see whether what we currently have in play is fit for purpose. If not, I commit to reviewing that.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gildernew, I was not sure whether you were doing the hokey-cokey, but you are next up anyway.

Mr O'Dowd: The Enniskillen bypass is proceeding. That, it has to be said, is due to the commitment of the Executive to it, even though it is part of the Mid South West region growth deal from which the British Government withdrew. I assure the Member that the Executive have committed to it and that it is going ahead.

Mr Gildernew: Does the Minister agree that the British Government should stop their hokey-cokey around the Mid South West and Causeway Coast and Glens growth deals and allow other vital infrastructure projects to proceed?

Mr O'Dowd: I will avoid giving into the rhythm of the dance move. The British Government should immediately lift their embargo on those deals. It is causing uncertainty. As the Member will know, any uncertainty is bad for business, bad for investment and bad for councils and the Executive in planning the way forward.

Mr O'Dowd: It is an impediment in all constituencies, but there are towns and villages within constituencies that may be impacted on to a greater or lesser degree. It is important to send out this message: we are open for business. I encourage developers to engage at as early a stage as possible with NI Water, which has set up a unit specifically for the purpose of speaking to developers about their proposals. Yes, there are challenges facing NI Water, as there are with every other public service that we operate, but there are also continued opportunities for investment and development across all constituencies.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he supply a detailed strategy on how his Department will identify constituencies that are under pressure in regard to sewage and waste water? How does the Department intend to prioritise that work?

Mr O'Dowd: NI Water undertakes the work that the Member calls for, and it can provide that information. I will ask for that information to be provided to the Member. When it comes to a strategy on how we will deliver that, over half a billion pounds of public funds are being given to NI Water this year. That will be invested across a range of areas, including waste water treatment and the delivery of fresh water to all our homes.

NI Water also tells me that it can connect up to 18,000 properties through various measures, including developers separating foul water from rainwater. Part of the PC21 development plan this year allows NI Water to connect up to 4,500 properties to the system as well. Yes, there are challenges, but we are open for business.

Mr O'Dowd: I am not aware of that specific area, though I am tempted to say that it is interesting to hear that there are traffic jams outside Belfast.

With new developments, the local division responds to planning applications on the basis of whether the road network can or cannot take additional commuter traffic as a result of further development. It may suggest that a developer contributes to the local road network to allow progress to be made. I am not aware of the specific area to which the Member refers, but I will come back to him with more detail, should he so wish.

Mr Donnelly: Thanks to the Minister for that answer. As the Minister is not aware of the area, I would be pleased if he were to commit to a visit to see it. There is a specific issue in that area, and a solution to alleviate the congestion could become apparent, and that would be great for people in the area.

Mr O'Dowd: As I said to a Member in my answer to a previous question, if the Member chooses to write to my private office, I will take the invite under consideration.

Mr O'Dowd: I am sorry that I cannot confirm to the Member whether that is a permanent closure, but I will get him that information. The plan is to get as much of the public realm works around the Grand Central station as possible completed as quickly as possible so that, at the end of the work, there will be no further traffic congestion and the public, businesses and visitors to Belfast will have a public realm scheme that everybody can be proud of and that will attract visitors to the city.

Mr Kingston: Everyone welcomes that investment and the excellent new Grand Central station. Many of us have had the opportunity to visit it. I hope that the Minister and the Department will look at any temporary measures that could be introduced during the closure of Durham Street to enable traffic flow. Anyone coming from the south Belfast direction on Great Victoria Street and trying to get to the Westlink or trying to go in the direction of south Belfast from the Grosvenor Road faces a difficult journey. I hope that the Minister will look at whether any temporary measures can be introduced.

Mr O'Dowd: I assure the Member that that is the case. Back as far as May or April, we notified Assembly Members that there would be significant disruption in Belfast city centre, and we have also undertaken to keep that under review. Where lessons can be learned as the work is ongoing and where we can alleviate traffic congestion ahead of schedule or do it in a different way, I can assure the Member that we will do that.

Mr O'Dowd: To alleviate some of the disruption and to support the taxi industry, I am bringing forward proposals that will permit class A and class C taxis to use certain bus lanes in the vicinity of the works. The Member will be aware that the taxi industry provides an important service in our community, ensuring that people, including the most vulnerable in society, have door-to-door access to work, education, socialising and medical appointments. Tourists also use the service, and it will be used to bring people to the station for connection to public transport.

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

Will the Minister agree that the public realm works, when they are completed, will be transformational for those who live in Belfast, those who work in Belfast and anyone who visits Belfast?

Mr O'Dowd: Without a doubt. While I understand the frustration of commuters and, indeed, businesses about the disruption, which is significant, the outworkings and completion of the work will also be significant and ground-changing for Belfast and will see Belfast have a state-of-the-art transport hub with fantastic public realm works around it, and that will be an attractive asset to the city.

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware of the review that was carried out in relation to the flooding in that area and the lessons to be learned from the responses of agencies to the flooding and how we react in the future. One of the most immediate actions that we can take is to continue to develop how we support the local community to be a resilient group and, where we can, have sandbags and other measures in place and available to local businesses and local community groups to distribute more quickly. That is an important step forward. The lessons from last year are being worked through and will be learned from.

Mr McMurray: Thank you to the Minister. He is right to pay tribute to the local flood resilience groups, but how will that communication be made to said groups and how will they be enabled to build on their capacity?

Mr O'Dowd: My Department is working with the local council and others to support those, in some instances, fledgling resilience groups to ensure that they have the information required. The information will be shared in the usual manner, whether it is through text or email alert, but full information will be given to those groups on how they play their role in responding to flooding incidents.

Mr O'Dowd: We passed important legislation in the House last week to allow an amendment Order to go through Westminster early in the new year in relation to zero-emission vehicles and setting quotas for new sales of those vehicles. Zero-emission vehicles are crucial to the plan to tackle climate change and decarbonise the transport sector. It is part of the main thrust of my Department's decarbonisation policy in relation to transport.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for that response. Obviously, charging points are crucial in determining more uptake of zero-emission vehicles. Is the Minister confident that the zero-emission vehicles trading scheme will result in more charging points being installed?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, and we have seen significant growth in the installation of charging points by the private and commercial sector. Now that the private and commercial sector has been given the confidence that we are moving towards zero-emission vehicles and that we are part of that mandate, they will have the confidence to invest in charging points moving forward.

Mr Speaker: Time is up for questions to the Minister for Infrastructure. We will move back to the renewable heat incentive (RHI) discussion. Members should take their ease for a moment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call David Honeyford to continue his comments.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that this place works best when we all work together.

Moving on, it is important to put everything out there and work our way through the process. I raised my concerns again in the Economy Committee last week, on 16 October. We are being asked to make a decision but not being given the details to do that. Since Wednesday, I and other Alliance colleagues have had further meetings with officials from the Department for the Economy to further draw out answers to our questions. In recent weeks, we have also discussed with and listened to representatives of the Renewable Heat Association for Northern Ireland and the Ulster Farmers' Union.

Further to that meeting with officials, I wrote to the Minister for further clarification and understanding. I thank the Minister for his response, which I received on Friday, and its explanation in respect of some of our questions. However, the process to get information and answers should not be so difficult. The answers should be made readily available at the Committee. The answers that officials give back to us as evidence should be consistent. I welcome the Minister's clarification on tariff tiering, compatibility with the scheme's legislative basis and state aid approval. However, I do not understand why that information was not clearly communicated when officials were in front of the Economy Committee.

It is essential that, in any new scheme or anything that we do in this field, we give confidence to investors that the Assembly will not leave people stuck or cut loose. The credibility of any future renewables scheme is absolutely critical, and, ultimately, that is what we are discussing. It goes much wider than just this rate: it is about the credibility of everything moving forward. We must look forward and provide the necessary basis for delivery of any new scheme. We must also look after those who have been badly treated and under-compensated for several years. The basis for moving forward must be recommendations that have previously been made. In a recent legal appeal judgement, Madam Justice Keegan said that there needed to be "a consensual solution" where the Department would meet and discuss with owners. Unfortunately, that has not happened. The public consultation has been withheld from us. How can we, or the public, have confidence about proper scrutiny when details are being withheld? I urge the Minister to make all that evidence available.

The principle of closure is clear, as I have stated already. Alliance's position is clear: we want to see the scheme closed down in an orderly fashion. It is unfortunate that we are debating an uplift that, in principle, is what the boiler owners need.

I, and the Alliance Party, ask the Minister to create space and time to allow full confidence to be brought to the issue and to provide us with all the evidence that we need to make a decision. I also ask that the Department engage with representatives and participants to work through a solution so that the full information can be brought forward and we can have full scrutiny and have confidence in what we are voting on. I ask the Minister to do that as soon as possible. Until that happens, I cannot support the motion.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement on the renewable heat incentive scheme. Like many other Members who have addressed the Chamber today, I have watched with dismay at how that flawed scheme has unravelled and at how badly it has affected the credibility of governance and scrutiny in this place.

At every stage from its creation, the RHI non-domestic scheme has been plagued by dysfunction. That has created an understandable lack of confidence in the ability of government to deliver solutions that adequately address concerns. The move by the Minister to progress resolution by urgent procedure at the end of July has only created further concerns for participants. RHI has damaged not only public confidence in governance but the livelihoods of those genuine users, including farmers, retailers and care home and hospitality operators, who saw an opportunity to support a renewable energy scheme that encouraged them to invest substantially in the installation and maintenance of biomass boilers over the long term. Many stretched themselves financially, assured that the tariffs would deliver sustainable incomes over the lifetime of the scheme. Those tariffs were even guaranteed in a letter by a former Member of this House to financial institutions. However, the reality has been quite different. Those who participated in the RHI scheme with genuine intent have been living a nightmare scenario of financial hardship since the scheme unravelled. Participants who legitimately invested in renewable heating technologies found themselves in a state of uncertainty as the scheme came under investigation and reforms were proposed.

The amendments to the scheme in 2019 led to significantly reduced payments, leaving many participants struggling to recoup their initial investment costs. For small and medium-sized businesses, that made it financially challenging to maintain the renewable heating systems, undermining the original incentive to adopt greener technologies. As a result of the reduced tariffs, small and medium-sized biomass operators have been undercompensated since 2019. It is now the Department's stance that a tariff of 12% demonstrates fairness to participants and the taxpayer. However, in fairness to the participants, they were encouraged to take up the renewable heat incentive scheme by the very Department that is now seeking to close this flawed episode.

The Department for the Economy has a choice. Does it accept that farmers and other biomass boiler owners may revert to fossil fuels, having lost all confidence in the scheme, or will it now re-engage purposefully to reinstate back payments to 2019 and set an acceptable tariff to allow full confidence in this scheme? The Ulster Unionist Party recommends that the Minister urgently tasks departmental officials to engage in a meaningful manner with participants to design a solution that ensures that those who entered the scheme with honest intent are not left with any financial loss. The Minister must commence engagement immediately to find a solution that not only protects those who face financial hardship due to departmental failures but starts to rebuild confidence in the ability of the Assembly and Executive to deliver good governance. We will, therefore, not support the motion.

Mr Gaston: In the midst of all the scandal that swirled around the RHI scheme, it is easy to forget that there were many genuine farmers who applied to it on the basis of a guaranteed return for 20 years. Those folk were not out to make a quick buck or take advantage of the flaws in the scheme, for which they cannot be held responsible. There were applicants who took at face value what Stormont offered them: the promise of grandfathering and letters from the then Minister, now Baroness Foster, to banks that encouraged lending to applicants to the scheme. It was not the fault of the genuine applicants to the scheme that the GB scheme was amended to impose a cap on subsidy payments. Let us not forget that it was that flaw that allowed the serious abuse of the scheme, where the more heat you generated, the greater the subsidy you were paid.

Consequently, many farmers invested heavily on the back of the promise of a 12% per annum return. They then found that the Assembly, in its desire to wash its hands of RHI, had decided to reduce the tariffs to a level below that which was sustainable and below that which exists in Great Britain and the Republic, leaving many on the brink of financial ruin. Some of those people are my constituents, and they have not been treated fairly.

Meanwhile, the Department was annually receiving money from the Treasury for the scheme, which it did not spend and returned each year. A five-month uplift does not resolve the disaster that was the RHI scheme. Rather, it compounds the problems and opens up another scandal around how any decision taken today by the Minister will impact on ordinary hard-working people. We hear much chat about a settlement figure. I trust that the Minister, in his response, will provide clarity on what my constituents want to know: what percentage payment will be given per boiler, what is that payment including the cost to install the infrastructure, and is that what the settlement figure contains? The Minister needs to be very clear. Is the settlement figure at the end of this a percentage per boiler, a percentage per boiler plus the cost to install the infrastructure or a percentage of the total cost to the applicant to install an RHI boiler on their premises?

As we have heard today, the Committee is frustrated and has not been given all the requested information in a timely manner, which points me to the fact that Stormont and the Minister have not learned the lessons from RHI. While the proposal today will increase allowances in the interim, the important point is that it is another step towards the closure of the scheme. For that reason, I will oppose the proposal.

It is time for the Finance Minister to come back to the House with a proposal that recognises the damage that Stormont's handling of the RHI scheme has done to the industry and to the mental health of many of the participants who took up the offer on the basis of what they were being sold by Stormont.

Mr Carroll: Once again, we are dealing with the ongoing fallout of financial malfeasance on the part of a previous Executive and Executive parties. The regulations are an implicit admission that, after the RHI disaster, the Department potentially cut payments in many of the wrong places. The Department for the Economy balked at the suggestion that people would uninstall a working biomass boiler and turn back to fossil fuels, but that is exactly what happened in many cases, with hundreds of RHI boilers out of use. Last year, the 'Belfast Telegraph' reported that RHI boilers in good condition were being sold online for as little as £1.

Now, four years later, payments to boiler owners are, effectively, being trebled in recognition that subsidies here are far too low compared with those elsewhere on these islands. As other regions try to support making the move from fossil fuels to renewable energy, the Executive have not only failed to provide subsidies to encourage the transition but used public money to, effectively, subsidise fossil fuel boilers. Treasury has allocated hundreds of millions for renewable energy subsidies, but the Department has not been able to work out an effective way to spend it, resulting in a waste of £130 million. That is a colossal waste of public money, but it does not end there. A recent Audit Office report shows that only 26 out of 42 recommendations from the inquiry, which concluded four years ago, have been implemented. I have heard of things moving at a snail's pace in this place, but that really takes the biscuit. I will oppose the regulations.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr C Murphy (The Minister for the Economy): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank Members for their contributions to today's debate and thank the Economy Committee for its engagement with officials.

There seems to be a strong view in the House that the regulations should not go ahead, and so be it. The uplifted tariff was an attempt to give some recompense to people over the winter.

The proposition, which the Executive have agreed, is that we close the scheme in line with the New Decade, New Approach commitment and, as an interim step — not as part of the closure or the future of the scheme — attempt to increase the tariff for a number of the boiler operators over the winter. It appears, however, that that has not found favour with Members. That, of course, is the nature of the democracy that we live in, and that is fair enough.

I am a bit bemused by the DUP's position. This is your mess that I am trying to clean up. You had two or, I think, three Economy Ministers in the previous Executive, and you did not take any steps to bring the scheme to a close, yet now you are advising me on what needs to be done urgently to do that. We sat through the previous Executive, asking your Ministers to bring forward papers on RHI, but we never received any. We have the position now that I am trying to clean up that mess. It was the "Fill your boots" philosophy that has landed us in the mess: every issue with this has flowed from that initial decision of your party. Nonetheless, I will clean up the mess, and I will do so with the backing of the Executive and the Assembly in the time ahead.

Backdated pay was mentioned by Sinéad McLaughlin. Given the fuel price volatility that is expected over a 20-year period, the intended internal rate of return will be higher in some years and lower in others. It is important to note that the Department did not seek any clawback of payments at times when it was necessary to reduce tariffs, and we are confident that the revised tariff uplift would provide participants with a fair return that could be in place for the coming winter.

Questions were asked and a number of points were made about the level of information and the consultation. I am glad that at least some Members acknowledged that officials were with the Committee twice, that there was further engagement and that, at every stage, we endeavoured to provide information, including by my writing to people in recent days to give them the information that they were seeking. That is Members' entitlement, of course, and the particular entitlement of members of the Committee. Whether the information was clear enough or whether people fully understood it is one issue; the volume of information is another.

There is an issue that has been misunderstood or, in some cases, wilfully misrepresented. The consultation exercise relates to the future of the scheme — its closure — not to the tariff uplift, which is a temporary measure in the move towards that. The consultation document would be brought forward. A summary of the consultation document was provided to people, and that document will form part of the eventual move to close the scheme. A detailed summary of the responses was provided. An overview was also provided of the tariff calculation methodology, including information on the change to the main variable, which is the fuel price differential. Detail was also provided on the Great Britain tariff by way of a link to the GB tariffs, which are in the public domain. There is no single GB tariff: they range from 11·13p to 3·3p. The uplift that we proposed was higher than that. There has been an attempt to provide people with information. If they still feel that they have insufficient information, that is unfortunate.

On timing, a number of Members have said, "Bring this back urgently" and, "Come back, and let us see what we can do with this". Tomorrow is the last sitting day before 1 November, and another paper will not be brought back before tomorrow. There will therefore be no tariff uplift over the winter. Those who decide, for whatever reason, to vote against the measure, while complaining about the hardship that people face, are effectively deciding to give people no tariff uplift over the winter; that is the upshot of today's vote. If that is what people choose to do, they should do so with their eyes wide open, and they should explain that to people who anticipated an uplift in the tariff over the winter. There is no time to bring this back and fix it for this winter.

The last point, made by Gerry Carroll, was about the loss in the intervening years as people have sat on their hands — others are coming forward now to try to clear up the mess — of what would have been available for environmentally sound schemes that would contribute to our carbon reduction targets. We cannot access that until we have brought the RHI debacle — the scheme that was put forward all those years ago — to a conclusion.

In anticipation of this not going through today, I will ask officials to move to closure. We will develop propositions and sufficient information to go to the Committee and close the scheme. Today's proposition was an interim step to give an uplift to people over the winter, but it seems that that is not going to be possible. Those who vote against the regulations should understand that it will not be possible to pay anyone that increase. We will move with all haste towards closure and ensure that the Committee is served with whatever information it feels it requires and that we get to a space where the Assembly can ratify the decision in principle taken by the Executive.

Mr Butler: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and up to 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have up to five minutes.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for attending the debate on this important motion, because access to quality education is a fundamental right for every child, regardless of their abilities or circumstances. The educational journey for children who are deaf or hard of hearing can be filled with unnecessary challenges if early intervention and specialised support are not provided. This is especially true in Northern Ireland, where 'A Fair Start' emphasises the removal of barriers to education from the very earliest stages. To ensure that deaf children are given a fair and equal opportunity to succeed, it is crucial to invest in more teachers of the deaf to ensure their availability to every child, regardless of their degree of hearing loss.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) guarantees the right of every child to an education that maximises their potential. Articles 28 and 29 of the UNCRC emphasise the right to education and:

Deaf children, like all children, have the right to an inclusive and equitable education that meets their unique needs. Without adequate support from teachers of the deaf, that right is compromised. Additionally, article 23 of the UNCRC specifically highlights the right of children with disabilities, it states that they:

Therefore, ensuring that more teachers of the deaf are available will honour those commitments by providing the early intervention and specialised teaching that deaf children need to overcome communication barriers to thrive academically and socially.

According to the National Deaf Children's Society, Northern Ireland is home to around 1,500 deaf children. Supporting those children requires a high level of specialist knowledge and skills, particularly in the early years and educational settings, where teachers of the deaf play a pivotal role. Teachers of the deaf work with deaf children and their families from the moment a child's hearing loss is identified, often in infancy, through their entire educational journey, including their primary and post-primary education. Their role extends beyond the classroom to ensure that deaf children develop the strong communication and language skills that are essential for academic success.

The number of qualified teachers of the deaf in Northern Ireland has declined by 32% since 2011, with 30% of the workforce expected to retire in the next decade. There is a pressing need to future-proof that vital profession. The decline in the workforce creates significant challenges for providing consistent support, especially when schools and services struggle to obtain cover for qualified teachers of the deaf. The shortfall in trained professionals compromises the support available for deaf children, risking long-term negative impacts on their education and well-being.

Teachers of the deaf are qualified teachers who complete additional postgraduate training in deaf education. However, Northern Ireland lacks training opportunities for prospective teachers of the deaf, forcing trainees to travel for their qualifications. Although the cost of training is covered by the Education Authority's (EA) sensory service, the logistical challenge can deter candidates from pursuing that critical role. Furthermore, many mainstream teachers are unaware of the career path as a teacher of deaf children, which hinders recruitment efforts. By addressing those barriers and promoting awareness of teaching of the deaf as a profession, Northern Ireland can encourage more educators to specialise in deaf education.

In addition to the need for more teachers of the deaf, there is a need to create specialist roles such as communication support workers or specialist classroom assistants who could further support deaf children. Those professionals could ensure that assistive technology is properly utilised in classrooms, thereby enhancing deaf students' access to the curriculum and their overall learning experience. By expanding the range of specialist roles, Northern Ireland's education system can better meet the diverse needs of deaf students. It is pretty well established — I certainly know this from my time on the Education Committee — that, like classroom assistants and teachers, teachers of the deaf play a unique and indispensable role by collaborating with a wide range of health and social care professionals to ensure that deaf children receive tailored early support.

Early intervention is crucial in improving outcomes, as delays in addressing hearing loss can result in significant developmental setbacks. Research shows that deaf children in Northern Ireland are significantly more likely than their hearing peers to experience psychological disorders, particularly anxiety. Factors such as communication barriers, social isolation and a lack of deaf awareness contribute to the challenges. Early intervention by teachers of the deaf and other specialists can mitigate those risks, therefore promoting better long-term mental health and social outcomes for deaf children. The absence of timely intervention affects not only a child's language and communication development but their overall well-being and academic achievement. As the National Deaf Children's Society points out, early access to teachers of the deaf can prevent those challenges from escalating, ensuring that deaf children are able to fully participate in education and social life.

The decline in the number of teachers of the deaf and the anticipated retirements in the next decade present a significant threat to the future support available for deaf children. Investing in more teachers of the deaf is not just a matter of ensuring educational equity; it is a long-term investment in the future of Northern Ireland's society and economy. Children who receive the right support from an early age are more likely to succeed academically; enter higher education or the workforce; and become active, contributing members of our society. On that point, as chairperson of the all-party group (APG) on disability, I have become more acutely aware of the regrettable stats in Northern Ireland on the employment of people with a disability. That applies across the full range of disabilities and impacts on people who are deaf. Conversely, children who do not receive adequate support may face barriers to employment; social exclusion; and, as I alluded to, mental health challenges later in life. Therefore, by future-proofing the teachers of the deaf workforce and ensuring that every deaf child and their family have timely access to specialist professionals, Northern Ireland can create an education system that promotes inclusion, equity and excellence. That approach aligns with the principles of 'A Fair Start', which emphasises the importance of removing barriers to learning and providing every child with the opportunity to fulfil their potential.

The need for a robust and sustainable sensory service and specialist workforce is urgent and critical, mirroring the need for more teachers of the deaf. Without adequate support, deaf children in Northern Ireland face unnecessary challenges in their education, social development and mental health. In line with the UNCRC and 'A Fair Start', it is imperative that we invest in future-proofing the teachers of the deaf workforce and expand specialist roles, thus ensuring early intervention for all deaf children. Only by taking those steps can we ensure that every deaf child has the opportunity to succeed and thrive and, therefore, fulfil their potential and contribute to a more inclusive, accessible society.

Mr Baker: I thank the Member who moved motion, which we support, and for articulating the barriers so well.

Sinn Féin wants an education system underpinned by equality that delivers for all and leaves no child or young person behind. Deaf children and young people should perform just as well as their peers, and they should know that, while deafness presents challenges, it does not have to prevent them from living the life that they want to lead. Right now, that is not happening. Better support would allow those children to thrive. However, services are under-resourced. Most deaf children attend mainstream schools, where there is a good chance that they will be the only deaf child.

Deaf children and young people have varying types and levels of deafness. That presents a challenge for educationalists who work with deaf children and for their families, who need as much information as possible as early as possible. Some deaf children use sign language and some lip-read. Others will use hearing aids or implants, but their ability to hear will never be the same as that of a child who does not need support with their hearing.

The Education Authority's sensory service works with children and young people with sensory impairment from the time of their diagnosis through all stages of their education. However, the level and availability of the support is not where it should be. Unfortunately, deaf children and young people have no guarantee that their teachers or classroom assistants will be able to communicate with them in their first language. Provision is spread thinly, and, in some cases, it is decreasing, despite an increase in the number of deaf children. It is a fact that there is not enough support for children and young people who want to be educated through the medium of sign language.

The Minister of Education must focus on closing the attainment gap experienced by deaf children and young people, particularly at GCSE level. The attainment of deaf children at school should be the same as that among the general population, but that is far from the case. Having GCSEs in English and mathematics is essential to accessing the North's labour market. As a result, the current attainment gap means that deaf young people are being disadvantaged in education and employment. Once a deaf young person progresses beyond their GCSEs, the attainment gap tends to close. For example, deaf young people often do well at university because they have developed coping strategies and are able to deal with their environment.

The best educational outcomes for deaf children and young people will be accomplished via consistent and more effective early intervention. Early intervention is crucial, if young minds are to develop communication skills and acquire language, including sign, to enable them to compete effectively with their hearing peers. They also must be given the right support in the school environment, and teaching staff must be given the right training and resources to achieve that.

I encourage the Minister of Education and his Department to focus on achieving the best possible outcome for deaf children and young people and on ensuring that they are provided with every opportunity to succeed. Our schools must be fully prepared and understand the needs of children and young people in the classrooms. Children and young people with hearing impairments and deafness should no longer be sidelined.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member who moved the motion. All of us who are speaking to the motion have the common aim that deaf children and young people are appropriately provided for in our education system in a way that allows them to flourish in the way that we wish for all our children but understands that those who have additional support needs must have them fulfilled so that they can reach their full potential.

While many aspects of this specific element of our education system are relatively new to me and have required research and learning to enable me to speak to the motion, the principle is similar to the ambition that we have and share across party divides for those with other special educational support needs. I know that I will seek to build upon — sorry, I think that I have left something out.

There are over 1,400 deaf children and young people in Northern Ireland. A significant majority of them attend mainstream schools, but there is specialist provision in a number of locations. I am particularly aware that one school with such provision is Cregagh Primary School in my constituency and council area. That school is well loved and highly thought-of in the community of Cregagh.

The Consortium for Research in Deaf Education (CRIDE) report on Northern Ireland noted that there was a vacancy rate of around 3% for teacher of the deaf posts. It also raised concerns about falling numbers, noting a 7% fall in TODs in employment since 2011. We will all — no one more than the Minister — have a common wish to ensure that teaching provision is maintained at an appropriate level. There appeared to be promising progress too, however. On the age profile of TODs, the report noted that 23% were over the age of 50, which is a significant drop from 2021, when answers to the same question suggested that the number was much more unsustainable at 40%.

The report draws attention to the fact that some of the data considered should be viewed with caution. Inconsistencies in the response rates to survey questions over the years make it difficult to draw conclusions from valid comparisons, particularly from surveys taken prior to 2019. That does not detract from the many useful issues raised by the report, which can use only the data that is available, a point for reflection in and of itself. The report rightly says that it should form the basis of discussion and further analysis rather than of firm conclusions. On that basis, I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who, I hope, will give us an up-to-date overview of the sector's current landscape.

We know that deaf children in Northern Ireland are more likely to have additional needs: for example, anxiety is more prevalent. We are looking at ways to address the rise of anxiety in other children with no or differing additional needs and to support them, and the same should apply to deaf children and their particular needs as we look at how we can make their educational experience as smooth and appropriately supported as possible.

Of course, we already have a range of interventions. We know that EA's sensory service provides support to deaf children and their families from the point at which a child is recognised as being deaf, whatever their level of deafness. When that support kicks in, it can be subject to a family's feeling ready to receive it. I understand that it often begins in the home during preschool years, but it clearly continues in the classroom to assist children's development with support from qualified teachers of deaf children and young people and from educational audiologists. From the NDCS briefing provided to Members in advance of the debate, I note that it is working on its own report on the sensory service. I am sure that the Education Committee in particular will take the opportunity to look at that when it is published.

As I said at the outset, I do not stand here as an expert. I certainly look forward to taking the opportunity to engage with those who work in this space and, most importantly, with the families and individuals with lived experience to further understand their challenges and the opportunities to improve services and to work with them to reduce and remove any barriers that they face. I know that the same will be true of colleagues across the House, including the Education Minister, who is doing all that he can to support and improve services for those with special educational needs (SEN) across the education system with the limited resources that the Executive have allocated to him to meet ever-growing needs.

Mr Mathison: I support the motion and thank the Member who moved it. I thank Déirdre and the wider team at the National Deaf Children's Society, who campaign tirelessly for the best support for deaf children in Northern Ireland.

As Members referenced, when deafness is identified in a child, even in infancy, they will ordinarily be assigned a teacher of the deaf who will start working with them and their family from that early stage. At the outset, I express thanks and pay tribute for the work of the EA sensory service and the specialist teachers of the deaf who deliver that vital work and intervention at that early stage. It is, perhaps, a model of support that we could learn from for all children with SEN.

As Members have referenced, access to that vital support is not without challenge and, indeed, threat to the service. Members have mentioned the decline in the number of teachers of the deaf, which is in the region of a 32% decline since 2011. Concerningly, as we look to the future, 30% of those teachers are potentially in line to retire in the next decade. There is a clear need to focus on meaningful and engaged workforce planning, if the service is to continue providing the support that it does for our deaf children.

Despite the decline in the workforce and the imminent challenges, there is no route to qualify as a teacher of the deaf in Northern Ireland, as was mentioned. To generate the teachers of the deaf that we need, we will need qualified teachers to travel across the water to GB for their postgraduate qualification or to incentivise teachers who already have that qualification to come to Northern Ireland. Both approaches will require strategic workforce planning by the Department, and I hope that the Minister will outline what specific work is being undertaken in that regard.

There may also be a need to look at the model of support itself and at other roles, as well as the vital resource of teachers of the deaf, who are highly valued by children and their families; the value placed on that role cannot be overstated. However, other roles could be explored to deliver support. Potentially, specialist classroom assistants or communication support workers could have a focus on the appropriate use of technology for some of the children. I would like to hear from the Minister whether those alternative roles are being actively considered.

Depending on their level of deafness, children will see their teacher of the deaf with varying frequency. For some, that may be only an annual visit, so being assigned that specialist teacher is not a passport to regular support. Well-trained teachers and classroom assistants who can utilise technology effectively and roll out whole-school approaches to ensure that the needs of a deaf child are met in every aspect of their school life are essential. We need better training at initial teacher training stage, in continuing professional development (CPD) and in the upskilling of our classroom assistants.

That training and awareness is not just about the technical knowledge that a teacher needs to teach a deaf pupil in their class. It has been referenced by other Members, but it is important to highlight again that a 2023 report carried out by Queen's University, Belfast, found that around 20% of deaf children experienced at least one psychological disorder. That compares with 12% of their hearing peers in the classroom. Anxiety disorders have already been highlighted as being prevalent. Such factors as listening fatigue, communication barriers and social isolation can exacerbate those challenges, so, as far as I understand it, it is vital that teachers properly understand those additional needs: not just the barriers to learning caused by the deafness but the additional psychological issues that can arise. Teachers need to be properly trained to reflect the very best practice when they have a deaf child in their class.

I want to be clear: the current system of support has the potential to provide and, in many cases, does provide the right assistance for deaf children in Northern Ireland. However, the service is experiencing pressure and cannot stand still. I hope that that is the message that comes through today.

I want to highlight the research commissioned by the National Deaf Children's Society in partnership with the EA — David Brooks mentioned it — which will look at the current provision of the EA sensory service and what the future of that service might look like. I hope that the report and findings will be available soon. I strongly urge the Minister to take that on board when considering future interventions by the Department. We look forward to the publication of that research.

There can be no complacency in the service that is provided to meet the needs of deaf children. Longer-term planning is vital to support our deaf learners in Northern Ireland. I support the motion and hope that it will receive support across the House.

Ms McLaughlin: I, too, thank the Member for tabling the motion. Everyone in the House will recognise the immense importance of schooling, as well as the challenges that those years can bring. However, for those who are born deaf or hearing-impaired, the challenges are considerably greater, whilst the importance of school is no less.

As others have said, it is estimated that there are around 1,400 children who are deaf in Northern Ireland. Being born into a world deprived of hearing is a challenge that most of us cannot imagine. Hearing is a gift that most of us take for granted. Not knowing the sound of your parents' voices, crossing a road without being able to hear a car engine or being unable to partake in normal conversation means navigating life with a profound and permanent barrier. Yet, with the right support and instruction from an early age, the challenges faced by deaf and hearing-impaired children need not be insurmountable, and deaf learners may have every opportunity to succeed in education and lead rich and happy lives. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we endeavour to ensure that all deaf children are provided with the appropriate professional guidance that they deserve.

Simply put, it is a human rights issue, and, without guaranteed access to such professional support, it is an issue on which we are failing. If we ensure that deaf learners are supported from the earliest stages of their education by qualified, professional teachers of the deaf, those children stand the best opportunity to succeed in school, develop the skills and qualifications that they need for a fulfilling career and participate and contribute as equal and valued citizens in wider society.

Deafness is not a learning disability, but without the right support in place, deaf children can face massive unnecessary barriers in their education and in their development. Every child, regardless of their level of deafness, deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential, yet many deaf children are being left behind due to the shortage of qualified teachers of the deaf and specialist staff. That lack of support has a profound and negative impact on their education, communication skills and emotional well-being. We know that early intervention is key. The earlier a deaf child receives support, the better their chances of success in school and in life.

Families also need guidance from the start. Qualified teachers of the deaf play a vital role not only in educating those children but in empowering their families with the tools and confidence that they need to support their child's learning. With more than 90% of deaf children born to hearing parents with no experience of deafness, the experience of raising a deaf child is often upsetting and isolating. The circumstances that those families find themselves in routinely lead to a loss in earnings and added expenses as parents take time from their careers and pay for services to support their children's needs. While the National Deaf Children's Society does brilliant work in supporting those families, too often, the Department for Education fails to best support those children in their education.

Across the UK, an alarming number of specialised teachers have left the profession, and it is evident that we are not training enough new teachers. I call today for the Minister of Education to act urgently. We need a comprehensive plan that guarantees that every deaf child has access to a qualified teacher of the deaf and specialist support staff as early as possible, regardless of the severity of the child's condition. It is not just about fairness. It is about ensuring that every child has the right to an education that meets their needs. I will support the motion so that we can give deaf and hearing-impaired children the support that they so desperately deserve.

Mr Martin: I welcome the motion from UUP colleagues. It has certainly been an interesting debate so far.

In Northern Ireland, children should already have access to a teacher of the deaf — that has been reflected on already — and an educational audiologist, regardless of their level of deafness, where they are educated or when that need is identified. We know, and Ms McLaughlin has just highlighted, that deafness is not a learning disability and that, given the right support and help, children can at least match pace with hearing children and, in many cases, outperform them. The majority of deaf children are educated at mainstream schools, yet it is the undisputed case that many deaf children do not achieve the same academic outcomes as their hearing peers. That is certainly something in which all Members would like to see an improvement. One of the key interventions that ensures that deaf children can succeed is that they are, obviously, taught by very skilled teachers, who can adapt teaching methodologies and materials to accommodate individual strengths and needs. Again — I have reflected on this before in many other speeches — the earlier the intervention, the better the educational outcomes in the end.

A further aspect that I noticed when I was preparing this research is that deaf children can achieve better academic results when teachers and families have high expectations of those children. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Helen Ferguson, who is the head of policy and influencing at the National Deaf Children's Society, said:

Northern Ireland has certain advantages over the rest of the UK. It has one single, unified sensory service, which is located within the EA. As has been noted, however, availability of support can be patchy across the Province. I recognise the excellent work done in this field by the previously referenced National Deaf Children's Society, which supports all the deaf children in Northern Ireland and their families. A number of other local organisations work in this area. Action Deaf Youth recently came to my son's school to highlight communication methods with deaf or hearing-impaired children. The read-out that I got was that the session was "really good".

I thank every teacher of the deaf in Northern Ireland who works with those amazing children and their families. Today, your work has not gone unnoticed — you are having a really significant impact on children's lives. I welcome the chance to speak in the debate. It seems that the Chamber is wholly united in its support for deaf children and their families.

Ms K Armstrong: I support the Ulster Unionist motion. I declare an interest as a Member who is part of the deaf community. I am hard of hearing and a double hearing-aid wearer. To all those who are watching today, I say, "Nothing about us without us".

There is an urgent need to increase access to early and effective support for deaf children in Northern Ireland in order to enable them to achieve their potential. As the deaf-friendly schools guidance produced in 2022 confirms:

other Members have also said that —

Many deaf children are, however, falling behind their peers and at high risk of poor mental health. There has never been a more important time to invest in effective early support to tackle the root cause of disadvantage. Early and effective support to develop language and communication is vital for all deaf children, whether they use spoken language, sign language or both.

As others have said, around 1,400 children are deaf in Northern Ireland, and around 200 of those are under the age of five. Members may know that we have one of the best newborn hearing screening programmes in the world and access to state-of-the-art technology, mainly cochlear implants and hearing aids. Deaf children, however, are not achieving the outcomes that we know are possible, and we are not maximising the return on public investment in screening and technology. When deaf children have access to early and effective support, outcomes are transformed. By improving outcomes, we can unlock significant savings not only for Education but for the health and social care system and the wider economy. Furthermore, of course, that creates a better outcome for deaf and hard-of-hearing children.

For deaf children whose families want them to learn, listen and speak, the benefits of auditory verbal therapy are clear. Approximately 80% of children who attend an auditory verbal therapy programme for at least two years achieve the same level of spoken language as their hearing peers. The majority of those children attend mainstream schools and attain educational outcomes that are on a par with those of hearing children. At present, there is little to no provision of auditory verbal therapy in health and social care services in Northern Ireland. However, we can change that by training speech and language therapists and teachers of the deaf in that approach.

A number of years ago, I had the pleasure of visiting Jordanstown School, the Northern Ireland school and centre of excellence for children who are deaf or visually impaired. At a meeting at the school, it was confirmed that specialist training for teachers of the deaf had to be either self-funded by those teachers or paid out of the school's funds. That was a disgrace, and I worked hard on it. Thanks to the then Minister of Education, the issue was resolved and specialist teacher training is now funded and supported. Those teachers still have to go across to Liverpool, however, because there is no provision here.

My hope is that, when the proposed sign language Bill is finally introduced by the Department for Communities, it will include legal clarity and requirements with regard to training for teachers of the deaf. It is important that there is clarity with respect to the future sign language GCSE.

Will that be taught by deaf people who have a teaching qualification, or will teachers have to complete a sign language qualification? If it is the latter, where will the training be held and what will it cost?

Economic analysis has shown that an investment of £80,000 a year for the next 10 years is needed to train the required number of auditory verbal therapists and to support some of the most vulnerable children directly, as we build the workforce. That will not only transform opportunities and outcomes for deaf children in Northern Ireland but provide a significant economic return, estimated to be in the region of £4·5 million over the next 10 years. By investing in proactive therapy and inclusive teaching, we can ensure that families of deaf children are able to access support wherever they live in Northern Ireland. That will enable children who are deaf or hard of hearing to have the same life opportunities as their hearing peers.

It would be useful to have clarification from the Minister of Education on what input his Department has had in the Department of Health's adult learning disability service model and children with disabilities framework. If Health has established a children's services reform process that includes children with a disability, how will Education be affected by Health's regional position and future commissioning?

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Ulster Unionist Members for tabling the motion. As outlined by my party colleagues from Strangford, we will support the motion.

It is vital that we improve support for deaf children in our education system. The key to doing that is to train and recruit more specialist teachers of the deaf. The motion calls on the Minister of Education to:

regardless of other circumstances.

As has been mentioned, there are around 1,400 deaf children in Northern Ireland, and there is not the necessary level of support for all of them. As also mentioned, we are seeing a concerning decline in the number of teachers of the deaf, down 32% since 2011, with another 30% expected to retire in the next decade. That parallels the experience that we see in many other professions, such as general practice, which I have seen in my role as a nurse and as a member of the Health Committee. In many such professions, better pay and working conditions are available elsewhere, such as in the Republic of Ireland, but an additional challenge for teachers of the deaf is gaining the necessary qualifications.

The sensory service has highlighted challenges in providing cover for teachers of the deaf, which impacts on the level of support that is available for deaf children and young people. As my colleague Kellie Armstrong mentioned, Jordanstown School in East Antrim is well-respected in the area for the level of service that it provides to children and their families. There are many logistical challenges for the recruitment and training of teachers of the deaf, many of whom work in Jordanstown School. Northern Ireland does not have the capacity to provide training locally, so trainees are required to travel. That incurs significant costs and can be difficult for trainees who have personal or family connections locally. Although the sensory service helps with costs, which can be very beneficial, other challenges persist. Another problem is that career pathways are not always clear to the trainees or teachers who wish to become teachers of the deaf, which creates a barrier to further recruitment. The Department of Education should play a role in encouraging and facilitating those pathways and consider commissioning local training in Northern Ireland. Maybe the Minister will speak to that.

As the Alliance Party's health spokesperson, I think that it is important to discuss the importance of teachers of the deaf to our health and social care service, especially as they work in a range of health and social care professions. As has been mentioned, in Northern Ireland, deaf children are more likely to suffer from anxiety and other psychological disorders. That comes from a lack of awareness from the wider community, barriers to communication and from the social isolation that comes with such barriers.

In a debate on 20 February 2024, in one of the first such debates of the mandate, I spoke about the vital role of our speech and language therapists. Since then, I have been questioning the Department of Health on the need to improve training and provide more training places for speech and language therapists in our local universities. More broadly, there needs to be a collaborative approach between the Department of Education and the Department of Health to address the wider challenges that require a response from them both, as opposed to them working separately on it.

The absence of specialist support for deaf children reflects the failure of successive Assemblies to update vital equality legislation. Scotland recently legislated to incorporate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child — the UNCRC — into its domestic law. Article 23 of the convention states that children with any disability:

It also recognises their right to special care that is appropriate to their condition and to the circumstances of their parents or carers. That should be a requirement of the Department of Education, the Executive as a whole and all public authorities in Northern Ireland. We should also recognise the importance of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — the UNCRPD — which I plan to address through a private Member's Bill. Such actions would seek to reduce the unacceptable gap in equality legislation and the impact that that has been having on deaf and disabled people in Northern Ireland.

We must ensure that all children are supported to reach their full potential, and that should not be subject to any limitations. Therefore, support for deaf children is extremely important, and I encourage the Minister to do what he can to ensure that all deaf children have access to qualified teachers of the deaf. That is a vital part of their educational development and, more widely, their health and well-being.

Mr Gaston: Like others, I welcome the motion and the opportunity to highlight the challenges faced by deaf children and their families. In preparing for the debate, I read the deaf-friendly schools guidance produced by the Department of Education, which states.

Northern Ireland is failing to give those children the right support, and I will highlight three reasons for why I say that.

The first is the fact that it is often the school that identifies that a pupil may have a hearing problem. If a child is slow to respond when called at home or does not carry out an instruction, that can often be associated with disobedience or, if the parent is more charitable, selective hearing. Often, it is only when that child gets into a school environment that the teacher, who has experience of dealing with children with a wide range of abilities and challenges, will say to the parents that they should consider having the child's hearing checked. Some contributions to the debate focused on the role of specialist teachers for deaf children, but we should not forget the vital role that teachers with no such training play in identifying such issues.

That having been said, even when a teacher has highlighted a possible problem, there is often an inordinate delay in the pupil getting an appointment in the health service. When it comes to those crucial early years in school in particular, such a delay can have profoundly negative consequences for the child. Those challenges were exacerbated during COVID. One parent described to me the extremely frustrating experience of attempting to attend speech therapy appointments over Zoom. At the best of times, it can be challenging to hear someone on the other end of the line. Imagine how much more difficult that was when speech therapists were trying to pick up the subtle nuances in speech that indicate a problem. I remind the House that speech and hearing issues often go hand in hand. In a case that I was told about over the weekend, I was advised that the child has since been issued with a hearing aid. However, the child is not in P1 or even P2 but P5. Also, that hearing issue is a continuing factor in the literacy issues with which that child now struggles.

Secondly, I want to highlight the evidence of how Northern Ireland is falling behind the rest of the UK. In advance of the debate, all Members will have received a copy of the manifesto of the Coalition on Deafness NI. As a basic demand, the manifesto states:

Perhaps the Minister, in his response, will spell out what he is doing to get us to that point.

Finally, when the Minister is responding to that point, will he explain why the support offered by the Executive for childcare is £32 million less than the amount provided by Westminster? The Executive got £57·2 million in Barnett consequentials because of a scheme introduced in Great Britain, yet that four-party Executive, of which the Minister is part, allocated only £25 million to childcare. Where, Minister, did that money go? Did it stay in your Department, or did it go to other challenges in other Ministers' budgets?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, you have up to 15 minutes in which to speak.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for bringing attention to this important issue. In particular, I thank Mr Robbie Butler for tabling the motion. I express my appreciation to him for not just that but his time on the Education Committee. The value and expertise that he brought to that role were very much appreciated by me. I wish him well in his new role. I am sure that he will serve farmers well in the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, as well as dealing with all the important environmental issues in that particular role.

I will begin by paying credit to the staff of Jordanstown School, Cregagh Primary School, Integrated College Glengormley and in the Education Authority's sensory service, who do a wonderful job to provide specialist support to deaf children and young people. I also extend my appreciation to staff in mainstream schools, which are attended by around 77% of the deaf school-age population.

As Members know, my vision for all children is that they are happy, learning and succeeding. That must apply to children with hearing loss. Currently, there are at least 1,428 deaf children in Northern Ireland. They are supported by a range of professionals across education and health services. The Education Authority sensory service was established as a regional service in 2018. It employs teachers of the deaf and education audiologists who are at the forefront of early intervention and play a key role in ensuring that deaf children achieve good language and communication skills, make good progress in school and make a successful transition into adulthood.

I agree with the motion that every deaf child and their family should have access to a qualified teacher of deaf children and young people as early as possible. I am pleased to confirm that that is already the case in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I agree that, were there to be a lack of specialist teachers of deaf children and young people, it would have a negative impact on deaf children and their families. It is some comfort that every child does have access that is equal to or better than nationally used standards throughout the United Kingdom.

The Consortium for Research into Deaf Education Northern Ireland report 2023 — the CRIDE report — provides theoretical average caseloads. I am pleased to say that Northern Ireland's peripatetic teachers of deaf children and young people have the smallest caseloads in the four nations. I know that there are still challenges in respect of that issue, but there are challenges across the UK. Whilst, in Northern Ireland, we want to do more, and it is not of much comfort to those who want us to do more, we are in a better position than other parts of the UK in respect of the issue. In Northern Ireland, teachers of deaf children and young people have a caseload of around 59. In comparison, in Scotland, the figure is 118; in Wales, it is 230; and, in England, it is 332.

I can also confirm that every deaf child has access to an education audiologist, who is uniquely qualified and skilled to improve access to learning for deaf children through their acoustic evaluations and advice on acoustic enhancements of the school environment. The sensory service works in partnership with parents of deaf children and young people to help them to support their child's development. The service provides support to deaf children and their families from the point of identification in the home and later on in the classroom.

The motion calls for early access. I can inform the House that teachers of deaf children and young people work with newborn babies and their families. The newborn hearing screening programme in the health and social care trusts refers babies to the service, which aims to respond within two days, as recommended in the National Sensory Impairment Partnership (NatSIP) quality standards for sensory services. That partnership, working with health professionals, ensures that families have access to that support at the very earliest opportunity. From referral to first contact, for deaf or hard-of-hearing babies, the service works to impressive deadlines: within two days for a preschool child and five days for school-age children. The target time frame for the first visit from a teacher of deaf children and young people is four weeks, which ensures access to that very early intervention.

The commencement of support is, of course, family led, so achieving the target time frame may be impacted by family readiness to engage with support. That having been said, contact with the service is always maintained throughout the process. The support needs of young deaf children are assessed using the NatSIP early years eligibility framework and information from health service audiology and ear, nose and throat services. The views and needs of parents and carers are all considered.

That framework provides the service with a nationally used guide for levels of support and intervention, ranging from annual intervention right up to several interventions per week, depending on the individual needs of the child. Service staff use their professional judgement to apply flexibility, depending on the needs of the child. Sensory service staff work in partnership with parents to support children and families, focusing on the child's development in language, communication, literacy and mathematics, as well as social and emotional development and fostering independence. They also provide information and advice to education settings on the implications of deafness and, of course, strategies to promote access to the curriculum and inclusion, including bespoke training for staff. The specialist support that we are discussing today is carried out by specialist staff in schools and by sensory service staff, who deliver individually tailored intensive supports and outreach for deaf children throughout Northern Ireland from birth and throughout their education. That is an essential aspect of the service. It ensures a child-centred approach, which I am sure that Members will agree is of utmost importance.

I note the reference to specialist support professionals. It is essential that our trained professionals remain highly skilled throughout their career so that they can provide the best support possible to our children. The sensory service provides professional development for teachers of deaf children and young people so that they can enhance outcomes for deaf children and young people.

In line with inclusive practices, around 77% of school-age deaf children are educated in mainstream schools. I emphasise the importance of the need for specialist staff, as mentioned in the motion. Where a classroom assistant is required to support a deaf child using sign language, the sensory service advises that those assistants should have at least level 3 in British sign language. Whilst I am proud to speak today about the excellent support that we have for deaf children in Northern Ireland, there is always room for improvement. One of the areas for focus that was identified through the end-to-end review of special educational needs is on ensuring the sustainability of the sensory service, which will require workforce planning to address the ageing profile of teachers of deaf children and young people and the consideration of the need for those specialist teaching assistants.

Members may be aware that the National Deaf Children's Society has recently commissioned independent research to review the support for deaf children and young people in Northern Ireland. I look forward to receiving that report in the coming months. I have no doubt that it will be helpful in informing how we can improve educational support for deaf children.

Once again, I thank Members for highlighting the needs of deaf children. I trust that it is now clear that every deaf child and their family has access to a qualified teacher of deaf children and young people, and other specialist support staff, as early as possible.

I will touch on a couple of issues that Members highlighted. Kellie Armstrong spoke of the need to work with the Department of Health on adult learning disability services. That is certainly something that I will follow up on with my Department. There will be no resistance on my part to making sure that my officials engage in that area. The EA sensory service engages with Auditory Verbal UK to consider what improvements can be made to services in that area. That is an area of work that we are continuing to look at. Mr Mathison said that the qualification to become a teacher of the deaf is not available in Northern Ireland. Although he is right, the course is available as a distance learning course, but I take the Member's point about having a Northern Ireland course.

I thank Members for speaking on this issue. It is one that, rightly, we need to give attention to. We will continue to pursue these issues in due course.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for that response. The Question is that the motion —. Sorry, I am jumping ahead and have just been corrected. Colin Crawford, I call you to wind up on the motion. My apologies for that.

Mr Crawford: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought that I was getting off lightly.

At the outset of my remarks, I put on record my thanks, my party's thanks and, hopefully, the thanks of all Members to every single teacher of the deaf, classroom assistant and support staff member who work extremely hard each day to care for, support and educate each and every one of our deaf children.

I thank them and give special thanks to Déirdre Vaughan and her team at the National Deaf Children's Society.

We gather to address and speak on an issue that affects not only the future of our children but the very fabric of our society: the critical lack of specialist teachers for the deaf and insufficient specialist educational support for learners with disabilities across Northern Ireland. In a world that increasingly celebrates diversity, equality and inclusion, it is disheartening to acknowledge that many of our children who are deaf or hard of hearing still face significant barriers to accessing quality education. Ideally, our education system is designed to uplift and empower all students, but it has left behind a substantial segment: the deaf community.

Specialist teachers do not just facilitate learning; they cultivate an environment in which students can thrive, build their confidence and develop essential life skills. They are the advocates who understand the nuances of sign language, auditory processing and inclusive teaching strategies. Without them, we deny children not only an education but the opportunity to realise their potential and contribute meaningfully to society. Furthermore, it is essential to recognise that the need for specialised educational support does not end with teachers. Schools must provide adequate resources such as assistive technologies, interpreters and tailored curricula to create an inclusive environment in which deaf students can flourish alongside their hearing peers. Unfortunately, funding shortages and a lack of awareness often hinder that progress, leaving many students struggling in silence.

The responsibility to act decisively lies with each of us: educators, policymakers, community leaders and advocates. We must increase our commitment to training and retaining specialist educators in our schools. That includes investing in targeted professional development opportunities and community awareness campaigns that emphasise the importance of deaf education. We must also work tirelessly to allocate appropriate funding to ensure that schools have the tools and resources necessary to support all learners.

I will touch on some Members' remarks. Danny Baker started off by discussing early interventions and the right to support. He stressed the importance of having an education system for all. Danny, we can all aim for and strive towards that. David Brooks of the DUP gave the stat that there are over 1,400 deaf children or young people in Northern Ireland. David, like you, I am not an expert, but I join you in taking on the challenge and the opportunity to engage at the Education Committee and in the House to improve services for everyone. Nick Mathison recorded his thanks to the EA sensory service, but he stressed the fact that the service is experiencing pressures. Nick, we agree on that. He also spoke about the decline in the workforce and frustration about the need to travel for qualifications. One thing that I loved in what Peter Martin said was about teachers' and families' expectations of what deaf children can and cannot do. Peter, there is a challenge not only for teachers but for us all in how we look at and treat deaf young people and what we expect of them. That really challenged me in how I view people.

Let us reflect on our shared responsibility to advocate for the rights and needs of every child. As has been said, we cannot be complacent. We each have a role to play in shaping a more inclusive education system in which every child, regardless of their hearing ability, has the opportunity to learn, grow and succeed.

Let us stand together, united in our commitment to championing the needs of deaf children and ensuring that no child is left behind. Together, we can build a brighter future, one that truly reflects the diversity and potential of our education system.

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

Mr Speaker: The Assembly may sit until 7.30 pm if necessary.

Mrs Dillon: I beg to move

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

Mrs Dillon: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

We tabled the motion to call on the Minister of Health to urgently address the critical issue of respite provision for adults and children with learning difficulties, complex needs and challenging behaviour. I know that we have discussed the topic on many occasions, with the Minister and with officials, in the Committee and outside it. It is an issue of real concern.

The lack of adequate respite services across the North is a matter that deeply affects countless families. Those are families that are doing their absolute best to care for loved ones in incredibly challenging circumstances. As outlined in the motion, respite is not a luxury. For unpaid carers, it is a lifeline, and it is essential for their physical and mental well-being and for the continued care of those whom they look after. It is essential to prevent the breakdown of family relationships and to ensure that those carers can continue to care for those for whom they have a caring responsibility and those whom they love.

Respite allows carers to manage everyday activities that most of us take for granted. It offers a break from the relentless 24/7 care that they provide, yet families are often told at short notice — I am sure that many of us in the Chamber will have lobbied trusts on behalf of families — that their respite has been cancelled. That is a gut-wrenching blow for those who depend on that support to continue caring for their loved ones. They may have waited for that respite for over a year, or they may never have had respite before. That is often the only period of respite that has ever been offered, and, when it is withdrawn, that can throw the carer into a spiral of despair and hopelessness and leave them feeling completely abandoned by our health service.

The staff who work in the facilities and dedicate their lives to providing care deserve our deepest respect and praise. The crisis is not of their making, and the cancellations highlight the inadequate provision of respite services for adults and children with complex needs and challenging behaviour and the pressing need for additional investment and better forward planning. We are witnessing a growing demand for the services as more and more children transition from child services into adult care every year. Although that trend is set to continue, as things stand, many facilities cannot cope with the rising need, and many trusts are under severe pressure.

It is not just about planned respite: we also need to consider the growing need for unplanned or emergency respite when families face a sudden crisis. There must be provision to step in when carers are unexpectedly unable to cope because of illness, injury or other emergencies, including death. The reality is that, without increased investment and planning, the pressure will continue to build. We must ensure that families can access regular, reliable respite services and that those services are protected and expanded to meet future need. Families who are already under immense pressure should not have to face the added stress of losing vital support services because of arbitrary boundaries between trusts. We must address that inequity and ensure that respite provision follows the person, no matter where they live or what trust is caring for them or, in some cases, not caring for them, which is the problem that we face.

I am aware of incidents in my area of the Southern Trust when respite provision has been completely withdrawn because one individual needs residential care. That is not the fault of the individual. I absolutely accept that that person has that need, and we should never blame them or their family. However, the difficulty is that, because respite is not a ring-fenced and protected provision, that is what happens, and we have unplanned closure of respite services.

Furthermore, we must not ignore the transitional challenges for young people moving from children's respite into adult services. The lack of coordination and planning between child and adult care systems leaves too many young people and their families and carers in limbo during that critical period. That issue will only grow as more children with learning difficulties and complex needs reach adulthood. We need to ensure that the transition is seamless and that adequate resources and facilities are in place.

Campaigns such as Forgotten Voices have shone a spotlight on the importance of respite provision, giving a voice to those who are too often ignored. Their tireless advocacy reminds us that families are asking not for the world but for the basic support that they need to continue caring for their loved one. Insufficient funding leads to under-resourced and ineffective services, limiting the support available to families. There is no doubt that respite services are underfunded, but there are also serious challenges in staff recruitment and retention.

The learning disability staff who work with adults and children are committed to and passionate about ensuring that they give the best care and opportunities to those whom they look after and their families. We witnessed that at the learning disability nursing careers event in the Long Gallery this morning. "Well done" to all who were involved in the organising of that event and all who participated in it. It is really important that we have enough staff and that they are well trained, well looked after and well supported.

The staff cannot do this with one hand tied behind their back. Trust between staff, families and carers is essential. However, when respite provision breaks down, that trust is damaged, because families feel that they have been failed. It is the front-line staff who have to face those families, and they should not be put in the middle of this because of a failure to protect respite care.

We must ask ourselves what kind of society we want to be. Do we want to be a society that values carers and those whom they care for or one that leaves them to fend for themselves? I believe that the answer is clear, and Sinn Féin will not allow carers to be forgotten. They need to know that we have their backs.

I call on the Minister to urgently develop a comprehensive plan that addresses the lack of respite provision for adults and children. The plan must include planning, additional investment and the ring-fencing of funds to ensure that services are protected and expanded. Unpaid carers in our communities need to know that we see them, that we value them and that we are committed to fighting for the support that they so desperately need. We will support the Minister in calls that he makes for additional funding, and we will support all of our Ministers when they go to the British Government asking for additional funding, because we know that that is needed. However, we really need to look at what respite services are in place and how we protect them now, today.

Mr McGrath: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Speaker: You will have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.

Mr McGrath: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the proposer of the motion, which is timely and is on a matter concerning some of the most vulnerable people in our society. When considering the motion, the SDLP felt that it could be strengthened and enhanced through our amendment. In discussing the provision or lack of provision of respite services for adults with a learning difficulty, I fear that we do a disservice by not including children in that discussion.

Recently, along with Claire Hanna MP, I had the opportunity to meet parents from the Forgotten Voices campaign on behalf of the National Autistic Society Northern Ireland. That was highlighted profoundly in a recent BBC NI 'Spotlight' programme that examined the care that children with complex needs and challenging behaviours require. Meeting those families and hearing their stories first-hand really was a deciding factor for us in tabling the amendment because we just cannot allow children's voices to be forgotten in the discussion. That is why our amendment simply includes "and children" after each of the references to adult services. We feel that it is really important that we do not overlook safeguarding and protection and also the services that we provide for children.

From the outset, it is important that there is joined-up activity in the Executive. This is not simply something that rests with the Department of Health. In speaking to some of those families, we were able to hear, for example, that there are many times when the PSNI is called out to deal with a child with a learning disability who is displaying aggressive behaviour. That child is not a criminal, but the police response is to put them into the back of a police car. There is also the unintended stigma that is attached when that is seen to take place in their community.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for giving way. I should have said that we will support the amendment.

Will the Member agree that, where the PSNI is being called to a child, that is often a failure of our health system to deal with that and that the PSNI is not the right response for a child with a learning difficulty and complex needs?

Mr McGrath: Absolutely. I totally agree, but the regrettable reality is that, unfortunately, we are left in a scenario where the police are called in to provide that support. They are almost providing a public order response to it because those are the only tools at their disposal. Maybe we can look at joined-up working so that that is not the approach that is taken. Something positive to come out of the debate could be to see whether there is an opportunity for Justice and Health to work together to tighten up protocols in the Departments.

For children and adults with a learning disability, as the motion rightly references, respite provision is not a luxury but a necessity for parents, families or other unpaid carers. It is a necessity for those carers — those family members — as well. Respite services allow the family structure at home to be maintained, and I am sure that Members across the Chamber will have been contacted by families of children or adults with a learning disability and will know the stories of the routine that happens at home when there is a breakdown of the family in that way. For those families, daily life is not straightforward. Nothing is a simple matter, no two days are the same and almost everything is exhausting.

Many of those families often feel that, by speaking this aloud or admitting they are struggling, it is a reflection on their capacity or ability as a parent: nothing could be further from the truth. Admitting that they are struggling is a reflection on their humanity, and there can be nothing more human than knowing that you need help and support. It is actually a real strength, and those families have my utmost respect and admiration. By availing themselves of respite services, the families can just breathe for a day or two, gather their strength together and ensure that, if they have other children, for example, those children can maybe get a bit more attention during that time as well. I am often reminded of my previous career as a youth worker, where I saw that maybe bringing people into the youth club for an hour or two provided that little bit of space for the family to get a few bits and pieces organised that maintained family life and allowed the young people to engage with peers and enjoy some fun time.

They are among the most vulnerable in our society, and, if we are not doing everything that we can to safeguard them, we have to question what we are doing. We have come a long way in safeguarding and protecting children and adults at risk. However, we know that there is a long way to go and, as time goes on and times change, how we safeguard children and adults at risk is an ever-evolving process. Respite services play a critical role in that task, and it is regrettable that the services that I have detailed are so intermittent in how they are funded and resourced. It is not a lifetime ago that the state would not have recognised the value of children and adults with learning difficulties and often would have just put them into an institution and locked the doors. Times really have changed and we can move away from that and have a model where people can be maintained at home and supported, but that can only be maintained if the support is there. If the support breaks down, the maintenance of life at home may fall apart.

I reflect on a phenomenal facility in my home town of Downpatrick in South Down, called Mainstay Down Residential Project. The facility was set up in 1990 by local families who had family members with learning disabilities, complex needs and challenging behaviours and wanted the best possible care for their family members. What began as a residential project for nine people has grown over the years to supporting over 150 service users who are assisted through residential supported living, respite care and day opportunities. That is all taking place and is a prime example of where families came together when they identified that their needs were not being met and wanted to do something about it. The exceptional committee, staff and volunteers continue to look at what they can do to provide more help and support. It has been in existence since 1990, and I would hazard a guess that not everyone across the Chamber will know of its work, but I am sure that they know, in their own constituencies, of similar organisations. When it is the voluntary and community sector doing these things, you have to wonder if it becomes a postcode lottery. If there is a good solid community organisation in one place, people in that area get services. However, if there is not the same provision in the voluntary and community sector somewhere else, people may not get the same level of service.

I will conclude with an interesting thing. The voluntary and community sector tell us that, with a little more money, they could do much more, yet we are told that statutory services do not have the resources but have the money. If we were to match things up and give more money to the voluntary and community sector, they could deliver those services. Then we might be able to reach out and provide more services for adults and, as per the amendment, children as well.

From speaking to those parents, I have heard first-hand exactly what they have had to face but also that they felt that they were not being supported. It felt like that was the bit that hurt them. They felt that, when they were in their moment of need, nobody was there to help them. There was no emergency respite provision, and there was no ongoing respite provision. They feel that, when they are crying out for help, nobody is there to assist them. I hope that the fact that we are having the debate and that there was the 'Spotlight' programme gives us the opportunity to use all of our collective energy to see what we can do to help some of the most vulnerable in our society. I hope that everybody can accept that it is about adults and children and can accept our amendment.

Mr Robinson: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Speaker: Thank you. You have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to wind. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Mr Robinson: My party certainly supports the thrust of the main motion, but we felt that it was important to include the issue of respite services being removed when families move from one trust area to another. Whilst availability of respite provision is a problem across the Province, there are also regional inequalities between health and social care trusts. There needs to be a step change in how health authorities cooperate. There needs to be a consistent pathway for families to access support regardless of where they live. Often, due to circumstances outside their control, families have to relocate. They should not be disadvantaged for doing so. Equally, service users should not have to uproot or travel inordinate distances to alternative services. Hence, we were keen to amend the motion.

Research published last year found that people providing unpaid care for sick or disabled family members or friends saves Northern Ireland's health service £5·8 billion each year. In my constituency, which spans two trust areas, the estimated value of unpaid care per year in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust is £1·3 billion; in the Western Health and Social Care Trust, it is estimated at £800 million. The least that carers deserve is reliable access to adequate, high-quality respite services, allowing adults and children to be cared for in a safe and secure environment and their families to have a break from caring responsibilities. If it is deemed the right course of action to separate elective and non-elective surgery and care, the same principle must be applied to how we deliver respite and short break provision for hard-pressed families across the Province. We need those services to be protected.

The 'Spotlight' has certainly been shone on the wider issue since the recent BBC documentary that highlighted the pressures faced by families who struggle to cope with children who have complex additional needs. No one could be unmoved by the mother who appeared in that documentary and said:

That mother had spent two years pleading for support from her local health trust. We are all aware of cases of mothers, fathers and, indeed, grandparents struggling to cope with children and young adults in their homes. They are children with severe learning difficulties and various complex behavioural needs. I am sure that most of us in the Chamber take for granted the ability to go to our local shop, to go for a walk, to have a full night's sleep, to go on holiday or even to relax in the safety and tranquillity of our home. Little of that is possible for carers. Having dealt with issues in my constituency office, I know that trusts try to bridge the gaps, but they are pushing against storm surge tides, under intense pressure, and so many people fall through the many cracks due to the combination of facilities being repurposed for emergency care, staffing and recruitment, with that and all else being made worse by the long-term effects of the COVID pandemic.

When trusts provide direct payments to families to arrange their own care, families struggle to find suitable people to care for their child. I cite my constituency case of a mother of a boy with very severe complex needs. She posts a weekly advert on her Facebook account and asks the public to share her appeal for a carer and personal assistant to look after her boy. It is painful to see such posts. Sometimes, children are just too challenging, and families cannot find a carer willing to take on that role. The eyes are often referred to as the windows to the soul. When you look into the eyes of those parents, you will see that, while they adore their children with every bone in their body, they are broken. They are not living; they are just existing as human beings.

A recent House of Commons research paper states:

We heard at Professor Bengoa's conference about social determinants of health. Here is one: unpaid carers dedicate their lives to looking after vulnerable family members, and they often provide valuable care at great personal and financial cost. They cannot do it alone. They need and deserve regular, reliable breaks: time to rest, recharge and take care of their own physical and mental well-being. We must always remember that, without the support of unpaid carers, the health and social care system would collapse.

The demand for the services increases every year, and we see more children with learning difficulties, complex needs and challenging behaviours transitioning into adult care services. We must ensure that the support systems are in place to grow and adapt the provision to meet the needs of that increasing population.

Sadly, our current respite provision is failing to keep pace with demand. Families are being left without adequate support, and carers are burning out at an alarming rate. It is important to recognise the hard work and dedication of the staff in the facilities that provide respite care. I think of some in my constituency, such as Benbradagh Resource Centre, where the staff are unsung heroes who work in situations that are, at times, incredibly challenging. They are stretched thin and are working in environments that are underfunded and overburdened. They need support as much as the carers and individuals whom they serve.

On the lack of adult respite provision, I support the call for a comprehensive plan to ensure forward planning, additional investment and the ring-fencing of those essential services. We need a clear strategic plan to address the shortage of adult respite provision meaningfully. As our population grows and more children with complex needs enter adult services, the appropriate services need to be in place before families and carers reach breaking point. Families need regular and predictable respite care, not ad hoc solutions that leave them in limbo. A sustainable model is a must, and it will offer carers the security of knowing that help is available when it is needed.

The Department has a duty of care to the most vulnerable in our society and to their families, who dedicate their lives to supporting them, but, unfortunately, carers in the Province are being forced to sacrifice their own health and well-being due to the lack of respite services. The Minister was recently on record as saying that the situation was not sustainable and that he was determined to see urgent improvements. He confirmed recently that trusts are performing at roughly 80% of their pre-COVID capacity for the respite and short-term break beds that are available to adults with learning disabilities, their parents and carers. I very much look forward to hearing his comments on how he intends to ramp up that capacity to 100% and expand it further in the coming weeks, months and years.

The Minister of Health very much needs to finalise and bring forward the learning disability service model. That needs to effectively and appropriately reflect the complexity and changing nature of demand, while increasing dedicated short break and respite provision. I hope that we will hear more about that today.

Miss McAllister: I thank Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the DUP for tabling the motion and the amendments. We support all of them and hope that the SDLP amendment will be passed to include children's services.

In my first Committee for Health session, I raised the issue of respite services and services for adults with learning difficulties, particularly to ensure that people can remain in their communities. Unfortunately, the consistency of the services — not the services that are offered, although we need to be realistic that the budget for them is not infinite — continues to go downhill. It must be put on record that the staff who work in trust-run and voluntary services do a fantastic job every day and are put under immense pressure.

I want to speak a bit about the individuals and their families. Earlier this year and last year, I was contacted by two families in the North Belfast constituency. They had similar circumstances but different backgrounds. One family was an elderly couple who were having difficulties with respite provision for their adult son. They needed that respite provision to look after their own health. At the Committee meeting of 23 May, the adult learning disability team from the Department gave us an update, and we touched a little on the demographic of people who are getting older and are looking after their older children. Again, the urgency of the issue rings true. There is a vast number of vulnerable people out there who require the service, but every one of those individuals has a family that we need to think about and provide with the respite that they need.

Aside from respite provision for families, one of the other issues that come up time and again in the Committee for Health, of which I am a member, is the difference in provision between trusts and the difference in provision if you move to another trust area, which is why I support the DUP amendment today. A report that was given to the Committee highlighted the fact that 47 separate services are run across all the trusts in Northern Ireland. There are different types of services, some of which are voluntary, and some of which are specifically trust-run. However, only 10 of the 47 are available on a regionally consistent basis, which is a poor reflection of where we stand when it comes to services for adults with complex needs. We need to have consistency across all provisions in Northern Ireland.

At the same Committee briefing, we were told that there will be a public consultation on the adult learning disability model. That consultation has not happened yet. I hope that the Minister can give us an update on where it is. We were under the impression from the briefing that that would form part of the social care collaborative forum's framework. There are a number of work streams in that. This is another one that, I understand, already has or could have a costed implementation plan that was due in the summer. I would like an update, if the Minister is able to provide that.

I will move on to transition. One of the areas that we focused on was the fact that 300 children are due to transition in the next two years. Therefore, there must be planning. The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) has said consistently that we need to plan not just for services but for the workforce.

I have spoken in the Chamber many times — in March, April and just last week — on the provision of respite services for children. Multiple judicial reviews (JRs) have taken place and ruled in parents' favour on the need for trusts to provide respite services for children with complex needs. I understand the position that the Department may be in when it comes to tackling the workforce issue, given that the staff may not be there. The Minister said that again last week. We need the safe staffing legislation to move forward. We also need to add the likes of the British Association of Social Workers to the social care collaborative forum so that it can feed into that.

I have raised many times the issue of respite services for children, and I will continue to do so in the Chamber and in Committee. We need to get answers. The Minister mentioned last week that plans might be in place. Perhaps he could update us on those today.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Miss McAllister: As I said, we are happy to support both amendments and the motion.

Mr Chambers: Today's discussion on this important topic allows us to focus once again on a vital area of support. Many more people are being supported to live a long and happy life in and as part of the community. Critical to that, however, is the availability of ongoing support for families and carers. Therefore, none of us can overestimate the importance of short breaks and appropriate respite provision. Short breaks provide much-needed support to disabled young people whilst allowing parents the all-important time that they need to recharge. It is the exact same for families with adults who have additional or challenging needs. Such breaks are critical lifelines for the well-being of entire families. Those carers are the backbone of our society and provide an immensely important service. Without them, it is a simple fact that an enormous number of people would not be able to experience the quality of life that they currently experience.

The recent BBC 'Spotlight' programme, which has been mentioned, was a superb piece of journalism. No one who watched that programme could feel anything other than admiration and empathy for each of the families featured. The Minister has said in recent weeks that this is one of the many burning issues on which he has tasked his officials and the system to come with up options and possible solutions. There is no doubt that, going forward, action is required. The Ulster Unionist Party will support the main motion and the amendments.

Mrs Erskine: The importance of adequate short-break provision for families and the most vulnerable cannot be stressed enough by those in the Chamber today. It should not be treated as an added extra.

I thank those who tabled the motion. For our part, we have included an issue that, sadly, we see too many times as constituency MLAs, which is the removal of services from one trust to another.

With the motion, we must recognise and be honest about the situation for carers. Sadly, many of us in the Chamber have dealt with parents in tears who are barely coping, as they have no respite for their children. It is difficult. The children are in their twenties, thirties and forties, yet their parents and carers are completely broken. Unfortunately, we have to be honest that our system has done that to those parents. There is, naturally, a great love for the people whom they care for, but, some days, it is all too much.

We owe our carers such a great deal of gratitude. They save our health service £5·8 billion a year. In my constituency, as has already been referenced, £8 million is saved because unpaid but compassionate people work 24/7 and sacrifice everything to care for the person they love.

It does not negate the fact that there are massive challenges in our system. Demand is outstripping supply, and the number of complex cases has increased. Therefore, it is important that strategies such as the children with disability framework and the work stream are finalised soon and the findings implemented as soon as possible. Perhaps the Minister can provide an overview of where that is at the moment. Furthermore, can he outline what the learning disability service model will plan to do to achieve more help and support for the families, children and adults whom we are discussing today?

Recently, we saw the challenges that exist when caring for a loved one. As has been referred to in the Chamber today, the 'Spotlight' programme, 'I Am Not Okay' was a difficult, brave and challenging watch. It highlighted the situations that families face. The toll that it takes physically and psychologically is immense. If the people who represent the £5·8 billion that is saved in care across Northern Ireland were to stop with immediate effect, the difficulties that are cited by every trust and Department today would be much greater. That is why we owe it to them to do something here and now.

We need effective reporting in trust areas around capacity and activity. We know that because the all-party group on carers tried to find some evidence in relation to capacity and activity reporting. I believe that there is also an attitudinal problem. In my trust area, I have tried for some time to have individual meetings on the issue, and it took some time to get information and for those meetings to happen.

There is an unspoken truth that carers will continue to bear the brunt of burnout and caring responsibilities because it is a loved one that they care for. That is true to a certain extent, but, in the many circumstances that I deal with, carers are becoming patients themselves, and they need help fast.

Respite and short breaks provision can, at times, be so finely balanced, and, in my constituency, I have seen too many times short breaks pulled at the last minute because of staff shortages and sickness. Furthermore, short-break beds should be ring-fenced for exactly that purpose. How have we got to a scenario where short-break beds are being repurposed? Can the Minister indicate how many have been repurposed in the last year?

Commissioning of services must be forward-thinking and not done on an ad hoc basis, which it often feels like. There should not be a postcode lottery in the service provision for families, which, again, I see all too often. If you need treatment or healthcare provision, you deserve to get it no matter where you live.

It is a massive issue, and it will not be easily solved, but I trust that those in the House this evening will support our amendment, which would bring greater focus —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Erskine: — on ending the siloed approach in trusts.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the amendments. As my colleague said, we will support all of them.

As many in the House know, I have been a carer. As part of the debate, I will spell out what it is like to be a carer. You look after someone. That someone could be a child or an adult. You get them up in the morning. You wash them. That means that you physically wash them, brush their teeth and shave them. You may have to change a nappy. You clean them after toileting. You get them dressed. Sweat is lashing off you. It is hard work. You might shower them. It is really hard. Once you have got them settled and fed, they may be sick, and you may have to change them again. You then have to entertain them. You have to give them medication. You have to feed them again at lunchtime, entertain them some more and take them to a hospital or GP appointment or to the optician's. They may need to go to the dentist. You then have dinner time, and it happens all over again. You get them ready for bed. You are up all night with the person, because you do not know whether they will get out of bed or choke. They may just not feel very well, or they may want to be entertained at 2.00 am or 3.00 am. So it goes on, every single day. No break; no anything.

I always ask people, "What is respite for?" Is respite for the person — the adult or the child with a learning difficulty or complex needs — or for the carer? To be honest, it is for both. I could tell of times when a loved one whom I was caring for was sick of looking at me and everybody else in the house and wanted a break. At the same time, however, as a carer, you wanted a break from it. You needed to get your head showered for a while, because, if you did not, you could not keep going. Families often find that they are doing that every single day, but the carers are often completely and utterly forgotten. I remind everybody in the House that a carer does not get respite provision prescribed for them. It is prescribed for the person whom they care for. A carer could be at absolute breaking point but get nothing.

I will give some examples. I had a constituent who was getting a hip replacement — a single person who was caring for their adult child, who was in their forties at that stage. The person needed a hip replacement and asked for help. They asked for respite care and were turned down. They felt guilty for the entire time that they were in hospital having a much-needed, much-waited-for hip replacement, because they did not know who was going to look after their one back at home. Some carers have told me that they have been offered day-centre care. That is wonderful, but, when transport lets them down, they have to drive the person to the day centre and wait outside for maybe three or four hours before bringing the person home again. That is not respite. That is not giving a carer a break.

We need to review our care and respite system. They are two sides of the same coin. The person with the disabilities and the carer need to be taken into consideration equally. There are times when the person with the disabilities needs the break and times when the carer needs the break. The other thing that really annoys me — nobody will take this into account — is that the person with the disability is not always the one who needs to leave the house. Sometimes the carer needs to get out of the house, because what happens when the person with the disability leaves the house? We all know the answer: you tidy up, you clean and you change the beds. You do all that sort of work.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Ms K Armstrong: I will indeed.

Miss McAllister: The Member is referring to adult services. She will be aware that the BBC documentary highlighted the fact that social workers are not allowed to go into the person's home. They are told that the risk is too high and that it is unsafe to do so, yet we expect families to be there all the time with no help. What is the risk to them?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My colleague is exactly right. When you are a carer, you are on your own. It feels that way all the time. You are in second place. You are the person who does all the work, manages to keep the person healthy and well, and deals with all the emotional issues — could be frustration, could be anger, could be illness — but who looks after you?

As Mrs Dillon said, when your respite is planned and you are really looking forward to it because you want to sleep for one day — you want to have one night's sleep — but it is pulled at the last minute, it is devastating. It is devastating, because you will not get it replaced any time soon. The all-party group on carers has said this time and again: carers should be included in planning for respite. Different carers and people with different learning disabilities should all be brought together, whether they are children or adults, to discuss what is best for them. The guilt that a carer feels about somebody having to go and get respite care is overpowering. I would love to see, in any plans going forward, that there is —.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. I have dealt with families whose family members have very individual needs. There can be an anxiousness for families when they put their children into facilities. Does the Member agree that there are anxieties about not just the family member but the attached needs and making sure that they are listened to?

Ms K Armstrong: Exactly, and that is why it frustrates me that respite always has to be somewhere else and cannot be in the person's home, where they have the lift, the hoist and all their facilities available to them. There needs to be a new plan — a new way of thinking — especially given the fact that we have an ageing population. Certainly, we are going to consider children and adults, but we have an ageing population, and the cliff edge comes when you have people with learning disabilities who need care, and who may have dementia or Alzheimer's. I remind everybody that —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms K Armstrong: — people with learning disabilities are not ill, but they have been removed from social services lists, so not all are listed.

Mr Gaston: The motion and the amendments rightly highlight the lack of respite provision for adults and children with learning difficulties, complex needs and challenging behaviours. In many cases, the lack of respite falls to unpaid carers. Considering that some 222,000 people in Northern Ireland — approximately 12% of our population — work as unpaid carers, this debate touches on issues that are of enormous significance to many people in our Province. While there are people of all ages involved in this work, I acknowledge that more than 3,000 children under the age of 15 are carers. In many of those cases, they are family members who have sacrificed their lives to care for a loved one. Carers put the welfare of a relative who is elderly, is sick or has special needs before their own welfare and, in many cases, care for more than one person in need. While there are Members who go off on holiday, even when the Assembly is sitting, the people whom we are talking about often give up opportunities to go away with friends or family so that they can care for the person, or people, to whom they have devoted their life.

The charity Carers UK recently conducted a survey that revealed some stark statistics: 82% of carers — an increase from 77% from the previous year — said that the impact of caring on their physical and mental health would be a challenge over the coming year; 79% felt stressed or anxious; half felt depressed; half felt lonely; and almost three quarters said that they continue providing care even though they feel that they are at breaking point.

I take this opportunity to highlight and encourage someone in my constituency who is a carer for her husband and child. Donna Bryce launched a carers' coffee club in Ballymena for carers living locally who know the daily struggles of being a carer, as highlighted in the Carers UK survey. When setting up the group, Donna stated:

That is a powerful testimony of a carer detailing their lived experience. In the short time that that group has been running, it has provided valuable support and a space for local carers to come together to share their experiences and make friendships. I wish to encourage Donna, her mum, Doreen Armstrong, and Christine O'Brien who provide that opportunity locally. I trust that, in the future, the trust could support that carers' coffee club to allow the support network to be replicated in other areas across Northern Ireland.

In closing, and going back to the motion, I draw Members' attention to the fact that the United Kingdom's Carer's Leave Act 2023 provides for one week's unpaid leave for adults with caring responsibilities in England, Scotland and Wales. Since employment law is a devolved matter, no statutory carer's leave is available in Northern Ireland. That is an issue on which devolution has not delivered, as is the case on many other issues. More needs to be done to provide a greater level of respite. On that basis, I am supportive of the amendments.

Mr Carroll: I am happy to support the motion and the two amendments. Social care workers — paid and unpaid — provide and benefit from respite services. Failure to invest in those services is directly and actively harming adults and children with learning difficulties, complex needs and challenging behaviours, as well as their families, as we have heard.

Social care workers across our trusts and the community and voluntary sector provide respite services for thousands of adults and children, as well as their carers, each year. Despite their life-enhancing and transformative work, they are underpaid and undervalued.

Unpaid carers are the invisible backbone of our society. They keep our health and social care services running. Many balance their caring responsibilities with paid work and education. According to the most recent census, as we have heard, 222,000 people in the North provide some form of unpaid care. Women, obviously, are more likely to take on caring responsibilities than men. In the North, around 3,000 children under the age of 15 are carers, which is a startling statistic. Carers face unprecedented pressures on their finances: 44% of working-age adults who are caring for 35 hours or more each week are living in poverty. All too often, the invaluable contributions of unpaid carers are not recognised. Unpaid carers experience their own physical and mental health issues, which are often exacerbated by the pressures of providing unpaid care. A lack of accessible and timely respite services only adds to those pressures.

Demand for access to short breaks and respite services for adults with learning disabilities and children and young people with disabilities has increased, as has been said. Some children and young people urgently need longer-term residential placements, and in our current, collapsing system, some children have been staying in overnight, short-break units for over 90 days. That has an obvious, knock-on effect on the operation of the units, which cannot maintain a short-break service. In short, it is a broken system. It is unacceptable that, during a crisis where an emergency respite admission is required, families lack certainty and support. Where is the caring aspect of the NHS in this debate?

More generally, we need to move to a social model of disability, rather than our current model, which is solely medicalised. A social model places responsibility on society and the Government, rather than the individual, to remove barriers and promote equality and social justice. Under a social model of disability, disabled people and their carers are more likely to be treated with the dignity that they so rightly deserve but do not always get.

There is nothing wrong with people who have a disability or additional needs, but there is a lot wrong with our society, especially in its attitudes towards people with a disability. I am happy to support the motion and the amendments.

Mr McNulty: I begin by offering moral support to the parents and families of children with complex needs. I also give a huge thank you to the professionals and volunteers who provide respite, be that day care, overnight stays or short breaks. Their care and support for families and the individuals who receive the respite is extraordinary.

Parents and families deserve enormous admiration and empathy for the strength that they demonstrate on a daily basis, but they do not need empathy and admiration. They all need and deserve support and access to respite and short breaks on a regular basis. Members will agree that parents and families are not OK. Some of them are on their hands and knees, enduring the burden that they must carry. Some parents are being forced to consider giving their children up to the full-time care system because they cannot cope anymore. They are not OK.

There needs to be significant investment, a regional respite unit, potentially for those children who have the most complex needs, and greater engagement with the community and voluntary sector. The Gateway Club in Newry, for instance, has offered, and is keen to offer, respite and short breaks for parents. It is very good at providing that service, given its expertise.

Fundamentally, parents and families need our support and our help. They need answers and access to short breaks on a regular and consistent basis.

Mr Speaker: I call Paul Frew to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2.

Mr Frew: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I have listened to the debate, and it was truly heartbreaking. The saying that comes into my head repeatedly as I hear the experiences being recounted throughout the Chamber is, "Be kind, for you do not know what battles people are fighting". Whilst we say it quite often, there is no way in which we can measure the depth of despair or the battles that those people are fighting. That is heartbreaking for a number of reasons, and not just on an individual level. Since my political career began, and especially since I became a full-time politician in 2010, the health system has moved to become one where we keep people at home longer. Given what the health estate, our services and our health trusts provide, the pressure on them is mighty, yet it is nearly as if we have completely forgotten about all those people whom we removed from a hospital setting to the home setting. It is as if we have left their families in despair.

It is absolutely clear that that false economy is leading to more casualties and more patients with carers who are burnt out. It is as if we cannot see that. Then, we wonder why people are rocking up to our health estate needing beds in our wards because they cannot cope. When that tragedy happens, what happens to the person for whom that carer was caring? We are multiplying carnage upon carnage. Transforming Your Care: do Members remember that? It has become "Destroying Your Health". That is the stark message that we should take away from the debate. In that regard, we need not only reform but radical change.

I will sum up some of the contributions to the debate. I will not get through them all, but I will deal with the proposers of the motion and the amendments. Linda Dillon told us about carers being informed at short notice that their respite was cancelled. Think of the devastation caused to carers who are so focused on caring for their loved ones but who know that, at the end of a week or two weeks, they will get respite, not just for them but for the person for whom they are caring, only for that to be taken away instantly with no concept of when that respite will be picked up again. Those people may have been waiting for that respite for a year. That is truly devastating, and it will tip people who are already in despair over the edge.

Linda Dillon said that there needs to be an emergency respite plan for people who fall on hard times or end up having an accident and have to go to hospital themselves. She said that support provision must follow the family even when they move. She mentioned the issue of children attaining adulthood and losing respite provision in the transition from child services to adult services. That is a mighty thing. She called on the Minister to develop a comprehensive plan.

Colin McGrath said that the debate was timely. He said that he proposed the amendment with children in mind and that it was children-focused, and we can see that in the text. He related experiences of PSNI interventions and explained why those are usually the wrong interventions. Regrettably, however, they are the only ones. The PSNI is picking up the pieces inappropriately, but it is trying to do the best that it can.

One thing that came up across the piece is the diligent work and commitment of the people who provide respite and care for the carers. I must place that on record before my time is up.

Alan Robinson, who moved our amendment, explained what happens when families move to another trust area, and he outlined the reasons for the DUP amendment. He talked about the £5·8 billion a year that carers are saving the health service, the estimated value of unpaid care in the Northern Trust and the Western Trust being £1·3 billion and £800 million a year respectively.

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

Mr Frew: I have run out of time. I commend our amendment to the House, and I thank the House for supporting both amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I call the Minister, I clarify to the House that I am mindful that that winding-up speech would normally have been taken following the Minister's response. Apologies for that, Minister; I would be grateful for your and Mr Frew's understanding on this occasion.

I call the Minister to respond. You have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members who contributed to the debate.

I will start with a direct and clear response to the motion. The current provision for children and adults with learning disabilities is inadequate and has been for quite some time. I agree with the motion that respite is not a luxury; it is an essential and critical service for unpaid carers and their loved ones. The provision of respite gives recognition to the fact that most people with learning disabilities will remain in the family home throughout adulthood.

I fully recognise the hard work and dedication of staff who deliver respite services. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to unpaid carers. They have been mentioned often in the debate. Without the love and dedication of unpaid carers, the current model of social care for learning disability would collapse overnight. Mr McGrath talked about signs of humanity. Is there any greater sign of humanity than the love of the parents of children with learning disabilities that we watched in the 'Spotlight' programme?

I accept that we need to address the lack of respite provision for children and adults. That will require immediate action but also forward planning and additional investment to grow and diversify the service in the coming years. It is important that funding for the service is ring-fenced and not used for residential and emergency purposes. To do that will require a comprehensive examination of the entire learning disability programme of care.

I was struck when Mr Robinson said to me that if separating emergency and elective or planned surgery makes sense, it makes equal sense to separate out residential and respite care. My Department has a draft plan, and my officials have engaged directly with several of my colleagues in the Chamber in order to provide assurances that we know what the problems are and, more importantly, that we have a clear vision for the way forward.

I will provide an update on the draft learning disability service model, which aims to recalibrate services to provide greater support in the community, including through the expansion of respite and short breaks. We engaged carers in the development of the model and we intend to do so on a greater scale through a public consultation in the coming months. Following that consultation, the model will form the basis of regional and trust-level commissioning and investment plans for years to come.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention and apologise for asking for one so early in his response. Can we ensure that the consultation process is easy and accessible for carers? We know that they have a lot on their plate, so, the easier the process can be, the better, even if it is actually a personal engagement consultation.

Mr Nesbitt: That is a valid point, and one that I acknowledge.

Respite services for adults with learning disabilities account for approximately £25 million expenditure a year, which accounts for only 5% of the total learning disability spend. Trusts deliver and commission approximately 100 respite beds, which are used by thousands of families in Northern Ireland. There lies an obvious disparity; those are indicators that something is not quite right.

I acknowledge that respite provision is most certainly not a luxury, but that it is indeed a necessity for many unpaid carers in our society. Those carers have continuously stressed the importance of periodic, flexible and planned short breaks, and of the importance of recognising the fact that short breaks provide the person being supported with a break from the family home and offer different activities. Nobody could put it better than Kellie Armstrong did in her contribution, which I acknowledge and for which I thank her.

The services were significantly impacted on by the pandemic, as trusts balanced infection control with the practicalities of delivering a learning disability service. Members will be aware that my predecessor approved the pathway to remobilise services as we emerged from the pandemic, which enabled full restoration of day services and an ambition for short breaks. Today, the challenge is different. Demand exceeds supply, and there are significant workforce challenges. Also, trusts have reported a growing complexity of children who have transitioned into adult services. That can reduce capacity in day care and in short breaks, while requiring higher levels of staff and support. On my mind on a daily basis is the idea of transition and how we do it better, because we do not do it well.

I am aware that there have been instances when short-break beds have been temporarily repurposed for emergency or residential purposes. For example, the Southern Health and Social Care Trust temporarily closed Woodlawn House at the end of last year for residential purposes, which cancelled a series of planned short breaks for several weeks.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for giving way. If you get a chance, will you speak to the point that I made earlier about there being capacity in the community and voluntary sector but it does not have the money, yet the statutory sector has the money but not the staffing resources? Is there a way in which that could be merged to see whether some community and voluntary providers could do more?

Mr Nesbitt: I am keen to see to what extent the voluntary and community sector can play an enhanced role. I look back at my time as a victims' commissioner, when we worked closely with the voluntary and community sector, which delivered a lot of services for victims of our conflict. Having said that, I do not think that they should be some sort of "cheap alternative" to statutory services. It is a question of getting a balance there, but I am keen to work with the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) and others to try to see how we enhance those services and pay for them appropriately.

It can be a challenge when a family moves from one trust to another — again, that was raised by the second amendment — and it can result in a temporary loss of respite support. Whilst beds are commissioned on a localised basis, I have repeatedly said to the trusts at the highest level — chief executives and chairs — that I expect them to collaborate and cooperate. In my mind, the five geographic trusts are one trust, and that is how I want them to navigate these issues.

Learning disability services now account for £500 million per year, supporting 9,000 adults and their families. Investment has increased significantly in recent years, but I do not see or hear that when I speak to carers and families. It is clear to me, as Health Minister, that we spend money in the wrong places. We respond to crises, placement breakdowns and delayed discharges. We need to rapidly recalibrate the service to provide greater support at an earlier stage and to better recognise the role of unpaid carers. It is important to note that that is not a criticism of the staff delivering the services. I fully recognise their hard work and dedication. Since the first day of my appointment, I have visited several learning disability services delivered by trusts and the independent sector. Each time, I have been amazed at what can be achieved through creativity, innovation and hard work.

It is important to give Members a brief update on the work of the learning disability strategic plan. In March last year, the Department established a task-and-finish group to finalise a service model for adult learning disabilities and a framework for children with disabilities. The golden thread to progressing those products is a renewed and regionally consistent approach to transitions. That thread is critical to ensuring that adult services can appropriately forward-plan for children who are entering adult services in the future.

On transitions for people with learning disabilities, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the efforts of Alma White, the lead campaigner for Caleb's Cause Northern Ireland. I met Alma recently and was moved by her enthusiasm and the energy that she brings to improving transitional support for her son and for other children with special educational needs. I have committed my support to Alma and to working with the Department for the Economy as it explores options for legislative change. While we need to be mindful of what can be achieved in the remainder of this mandate, we should not be deterred from exploring opportunities to deliver better outcomes.

In Health and Social Care, the learning disability service model aims to produce a regionally consistent service for adults, with an emphasis on supporting need at an early stage in the community. The model aims to ensure that the needs and views of families and carers are fully understood and that accessible support is available. It will ensure that families and carers will be offered the flexible, practical and emotional support that they need to support individuals to live in the community and have a meaningful life.

That will involve increasing the level and diversity of short-break services, with consideration being given to modernising existing services and environments to better support those with more complex needs. The model will be underpinned by a robust regional needs assessment, ensuring that the level of residential short breaks reflects the population size, living arrangements and needs of carers and families. It is clear that the level of that service will need to increase, but we also need to diversify the breaks provided.

Earlier this month, Professor Bengoa and I visited a Shared Lives service delivered by Positive Futures. It is an example of a different type of short break, where members of the public can be trained and supported to provide day breaks and overnight stays for adults with a learning disability. Self-directed support also provides flexibility to families, but I am aware that the administrative burden can be excessive. In September, my Department, in collaboration with Impact and the Association for Real Change, appointed a regional post to expand the use of managed budgets. That represents a better way to provide families with choice and control, with the administrative burden resting on the trusts. Both Shared Lives and managed budgets are central to how we will diversify and expand respite and family support in the years ahead.

In summary, the service model outlines my Department's vision to recalibrate services and better support unpaid carers while providing the building blocks for robust forward planning. It is my hope that we will launch a public consultation in the coming months.

While the motion focuses primarily on adult services — it would be expanded by amendment to include children — it would be remiss not to provide an update on short breaks for children. As part of the exercise commenced in 2023, significant work has been progressed to outline the way forward for Health and Social Care services. A framework for children with disabilities has been developed and is being implemented. Improvements across services will require years of sustained investment and workforce development. However, the recent BBC 'Spotlight' programme on short breaks has helped to focus minds and outline an immediate body of work that will be progressed in the days and weeks, rather than the months and years, ahead.

This week, I will meet the families involved in the programme, with the support of the Children's Law Centre and the National Autistic Society. I have been presented with a series of costed options on the way forward. As Ms McAllister alluded to, that is something that I was expecting last week and got. I have spent significant time considering those options in the intervening days. I can tell the Member and the House that, depending on the outcome of one more meeting, which is tomorrow, I shall make my announcement.

My Department fully recognises the scale of the challenge in services for people with learning difficulties. It is further recognised that several challenges that have been identified are long-standing and cannot be viewed in isolation. To put it into context, we need three things: the infrastructure, properties and places where residential and respite care can be offered; the funds to run it; and a workforce that is appropriately trained and committed. At least two of those things — the infrastructure and the workforce — cannot be magicked up overnight. The funding in the middle is an enormous challenge, but it is one that, I am happy to say, departmental officials have risen to at pace. I commend them for that.

My Department will set out an ambitious body of work to address the challenges faced by children and adults with learning disabilities, enjoined through a revised approach to transitions. A point was made about police intervention and how inappropriate that was. It seems to me that that reflects the fact that, sometimes, when we have a really difficult challenge, we go for the easy solution, not the right solution. I assure the House that I want to be in the business of right solutions.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for that response. I call Mark Durkan to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. You have up to five minutes.

Mr Durkan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the contributors to the debate, and I thank the Minister for the actions that he has committed to taking. Some of the stories shared and facts presented are nothing short of harrowing. It is harrowing that the current system means that some of our most vulnerable citizens are not given the support to live their lives with dignity and that our unpaid carers, who dedicate their lives to supporting them, are being punished.

As 'Spotlight' so powerfully highlighted, those families are not OK. In the North, we face a serious lack of respite care provision for adults and children with disabilities. That gap places huge pressure on carers who are already stretched to the limit. The pandemic had a profound impact on those families, and it has served to intensify existing challenges. I have listened to heart-wrenching stories from parents and primary carers about struggling without respite throughout lockdowns. For many households, that monumental shift has had a lasting impact. In many cases, adults and children with complex needs have experienced a marked regression, behavioural challenges and a decline in their overall mental health. Their parents and guardians are broken. Yet, at a time when efforts should have been made to rebuild and increase access to respite, families are being pushed more deeply into despair. Instead of finding relief, they are being left to navigate their struggles alone and feel helpless. It is no wonder that two thirds of unpaid carers suffer from poor mental health. I would wager that, in reality, that number is significantly higher.

Respite care should not be treated as a luxury. Since when was a lifeline a luxury? It is deeply concerning that respite capacity has not been fully restored, four years on from the pandemic, and that the children's respite units in four of our five health and social care trusts have been repurposed for residential services, which has left families with fewer options. In my constituency of Foyle, families that rely on overnight respite services at Rosebud Cottages have battled repeated temporary closures. Services are simply not accessible for many who need them, waiting lists are growing and, in some areas, there is no provision at all. Unpaid carers, who save our Health and Social Care system countless millions of pounds each year, are burnt out. They have nowhere else to turn, which begs this question: who cares for our unpaid carers?

I echo the appreciation for the staff that has been expressed by some Members. Those committed and selfless individuals work with incredibly vulnerable people, often in incredibly volatile situations, for little reward other than the knowledge of the immeasurable good that they do. Staffing shortages continue to have significant implications for the provision of support packages. Many workers who left during the pandemic have not been replaced, sometimes due to funding difficulties and sometimes due to recruitment. It is not just the provision of short breaks, either; it is day care opportunities too. There is a lack of provision but also, at times, a lack of suitable provision. For example, young adults might be placed with older people with whom they have nothing in common. There are examples of great models in my constituency that provide support and stimulation. Such models need to be looked at and learned from.

While direct payments have provided some relief, navigating the process can, at times, feel like an added burden rather than a support. That outsourcing of responsibility from trusts to families has been valuable for many, but the mechanism does not work for all. For some caregivers, who already have so much on their plate, it can feel overwhelming. We desperately need to review and streamline that system and signpost.

For parents and carers of children and adults with a learning disability, access to support is an uphill battle at every turn. I often wonder how they have any fight left. From fighting for a diagnosis to securing educational support, school places and respite care, the battles can seem endless, yet our unpaid carers are the warriors and heroes of our day. They deserve our support and respect. The Minister mentioned Alma White, and I know many passionate and determined families in my constituency who will drive that much-needed and overdue change. It is great that there is consensus today that we will also do our best to do that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Colm Gildernew to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Colm, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank all Members who contributed to this afternoon's debate on a hugely important issue. The debate covered very many of the issues that I have heard as an MLA and, previously, as a carers' spokesperson over the years. We support both amendments, and I thank the parties and Members who tabled them.

Caring for a family member is one of the most difficult jobs that anyone can do. The lack of support or recognition often adds significantly to the challenges that carers face. Carers often talk about planning for respite as being almost like a military operation. They will talk about being in the trenches and fighting for every bit of support that they get. That language indicates the level of stress that they are under repeatedly. It is worth briefly mentioning that the single allowance that is paid to carers, the carer's allowance, is woefully inadequate to meet their needs. That is worth mentioning in the debate as well.

Respite services are a vital element for individuals who receive care and the person who provides that care for them. We should remember that many of our carers experience significant health difficulties themselves. They have to try to navigate that at the same time as looking after someone who may have particular vulnerabilities. Respite services provide those carers with some space — it is only some space — to complete day-to-day tasks that we all take for granted, be it shopping for groceries, attending their own appointments or, potentially, as was mentioned, looking after another person.

The example of Woodlawn House in my constituency was mentioned a couple of times by Members and, indeed, the Minister. It is an eight-bed facility that provides short breaks of around a week for those with learning disabilities, complex needs and challenging behaviour. In December last year, respite services were severely impacted on by the need to redirect staff to intensive individual support, which was clearly needed at that time. It was the second time that that had happened in Woodlawn House within a short number of years. In that instance, service users and their families who were due to avail themselves of the service were told at short notice that all their respite slots had been cancelled. Hearing that causes massive distress and frustration and adds to the feeling of burnout, which Deborah referenced, and the sense of despair. It underlines the inadequate provision that exists for adults and children with complex needs and challenging behaviour and shows the need for more investment. We absolutely need to plan better to address those needs, provide planned support for all our families and ensure that a crisis of that nature does not have that impact on so many families who are so close to the end of their tether.

More and more children with learning disabilities and complex needs are leaving services at 18 years old. The Minister referenced that fact and the need to do better at transition. Those children then enter adult services, which are already under pressure, and that means that more and more respite centres will inevitably struggle to meet the increased level of demand.

I will touch on some Members' contributions, because it is useful to cover some of the very many aspects of the issue. Paul Frew mentioned the movers of the motion and the amendments, so I will start by mentioning some of the other contributors. Nuala McAllister referenced the fact that staff are doing a fantastic job despite all the pressures. That absolutely needs to be acknowledged. She also referenced the need for forward planning, particularly for transition, as the Minister mentioned, and the very important issue of safe staffing legislation, which we are yet to see. Those are important issues.

Deborah mentioned the fact that parents are barely coping at times and the important issue of carer burnout. Kellie Armstrong gave us some real-life examples and illustrated the issues in a way that brought them right home to all of us. She made the important point that, at times, carers feel completely forgotten. We in the House should not allow that to continue to be the case. She also raised a vexatious issue around transport and the fact that transport is often an additional element with which carers struggle.

Timothy Gaston referred to the fact — it is really important — that there are many, many children who are also carers. We need to provide specific support across a wider range of areas, and that takes us into Education and other areas, as well as Health. We absolutely need to try to protect those children and give them the best start that we can with the resources that we have.

The Minister made a number of key points. Crucially, he acknowledged that the system would — it is a fact — collapse without the input of unpaid carers. That is the starting point from which we must address the issue. He also referenced the need to improve the transition from child into adult provision. That has been a long-standing issue, and I welcome his recognition of that. There is a need for regional consistency — it is included in amendment No 2 — and a need to address the fact that some people perceive that it is a postcode lottery. On the substance of it, the Minister outlined that this will require years of sustained investment, the recruitment of proper staffing and the creation of facilities as well.

The Minister referred to work that he expects to take forward imminently, and I welcome that we are seeing that renewed focus. I also acknowledge the programme that brought some attention to the issue. The Minister outlined the three things that are needed here, and I fully agree with each of them. However, I will add a fourth: the will and the focus to finally bring some sort of improvement in this area. We are expecting too much of unpaid, informal, family carers, and we now need to absolutely do better by them.

The respite provision for adult and children's services has, for far too long, been subject to underinvestment, and we need the Minister of Health and the Executive to prioritise those services to ensure that families can avail themselves of more regular respite and to ensure that we have a service that can cope with the demand going forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before I put the Question, I remind you that the amendments to the motion are not mutually exclusive. They can both be made, and I will put the Question on amendment No 2 whether or not amendment No 1 is made.