Official Report: Tuesday 22 October 2024

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should rise in their place. Those Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement.

I remind Members that interventions during this item of business are not permitted, and I will not take points of order on this or any other matter until this item of business is finished.

Mrs O'Neill: Yesterday, I was asked about the age of the young person who was sent inappropriate text messages by a Sinn Féin representative. It was my understanding that the young person was 17 years of age, based on the information at application to join the party. That information was wrong. Over the weekend, the young person made it clear that he was in fact 16 at the time, and I fully accept this. I want to put it on record that he was in fact 16 years of age when these inappropriate texts were sent.

What happened to this young person was wrong. Niall Ó Donnghaile's behaviour was unacceptable and entirely inappropriate, and no young person should have experienced that. As I said yesterday, I am absolutely so sorry for the hurt caused by the statement that was issued following his resignation.

On a separate matter, yesterday, 21 October, a Sinn Féin employee who worked in the Assembly made the party Chief Whip aware of their involvement in an incident regarding a portrait in Belfast City Hall. That took place on Saturday 19 October. The employee was immediately suspended, and we notified the PSNI. The employee has now resigned from their employment and party membership.

Mr Brett: I have given notice that I will raise a point of order after Members' statements. I am disappointed, given the issue that I want to raise, that the First Minister is now walking out of the Chamber.

Another day and another Sinn Féin scandal: another day and another police investigation surrounding the behaviour of Sinn Féin employees and members. Let me be abundantly clear: the decision by a Sinn Féin employee and member at the weekend to desecrate the portrait of DUP Lord Mayor Wallace Browne was absolutely disgraceful and poses many questions for Sinn Féin.

The event on Saturday evening at which the incident took place was attended by leadership figures of that party.

Did any of those leadership figures witness the incident that took place? Will they cooperate with the police investigation? Will they encourage others to cooperate with the PSNI investigation? When did Sinn Féin first become aware of the incident, and why only after our party raised this matter at City Hall and through the media did Sinn Féin then make a statement late last night? Did the Sinn Féin employee explain the rationale for the attack? Why did they single out a portrait of a unionist Lord Mayor? Why did they single out a portrait painted by a member of the Jewish community? Was it in retaliation for the democratic decision taken by members of Belfast City Council to remove the portrait of disgraced Sinn Féin senator Niall Ó Donnghaile? I will table further questions to find out whether the Sinn Féin employee was in any way connected to any Member of this House. These are very serious questions that need to be answered, and I and this party will continue to pursue these acts of criminality, violence and utter disgrace.

Ms K Armstrong: I rise to congratulate Portaferry GAC on winning the Down Senior Hurling Championship on Sunday. Hurling on the Ards peninsula, part of my Strangford constituency, is very strong. Three parishes — Portaferry, Ballygalget, which I live in, and Ballycran — quite often make it to the Down Senior Hurling Championship finals. I give my congratulations to Portaferry, albeit I am from Ballygalget. Well done to the team, to captain, Matt Conlan and to the Portaferry guys who beat Ballygalget. The score was 3-21 to 2-15. Tom McGrattan got some fantastic scores throughout the match, and I am sure that his dad, Gerard McGrattan, who was an all-star, was extremely proud to see his son achieving so well. I wish Portaferry all the best of luck in the forthcoming Ulster Club Championship.

Ms D Armstrong: I rise to pay tribute to Siobhan Allister, a tireless charity campaigner and fundraiser who passed away suddenly, aged 63, on Saturday night.

Siobhan was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2010 at the age of 49. Facing that personal health challenge, she joined the Fermanagh MS group, and, through her commitment to that group, she became lead support volunteer and group coordinator. She raised in excess of £100,000 for MS causes in Northern Ireland, organising abseiling and marathon cycle events amongst others, and she was an active member of the all-party group on MS and neurology, using her knowledge of the condition to lobby for more research and funding for patients. Siobhan ensured that MS patients in Fermanagh received the benefit of her fundraising for therapeutic care. Her personal experience of the condition enabled her to display great empathy and passion for her patients and their families.

In recognition of her exemplary fundraising and dedication to the MS charity, she was awarded the British Empire Medal. She was also presented with the MS Society's Shining Star award and the Points of Light award by the Prime Minister in Downing Street. In addition to that, she raised significant funds for the Aisling Centre women's health and well-being hub in Enniskillen and was a key organiser and enthusiast for the annual Lady of the Lake Festival in Irvinestown, her home town.

Siobhan is survived by her husband, Stevie, sons Daniel and Ben and siblings Catherine, Michael and Louise. It is to them that I send my deepest sympathy. Whilst small in stature, she was big in heart, and her contribution to the local community was immense. She will be fondly remembered by all who knew her as an inspirational person. May she rest in peace.

Ms McLaughlin: I have really strong concerns about Minister Givan's response last week when asked about the development of a childcare strategy. In his answer, the Minister suggested that we would have to wait:

Parents and those in the childcare sector cannot afford to wait years. It is true that stakeholders will want the strategy to be comprehensive and detailed, but, after years of delay and waiting, they should be able to expect such a strategy to be delivered with urgency. It is one of the key priorities in the Programme for Government. Parents need long-term sustainable support, and they need it now.

The childcare system in the North has been at breaking point for well over a decade, with many parents paying much more on childcare costs than their mortgage every month. Childcare providers are desperate for support, and families cannot make ends meet. We all know that the status quo cannot be allowed to continue. Earlier this year, we finally saw some progress through the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme (NICSS), a practical success that was achieved by many politicians working in collaboration right across the political spectrum. Yet, we know all too well that that is only a start. The NICSS is a welcome intervention, but it is not a long-term solution to the issues that we face. It is not a childcare strategy. Parents cannot continue to wait for more support with their childcare bills.

The childcare sector has some of the hardest-working, most-dedicated and passionate people that I have met in all my years in business. Those people deserve better from the Executive and cannot afford to wait years for a strategy. Our children are our future. They are the next generation of politicians — God forbid — doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs and everything in between. We must ensure that they are not burdened by the failure of the Government. We must support their aspirations. The delivery of a childcare strategy must be an immediate priority.

Mr McHugh: Ba mhaith liom aire an Tí a tharraingt ar Lá Náisiúnta an Úill, a bhí ann inné. Is i mo bhaile dúchais féin, Caisleán na Deirge, a bheidh Aonach Úll ann an 25 Deireadh Fómhair. Comhairle Chathair Dhoire agus Cheantar an tSratha Báin a bheidh á urrú. Ní ócáid aon uaire i gCaisleán na Deirge é Aonach Úll: tá sé á reáchtáil ar an bhaile le mo chuimhne, agus, leoga, ar feadh i bhfad níos faide ná sin.

De ghnáth, bhíodh an tAonach Úll ann an Aoine dheireanach de mhí Dheireadh Fómhair. Bhí an t-am ann nuair ba é buaicphointe na bliana é, nó thagadh na sluaite chun an bhaile go bhfeiceadh siad na seastáin agus go gceannaíodh siad a raibh de dhíobháil orthu le haghaidh an gheimhridh. Thagadh na feirmeoirí úll agus torthaí eile agus glasraí ó Chondae Ard Mhacha, "úllghort na hÉireann", agus ó i bhfad níos faide i gcéin ná sin. Bhíodh na sráideanna plódaithe, nó bhíodh daoine ag ceannach úll, oráistí, piorraí agus daimsíní agus gach aon chineál eile toraidh as a ndéanadh siad subh agus anlainn agus pióga. Bheireadh na fir cuairt ar na seastáin crua-earraí le trealamh a cheannach le haghaidh an ama a bhí le teacht. Dhéanadh an iomad ealaíontóirí sráide: fir láidre, draíodóirí agus áilteoirí — dhéanadh sin siamsa do na páistí. Tháinig laghdú ar an líon daoine a bhíodh ag freastal ar an ócáid tuaithe seo sna 70í. Caithfimid ár mbuíochas a ghabháil leis an chomhairle as acmhainní a chur ar fáil don Aonach Úll leis an nós tíre ársa seo a athbheochan agus le brí agus fuinneamh a chur arís ann.

Beidh buaicphointe an Aonaigh Úll á cheiliúradh ag grúpa pobail Bhaile an Teampaill ar Bhóthar an Lorgain Bhuí an tráthnóna sin. Chuaigh an grúpa sin i ngleic le fadhb thinte cnámh na hoíche Samhna agus leis an iompar frithshóisialta a bhí bainteach leo. Chuaigh an grúpa i dteagmháil leis an phobal, agus cinneadh ar aonach siamsaíochta a chur ar cois ar láithreán an ghrúpa pobail. Mar chríoch ar an aonach beidh taispeántas tinte ealaíne iontach ann. Beidh an pobal uile go léir i láthair — clabhsúr cuí ar an Aonach Úll i gCaisleán na Deirge. Tá ardmholadh tuillte ag grúpa pobail Bhaile an Teampaill as a ndea-cheannaireacht. Bígí linn, a chairde. Beidh fearadh na fáilte agaibh i gCaisleán na Deirge ar an Aonach Úll.

Mr Dunne: I am pleased to welcome the news today that the Commonwealth Games are set once again to be hosted by Glasgow in 2026. That secures the future of those prestigious games, which were in real jeopardy following a number of setbacks, with the Australian state of Victoria pulling out late in the day from hosting the games.

Often referred to as the "friendly games", the Commonwealth Games were first held in 1930 in Canada. Northern Ireland has competed in 19 of the 21 Commonwealth Games, beginning with the second games, which were held in 1934. Our wee country has achieved an incredible 142 medals at the games. A total of 3,000 athletes from up to 74 of our Commonwealth nations and territories are expected to compete at the 2026 games across a new, compact 10-sport programme. The Commonwealth Games provide the only opportunity for our local athletes to represent Northern Ireland while competing at international level in a multi-sport event. It is welcome that our aspiring athletes will again have that opportunity.

Team Northern Ireland has always punched well above its weight at the Commonwealth Games, and the 2026 games represent a fantastic opportunity to build on the success of the 2022 games in Birmingham, at which our athletes won a record 18 medals. We saw in the summer the success of our golden Olympic heroes, including Rhys McClenaghan and Daniel Wiffen, who both won medals at the 2022 games in Birmingham. That clearly demonstrates the pathway to success that is available to all. Many of our most decorated athletes, including Lady Mary Peters, enjoyed success at the Commonwealth Games: long may that continue.

The games are an incredible opportunity for athletes from across Northern Ireland to compete at an elite level in so many sports, including athletics, boxing, netball, swimming, gymnastics and other sports that we have excelled in for many generations. I wish Team Northern Ireland — Conal and the whole team — all the very best, as they can now plan and train with certainty for the 2026 Commonwealth Games.

Mrs Guy: Since joining the Education Committee, I have been trying to meet as many stakeholders as possible, including the parents of children with special educational needs (SEN). I express my admiration for those parents. Many mothers in particular are dismissed as being hysterical, which is an infuriating stereotype, but the women whom I have met have been calm, articulate and expert at advocating for their children. I will focus my statement on the crusade of one such mother: Deirdre Shakespeare, mother of Harry.

Deirdre has spearheaded an inspiring and effective campaign for what has become known as "Harry's law" to highlight the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. I acknowledge that colleagues in my party and across the Chamber have been advocating on the issue for years, as have, most importantly, parents, carers and young people with lived experience. When I spoke to Deirdre recently, she told me about Harry's experience of being repeatedly restrained in school without her knowledge and about the heartbreaking, even harrowing, impact that it had on her son. The impact of restraint and seclusion can be devastating on young people, many of whom are non-verbal and unable to explain what has happened.

I acknowledge the work that the Department has done: the 2022 review and the subsequent draft guidance that has been published for consultation. However, we still await further updates on when the statutory guidance will be in place and on the changes that have been made since the Department received substantial feedback from those with lived experience and from organisations such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It is essential that schools and teaching professionals are knowledgeable about and trained in statutory guidance that is crystal clear. That is why I have serious concerns that the draft guidance repeatedly uses "should":

Those are "musts", and I hope that that is reflected in the updated version.

The Department's review of restraint and seclusion recommends the repeal of article 4(1)(c) of the Education (NI) Order 1998, but we are yet to have the Minister's unambiguous commitment that that will happen. I hope that he will do that and do it soon for the sake of those kids.

Mr Carroll: A year into a brutal genocide that has killed at least 100,000 people, you think that you have witnessed everything. After seeing refugee camps blown to bits, hospitals and schools flattened and universities wiped out, you think that you have seen everything. Then, last week, we saw something horrific and brutal that really showcases what Israel and Zionism are all about at their core. We saw the incineration of Sha’ban al-Dalou — the burning alive of a man who was not yet 20 years old. Can you imagine the rightful and justified horror and outcry if that had been carried out in a hospital in Ireland, Europe, America or elsewhere? However, it is deemed to be acceptable and OK because it is another massacred Palestinian. To me and to millions and billions of people across the world, that is not normal, acceptable or right. After a year of genocide and normalisation of the abnormal — the killing of people on the basis of their nationality and the massacre of Palestinians on an industrial scale — we have witnessed a mass movement to defy the political consensus and the actions of Washington, London, Berlin and other states.

We have to ask questions and focus on the role played by the Governments on these islands in funding the war machine and, in particular, the use of airports. We know that US warplanes go through Shannon Airport, and I pay tribute to the anti-war activists who protested at Shannon a few weekends ago. Journalists from 'The Ditch' reported that weapons of war had gone from the US via Shannon in Ireland to arm the Israeli war machine under the watchful eye of the Southern Government. What is flown through Aldergrove airport? Who is monitoring what goes through Aldergrove? I asked the Economy Minister a question about that, and his answer was that, effectively, nobody monitors it and it is not monitored by the Department. Are the First and the deputy First Minister monitoring what goes through Aldergrove? If it is found that weapons of war for Israel are going through that airport, who will do something about it?

Mr Gildernew: This morning, I will draw attention to some of the fantastic community and voluntary search and rescue organisations that we have across the North. I think particularly of the K9 Search and Rescue service, which is based in County Down. In April, many of us met members of the service in the Long Gallery. In my constituency, we have Dungannon Sub Aqua Club, Tyrone Underwater Search and Recovery and Matthew’s search and rescue drone, which was set up after young Matthew McCallan lost contact with his friends on a night out and, tragically, lost his life at some time that night. His family have organised and fundraised to set up a service whereby a drone can provide assistance in search situations and pick up on body heat.

The organisations all have a tremendous range of expertise and skills and commitment to what they do. It has come to my attention that, at times, some of the organisations struggle to be included in heartbreaking search situations because they are not part of a list maintained by the PSNI that is used to draw in services from groups. I fully recognise the need for the PSNI to be assured that anyone whom it works with has the required experience, qualifications, skills and equipment, and I believe that that applies to many of the groups. However, the groups say that it is difficult to find out how to get on the list, how to meet the requirements and what the criteria to might be. I will speak to the Justice Minister in due course to see whether we can provide further information to the groups. We all recognise that, if we were in that situation, we would want people with the required skills and equipment to assist in the search for our loved ones.

I acknowledge the work and effort that go into those groups. They fundraise, train voluntarily and maintain very high standards of practice. I encourage the Department and the PSNI to see how they can work better with those groups to utilise their skills when they are needed.

Mr Kingston: Tomorrow, 23 October, will be the 31st anniversary of the Shankill bomb. On that sunny Saturday afternoon in 1993, two IRA men walked into Frizzell's fish shop on the Shankill Road carrying a bomb designed to kill.

When they triggered it at 1.06 pm, the explosion ripped through the building and out into the street, resulting in the death of nine innocent people — men, women and children. The Provisional IRA claimed that it was targeting a meeting upstairs, but there was no meeting. The terrorists were entirely prepared to put the lives of innocent people at risk in the planning and execution of the bombing, and they killed nine innocent people.

Over the years, I have met many relatives of those killed in that IRA atrocity. I have also met many people who were injured that day, some of whom were buried under bricks and rubble and had to be dug out, and the people who did that digging, frantically tearing at bricks with their bare hands: they all bear the mental scars of that traumatic experience.

In its callous disregard for human life, the IRA was also prepared to sacrifice the lives of those whom it sent to carry out the atrocity, with one being killed and the other owing his survival to those who rescued him from under the rubble, where he was surrounded by the bodies of those who were less fortunate.

The nine innocent people whose lives were taken will always be held dear in the hearts of the Shankill community. Last year, on the 30th anniversary, a new memorial clock face was unveiled at the location of the bombing, and a circle of nine trees was planted in the park beside West Kirk Presbyterian Church. Floral wreaths will be laid tomorrow.

The innocent victims were the shop owner, John Frizzell, aged 63; his daughter, Sharon McBride, aged 29, who was also a wife and a mother; Michael "Minnie" Morrison, aged 27, after whom a youth football tournament that takes place each year is named; his partner, Evelyn Baird, also aged 27; and their daughter Michelle Baird, aged seven, in whose memory a play park in Glencairn is named — the couple's two other children were left parentless; George Williamson, aged 63 and his wife, Gillian Williamson, aged 49, who were out shopping when they were both killed in the blast, leaving behind two children; mother-of-two Wilma McKee, aged 38; and Leanne Murray, aged 13. We mourn the recent passing of her mother, Gina Murray.

Let us continue to support the families. Let there be no attempts at justification. Let their needs be placed above all other considerations. We will remember them.

Mr McMurray: I rise to acknowledge the upcoming one-year anniversary of the flood events that affected the south-east. Portadown and Newry were particularly badly affected, but I want to acknowledge the devastating effects of the flooding that are still visible in Newcastle and Downpatrick in my South Down constituency. Standing in Downpatrick under blue skies while watching the flood waters come in like a rising tide was an awful sight; in fact, the atmosphere was akin to that at a wake.

While moneys were made available to the businesses affected, the process was, at times, clunky, with many business owners struggling to quickly access the funds required to get their business back up and running. Indeed, since taking up office in Downpatrick, I have stood on Market Street, where, in times past, many shops were open for trade and were busy, and yet now, many shops are still closed for business. It will take more than a one-year programme for the centre of Downpatrick to recover from the economic shock that was visited upon it in the shape of those floods.

While the traders in Downpatrick deservedly received a lot of attention, the residents of Newcastle must not be forgotten. Last October marked the second time in three years that residents' homes were flooded. That left residents, quite understandably, in fear every time that there is an adverse weather forecast. Residential homes need more support after such incidents.

Sports clubs, museums and charities were also affected by the floods, and those sectors need support to become resilient to such incidents.

We are still waiting on further information about potential alleviation schemes that will go some way towards preventing such events happening again. While the reports and reviews are welcome, residents and traders are impatient to see tangible developments that will prevent flooding from happening to the same degree again. The reality of the situation is that these events will become more commonplace, given the climate breakdown that we are experiencing. Our seas are becoming warmer. As a result, tropical storms gain more energy and manifest themselves over our island, with more intense bouts of wind and rain.

Mr Gaston: Sunday was the 17th anniversary of the murder of Paul Quinn. Let me remind the House, which is apt to forget or ignore such things, what happened to Mr Quinn. After luring him to a farm just across the border in County Monaghan, where three of his friends were being held hostage, a group of around 10 men beat him with iron and nail-studded bars for upwards of half an hour, breaking every major bone in his body. In the aftermath of the murder, Conor Murphy defamed that young man, making accusations that he has not withdrawn to this day. No one seriously believes that anyone other than the IRA was responsible for that brutal murder, yet Stormont continued regardless.

Last week, we had confirmation from the PSNI that the 2015 assessment of the Provisional IRA remains valid. It retains an army council that oversees Sinn Féin, it retains weapons, and it continues to gather intelligence. There was a politically motivated attempt over the weekend to ease the pressure on Sinn Féin and those who shamefully sustain it in government, but I say this to the DUP, the Ulster Unionists and the Alliance Party: do not act surprised that a party overseen by an illegal terrorist organisation that is responsible for 1,800 empty chairs across the Province and countless broken bodies and shattered minds is not squeaky clean when it comes to issues related to child protection.

The 2007 DUP manifesto pledged that there would be a complete end to paramilitary and criminal activity and the removal of terrorist structures prior to Sinn Féin's entry to the Northern Ireland Executive. It now plays second fiddle to Sinn Féin in the Executive in spite of the continued role of the IRA army council at the head of the republican movement. Whether it is child protection or terrorism, the fundamental remains the same, and the question that faces the House is this: is there anything that republicans could do that would mean that those partnering them in government would walk away from this immoral sham? Once again, it appears to me and many outside this place that some value the institutions as more important than delivering truth and accountability on how Sinn Féin operates and the past and present scandals that it has been embroiled in.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Deborah Erskine for two minutes.

Mrs Erskine: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to draw attention to an event happening tomorrow at Westminster that will highlight the importance of two paused growth deals for which we are still awaiting confirmation on funding. As we all know, the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West growth deals are the only two deals in Northern Ireland that are paused by the Labour Government, and it is shameful. The Mid South West growth deal, which is in my area, represents three council areas and had the highest level of investment outside the Belfast region. The Government's decision to pause the deals highlights a compete disregard for those areas. Without a decision to proceed, inequality and regional imbalance will be further widened.

For weeks in the Chamber, I have heard a lot of fine words about addressing the regional imbalance in Northern Ireland. However, for some, when the fight was over for their council area, they were content. I am not content when parts of Northern Ireland do not get their equal, fair share. Northern Ireland will truly succeed only if all parts are on a level footing.

The DUP secured city and growth deals as part of the confidence-and-supply agreement, and we will continue to fight to ensure that Northern Ireland and each part of it gets its level, fair share of funding. I thank my DUP colleagues for continually raising the case at Westminster. My council area was to sign its heads of terms last week, and there was an event in Dungannon with the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Finance Minister. The deal will be an economic game changer for my area, and tomorrow, at Westminster, that event will showcase that for the affected areas.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, during questions to the First Minister, the First Minister once again said the line that has been proven to be incorrect. At the weekend, the information was clear that the teenager subjected to inappropriate contact by Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile was 16 years of age.

Yesterday, the First Minister once again reiterated the incorrect information that he was not a minor.

The First Minister then came to the Chamber in her role as a Back-Bench MLA to give a Member's statement to correct the record, not as First Minister, the capacity in which she was answering questions yesterday. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you rule on whether it is in order for a Minister to correct the record while not in the capacity in which they made the statement? Secondly, what avenues are open to Members to question Ministers on why they wilfully mislead the House?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): If Members feel that there is an issue with answers given by a Minister, they have ways of pursuing that further, including through the tabling of further questions. If we are given notice that a Minister is coming to the House to make a statement, the House will be informed. Should it be the case that any Minister or Member feels the need to correct the record, they have the opportunity to come to the House to do so simply by raising a point of order.

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

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, given the nature of the subject matter, with your indulgence, I suspect that the statement may exceed the normal duration.

I welcome the opportunity to update Members on maternity and neonatal services, including the report by Professor Mary Renfrew entitled 'Enabling Safe Quality Midwifery Services and Care in Northern Ireland'.

Pregnancy is, of course, a normal life event. For some, it can be a more challenging experience, but it is mostly a time of joy and new beginnings. The vast majority of women have a safe birth and get to go home with their healthy baby or babies. I acknowledge and thank the staff across our health service in hospitals, GP surgeries and communities who make that possible every day through their dedication to pregnant women and babies, often in challenging circumstances. However, I also recognise that, for some, that is not the case. Whilst, unfortunately, some situations are outside our control, we must do all that we can to make sure that maternity and neonatal services provide the best care. Therefore, improving maternity and neonatal services is an immediate concern for me and for my Department.

Maternity and neonatal services are made up of various areas that work together to provide support to women during pregnancy and in the early months after birth. They include community midwives, antenatal clinics, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in consultant-led maternity units, midwifery-led units and post-partum support such as health visitors, community midwives and GPs, as well as hospital neonatal units that care for sick babies. I must acknowledge that services have needed to adapt and change over recent years. The impact of COVID-19 meant a downturn and new ways of working for some services. I recognise that that was a difficult time for everybody involved: expectant mothers, their partners and maternity staff. However, having emerged from that difficult period, we now have an opportunity to rebuild and transform service delivery to adapt to current demands, with a new focus to improve maternity and neonatal services.

Women in Northern Ireland can give birth in one of the seven consultant-led maternity units staffed by midwives, doctors and other members of the multidisciplinary team; in an alongside midwifery-led unit; or at home, supported by midwives. Maternity staff work closely with women to enable them to make an informed choice about where to have their baby. For babies who, unfortunately, require additional support at birth, that is provided by one of the neonatal units around the region, which are all aligned with the seven maternity units. Those units take care of some of the most vulnerable members of our society. My Department has been overseeing a major programme of work on improving maternity and neonatal safety, and I will now update Members on that.

As you will be aware, concerns about the safety of maternity services across other parts of the United Kingdom have come to light in recent years. In November 2022, the coroner for Northern Ireland contacted my Department with concerns around her findings following an inquest into the death of a baby who was stillborn after being transferred from a free-standing midwifery-led unit to a consultant-led maternity unit. As I deliver the statement, my thoughts turn to the family of the baby who tragically died. My condolences go out to them and to all those affected by such a tragic loss.

In light of the concerns, my Department established a maternity and neonatal services safety oversight group in January 2023 to receive assurance on the safety of maternity and neonatal services for the population of Northern Ireland. That group is made up of senior officials from my Department and the Public Health Agency (PHA). A broad programme of work is ongoing, with an immediate focus on improving governance and safety across maternity and neonatal services. The programme includes a comprehensive independent review of midwifery services led by Professor Mary Renfrew that I will come to shortly.

My Department also asked the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) to carry out a review of the governance arrangements in place to support safety in maternity services in Northern Ireland. That report was published in May of last year. The RQIA report made 23 recommendations to strengthen the governance, systems and processes that support the delivery of safe, effective care in maternity services across Northern Ireland. The Department accepted the report's recommendations in principle, with the caveat that the implementation and timescales may differ from those suggested by the RQIA due to the need for additional funding and the ongoing work on maternity and neonatal safety.

Other areas of work ongoing include reviewing progress with the implementation of relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance and developing a gap analysis of the implementation of all relevant reports and recommendations that have been endorsed by my Department. Although work is ongoing and improvements are required, it is important to say that, to date, no material safety concerns have been identified in that suite of work.

Regarding midwifery services, the oversight group established a work stream to consider issues highlighted in the coroner's report, which recommended that the Department should:

To address the issues identified by the coroner in April 2023, my Chief Nursing Officer commissioned Professor Mary Renfrew, an independent expert in the field of midwifery with professional experience outside Northern Ireland, to carry out a comprehensive and independent review that would help inform a consistent approach to the provision of midwifery services throughout Northern Ireland. The terms of reference for the review were based on the areas identified by the coroner that I mentioned. The broad scope led Professor Renfrew to undertake a comprehensive review of midwifery services and care in Northern Ireland, including all its interdependencies within the overall maternity service. That included a review of the evidence base and models of care across the region and internationally.

In developing her report, Professor Renfrew and her secretariat team carried out extensive and widespread engagement with maternity service users and advocates, holding face-to-face and virtual listening events with women, families and professionals across Northern Ireland. I am incredibly grateful to the professor for undertaking the review, which assists the Department in strengthening midwifery services and care across Northern Ireland. I acknowledge the effort of all the participants who contributed to the report — those with professional and expert input and, particularly, the women and families who were willing to share their own experiences, no matter how difficult or traumatic, to assist change and provide improvement in our maternity services.

My Department received the final report during the summer and has had the opportunity to consider it fully. It will be available to view on my Department's website from today.

Professor Renfrew is clear that our maternity and neonatal staff are committed and determined to provide the best care that they can. In her report, there are examples of good-quality care across Northern Ireland, including: the appointment of a consultant midwife in each health and social care trust and the roll-out of a new model of care; continuity of midwifery care, which means that women receive support from the same midwifery team during and after pregnancy; and the establishment of a weekly, multidisciplinary clinic in the Western Health and Social Care Trust to enable teamwork in the development of individualised pathways for pregnant women who experience gestational diabetes.

I also recognise that Professor Renfrew's engagement identified a level of adverse experiences reported by some women and families, as well as stress and distress being reported by all staff groups who participated in the review, especially midwives. It is important to acknowledge that the number of individuals engaged with during those events represents a small proportion of the overall maternity population in Northern Ireland. The number of women engaged with represents 0·5% of the total number of women who gave birth in 2023. The number of midwifery staff represents around 10% of the total number that were recorded in March 2023. Nevertheless, the messages were clear and consistent from those women and staff. The system must, and will, listen to their concerns.

The report contains 32 detailed recommendations that are aligned to seven interrelated key conditions. Those conditions are themed under five areas: safe quality care in midwifery units and at home for home births; regional strategic developments; safe quality care and services in all settings; monitoring and review of information and data; and building for the future.

In summary, the report advocates:

that ensures respectful, personalised care and genuine involvement.

Next, it advocates:

Next, it advocates:

It also advocates:

That includes ensuring that midwives are represented at senior management levels, tackling silo working and developing an open learning culture at every level of the system.

It recommends:

with

The report also recommends:

And:

The report identifies three issues as critical priorities. The first is improving:

That is about ensuring that women receive adequate pain relief and essential care for themselves and their babies.

The second is improving:

The third is:

Whilst it is recognised that some of the actions required to address the critical priorities will require regional coordination, trusts have already been asked to take immediate action in a number of areas to address those critical priorities.

Having considered Professor Renfrew's report and the assessment carried out by my officials, I have accepted the report in principle, with caveats on some recommendations that will present particular implementation and funding challenges and will need further consideration. However, the recommendations in the professor's report provide us with an opportunity to strengthen and improve maternity services for women and babies and for the dedicated staff who provide the services.

At this time, I am unable to commit to part of the fourth recommendation, which is that service users and advocates should receive remuneration for the time that they spend participating in stakeholder and engagement events. While the feedback that was provided by service users and advocates is invaluable, I am unable to commit to payments under that recommendation at this time. There is a policy in place, however, to provide reimbursement to service users and advocates for issues such as travel expenses, subsistence and childcare where appropriate.

One recommendation that I have partially accepted in principle refers to the future of free-standing midwifery-led units. I want to explain this point very carefully. It is important that women have safe options to give birth outside of labour wards, if that is their preference. Professor Renfrew advocates a rethink on how we provide those care options for the women of Northern Ireland, and he outlines eight key requirements that need to be met for those options to be safely provided. Those key requirements provide a framework to strengthen and connect the whole maternity system.

The evidence, coupled with the feedback that Professor Renfrew heard from the women and staff whom she engaged with, is that safe, quality care for all women and babies requires Northern Ireland to ensure that community and hospital options for care and pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period are available. The report recognises that the old model of service delivery and the terminology used created the potential for free-standing midwifery-led units to become disconnected from the maternity service. The eight requirements seek to reconfigure and transform that service model.

In addition, Professor Renfrew states that at least one community midwifery hub should be available in all HSC trusts and that the sites of the free-standing midwifery-led units should be developed and reconfigured as community midwifery hubs in a phased programme to ensure safe, quality care for all. I believe that it would be premature at this point to make decisions on the future of the free-standing midwifery-led units transitioning to community midwifery units or on the recommendation that one should be available in each trust area.

In the meantime, antenatal care will continue to be provided at Lagan Valley Hospital, Downe Hospital and the Mater Hospital, taking into consideration Professor Renfrew's eight requirements. There are, however, no plans to resume births at the three units at present. Before any community midwifery hubs offer facilities for labour and birth, all essential requirements outlined in the report must be met. The immediate focus must be on the stability of maternity and neonatal services. The future configuration will need to consider the key requirements outlined by Professor Renfrew, the wider health and social care population needs, demographic trends and system capacity.

I am conscious that the content and findings of the report may be met with elements of concern about the safety of maternity services in Northern Ireland, particularly for pregnant women and those who are planning a pregnancy. It is important to recognise that, while the vast majority of women will have a safe birth and a positive experience, many of those who contributed to the report did not. We must acknowledge the failings that the report has highlighted in many areas and be clear that there must be improvement and a prioritisation of those services. Caring for women and babies must be a top priority for our future. It is, after all, one service that each and every one of us requires.

With the support of dedicated maternity professionals, pregnancy and childbirth is a relatively uncomplicated process for most. Northern Ireland has key strengths in its maternity services. It has a skilled and dedicated workforce that is committed to providing high-quality care. I recognise, however, that, in recent years, the wider system has struggled to refresh and transform services at the pace required to enable them to cope with the changing needs of pregnant women. As a result, many staff members have experienced exhaustion and burnout, and they must be better supported in that vital role.

While birth rates in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom have fallen in recent years, maternity care has become more complex, with an increasing proportion of women having health problems, which increases the risk of adverse events for them and their babies. More than half of pregnant women require specialist care during pregnancy or delivery, or following the birth, and one in 10 newborns also requires specialist care, which is provided by a range of professionals who work as a multidisciplinary team. The proportion of women requiring specialist care has increased significantly over the past 10 years. For example, around one in eight pregnant women in Northern Ireland now has some type of diabetes, and one in 20 has high blood pressure. That means that women require specialist care from multidisciplinary teams. Other health inequalities also have a major impact on pregnancy outcomes, so it is essential that we continue to prioritise initiatives that not only enhance the quality of care at all levels but address health inequalities across Northern Ireland. Midwives have a critical contribution to make to both of those priorities.

Professor Renfrew's report highlights the increase in caesarean births in every part of the United Kingdom and Ireland over the past 10 years and the fact that those rates are out of step with similar countries internationally. The reasons for the increase may include a number of factors, such as an increase in the number of complex pregnancies due to a range of factors, including older maternal age and underlying health conditions, as well as maternal choice. While the rate of caesarean births has increased, it is in line with other UK countries. The priority must remain to provide the most appropriate care for mothers and their babies, taking account of their individual needs and personal choice.

My Department has endorsed the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on caesarean sections, which describes the benefits and risks associated with caesarean birth and vaginal birth and provides guidance on the care of women and babies before, during and after caesarean births. Health professionals have a professional and legal duty to discuss the benefits and risks of different care options with women, taking into account their individual circumstances, concerns, priorities and plans for future pregnancies, and they should support women's decisions on how they would like their baby to be born.

All the work that I have outlined will form part of a consolidated regional action plan, which will be fundamental to improving maternity and neonatal services and outcomes for mothers, babies and their families in Northern Ireland. It will also help to inform the future strategic direction for maternity and neonatal services. It is important that the challenges facing maternity and neonatal services and the implementation of the consolidated regional action plan are approached collaboratively across the region, ensuring, as far as possible, that care is consistent and equitable no matter where it is accessed.

Given the fact that there are interdependencies between maternity and neonatal services, I will establish an interdisciplinary maternity and neonatal partnership with a programme board governance structure to lead the development, implementation and oversight of evidence-based, safe and quality maternity and newborn care and services in order to maximise the contribution of those services to maternal and newborn health. That will also include the implementation of a consolidated regional action plan.

The partnership will include representation from my Department, the Public Health Agency (PHA), health and social care trusts, primary care and service users. It will incorporate the work and functions of the existing maternity quality improvement collaborative, which is a facilitated group of clinicians from across the region that is largely focused on regional agreement on protocols and clinical issues, and the clinical groups of the neonatal network. The programme board will draw membership from senior officials from my Department, the Public Health Agency and the health and social care trusts. Final proposals for the partnership and programme board are being developed. Members will appreciate that there will be a funding requirement associated with that and with the implementation of the consolidated regional action plan, and I hope that my Executive colleagues will be supportive of that. I see this as being a high priority and would like to see the partnership established as soon as possible.

I agree with Professor Renfrew that how we care for women and babies is a measure of our society and that pregnancy, birth and the early weeks of life are fundamentally important for each woman, baby and family. At the heart of this matter is the clear message that we must listen to women. I have listened: I hear them, and I agree that improvement is needed. The birthing process is a vulnerable and intimate time for women, babies and their families. It is essential that they are provided with safe, respectful, kind, evidence-informed, multidisciplinary and individualised care across the continuum and in all settings. I am determined to ensure that all midwifery services and care in Northern Ireland are safe, respectful and compassionate, and that women and their families feel heard, valued and supported.

Finally, I can assure you that improving services for pregnant women and new mothers and babies is and will continue to be an immediate priority for me and my Department. I trust that the information that I have provided to Members today in the statement gives some assurance of the priority that I am giving to the issue.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for his statement, which, fundamentally, references the Renfrew report. I would have thought that, in the interests of openness and transparency, that could have been circulated to Health Committee members before its being published on the website for the public today, not least because buried right down in it, on page 26, in the middle of the first priority that is referenced, is the issue of staff shortages, which are impacting on the whole sector.

The Birthrate Plus® report indicates that we are 80 full-time midwives short, with only 16 of 80 students qualifying this year planning to work full time. We will hear lots of words, as ever, but, Minister, when do you intend to publish a workforce plan specifically for midwifery that addresses the specific issues detailed and provide us with a specific timetable to see those issues addressed?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his comments. On his question, as recently as yesterday, I had a meeting with a large number of officials — we are talking about not just midwifery but nursing and allied health professionals; the gamut of healthcare delivery sections — and they have gone away to see how we can improve the recruitment, the training and, particularly, the retention of staff.

I cannot be specific, but I can tell you that it is very much on not only my agenda but the agendas of many senior officials in the Department. Funding is a big issue, but I have always said that the budget is not the be-all and end-all of healthcare delivery, and the workforce is vital. Yes, we need buildings, equipment and medicines, but there is nothing without the workforce, and I am very much focused, with senior colleagues, on ensuring that we improve the retention and, indeed, the recruitment of staff, including midwives.

Ms Kimmins (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I thank the Minister for his statement. Like other Members, I believe that there is still a lot to digest. We need to read the full report, and we will probably have more questions on the back of that, but I welcome its publication. We have been waiting for it for some time. It crystallises the vital role of midwives and their expertise. That is important, given that they will have an increasing influence in shaping and delivering safety and quality of care and services.

Minister, in that vein of safety and quality of care and services, which is a key theme in the report, there is a note that the immediate focus needs to be on the stabilisation of maternity and neonatal services. Over the past week, I have been in frequent contact with the Minister and his officials regarding issues in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, particularly at Daisy Hill and Craigavon hospitals. What will that immediate stabilisation look like? Obviously, we want to see a workforce plan for long-term sustainability, and the previous Member asked about that, but what will we see in the immediate future, because that is key to stabilising services now?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Chair of the Committee. I will, if I may, focus on Daisy Hill and the issues within the Southern Trust, because those are the most pressing ones. From my point of view, the Southern Trust was late in alerting the Department — certainly, in alerting me — to the current issues. It has never been my intention that Daisy Hill would not deliver maternity services, so it is not part of any plan. The Member knows that I have published a paper about viewing our hospitals as a network to deliver better outcomes, which is a kind of preview of the idea that we may need to reconfigure and that not every hospital will deliver every service. However, I again emphasise that Daisy Hill should be offering maternity services. Furthermore, any reconfiguration must be planned and managed. It should never be as a result of service collapse, and I do not want to see service collapse with regard to Daisy Hill and maternity services. Meetings continue at the highest level this week to look at the available options to resolve those issues, but I hope that the Member gets the sense that I am not happy.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, on the back of the last question, we have a serious issue in the Southern Trust, where maternity services, not just at Daisy Hill Hospital but in Craigavon Area Hospital, are in jeopardy. That raises a fundamental question for you, your Department and, indeed, the trust. It cannot all be left at the door of the trust. I accept that you feel that it informed you late of the difficulties that it is having. Apart from having meetings, what specifically can you do and what actions can you take to ensure that the situation with maternity services at Daisy Hill and Craigavon — I am told that both are in a serious situation — is resolved immediately? That is the stabilisation bit for women in the area that I represent.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. There are two aspects to the answer. What can we do? We have to talk, because we have to understand why the Southern Trust is in the situation that it is in. We need to understand what it intends to do about it. Once we understand the issues — I understand them to relate specifically to the workforce — we have to then question whether the Southern Trust can rearrange its workforce in a way that meets the demand and cures the problem. If not, can we look elsewhere? Are there other trusts or areas that we can look to to, as it were, fill that gap?

The second point is that, yes, the Member can say that we cannot just say that it is all a problem for the Southern Trust, but the fact of the matter is that, if the Southern Trust chooses to make a decision and call it a "temporary decision", I cannot stop it. I can tell the trust that I do not like it, and I can express my displeasure, but it is entirely in the trust's gift, if it is a temporary measure, to make that move.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for coming to the House and making the statement. I noted that he said that the report was actually published. Hopefully, the Health Committee will get a chance to go through it in detail. It was bad form not to give Committee members sight of the report.

Given that the RQIA's governance report made 23 recommendations, the maternity and neonatal safety oversight board will, no doubt, make separate recommendations to those of the Renfrew report and RQIA report, and you have spoken now about a consolidated regional action plan, what accountability will you provide to the House and the Committee to ensure that recommendations are actually implemented, without our having to ask for those updates every quarter or six months? How can we ensure that the action plan will actually be implemented? We have had many strategies —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK, OK.

Miss McAllister: — and many reviews. What can the Minister —?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Mr Nesbitt: Again, perhaps there are two things. I apologise if Committee members feel that they were not given early enough sight of the report. However, I do not see this being the be-all and end-all of the discussion. I would welcome the Committee's taking a detailed look at the Renfrew recommendations. As regards implementation, I can assure the Member that Professor Renfrew, whom I met this week, is an impressive expert in the field. There is no point commissioning a report if you do not look closely at its recommendations. Basically, with the couple of exceptions that I mentioned, we accept those recommendations. It is an incredibly important area. Members are aware of the genesis of commissioning that report. We have got to get this right. I am not going to sit and just ignore those recommendations. I want the best possible service. In discussions with the professor, we agreed that it is an opportunity for Northern Ireland to become the best region or nation of the United Kingdom for birthing and maternity services. That is my intention.

Mr Chambers: This is a very important and timely report that will help to inform and improve maternity services across Northern Ireland. In early 2020, Minister, your predecessor, Robin Swann, announced an increase in pre-registration and midwifery training places from 90 to 115. The first of those recruits entered the workforce just last year. Will the Minister give his assessment of how that has contributed to stabilising the wider midwifery workforce across Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: In June of this year, the workforce data indicated an overall reduction in vacancies across the region, which, of course, is a good thing. The regional vacancy rate for registered midwifery roles is below the HSC average, sitting at 4·7%. Pre-registration midwifery places were increased from 90 to 115 for the three financial years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 to address the shortfall in qualified midwives. The first cohort entered the workforce in September of last year. Training places returned to 90 in financial year 2023-24. That is both a sign of our commitment to the service and an indication that things are improving.

Ms Flynn: Professor Mary Renfrew presented to the all-party group on women's health last year on the brilliant work that she was carrying out, so I am delighted to hear today's announcement. The RQIA review, with its 23 recommendations on governance, was published in April 2023. Does the Minister have any update on whether any of those recommendations have been delivered? He talked about a regional action plan for maternity and neonatal services. Will that allow work to continue on a renewed maternity strategy, taking into consideration all the reports, or is the focus now on the action plan?

Mr Nesbitt: I do not want to misspeak, so I will write to the Member about the RQIA's 23 recommendations. I am not confident that I am across every detail.

The Member will recognise that, when it comes to breast screening, I am looking more towards regional services, allowing for any idiosyncrasies or particular regional or subregional requirements. Yes, we have five geographic trusts, but the closer that they come to operating as a single Northern Ireland-wide trust, the better. That is where my focus is. I want to absorb what is in RQIA, what is in Renfrew and what the new group brings forward so that we can try to become the best. Our aspiration should not be confined to being the best in the United Kingdom; why not try to be a global front runner in maternity services?

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for the statement. I especially welcome his commitment in the House to the continuation of maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital. He acknowledged in his statement the importance of the staff. As he will be aware, staff have been subjected to a great deal of stress over the past few weeks with regard to the Daisy Hill Hospital situation. A couple of weekends ago, staff were, at short notice, diverted to work at Craigavon Area Hospital. Just last week, a full staff meeting of the midwifery team was called with 20 minutes' notice, with no union representatives. Many of the staff left in tears, not knowing whether they would have jobs at Daisy Hill beyond the end of the week. Given that the value of midwifery and neonatal services staff is highlighted in his statement, will the Minister commit to encouraging the management of the Southern Trust to deal with its staff with clarity in open communication? A week ago today, I asked for an urgent meeting with the management of the trust. I still have not secured that; I am struggling to get clarity, as are the staff. Will the Minister commit to encouraging the Southern Trust to deal with its staff with openness and to value its —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Diane.

Ms Forsythe: — midwifery team?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. If she were a fly on the wall in the ministerial office in the Department, she would note that, over the past four and a half months, staff morale has been a particular interest of mine. I have very much picked up the impression that, of the various groups of professionals who deliver healthcare, morale is at its lowest among those who deliver maternity services, and midwives in particular. We need to improve that.

I hope that the Member has already picked up the impression that I am not happy with the way in which the management of the Southern Trust has been dealing with that issue.

I understand that it is a genuine workforce issue, but the best way to resolve workforce issues is to bring your workforce with you.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is very concerning to hear that stress and distress was reported by all staff groups who participated in the review, especially midwives. We heard from Diane Forsythe about specific issues in the Southern Trust. If the psychological safety of all staff is a critical priority in a safety-critical profession, then ensuring a fully staffed workforce at safe levels is crucial. How does the Minister plan to include the recommendations of the review in future safe staffing legislation?

Mr Nesbitt: That is something that flows into safe staffing legislation, and we are working on that. I recognise that some Members are perhaps a little frustrated about the pace of development in that area, but the document that we published today is very important in many areas. On the specific point that the Member raised, I guarantee that the report will input into our thinking on safe staffing legislation.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the statement from the Minister this morning and his commitment to rebuilding and transforming our maternity and neonatal services. I also welcome his reiteration of the importance of women being heard, valued and supported. How does the report suggest that we ensure that midwifery-led and home-birth options remain safe and sustainable for women and babies?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. Did she mention community-based care?

Ms Ferguson: Midwifery-led and home-birth options.

Mr Nesbitt: I will focus, if I may, on the community aspect, because the professor suggested that we go for community midwifery hubs. I do not think that we are ready for that. It needs more work, particularly if we are talking about births in what the professor called "community hubs" or "midwifery-led units". She mentioned eight requirements for community midwifery hubs, which were free-standing midwifery-led units. It is worth defining those eight requirements, if the Principal Deputy Speaker will allow me the time to do so. They include:

and

The third requirement is:

in those units.

The fourth requirement is:

The fifth is:

The sixth is:

The seventh is:

The final requirement is:

Ticking all eight boxes will require time. At that point, I will be with the professor on the matter of the community hubs.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next Member, I gently remind the Minister that a lot of Members want to ask questions. If there is any further information, could he write to Members with it? That was a very substantial statement, and time is limited. With that said and understood, I call Deborah Erskine.

Mrs Erskine: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. There seems to be a bit of work to go on the recommendations in Professor Renfrew's report. You have referenced the funding that is required quite a bit. I am looking specifically at the regional action plan. How does that fit in with your hospital reconfiguration framework document, and when can we expect to see the regional action plan? I am looking specifically at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH), where there has been quite a bit of good work on stabilisation. There seems to be a lot of work to do on the regional action plan and on fitting it in with the reconfiguration document as well as getting funding.

Mr Nesbitt: Funding is a continuing issue. The Member will know, because she voted for the Budget, that we are under severe pressure when it comes to funding for this year. I do not anticipate that that will get better in the next financial year. I will consult the Department about timelines, and I might be able to write to you and give you something indicative on timelines.

Ms Ennis: I really welcome the Minister's clarity on the issues with Daisy Hill maternity services. My colleague Liz Kimmins, other members of the Daisy Hill future group and I will work with him to ensure the stabilisation of the services there.

Minister, your statement talks about improved data and information systems. How does the Minister think that that will contribute to better oversight, safety and learning in maternity care?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member will know that we are rolling out Encompass, and, in 2025, the Southern Trust will join the others that are currently online. Once we have Encompass in all five geographic trusts, we will certainly be in a unique position in the United Kingdom, and on these two islands, in having the ability to harvest data that will impact on population health.

Mr Robinson: Like others, I thank the Minister for his statement. You say in your statement that trusts have already been asked to take "immediate action" to address critical issues. Can you provide more detail on those actions to the House today, and will you keep a close eye on the key issues that require immediate action?

Mr Nesbitt: To answer in reverse order, yes, I will keep a close eye on that because that is an extremely important area. Effectively, the trusts have been asked to ensure that, at all times, they are providing a safe, empathetic and professional service for people who are pregnant and those in the early weeks and months after delivery.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, given that one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage, what plans are there to support and care for women and their families who have lost a baby during pregnancy or soon after birth so that they do not have to be in wards where other families are celebrating the birth of a newborn? What mental health protections will be in place for women who are grieving after their loss?

Mr Nesbitt: Any loss is a tragedy, and it is, of course, personal to that woman and that family. Unfortunately, healthcare workers have to deal with that daily. I am not aware of any particular concerns, although you raised the fact that these things happen while others are celebrating a successful and healthy birth. Given the confines of space and budget, it is very difficult to do everything that you would want to do in separating people out. I am very happy to engage with the Member if she has ideas on how we can do that better.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome the statement and the comprehensive report from Professor Renfrew. Minister, you spoke about proposals for the partnership and programme board and the implementation of a consolidated regional action plan on maternity and neonatal safety. Minister, the same recommendations could be made on many other gynae health issues. Is it not time to consolidate and widen the recommendations under a wider women's healthcare strategy? We are the only region on these islands that does not have one.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I am afraid that I do not think that a strategy for women's health will happen in the immediate future, and the reason for that is the financial constraints and the absence of a long-term Budget in Northern Ireland. I am saying to my officials, "Let's talk about an action plan. Let's talk about what we can actually do with the resourcing and funding that we have available". The Member can shake her head, but I can tell her that I was very pleased when my predecessor brought forward a 10-year strategy on mental health. I was really, really pleased, yet I stand here knowing that we have, in the assessment of the mental health champion, one eighth of the budget that we need to deliver the action plan for this year's part of that 10-year plan. What is the point of saying to people, "Here is a lovely, shiny strategy" and raising really high expectations when you do not have the funds to deliver on it? I will focus on an action plan that is deliverable in this financial year and in this Assembly mandate, and I will not raise expectations. Of course, in an ideal world, I would ask for a strategy, but I just do not see the value of it in the real world.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister, for the statement. Communication will be key across areas where the free-standing midwifery-led units are based. If they transition to community-led midwifery hubs, how will the Minister ensure that the population is brought along with them?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. I have outlined the eight areas of work that the professor wants to see, and which I will want to see enacted before we go to these community hubs. Communication of that, as with all policies, is a challenge, but I do not see it as a particularly difficult challenge. When somebody becomes pregnant, they engage with healthcare professionals, and we will ensure that the healthcare professionals alert them to all the options: home birth, birth at a community hub or birth in a hospital. I do not see it as being a particular issue.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. You referenced the words "equity" and "inclusion". In your statement, you said that the Department has endorsed the NICE guidance on caesarean sections, but I do not see any reference to the NICE guidance on the fetal anomaly screening programme, in terms of a quadruple or combined test for women in their first trimester. You talk about the best service for women across these islands, and yet women here still experience disadvantage and disparity. Does the consolidated action plan include reference to reviewing the screening programme?

Mr Nesbitt: Work is ongoing in the area of antenatal screening for fetal abnormalities and inherited conditions. Once the information is collated, it will be considered by the Northern Ireland screening committee before informing a future policy decision. I hope that that addresses your questions in that area, but I am happy to engage.

Mr McNulty: Minister, we all welcome and appreciate efforts to improve maternity services, but you must recognise that there are mixed messages. I am being contacted by senior midwives and clinicians who are really fearful for the future of maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital and angry about the manner of communication by management to them. What reassurance can you give midwives and mothers with babies in my constituency that the existing suite of maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital will be secured and protected right now, and enhanced for the future, and that the maternity unit at Daisy Hill Hospital will be funded with 24·6 full-time equivalents, which is the safe operational level for staff in our maternity units?

Mr Nesbitt: I acknowledge the Member's continued passion for services at Daisy Hill Hospital. I can only repeat that I do not have the power to stop the Southern Trust if it decides to make a decision on a temporary reallocation, but I do not want it to happen. I can only repeat that, if there is going to be a reconfiguration of service deliveries between hospitals, it needs to be planned and managed, and people — the staff and the community — need to be brought with us. We need to explain why we are doing it. We are only going to do it on my watch if I am convinced that the outcome is better outcomes for people. I do not see better outcomes if there is a collapse of maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital, and we are working to understand the problem and to try to identify solutions. That is all that I can say to the Member, except to repeat that if he were to ask me whether I am happy with the way in which the management of the Southern Trust has conducted business in that area over the past number of days and weeks, no, I am not.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for this. I will be brief because I know that we do not have much time. I do not see anything written about the update on a mother-and-baby unit, which is absolutely essential to postnatal care, particularly for women who are experiencing psychological illness. Will you give us an update on that?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes, there is a proposal for a mother-and-baby unit, and we have looked at the potential location for it and identified Belfast City Hospital as the place where we would base it. The Belfast Trust has been asked to look at a business case. I understand that that business case is pretty well advanced. Once we get the business case, we will have to look at available funding. That, of course, will be a capital project rather than part of the resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL), and, from early discussions, I do not think that funding is going to be an insurmountable obstacle. We are making progress to deliver a mother-and-baby unit in due course.

Mr Gaston: My wife and I have been blessed with the safe arrival of three healthy boys over the past four years through Antrim Area Hospital's maternity unit. On each visit, the dedicated midwives have been run off their feet due to its being seriously understaffed.

The closure of the maternity unit at Causeway Hospital in July 2023 has put additional pressures on the services at Antrim and has meant additional journey times for expectant mothers. Minister, do you stand over the decision to relocate the maternity service at Causeway to Antrim, and can you confirm what you are doing to ensure that the maternity units are adequately staffed?

Mr Nesbitt: On the second point, I think that I have already addressed workforce issues during the question-and-answer session.

I stand over the decision to move maternity from the Causeway to Antrim Area Hospital. The Member will be aware that there is also a consultation live from the Northern Trust regarding general emergency surgery, again, potentially moving from Causeway to Antrim Area Hospital. Not every hospital will be able to deliver every service, and that is why we have to start looking at hospitals as a network. I accept that transportation will be an issue for some, and that is why it is a focus of mine in thinking about how we introduce a new regime where not every hospital delivers every service.

Mr Carroll: Minister, it is concerning that there is no plan to rectify the fact that there are 1,600 nursing and midwifery vacancies. It is also concerning to hear nothing about the reversal of closed maternity units. I have heard reports of women giving birth at the sides of roads recently, and that is really dangerous and worrying stuff. What funding is attached to today's announcement, Minister?

Mr Nesbitt: We have a workforce strategy 2026, so it would be wrong not to say that we are focused on the vacancies and on how we improve recruitment. It is not just about recruitment; you have to retain your staff, and there are a lot of competing and some new pressures. I have said before that we used to worry about nurses and doctors moving to Australia and we now worry about them moving to Athlone, such is the attractiveness of salaries in Sláintecare. Workforce planning is an issue, but we are well focused on it.

Ms Sugden: Minister, you have acknowledged postnatal care and postnatal mental health, however there is not much detail on that. Currently, that is provided via a GP, a health visitor or MDTs in GP surgeries, but it is not consistent across the board. Some people have good experiences, and some people do not. Minister, I also ask you to note that it is not a mere matter of weeks following birth; it can be up to a year or two years. I ask the Minister to focus on that to ensure that people get the continuing help that they need; otherwise, it will be much longer than that.

Mr Nesbitt: I accept the points that the Member has made, and the inconsistency is something that I would like to see rectified. Again, let us identify what is best practice and where it is being rolled out and then roll it out to make it common practice across all five geographical trust areas. I was up at Altnagelvin a couple of months ago and met some family nurses who deal with young mothers. It is a tremendous support for those young mothers during pregnancy and then in the months and indeed years after delivery to help them deliver the best outcomes for their young children.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If the motion from the Committee on Procedures is passed, it will create a new Standing Order for the provision of proxy voting in plenary sittings where specified conditions have been met.

Ms K Armstrong (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Kellie, please open the debate.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. As Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, I am delighted to bring to the Assembly during Parenting Week a new procedure to allow for proxy voting for MLAs in certain circumstances.

As all of us know, an MLA's role has a number of facets. We have our parliamentarian role in the Assembly, our constituency role and our party roles. As MLAs are not employees, we do not have terms and conditions that would support Members who have become parents. When an MLA is absent from a plenary sitting due to maternity, paternity or similar leave, there is no procedure to ensure that their democratic role in the House can be fulfilled. The new procedure will allow MLAs to vote in the House by proxy.

Let me give some background. When the Procedures Committee was first established a few months ago, we were faced with a large number of topics that needed attention. The Committee was unanimous in deciding that we would make proxy voting in plenary sittings for MLAs on parental leave our top priority. We initially considered a range of possible categories for proxy voting, including parental leave, long-term illness, bereavement and absence on official Assembly business and whether it should be extended to Committees as well as for plenary business. However, the Committee expressed concerns that, with the exception of proxy voting for parental leave in plenary sittings, the other categories of proxy voting in plenary and in Committees would require a level of deliberation and assessment of implications that would require a long-term piece of work. On the other hand, proxy voting for parental leave is a well-established practice in many other legislatures and has fewer operational issues. We knew that, if we did our research and spent some time considering the issues in depth, it could be introduced to the Assembly with a degree of assurance that the associated implications were well known and had been explored in the Assembly context. It is worth emphasising that foremost in our considerations was ensuring that proxy voting could be introduced without undermining or damaging the integrity of our voting system.

The Committee has taken a two-part approach, with the first part providing the key principles for proxy voting in the Standing Order that is before you today. The second part of our approach is to ask the Speaker to provide guidance on how the proxy voting scheme will operate on a practical and administrative level. Those are the day-to-day things, such as how to make a notification, what the deadline is etc, and other matters that do not need to be in a Standing Order but that Members need to know to make the scheme work. The Committee discussed those practical matters in some detail, and our thoughts and suggestions are contained in the Committee report. We anticipate that our deliberations on them will be helpful to the Speaker in producing the guidance. I will cover some of them in my speech today but, as it is the Standing Order that the Assembly will vote on, I will concentrate on explaining that.

A copy of the draft Standing Order is on page 25 of the Committee report, which was issued to all MLAs on 15 October by email. In the Standing Order, paragraph (1) sets out the eligibility criteria for proxy voting. It requires that the Member who wishes to designate a proxy has to satisfy one of the conditions set out in paragraph (2). Paragraph (1)(b) also requires the Speaker to have issued guidance or, as it is referenced in the Standing Order, "the Scheme".

Moving on to paragraph (1)(c), in the Assembly, the Speaker does not vote on any plenary business, and the Principal Deputy Speaker and Deputy Speakers do not participate in the debate, including voting, on any item of business for which they have occupied the Chair. With that in mind and to ensure that we maintain that essential element of our voting system, paragraph (1)(c) provides that the Speaker and Deputy Speakers cannot act as proxy for another Member. For the avoidance of doubt, let me be clear that the provision also covers the Principal Deputy Speaker. There is no reference to the Principal Deputy Speaker in the Standing Order as it is not in law a discrete office. The Principal Deputy Speaker is necessarily also a Deputy Speaker.

Paragraph (1)(d) requires the Member and their proxy to have complied with the guidance. Paragraph (2) sets out the principal conditions for eligibility for the scheme.

Paragraph (2)(a) is intended to make it clear that Members, while not entitled to various statutory leave for the variety of parental leave, as noted in the Standing Order, may apply for a proxy vote in circumstances where an employee would have the right to such leave. In other words, if a Member takes maternity leave, paternity leave, adoption leave, shared parental leave or parental bereavement leave, they will be entitled to apply for a proxy vote. It is worth noting that the Committee has been clear that the scheme is not available to Members who are looking after a sick child or need to accompany a child to an appointment. Proving a proxy vote for that type of parental leave may be addressed in the future, but, for now, it is not included in Standing Orders.

The categories in paragraph (2)(b) are not currently statutory rights but are included in recognition of their impact on the individual and because similar circumstances are covered in other legislatures.

Paragraph (2)(c) provides for parental leave for fostering responsibilities. There is no legal concept of fostering leave, and we in the Assembly will be first to include it as a category of parental leave. As there is no legal concept of fostering leave and as fostering covers many variations, the Committee on Procedures has been more definitive in our report on what we mean by "fostering". I will cover the fostering aspects in more detail later.

Paragraph (3) sets out the matters that must be included in the scheme and guidance to be issued by the Speaker. They are the processes by which a Member may designate a proxy, the period for which a proxy may be exercised, how a proxy can be varied or withdrawn and how a proxy vote can be exercised.

Paragraph (4)(a) sets it out that the proxy voting scheme may be used only in plenary sessions of the Assembly: it does not cover Committees. I have already explained that we felt that it would take considerable work to explore the implications of proxy voting in Committee. Paragraph (4) also provides that a proxy vote cannot count towards quorum in plenary and that a proxy vote must be recorded in the Official Report and the Minutes of Proceedings. The latter provision is to ensure full transparency for other MLAs and the public.

Paragraph (4)(d) sets out certain matters on which a proxy vote may not be exercised, which were included after much discussion and consideration of legal advice. Paragraph (4)(d) prevents a proxy vote being used on matters on which legal certainty is required or that may be subject to legal challenge. Those are matters on which the Assembly rarely votes, however, and it is unlikely that the provision will have a significant impact on Members who wish to exercise a proxy vote. The matters include a Bill to which section 7A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 applies, which would mean a vote to alter the size of the Assembly, and a vote on the democratic consent process as per schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Members will be aware that the first such vote is expected in December, with a vote every four or eight years thereafter, depending on whether the vote receives cross-community support.

Paragraph (4)(d) iii and iv relate to votes on motions that either require the support of a number of Members that equals or exceeds two thirds of the total number of seats in the Assembly or require the support of a number of Members that equals or exceeds two thirds of the total number of Members voting on the motion. At the moment, that covers only certain motions, as outlined in detail on page 17 of our report. I will repeat them to ensure that they are read into the record. They are a recommendation for the removal from office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) for Northern Ireland, the dissolution of the Assembly, a recommendation for the removal from office of the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) and a recommendation for the removal of the Assembly Commissioner for Standards. Paragraph (4)(d)(iii) and (iv) are drafted to ensure that, if a similar super-majority provision were included in a future Act, it would be covered by the Standing Order.

Finally, paragraph (5) is an interpretation provision. As I mentioned, the Committee was aware that the Standing Order would need to be accompanied by guidance on a range of practical and administrative matters. I intend to use the remainder of my time to cover aspects of those matters. The Committee's consideration covered the notification process, the eligibility criteria, the duration of parental leave and how a proxy vote may be exercised.

First, I will cover the notification process. The Committee suggests that the deadline for notifications should be 4.00 pm on the working day prior to the sitting at which the arrangement is due to begin. The Committee is aware that some Members wanted a later deadline, and we considered that. While a later deadline worked during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was not felt to be appropriate in the post-pandemic environment. The integrity of our voting system was one of our major considerations, and a deadline on the day that a proxy vote was to be exercised, with, perhaps, a vote expected an hour or two later, would leave little time to ensure that all the proper processes were in place and Tellers had been informed. Furthermore, the vast majority of parental leave cases are well known in advance, and most Members who wish to avail themselves of a proxy vote will have ample time to submit a notification.

I am just noticing the time, Principal Deputy Speaker. Other matters that the report covers include fostering. We will be the first legislature to bring forward that measure. I will also clarify for everyone that the Committee suggests that the duration of application for a proxy vote for parental leave in plenary be a maximum of nine months and that that apply to all categories.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Kellie, I am sorry about that. OK?

Ms K Armstrong: I will just clarify, if I may, Principal Deputy Speaker, that we advise that Tellers should not be proxy votes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that, Kellie. Thank you very much.

Ms Forsythe: The Democratic Unionist Party welcomes the creation of the new Standing Order, which will provide Assembly Members with a formal entitlement to a vote by proxy when they are on parental leave, have fostering responsibilities or tragically suffer from complications in pregnancy, including miscarriage, stillbirth or baby loss. There will, of course, be a number of practical and administrative matters to be ironed out by guidance, and the DUP will work alongside other parties on the Assembly Commission to ensure the smooth operation of any scheme. However, the principle of the changes is one we can all stand four-square behind today.

It should be a basic requirement, whether in Northern Ireland or further afield, that modern legislatures reflect, as far as is practicable, the challenges faced by elected representatives who balance the position entrusted to them by the electorate with their role as a mother, father or foster carer. Members who are also parents do not seek preferential treatment. It is right, however, that, on balance, the procedures of the House recognise the need for compassionate and flexible arrangements in situations where significant events and changes in personal circumstances place a Member in an almost invidious position. There will be little appetite to use the mechanism frequently, but it is reasonable and proportionate for it to exist. We have worked hard to increase the representation of women in the Chamber, and we want to keep that and improve it. In this mandate, some five of our female MLAs have had babies and been able to maintain their MLA roles. We want to see that continuing.

Similar procedures have been put in place in other Parliaments across the United Kingdom. That is vital to ensuring that there is no chill factor for those in society, both now and in the future, who have a desire to seek political office and cherish their roles as parents and caregivers. We feel that exclusions for more significant votes, including those that require cross-community support, are fair and reasonable. The new Standing Order will ensure that the new entitlement is exercisable for the bulk of plenary votes, whilst respecting the role and traditions of this place. The DUP supports the motion.

Mr McGrath: I will only say a few words. I was going to start by saying that moves like this welcome us into the 21st century. Then I checked, and the legislation for the rest of society was passed in 1999, so we are catching up with the last century by implementing the changes. All I will say is this: great, wonderful, but can we get on with some more? There are many other changes that we would love to see, such as electronic voting, so that it does not take 20 minutes to progress every time we have a Division because people have to physically walk around the Chamber. Many other changes could be made, but it is great to see the ones that we are discussing. This place should reflect society instead of being something like the ark. I definitely welcome the changes.

Ms Mulholland: I welcome the changes to our Standing Orders, as someone who had to return to work when my baby was just five weeks old after the return of the House in February. I was unable to legally drive myself to the Building: I was still healing, physically and mentally, from major surgery and also had the day-to-day fog that comes in the newborn phase. I know, first-hand, the challenges that are faced by parents, particularly new mothers in political life. It was not easy, but it highlighted the urgent need for change. Had I stayed away from the Assembly, my vote would have been lost, and my constituents would not have been represented in the Chamber.

There is a point to be made about some of the criticism — others might say "trolling" — that I received when I brought my baby to the Chamber. First, I was asked, "Why don't you put her into childcare?". There are very few childcare places available for a baby who is five weeks old. Secondly, I was asked, "Why doesn't your husband look after her?". I recognise my privilege, and I was in the fortunate position that he was able to step in as the primary caregiver because he was able to take shared parental leave due to the date of my co-option to the Assembly. Had I been co-opted two weeks earlier, my husband would not have been eligible for shared parental leave because his ability to take it was based on my previous employment. As MLAs, we are not regarded as employees or sole traders, so, after legal advice, we found that we were only eligible due to the date of my co-option into the Assembly. Some MLAs are not in a position where the father or another caregiver can take that shared leave.

There are many reasons why we should have the proxy vote provision, but I will focus on the rural aspect. Many MLAs can manage because they live close by or within driving distance. However, when you have guidance that says that a newborn baby cannot be in a car seat for longer than 40 minutes and you live an hour and 20 minutes away, that poses a logistical issue.

If we want to truly encourage more women and parents to step into civic and political roles, we have to ensure that they have the support that they need to balance their family responsibilities with the demands of public service. The introduction of parental leave for MLAs is a really key part of that. It signals that we value the contributions of families, mothers and fathers and recognise that family life should not be a barrier to political engagement. I welcome the fact that these changes acknowledge the rights and needs of not just biological parents but all parents, be they biological, adoptive or foster in nature.

We know that this will significantly impact on mothers and their ability to balance new motherhood with being a political representative. We still lag behind other legislatures in the percentage of MLAs who are women. I think that we are at 36%, which is far below gender parity. Other Parliaments across the UK and Europe have taken stronger steps than this to improve gender balance and create family-friendly policies, be those on the timings of debates or the provision of a crèche facility. It is about making it as easy as possible. The proposals on parental leave are an important signal that we are serious about catching up to, as Mr McGrath said, "the last century" — not even this one — and ensuring that our Assembly reflects the diversity of the people whom we represent. I feel that it is time —.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes, of course.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member very much for her comments so far. I note that Mr McGrath said that we are catching up to the "last century". It is important that we, as the Committee on Procedures, take a family-friendly approach, because, if we do not, we will lose the good people who are in the Chamber today.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sian, you have an extra minute.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you.

That is a great point. What I see now when I look around this Building and at those who sit in the Chamber is very different from what I saw growing up, particularly in the female representation and age. We have more people with young families. As I look around the Chamber, I see quite a few Members, be they male or female, who have young families. Anything that we can do to create a working environment where more women and parents feel empowered to join us in shaping the future of our society is a good thing.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the amendments to Standing Orders. To me, they seem to be a necessary acknowledgement that MLAs are people too and require time off for bereavement and other sensitive reasons.

There is one issue on which I would like clarity from the Committee Chairperson. I received correspondence last month from the Committee on Procedures in which it indicated that it will look at proxy voting for long-term illness, bereavement and absence on official business, which you, Chair, acknowledged in your opening remarks. Chairperson, can you confirm that MLAs should not and, indeed, would not be able to take advantage of those provisions if they go on holiday while the Assembly is in session? I ask that in the context that, just last week, a Minister was on holiday and was therefore unable to fulfil her duties in the House, even though the Assembly is in recess next week. I want the record of this debate to be clear that there is no provision in this amendment for any MLA, be they party leaders, Ministers or lowly Back-Benchers like me, to vote by proxy while sitting poolside.

Mr Carroll: I certainly do not oppose the changes, but I fear that this may be a missed opportunity. The announcement of changes to Standing Orders for paternity or bereavement issues is welcome, but, as the Chair said, there are gaps around child appointments, child sickness and other areas, which, I fear, is a missed opportunity. The proxy voting arrangements that are proposed are too restrictive. COVID showed many's a thing, such as how proxy voting arrangements could be altered and implemented. Certainly, from this end, there seemed to be no issue or problem with that process being in place. It seemed to run smoothly from this end. If there were issues outside or on the technical side, I would be happy to hear about those. However, from here, it seemed to work smoothly. I believe that we need to get back to that system. I have raised that with the Chair in a few previous debates, but I want the Committee to get on board with that.

To be honest, it probably would not be of massive benefit to me, being an MLA in Belfast, unless there were unforeseen circumstances. Proxy voting arrangements would probably benefit bigger parties and people outside Belfast in particular. I am happy to give way if the Chair wants, but some still believe that what happens in this place trumps all and that this is the sole, primary place for political discussions or decisions. However, there is obviously a lot more work taking place outside this Building, and, given the lack of legislation coming through, some would argue that more important work is happening in constituencies, with meetings and groups of individuals and so on.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank Mr Carroll for giving way. As a Committee, we considered that and took significant legal advice. Our main point, as I mentioned in my speech, was that we wanted to maintain and uphold the importance of our vote in this place. We are not in COVID times now, so the decision was taken to limit proxy voting to very specific purposes that would have the most benefit and the quickest benefit in the House.

The Committee will look at long-term illness and other options for proxy voting in the future, but, for now, the Standing Order covers just parental leave at time of birth or when there are fostering responsibilities.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, you have an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Chair's comments, but I have responded to the Committee to say that it should look at the wider proxy voting system, as the Chair may know, and I repeat that it is too restrictive. Ultimately, it should be up to MLAs to decide. If they are not in the Building and are deemed to be MIA, they can be voted out by the public, who, ultimately, decide those things.

I think that the current system is too restrictive for all sorts of reasons. There is full proxy voting in France, Luxembourg and New Zealand, and the sky has not fallen in. I was going to ask the Chair about the opposition to the changes, but she alluded to it already.

I also think that the deadline is too restrictive. It does not take into consideration Members who intend to travel in to vote on a debate, but life can change and weather patterns can change, and I am thinking in particular of Members from Derry or the north-west who may be unable to get down the Glenshane Pass but want to vote. Many people could be unintentionally disenfranchised by this too rigorous, restrictive system.

I support the changes proposed today but urge the Committee to consider extending them to a wider range of circumstances.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Sinéad Ennis to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have 10 minutes.

Ms Ennis: Go raibh maith agat,

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

To remove any element of doubt for some Members, I will say that what we are debating here is a new Standing Order on proxy voting for parental leave. The clue is in the title for people who are a bit confused as to what we are discussing here today.

It is my pleasure to make a winding-up speech on the motion. I will begin by thanking everybody who took part, and I welcome the fact that the debate has been largely positive and welcomed the new Standing Order.

Most MLAs who contributed to the debate will recognise that we are not Assembly employees and that we cannot take leave for maternity, paternity, adoption etc in the same way that an employee can. I appreciate Sian's outlining the difficulties that face new parents, particularly new mothers, when they are in a political role. I know what it is like. I have been in the situation where maternity leave was not an option, and I was answering constituency queries from a maternity ward, which was not ideal.

Overall, in the Chamber today, there has been a broad welcome for the new Standing Order. It will allow MLAs to take such leave and still have their vote count, thus ensuring that they continue to represent their constituencies. The new provision will ensure that a core part of the role that an MLA has been elected to do can still be delivered.

I will pick up on some of the points that Members have raised. Diane talked about the guidance in relation to the Standing Order. The Standing Order is what is being voted on today, and the guidance will issue from the Speaker's Office. The Committee has made suggestions as to what should be in the guidance, but, ultimately, it is up to the Speaker. I assure the Member that the Committee has been in close contact with the Speaker throughout the development of the Standing Order. His thoughts and views have been extremely helpful to the Committee, and I am sure that he has taken note of the comments made by Members today on what may or may not be included in the guidance.

Gerry Carroll asked why the provisions will not extend to other instances such as ill health and bereavement. The Committee did not include other categories in the provisions for proxy voting that I have just outlined. I am aware that other places provide for proxy voting in categories such as ill health, bereavement and absence on official business, but even a quick glance at those categories showed that a number of issues would need to be considered in more detail before such provisions could be introduced to the Assembly. I assure the Member that they are firmly on the Committee's radar, and we may deal with them at a future time.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way so that I can ask her to clarify. Was there agreement or disagreement on the Committee to widen the proxy voting arrangements to have a system similar to the one that was in place during COVID? Does the Member's party agree with that?

Ms Ennis: I am speaking as Deputy Chairperson of the Procedures Committee and can assure the Member that that was a considerable part of the Committee's consideration. However, once we sat down to look at it, we saw that the breadth of considerations on which we would have to deliberate was large. As the Chairperson said, we decided to do the work in small chunks. COVID was an exceptional time. I am sure that there is learning to be taken from COVID — the arrangements were convenient — but I do not think that we want to be in a place where it is, "Whatever you're having yourself". We need to start by introducing the provisions for parental leave. That is the most pressing concern, but the Committee has committed to looking at other circumstances that we all encounter in our daily life.

Gerry, you also raised the deadline of 4.00 pm. The Committee discussed issues relating to the notification process, including the deadline, and we are aware that some Members would like the deadline to be as late and as flexible as possible. To repeat what the Chairperson said, ensuring that the integrity of our voting system is never called into question was first and foremost in our minds. While having a 9.30 pm deadline on the day worked during the pandemic, it is not ideal. We heard from officials that a sitting day is one of the busiest times of the week in the Business Office. Processes and systems must be put in place to make the proxy voting system work seamlessly and to ensure the integrity of the vote. For that reason, we agreed that the approach suggested by the Speaker of a 4.00 pm deadline would be more suitable. Members may wish to note that the deadline is not provided for in Standing Orders but will be in the guidance.

We see the Standing Order as a progressive and inclusive step that will benefit the Assembly as a whole and bring us into line with other Parliaments. I am pleased that, overall, there has been a warm welcome for it from MLAs, and I commend it to the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Miss McIlveen: I beg to move

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

Miss McIlveen: Cruelty against animals is a despicable crime. We are, proudly, a nation of animal lovers. Like many in the Chamber, I was brought up in a home with pets who were very much part of our family. The idea that anyone could be so cruel as to harm an animal that looks to us for food, care and shelter is horrendous, and we should be taking all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure that our animal protection and enforcement measures are robust and effective: robust in punishing and deterring offenders and effective in preventing harm to such animals.

As a result of legislation passed by the Assembly since 2011, we have brought enforcement for animal welfare to local councils; increased the maximum sentence for animal cruelty in Northern Ireland to five years in prison; and brought into force, this year, the Pet Abduction Act, which makes it an offence for a cat or dog to be taken from a person with lawful control of the animal. Those are all positive steps forward.

It is disappointing to note that DAERA has cut resource funding for animal welfare departments in councils from around £1·2 million in 2019-2020 to £625,000 in 2023-24. Even without taking into account inflationary and increasing wage pressures, that is a huge cut to what was already a tight budget. Councils have a responsibility to enforce animal welfare regulations in respect of non-farmed animals. Under the budget provided to them, they provide advice, issue improvement notices, take animals into their possession where there are extreme cases of suffering and take enforcement action. That work is carried out by nine welfare officers operating across the 11 council areas. In 2022, councils secured 20 convictions, and the PSNI, which deals with animal fighting and other animal-related offences, secured a further 12 convictions.

There are steps that have not been taken, steps that not only have the support of political representatives but have strong public support. They include Lucy's law, which bans third-party puppy sales. My former colleague Robin Newton championed it, and the mantle was taken up by another colleague, Keith Buchanan. While the Minister has said that he will explore options, we are still no further forward on the issue. That is meant as a criticism not of the Minister but of the slow grind of the bureaucratic machine that operates under him and other Ministers. Such a law would put a stop to unethical breeding enterprises, and I look forward to it eventually becoming a reality.

The other step and the subject of the motion is the establishment of a register of banned animal welfare offenders. The Assembly has been debating that for over 10 years, and, each time that it has been debated, the motion has been passed. Since 2016, seven of our councils have passed motions calling for the creation of a banned offenders register. The register envisaged would be a readily accessible register of convicted animal abusers who have been banned by the courts from keeping animals. Those on such a register should have a legal duty to update their details should they move house or change their name. The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA) has welcomed the increased penalties, including bans, but believes that a register of banned offenders is essential to make such bans effective.

Concerns have been expressed about data protection issues around such a register. In June of this year, the Minister committed to gathering information on whether a register has worked effectively elsewhere. I will refer to two examples: New York City and Finland. In 2014, New York City Council passed the Animal Abuse Registration Act. Anyone required to register is prohibited from owning, possessing, residing with, having custody of or intentionally engaging in any physical contact with any animal. The registration period lasts for five years after sentencing or, if incarcerated, five years after release from prison. Failure to register is an offence in itself and can result in up to one year in jail, a fine of $1,000 or both. Animal shelters, animal rescue groups, pet shops and other animal-related businesses are required to check the register and refuse to sell or transfer ownership of an animal to anyone appearing on it. New York City operates a closed register that only specified organisations can access.

In Finland, the Court Registry Centre owns and maintains its register. Once the court has imposed a ban on keeping animals, it notifies the centre of the decision. Information from the register may be disclosed by means of an extract from the register, which may be ordered in writing from the Court Registry Centre. Information from the register may also be disclosed by authorities specified in the legislation. GDPR is enforced in Finland, as it is here. It is a semi-closed register, where a fee must be paid to check whether an individual is on the register. If data protection concerns can be addressed there, they are not insurmountable here. Other places, such as Tennessee, have an open register that holds the name and address of the offender. I appreciate that such a register would be difficult to have, given our data protection laws and the risks that it might pose to those on the register. However, as a party, we are clear on our belief that Northern Ireland should have high animal welfare standards.

We are committed to ensuring that animals are cared for and that those who abuse animals are adequately punished. It is important for us that agencies that have statutory and legal responsibilities for animal care and welfare enforcement are properly supported and adequately funded and have the appropriate tools to carry out their jobs. It is on that basis that we have campaigned in election after election. While we have some of the toughest legislation against animal cruelty in the world, with raised maximum custodial targets and the introduction of Finn's law to give greater protection to service animals, we need additional legal measures to prevent reoffending and avoidable harm to animals.

The disproportionate cut to council animal welfare services will have a devastating impact on enforcement against offenders and the protection of animals. We understand the budgetary pressures facing all Departments, but it is up to the Minister to decide how he distributes his budget. Cutting funding in half cannot be justifiable if the Minister wants councils to be able to do their jobs.

We believe that the introduction of a register will be a useful tool. There is a recurring problem of animal cruelty offenders who, although banned from keeping animals, reappear, sometimes in a matter of weeks, charged with new animal cruelty offences. That is because authorities and rehoming charities have no knowledge of that individual's status. One of the primary causes identified by the USPCA is the lack of monitoring of banned animal abusers. A register would assist in addressing that. A register means having a central point to access key information to assist enforcement authorities in policing animal cases and for reputable dealers and rehoming charities to screen those purchasing or adopting an animal. It would also be a useful tool for those who care for animals to check potential employees for their status on the register. As part of that, we ask the Minister to work with his Executive colleagues to review safeguards against those with such convictions from later being employed in roles relating to the care of animals.

The Minister said in June of this year that he would seek the views of the Irish Government on a register and potential all-island cooperation. What have been the outcomes of those discussions? What conversations has he had with other devolved Administrations and the UK Government about a joined-up approach across the British Isles?

We also face the situation that the current legislation does not cover animals being kept by family members in the same household as a banned individual. That is a complicated issue for enforcement, and I ask the Minister to look specifically at it.

I hope that the Minister agrees that animal welfare should be at the heart of the matter. It is about prevention of harm above all else. The thousands of members of the public who have signed petitions on the matter recognise that; the majority of our councils, who have passed such motions, recognise it; and the Chamber has recognised it each time that the issue has come before us.

Mr McAleer: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It reflects our collective commitment to safeguard the welfare of animals. Under the Welfare of Animals Act 2011, we have a crucial framework that provides the powers to protect farmed animals, non-farmed animals and wildlife. The Act is a vital tool in ensuring that we do everything in our power to uphold the highest standards of welfare.

In March 2014, the Assembly took a decisive step by passing a motion that called for a review of the implementation of the Act. It was clear then, as it is now, that we need to take a hard look at how effectively we combat animal welfare offences, particularly in relation to sentencing guidelines and practices. The public's demand for action was loud and clear.

Following that debate, the then Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Michelle O'Neill, took swift action. In partnership with the Department of Justice, she initiated a review of the Welfare of Animals Act 2011. That review was not just about ticking boxes but about making real, impactful change. The final report, containing 68 recommendations aimed at strengthening the animal welfare framework, was published in February 2016. Those recommendations addressed key themes such as sentencing, delivery structures, enforcement collaboration, public service, dog breeding and online pet sales and equine welfare.

One of the most pressing concerns that was raised by stakeholders during that consultation was the perception of unduly lenient and inconsistent sentencing. People felt that those who committed serious acts of cruelty against animals were not being held fully accountable. That is why one the most important outcomes of the review was the decision to increase the maximum penalty for the most serious animal welfare offences from two years to five years. That change reflected the gravity of those offences and sent a strong message that cruelty to animals would not be tolerated. It was a recognition of the public's demand for justice and a signal that we, as legislators, were serious about animal welfare issues.

The review, however, was not just about penalties. Many of the recommendations focused on enhancing communication between enforcement bodies, improving delivery processes and ensuring that the public is aware of the resources and services that are available for animal welfare. The 2016 review highlighted concerns about the efficacy of a central register, including complex issues regarding data protection, privacy and the ECHR. We must continue to work with government agencies, animal welfare groups and the public to ensure that our laws are enforced, that services are effective and that best practice is shared with rehoming organisations to enhance their assessment processes.

I commend the progress that we have made since the passage of the Welfare of Animals Act 2011, but let us be clear: there is still a lot of work to be done. The creation of a register for those who are convicted of animal cruelty is a step that could have a profound impact on deterring future offenders. However, we must also be mindful of the potential legal challenges that that could raise. No doubt, the Minister will touch on that in his response to the debate. There are questions around data protection, privacy rights and cross-jurisdictional enforcement that must be addressed carefully to ensure that the register can be implemented without facing legal obstacles. By proactively addressing those issues, we can ensure that the tool is not only lawful but an effective means of preventing further cruelty to animals.

Together, we must ensure that the island of Ireland remains a place where animal welfare is a shared priority and is treated with the seriousness and respect that it deserves.

Mr Blair: I thank the Members who tabled the motion, as it is based on an issue that is very important to me and that my party takes very seriously. The establishment of an animal welfare offenders register has long been a key goal of the Assembly's all-party group on animal welfare, which I am pleased to have chaired for a number of years.

The motion calls for a proactive step, but it also embodies our moral duty to protect animals, which are, of course, unable to protect themselves. The purpose of the motion is evident: individuals who are unkind to animals should be barred from owning them. All too often, we encounter cases where those who are found guilty of serious animal welfare violations are allowed to acquire or even breed animals. A register of animal welfare offenders would provide a transparent mechanism for holding offenders accountable, ensuring that those who commit acts of cruelty are recognised and, importantly, prevented from repeating such offences.

The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of Justice have considered the matter extensively and significant challenges have, unfortunately, been raised. The two main barriers are the significant cost of establishing and maintaining a register and the data protection implications, which, by all accounts, appear to be prohibitive. We need a system that is detailed, accessible and capable of monitoring offenders thoroughly. That will require resources. The register must be designed to respect the rights of individuals while prioritising the safety and welfare of animals. The previous AERA Minister, who is a member of the same party as those who tabled the motion, stated those exact issues when I put the question to him about a register in the previous mandate. He said that a register would be untenable because of those issues. I should further point out that I raised the issue with the then Minister a number of times.

The Alliance Party will continue to support and investigate initiatives that not only explore effective strategies for the proposed register but seek to eliminate instances of animal suffering across the region. We need to stay dedicated to cultivating a culture of compassion and accountability for animals and to promoting thorough animal welfare policies that are centred on the prevention of animal cruelty.

Despite the barriers that I mentioned, which are on the public record, and the aspirational nature of the motion, I have no difficulty in offering my support and that of my colleagues.

Mr Butler: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I support the motion, which seeks to address the scourge of animal cruelty in Northern Ireland. As a society that often describes itself as animal-loving, we should hold ourselves to the highest account in how we treat the most defenceless amongst us, which includes animals, who rely on us for care and protection. The figures provided by the Department of Justice, which are mentioned in the motion, are alarming, showing:

That is simply unacceptable. When individuals commit acts of cruelty or violence against animals or neglect them, they must face meaningful consequences that prevent them from reoffending and deter others from committing similar crimes. I cannot even bring myself to read into the record some of the disgusting instances of animal battery and neglect that I read of in the research papers and the papers supplied by the USPCA. As we have seen, despite that, current bans on keeping animals have proven to be ineffective. High-profile cases, such as those that Members will, I am sure, have read about, show that convicted individuals can slip through the cracks, which can have devastating consequences for the animals.

The truth is that cruelty often begins behind closed doors, but it does not stop there. Those are the same doors behind which the cases that we hear about occur: cases of kittens or pups being cruelly drowned, suffocated in bags or starved to death when they are not fit for the purpose that people want them for. Those horrific practices still occur and need to be rooted out. The USPCA, along with many other stakeholders, has put forward a series of vital, practical proposals that could strengthen our animal welfare laws. The Assembly should listen carefully to those who are on the front line of animal protection. I echo the calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to take decisive action and adopt those recommendations. We have had some discussions about that, and I know that the Minister is committed to engaging on animal welfare issues.

I will read through a few of the recommendations, if that is OK, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The first is on the register of banned offenders that has been called for. We must establish a publicly accessible register of those who have been convicted of animal abuse. Whilst GDPR may limit those who can access the register, it should not prevent its creation. We can work out in the Chamber how best to ensure that that information serves the purpose for which the register would be established.

The second recommendation is to amend the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, extending the bans to include those who live with convicted offenders. It is crucial to consider that recommendation. I get that it is a difficult subject, but it is one that we need to discuss, because we have heard of cases where individuals who were banned from owning animals simply moved into households, or already lived in households, where pets were present. That undermines the intent of the ban. That is what I call a loophole, in that it is incongruous.

Another recommendation is for regular inspections: council animal welfare officers should be required to conduct quarterly inspections of individuals banned from owning animals. That measure would provide an ongoing safeguard against further abuses and ensure compliance with disqualification orders. As we heard, there is a shortage of those officers, unfortunately, so there may be a workforce issue, as there is across most of the public sector today.

The fourth recommendation is to promote community reporting. A public campaign could and should be launched to empower communities to report suspected cases of animal cruelty. If we are, indeed, a nation of animal lovers, I do not think that it will be too difficult to get people to reach out, because early intervention can help to save lives and end suffering, and greater awareness will help to shine a light on those heinous acts.

The fifth recommendation is on annual reports. The publication of annual reports detailing disqualification orders and compliance rates would bring much-needed transparency and accountability to the enforcement of the law. As we know, measuring effectiveness is the only way to achieve and improve compliance rates.

We cannot allow convicted abusers to return to environments where they can harm animals, nor can we permit any leniency that devalues the life and well-being of animals in Northern Ireland. The motion and the USPCA's proposals are a step forward in ensuring that justice is served and that we prevent further suffering. Let us not forget that every time we fail to act on this issue, innocent animals will pay the price.

Mr McGlone: I welcome the motion and the focus on the need for tougher action against those who are convicted of animal cruelty. I suspect that most parties support the motion, at least in principle. After all, we are all animal lovers.

It should not be a surprise that the SDLP supports the motion. In particular, we support the call for the Minister to establish a register of banned animal welfare offenders. We and, I think, all parties present supported the DUP motion in 2016 that called on the then Justice Minister to establish an accessible central register of those convicted of animal welfare offences. It was made clear shortly afterwards that the responsibility for establishing a register would lie with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

The SDLP, with others, continued to lobby the relevant Minister on the issue. In 2021, we presented a public petition to the Assembly, signed by thousands of individuals and supported by the USPCA, calling on the AERA Minister to work alongside the Minister of Justice to establish such a register. Both Ministers at that time expressed support for the register. However, the then AREA Minister concluded in March 2022 that creating a register of animal cruelty offenders was not feasible. In his explanation for that decision, the DUP Minister responsible referenced apparent low reoffending rates, no evidential need for a register, the cost of establishing and maintaining a register, and the data protection implications. We did not agree with his reasoning then, and we do not now. I would be interested to hear from the proposer of the motion whether they now disagree with their party colleague, because the current Minister responsible has taken the same line, presumably based on the same advice from that same Department. We believe that any potential issues can and should be overcome.

We believe that there is a need for a register that is established on an all-island basis. What is currently missing is the political will to make that happen. That will require a change in mindset in the Minister's Department but also in the Republic. What is noticeable is the low number of prosecutions brought to completion by the various enforcement bodies compared with the number of complaints and other actions taken. That is, perhaps, an indication that prosecutions are seen as a reluctant last resort, and that should certainly not be the case. If we are to take seriously the issue of cruelty and abuse of animals — or, indeed, abuse of our environment — that culture of enforcement needs to change. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board, and I do not doubt his sincerity or the will to do so.

The Minister has suggested that there is a lack of evidence that registers of this kind are effective elsewhere. I would argue that the sample size is too small and the situations too varied to reach a conclusion based on that. A register of banned offenders would be an important additional tool in the battle against those who would abuse animals. That is how it should be assessed, and we are in a unique position here. To be effective, a register should be established on an all-island basis. The cross-border nature of criminal activity such as dog-fighting, badger-baiting and illegal puppy farming demands it. The Minister should consider proposals on that basis, and work with the Irish Government to that end.

Let us do everything that we can to help those who are trying to prevent animal cruelty, and let us make animal welfare issues one of our key priorities. More proactive enforcement, tougher action against those found guilty of animal welfare offences — some of which are incredibly crass and cruel — and the establishment of an all-island register of banned offenders would be a step in that right direction.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first Member to speak after Question Time will be Áine Murphy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Questions 9 and 13 have been withdrawn.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): The management of the PSNI estate is an operational matter for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I am committed to respecting the operational independence of the Chief Constable and the role of the Policing Board. As I have not had any discussions on the matter, it is therefore suggested that the Member should write directly to the Chief Constable.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for her response. Does she agree that it would be entirely wrong that police stations, such as the one in Limavady, would be closed as a sacrificial lamb to help to pay the £750,000 Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) fine and other subsequent costs following last year's data breach?

Mrs Long: As I have said, it is not for me to opine on the right decisions for the PSNI to live within budget. That is entirely a matter for the Chief Constable. He has operational independence on that matter but is also operationally accountable to the Policing Board for those decisions. However, with respect to the ICO fine, you will be aware that the PSNI did considerable work to reduce the fine. I wrote to the ICO to make those representations, because I believe that to take public money out of the police purse at this time is likely only to increase pressure on the very people who were impacted by that data breach.

Mr McNulty: Can the Minister outline the time frame for the closing of Crossmaglen police station, as per the recommendations of the 'South Armagh Policing Review'?

Mrs Long: I refer the Member to my answers to both of the previous questions. The management of the policing estate is a matter for the Chief Constable in cooperation with the Policing Board. It is not a matter that falls to me as Justice Minister, nor would it be appropriate for me to breach the boundaries of the tripartite arrangement to reach in or control that. I encourage the Member to write to the Chief Constable, who may be able to furnish him with further information in that regard.

Mrs Long: My Department has progressed significant preparatory work to bring forward domestic abuse protection notices and orders. However, as Members will be aware, the statutory requirement to lay regulations has not been met. My officials are continuing to work with partners to resolve a number of significant and complex operational challenges to ensure that the regime is affordable and deliverable and, crucially, that it will enhance the protections that are available to those who are most at risk of harm. However, we are determined to make progress. My officials intend to provide a further update to the Justice Committee on that work in December. I believe that the introduction of domestic abuse protection notices would make a real difference to the safety of those at risk of harm from domestic abuse. I am keen to find the best way to progress it.

My Department's high-level estimate is that the total new cost arising from the proposed DAPN/DAPO regime is likely to be in excess of £12 million in year 1, rising to over £17 million by year 3. That is not affordable within my Department's current budget, so resources will need to be made available to support their introduction. They have been identified as a pressure with the Department of Finance. However, cost is not the sole reason for not bringing DAPNs and DAPOs forward at this time. My officials are also exploring other operational factors with partners to ensure that the eventual model is effective, adds value and is operationally deliverable.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. She will appreciate that, in the current climate, it is important that all options are available to help people who find themselves in such situations. She cited the year-on-year costs, which are, indeed, significant for the Department. Can she outline why that is; the rationale behind the year-on-year increases; and, perhaps, how that reflects on the potential success of various strategies?

Mrs Long: The Member's question on the success of various strategies has a number of strands. The first thing is that the rise, if you like, is likely to increase and then level out as people become more familiar with the use of the system. That is why the cost goes from £12 million to £17 million. It is then likely to be maintained at that level.

With respect to the cost, it is hard to know exactly how many will come forward, but we have done it on the basis of an estimate from looking at what is happening in other jurisdictions where they have not been introduced successfully and have been judged not to add value. We are trying to take account of that learning. However, we are working with the PSNI and the Department of Health to identify not just how we can better introduce DAPOs and DAPNs with the right underpinning regulations but further measures that, we believe, would enhance the protection of those at risk of harm from domestic abuse. That includes investment in services to address offending behaviour; measures to enhance multi-agency work to assess and mitigate the risk posed to victims of domestic abuse; investment in technologies to support the PSNI response; and measures to reinforce the ability of Health and Social Care (HSC) to support those at risk. Again, additional resources will be needed for that.

We have included DAPOs and DAPNs as an inescapable pressure because there is a statutory duty on the Department to deliver them, but that requirement has not been met. We need additional resources, which we bid for through the transformation bid for the violence against women and girls strategy, but, again, that bid was not agreed.

Ms Egan: I thank the Minister for her answers so far. Minister, will you clarify whether the difficulties were unforeseen? Were concerns raised at the time?

Mrs Long: It originated as a Committee amendment at Consideration Stage of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill. While we, as a Department, noted the potential merit of notices and orders, we did not support that amendment because we had significant concerns at the time about including that level of detail in secondary legislation, rather than in primary legislation. We also raised concerns about the restrictive two-year time frame, because it was an untried and untested policy. It had been legislated for in Scotland, but it had not been operationalised. It was only when it was operationalised that they realised the extent of the problem. It is also affecting implementation in England and Wales.

I want to reassure Members that we are committed to introducing DAPOs and DAPNs. There is a mechanism by which we can ensure that they add value to the current protective mechanisms, including, for example, non-molestation orders. It is about ensuring that there is additionality and, crucially, that we introduce them only at a point at which they are properly resourced. If victims go seeking protection and that protection fails, that is a real issue for us. We have to be sure that whatever we introduce is operationally sensible and deliverable.

Mrs Long: I am satisfied that the planned investment in a new kitchen and cafe at Magilligan prison represents a necessary investment of the limited capital resources made available to my Department. The existing buildings were constructed as a temporary facility and have been in place since 1990. They were designed to provide meals to 300 prisoners three times a day. However, the population of Magilligan is now at its maximum capacity of 500 prisoners.

The current facilities have served well beyond their lifespan and are not fit for purpose in respect of meeting current health and safety requirements. Nor are they able to provide prisoners with the opportunity to undertake the full range of qualifications in hospitality and catering that are available in other prison establishments. The project will involve the closure of two separate inefficient buildings and the construction of a more energy-efficient mixed-use building that will serve as a prison kitchen, catering college and cafe for both prisoners and prison staff.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for her answer and her invitation to visit the facilities, to which I have replied. Minister, I am sure that you will agree that, on the face of it, an investment of £13·3 million in a kitchen and cafe seems excessive. How confident is the Minister that that will deliver value for money? Is she in a position to outline the detailed specification and a breakdown of the cost? The issue is of huge concern, particularly given the huge budgetary restraints that we have across government at this time.

Mrs Long: I am perhaps more cognisant than most Ministers of huge budgetary restraints, given that I have been facing them for much longer than most. Even when a surfeit of money was available, the Department of Justice never saw the benefit of it. My officials and I are very aware of the need to achieve value for money.

The project will bring a number of benefits. Since 2017, we have spent around £500,000 on the kitchen to maintain the status quo, which is completely inefficient and does not represent value for money. The project will offer more reliable environmentally sustainable energy provision, which will contribute to the relevant government targets in achieving net zero emissions. That, obviously, comes at a premium. It also allows us to improve our rehabilitative offer at the Magilligan site. Crucially, it ensures that the facilities are operational for the size and capacity of the prison that we now have on that site. In addition, it is a clear indication of my support for the continuation of Magilligan prison and the investment that that represents in the north-west region, a matter that has exercised many of the Member's Assembly colleagues.

Mr Dickson: Minister, it was probably surprising that the existing kitchen facilities were not blown away in the recent storm. Is it not important, particularly given the role of Magilligan prison in rehabilitation and training, that the facilities train people for jobs and life?

Mrs Long: Absolutely. Rehabilitation is and must remain the priority for the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS). Central to that is the infrastructure pillar of the Prisons 25by25 strategy, which aims to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose and secure prison estate. Outline business case 1 (OBC1) approval was granted by the Department of Finance for the redevelopment of Magilligan project. However, because of cost inflation, over which we have no control, NIPS is now proceeding with a phased approach determined by urgent business need. Alongside a new wing at Halward House, the project forms part of the first phase of essential capital works at Magilligan to deliver a safe, decent and secure environment to facilitate prisoner rehabilitation and prepare them for reintegration into the community at the end of their sentence.

The Member said somewhat jokingly that he was surprised that the kitchen had not been blown away. It is fair to say that we have been worried on occasions that that might happen at Magilligan. It is not a minor issue. We had problems earlier in the year where, for example, the gas supply to the kitchen was damaged. We had to seek external support in order to feed the prisoners at Magilligan. It is a serious issue, and it is only coming to a head now because it is in absolute crisis. We have to resolve it.

Mrs Long: My Department contributes to a number of priorities in the draft Programme for Government (PFG). However, my Department's ability to deliver on those priorities is dependent on adequate funding being made available. There will be difficult decisions ahead if we continue to have insufficient budget allocation to meet the demand-led pressures of my Department. The front-line services delivered across the Department must be considered collectively and not as individual areas. The Budget outcome for 2025-26 and beyond is yet to be confirmed but is likely to be very challenging for the justice sector as a whole.

My Department is ambitious to deliver on the priorities set out in the Programme for Government for the people of Northern Ireland. My officials and I continue to press for greater resources through regular engagement with the Department of Finance, the Finance Minister and the Executive.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, you talked about how the pressures need to be looked at collectively. However, we need to increase police numbers. Sadly, 42 females have been murdered in eight years. We have had an increase in hate crime, and we need to look at prevention and rehabilitation measures. How do you intend to prioritise those pressures with the budget that you receive?

Mrs Long: I intend to prioritise them in the manner that I always have. I want to say a couple of things. First and foremost, as I have made clear, if we are going to change the rates of femicide in Northern Ireland and tackle violence against women and girls, we need an Executive-wide approach. It requires, for example, changes to our relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in schools, which was recommended by Sir John Gillen but never delivered by Ministers. Changing attitudes in society to women and girls will require cross-departmental cooperation.

The truth is that, by the time people come through my Department, where we have made changes to the law around, for example, domestic abuse, stalking and sexual offences, they are already victims and it is, essentially, too late to protect them from harm. Protection from harm means moving upstream. It means working with the Department of Health, as I do, on the domestic and sexual abuse strategy. Money has been allocated to that. It also means working with TEO to ensure that the ending violence against women and girls strategy can be fully implemented in a way that complements the domestic and sexual abuse strategy.

There is no question but that it will require difficult decisions. Everyone in the justice system will be hurting. Members can expect to get many letters that will tell them that different aspects of the justice sector are under pressure. That is as true for my Department as anywhere else. We are carrying a vacancy rate of between 10% and 12% as a result of a lack of resource.

Mr McGlone: Will the Minister confirm whether there will be timed and measurable targets in the final PFG against which her Department's progress can be monitored?

Mrs Long: I submitted a series of key performance indicators (KPIs) along with my key submissions to the Programme for Government. My Department set out measurable targets that were challenging but achievable. Those will, I think, form part of the annex to the Programme for Government in due course. The Executive are to meet halfway through the consultation period to discuss further iterations of the Programme for Government in relation to the feedback that we receive.

I have submitted key performance indicators, but whether they are published as part of the Programme for Government is a matter for others. However, they will certainly be what guides my Department.

Mr McMurray: Will the Minister give examples of where financial pressures are being felt in her Ministry?

Mrs Long: It would be very difficult to suggest that any part of the Ministry is not under financial pressure. As things stand, we have reached the point in the Department of Justice where, when we push down on one cost centre, another one rises. For example, if we decide not to invest in electronic monitoring, we push up the cost of probation and policing and increase the risk to the public. If we push down on probation and community-based sentencing, we push up the prison population. If we push down the prison population, we push up the need for community monitoring. At every stage, if we try to speed up justice, we push up the legal aid bill.

There is no easy fix, and I am not pretending that there is. We need a whole-system approach, and that is what I have been endeavouring to do, but it is very clear to me that, unless the Department of Justice budget actually starts to match the inflationary pressures that we have faced over recent years, we will not be able to continue to deliver the level of service that we currently deliver. If our budget had risen in line with inflation since 2011, there would be no extraordinary pressures facing the Department. It is because the Department has been starved of resource that we find ourselves in this situation, and, with all due respect, that is a matter for the Assembly and the wider Executive, not just the Department of Justice.

Mrs Long: Every life lost through violence is an unacceptable tragedy, and I think that we are all rightly and deeply appalled at the increase in incidents of violence against women in recent weeks. All of us must do everything in our power to challenge and change the attitudes and behaviours that treat women's lives as though they are expendable. There must be a collective effort across society and government to address those issues.

The cases involving four of the recent victims are being processed through the criminal justice system. Domestic homicide reviews have so far been commissioned in two of those cases. However, there is also ongoing work under way to reduce risk and to contribute to an end to violence against women and girls. That includes work under the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, which is led by my Department and the Department of Health. That strategy was launched by the Health Minister and I on 25 September.

The interdependencies between that strategy and the strategic framework on ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) are evident, given that women and girls are disproportionately affected by domestic and sexual abuse. All efforts to address domestic and sexual abuse under the strategy will directly contribute to the broader goal of ending violence against women and girls. However, importantly, we also recognise that violence perpetrated against women and girls is not restricted to domestic situations and that domestic and sexual abuse can also affect men and boys. That reinforces the need for the Executive's strategic framework on violence against women and girls to be implemented in parallel with the domestic and sexual abuse strategy. My officials work closely with the Executive Office on the development of the EVAWG framework, and we are committed to continued collaboration and partnership. Our governance structures will ensure alignment and support ongoing joint efforts to protect everyone.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Will funding be provided to the community and voluntary sector to allow it to continue its valuable work on ending violence against women and girls?

Mrs Long: First, we will all want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the invaluable role that the voluntary and community sector plays, not only in providing crucial support to victims and survivors but in bringing collective knowledge, skills and expertise to inform our strategic policy and operational responses. With the launch of the strategy came the launch of the domestic and sexual abuse small grant scheme. That scheme offers voluntary and community sector members the opportunity to apply for funding to support new ideas and initiatives that align with the strategic objectives of the domestic and sexual abuse strategy. Initially, those grants will be drawn from our ring-fenced cross-cutting domestic and sexual abuse funding that is aimed at supporting the vital work that is carried out by front-line organisations. Through that initiative, we hope to empower our partners to continue their essential work and make a meaningful impact.

Mr Beattie: Minister, robust sentencing is another tool for ending violence against women and girls. Does the Minister agree that, when it comes to sentence credit, which is a useful tool for getting the guilty to admit their guilt early, leaving it until the last moment to admit guilt while still getting the same credit is quite negative?

Mrs Long: As the Member will know, the decisions that are made by the judiciary are entirely independent when it comes to sentencing. However, the issue of sentence credit has been raised by a number of members of the Criminal Justice Board. The determining point is what we consider to be an early plea. Is it on the first day of the trial, which may be early from the perspective of the judge in court, or is it early in the investigation, which could save the police and Public Prosecution Service (PPS) huge investigatory resources? I believe that it should be the latter, not the former. It is important that we talk that through with the Lady Chief Justice and others around the Criminal Justice Board table.

We must also ensure that people understand the sentencing frameworks that are in place and how they are being applied. Often, sentencing appears to be opaque, and the reasons for discounts and other things in sentencing are often misunderstood. The very language of "discount" is often very offensive to victims. We need to work through those issues in a manner that is sensitive to victims and their needs, and one of the reasons why I created a Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime was that she would be able to, impartially and without any overtures of political interference, raise those sorts of issues in the right way.

Ms Brownlee: Revenge porn is undeniably a form of sexual abuse that causes significant psychological harm. Will the Minister give her assessment of the current effectiveness of the revenge porn legislation?

Mrs Long: The revenge porn legislation in Northern Ireland is reasonably up to date, in the sense that it was first introduced, I think, in 2014-15. It was then further refined, as some of your colleagues who sat on the previous Justice Committee will recall, to include threats to release private materials, which is a form of blackmail but also a form of sexual abuse.

Where further work can be done and where we have been engaging with the Home Office is on such issues as deepfake imagery, which is often not as easy to prove in order to get convictions. It can also be very difficult to detect. With the increase in AI and deepfake technology, we need to be constantly horizon scanning for what needs to come next.

There was an intention for a Westminster Bill on that issue to come forward before the general election, but it fell. As yet, we are unaware whether the Labour Government intend to reintroduce some of those measures, which also included, for example, things like a specific offence of spiking. If the opportunity comes for us to seek legislative consent to piggyback on that legislation, I would be open to doing so.

Mrs Dillon: When we talk about violence against women and girls, we need to be clear that it is by men. When we talk about it in the domestic setting of men and boys, it is mostly by men. We need to be honest about that. For those on remand, who are mostly, in these cases, men, what can we do to put something in place? Very often, they are released from prison because they have served their time on remand. We need to make sure that they are getting counselling, anger management or whatever needs to be put in place to protect the women, girls and children who will be around them when they are released.

Mrs Long: The Member probably highlights the most frustrating thing for victims when it comes to holding people on remand. When people are given bail, it can be incredibly frustrating for victims, particularly where they feel vulnerable or under threat. What is even more frustrating is when victims, in cases where they get a conviction, see somebody released time served. It looks as though they have not been punished for what they did. When they are on remand, unfortunately, we cannot compel them to comply, because they are innocent until proven guilty. We can offer them education and rehabilitation, but, as most people on remand maintain their innocence until the court trial starts, we often find that people are unwilling to, for example, engage in specific perpetrator programmes. We are looking at what we can do before people offend by working with those at risk of offending or with a history of offending.

We have found that perpetrator programmes often work better for those who voluntarily sign up to them than for those who are assigned to them by the courts.

Mrs Long: The Northern Ireland Prison Service takes any allegation of inappropriate behaviour by a member of staff seriously and has well-established mechanisms to investigate and respond. In the past five calendar years, 2019-23 and inclusive of 2024, 10 allegations of inappropriate behaviour led to disciplinary action and awards under the Northern Ireland Prison Service professional code of conduct.

Miss Hargey: I understand that there was another death in custody at the weekend, bringing to four the total number of deaths in the past five weeks. It is a concerning picture. What is being done to tackle that situation?

Mrs Long: I caution Members against assuming that every death in custody is under suspicious or other circumstances that may be of concern. Many deaths in custody are of natural causes, but we are not able to disclose that kind of detailed information in respect of individual prisoners until their families have been informed and until the Prisoner Ombudsman has done its full investigation and, indeed, until the coroners have reported.

The preliminary findings of the initial at-speed review will often give us an indication of whether there are any suspicious or concerning circumstances of welfare or harm surrounding deaths in custody. Much of our prison population is now ageing. Many of them arrive at us from a position of homelessness and, often, rough sleeping and are in very poor health when they arrive. Many have drug addictions and mental health problems, and that can make them very vulnerable not only to self-harm or suicidal ideation but, sadly, to natural-causes deaths.

Mr Dunne: Will the Minister provide an update on any NI Prison Service recruitment campaigns, particularly to help deal with the pressures of ever-increasing prisoner numbers?

Mrs Long: We have a recruitment campaign, which I believe is due to start this autumn. As you know, I had agreed that we should add to our complement of prison officers to ensure that prisoners and prison staff are safe in our establishments and that we are able to maximise the regime. When we are low on numbers, it is not necessarily that people immediately become unsafe, but it does impact very much on prisoners' ability to access training and education, family visits and other things, because we have to have a more restrictive regime when we have fewer numbers. It is very important for us, for rehabilitation, education and family support, that we are able to give prisoners the full regime that is available as well as keeping prison officers and prisoners safe, so we will be recruiting to deal with that.

Mrs Long: As reported to the Department of Finance in the urgent in-year budget information-gathering exercise, my Department is facing inescapable stabilisation pressures of £48 million. This position remains unchanged. In addition, my Department is facing exceptional pressures of £227 million in relation to legal claims from McCloud injury to feelings, data breach and holiday pay. Those costs are not affordable within my Department's budget under any circumstance.

Whilst my Department has been proactive in taking action in recent years to ensure that we live within budget, we are now at the point where all options have been fully exhausted. Given the severity of the financial position and the demand-led nature of justice expenditure, there is really no scope for my Department to absorb the remaining pressures. I will continue to work with my Executive colleagues to ensure that the necessary funding for my Department is achieved in the October monitoring round.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, what actions have already been taken to live within budget?

Mrs Long: My Department has been proactive in taking difficult decisions to reduce the level of financial pressures to £48 million from £86 million after the June monitoring round. That has not been achieved without an adverse impact on the justice system, particularly but not solely on the PSNI in the recruitment of police officers. We are also having to manage significant pressures in legal aid, and the Department's payment policy is currently the matter of a judicial review. In the absence of sufficient additional funding being allocated to my Department, extremely difficult decisions on prioritisation and service provision will continue to be required.

As always, our priority is to keep people safe. However, at this stage, it is hard to see how any of the things that we are doing, whether in policy development, legislative progress or funding the front-line services, do not contribute to keeping people safe. We are not running off on fool's errands; we are very focused on core issues that are addressing the key issues that are affecting society.

Mrs Long: Section 9(3) of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 amended the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to extend the existing anonymity for victims of sexual offences and complainants in sexual offence cases for 25 years after their death. This amendment implemented a Gillen review recommendation as concerns had been raised with Sir John that a victim's identity may become known after their death with undue distress for their families.

Under section 3A of the 1992 Act, which was inserted by section 9(3) of the 2022 Act, an interested party can apply to the court after the victim or complainant's death for an order to have the reporting restrictions disapplied or modified. The reporting restrictions apply only in respect of sexual offences and do not prevent the reporting of a victim's name in relation to other offences that may have been committed, provided that such reporting does not lead to the identification of the person as a victim of a sexual offence.

The provision was commenced on 28 September 2023, and, to date, one application has been made to disapply reporting restrictions.

The application was granted by the court on 18 October 2024. That suggests that, at this early stage, the provision is operating as intended. However, as is always the case with new legislation, its operation in the courts will be kept under review. If Members have concerns, I am more than happy to meet them to discuss that.

Mr O'Toole: May I ask a brief supplementary?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Unfortunately, Mr O'Toole, there is no time for a supplementary.

That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Questions 1 and 6 have been withdrawn.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for the question. I made a commitment to unions and police staff that I would work with the Chief Constable and the Department of Finance to resolve the issue of ensuring that staff are paid a meaningful rate of revised environmental allowance in recognition of the important role that they play in the PSNI in keeping people safe, including in front-line roles. I am delighted to have assisted in securing the uplift, which is effective from 1 April 2025, and an interim payment, which was paid to people this year. I acknowledge the patience and understanding demonstrated by police staff, while the issue has been ongoing, and their cooperation as we move forward.

Mr Donnelly: Minister, has a future review mechanism been agreed?

Mrs Long: The issue of a future review mechanism continues. It was one of the more complex issues in ensuring that there were no repercussive implications. NIPSA is very much part of that conversation, as will the other unions be. It is our intention, hopefully, to be in a position to confirm that with the unions as soon as possible, whilst working closely with the Minister of Finance, whom I omitted to pay credit to for very quickly clearing the financial agreement once we had the detail in place.

Mrs Long: The Connect project, which is funded through the Executive programme on tackling paramilitarism and organised crime and led by the Education Authority, provides professionally qualified youth workers, based in two emergency departments, to engage with and support vulnerable young people aged from 15 to 25, who are often hard to reach and vulnerable to harm, when they arrive in emergency departments. An evaluation report, commissioned by the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, by Queen's University shows that 73% had probable PTSD and depression, over one quarter had been attacked with a weapon, 45% had been threatened by paramilitaries and 36% had been attacked by paramilitaries. On completion of the project, the young people were less likely to attend the ED, engage in unlawful behaviour, be exposed to violence, and screen for probable depression and were more likely to be employed. The report highlights the complex needs of many young people, which, if left unaddressed, can make them more vulnerable to violence and criminal exploitation. It also recognised the potential for this approach to further reduce youth violence and demands on hard-pressed critical care services.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister. Do you agree that learning from this project might be useful in other contexts, especially at a time when resources are so constrained and public services so stretched?

Mrs Long: I absolutely agree with the Member. The project is an excellent example of the use of a public health approach, which has been adopted by the tackling paramilitarism programme. It is about undertaking small-scale projects like this to address a specific issue, rigorously and robustly testing them, and looking to imbed and scale them in a way that works. The fact that this has been externally verified to have been successful is really important, because, in such constrained times, if we are going to put money into projects like this, it is important to mainstream things that we know actually work.

Mrs Long: Cases involving sexual crime are obviously some of the most intrusive and difficult for victims to endure. The impact on children is understandably far more intense. I have met young victims and their families who have told me directly how challenging the criminal justice process can be. The adult sexual offences legal adviser (SOLA) service was launched in April 2021, but there was recognition that, due to the greater complexity of child sexual offences, more time was required to develop an equivalent service for children, young people and their families. The additional preparation time has allowed us to engage with children and young people to seek their views on what a child SOLA service can deliver for them. It has also allowed us to learn lessons from the adult scheme.

Preparations to launch a specific SOLA service for children and young people are now well advanced. In September, Victim Support NI launched a process to recruit child SOLAs. The application process closed on 1 October. I anticipate that, subject to applicants being successful at interview and completing the required training, the new service will be operational early in the new year.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, will you outline the costs that might be associated with the roll-out of children's SOLAs?

Mrs Long: The roll-out will cost £134,000 in 2025-26 and £139,000 in 2026-27. It is really important to recognise the impact that the adult SOLAs have had on the willingness of victims and witnesses, who are often also victims, to turn up and give evidence in court and on their feeling supported and empowered in doing so. That often leads to early guilty pleas, which we discussed earlier. We hope that, with child SOLAs, we will be able to tackle some of the challenges that face young people, who may find even attendance at the remote evidence centre daunting. Having somebody there who can give them and their families legal advice and support as they navigate the justice system is incredibly important.

Mrs Long: Since December 2023, the Belfast remote evidence centre (REC) has hosted domestic abuse contest courts. On a DACC day, several contests are listed to run consecutively, with all victims giving their evidence from the REC. There have been four DACC days to date: 12 December, 11 March, 13 May and 23 December. A total of 18 cases have been listed to date, with 14 concluded and four adjourned to a future date. Of the 14 completed cases, there have been 12 convictions — nine by guilty plea, meaning that the victim did not need to give oral evidence, and three by guilty verdict — and two acquittals. Future days are scheduled.

Feedback, particularly from the judiciary and criminal justice organisations, has been extremely positive. Importantly, victims have also been extremely positive, with many of them saying that, without the REC, they would not have been able to continue with their case, they would not have given evidence and the perpetrator would therefore, in most cases, have walked free. The fact that victims are empowered to turn up makes it more likely that there will be a guilty plea or at least a trial. In the cases of people who did not receive the outcome that they hoped for, they nevertheless felt more empowered by being able to take part in the proceedings. That is incredibly important to people's ability to move on with their lives.

Mr McMurray: Will the Minister clarify whether any arrangements similar to those in Belfast and Craigavon are in place elsewhere?

Mrs Long: Although not part of the formal REC project, arrangements have been made to allow male and female victims of domestic abuse to give remote evidence from the Fermanagh Women's Aid building in Enniskillen. Officials are involved in discussions with partners to establish similar arrangements in the Foyle family justice centre. The success in Craigavon and Belfast indicates that that is the way forward for the very sensitive cases in which victims may be afraid of confronting their abuser or their abuser's supporters. To know that they are attending a different location means that they are able to give their evidence in the best way possible and with maximum confidence. Going through the courts is still a stressful process, but that opportunity has certainly been appreciated by the victims who have taken it.

Mrs Long: Given that most external organisations generally comment on the policy intent of a Bill rather than its clauses, it would probably be wise to consult on the policy content of the entire Bill, which is known to the Committee now. However, if the Committee wishes to wait, as is its wont, until it has all the clauses, that will be, as already indicated, before Christmas and potentially — some good news — slightly earlier than anticipated.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. I was going to ask her when she will publish the missing parts of her Justice Bill.

I am also concerned about when the Minister will introduce the sentencing Bill. Can she reassure the House that it will not be half a Bill?

Mrs Long: I can reassure the Member absolutely that it will not be half a Bill. The sentencing Bill is a much wider Bill in its policy extent and size. Whilst the Justice Bill is wide in scope, it is, as the Member will understand, narrow in focus and technical in nature.

The victims Bill is much wider-ranging. It covers many sensitive issues that have been raised with Members and on which I have been lobbied to deliver. My anticipated scheme is one Bill per year, and that remains my intent. Whether that Bill passes will be determined by the schedule that the Committee chooses to scrutinise the Justice Bill and whether it wants to manage two or, potentially, three Bills at once. The proposal for an 18-month Committee Stage creates the jeopardy that we may not be able to get the sentencing Bill or, potentially, the victims Bill through in the mandate.

Mrs Long: I very much share the views of Enda Dolan's parents. I have met them on a number of occasions and sought to reassure them that it is a priority for me. We have issued drafting instructions for what needs to be done. The policy intent is clear, and we have shared that with the family.

For five of the past 10 years, we have had no Assembly; I cannot control that. That has been the largest part of the delay. In the last mandate, I agreed that we would do this. The Assembly fell again, so we are back to where we are now. The Bill is moving forward. I cannot guarantee what business the Assembly will schedule and what time the Committee will take — those are matters for the Assembly and the House — but I can guarantee that my Department will bring forward a sentencing Bill in line with the legislative programme.

Ms Sugden: Will the Minister outline the impact on the wider criminal justice system of not taking forward the sentencing Bill?

Mrs Long: The Justice Bill that we are bringing forward deals with a lot of unfinished business in a lot of small, discrete and technical areas. It is important because a number of pieces are court-required, but it will not have a huge impact in its reach into the community. The latter two Bills of the mandate certainly do.

The sentencing Bill will cover, for example, aggravators for hate crime, aggravated offences for attacking public service workers and changes that we hope to make around death caused by dangerous and intoxicated driving. It will also cover Charlotte's law. A number of Members will be aware that the families of Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian have invested a huge amount of energy and effort to ensure that we have a version of Helen's law that, I believe, is superior to what has been introduced in England and Wales. If the Bill is not passed, that will fall until the next mandate. With all due respect to the House, given our reputation for moving swiftly and smoothly from one mandate to another, I understand why the families might despair at that thought.

There is also a specific issue with the victims Bill. We need to put the Victims' Commissioner on a statutory footing and finish implementing Gillen. Again, that is important work that needs to happen.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Sinéad McLaughlin. We have one minute left.

Mrs Long: The issue with the family court system is that it is, essentially, a judge-led system. Therefore, the changes in law that we bring forward in the Chamber are still at the discretion of scheduling and other things that happen in the court system. We introduced additional protections for cases where domestic abuse is involved, so that those involved could not cross-examine each other or use the courts vexatiously and to provide additional financial support.

Ultimately, at the heart of the family justice system is the child. That should be paramount in cases where judges make decisions on the future of a child. Any Member who is concerned that that has not happened in a particular case should write to the Lady Chief Justice and draw it to her attention.

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

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether any guidance exists for you or the other Deputy Speakers on ensuring that there is a plurality of questions, including from the official Opposition. Twice during Question Time, I was denied the opportunity to ask a supplementary question when time existed to answer it. I simply want to ask whether there is guidance on ensuring that the official Opposition, who are designated as such, have the opportunity to ask supplementary questions when they seek to ask them.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, on at least one occasion during Question Time, I took the supplementary questions in the order in which Members indicated and tried to ensure that there was a spread of questions from across the Chamber. My hope is that most Members would agree with that. However, I am happy to ask that your question, given that it involves my chairing of the Assembly, be referred to the Speaker's Office for an update and advice.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to address a matter that was raised by a Member for East Belfast on 14 October. The Member referred to comments that I made during the Second Stage debate on the Justice Bill on the Committee's request for a Keeling schedule. In my response, I indicated that a Keeling schedule had never been produced for an Assembly Bill. I have since been made aware by the Member that that was inaccurate. In raising the point of order, the Member identified three Keeling schedules that had been provided to Committees as well as a clear commitment that had been given to produce a schedule for one other Bill. She asked me to reconsider providing a schedule for the Justice Bill.

I am grateful to the Member for raising the matter. I thought it important to take the opportunity to apologise for my statement being factually incorrect and correct the record. I hope that Members will accept that I was speaking during the debate on the basis of information then provided to me by officials and that my mistake was inadvertent.

One of the schedules that have been identified was provided to the Committee for Justice in 2014 on the Legal Aid and Coroners' Courts Bill. It may raise eyebrows that we were unaware of it. However, that Bill predated my time in post as Justice Minister by some time and went through the House during a period when I was not a Member. Further, the officials who managed the Bill in 2014 have since left the Department, so there was no corporate memory in the Department of a Keeling schedule ever having been prepared.

We will write to the Committee for Justice shortly in response to a number of requests for information in respect of the Justice Bill, including its request for a Keeling schedule.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. That will be written into the record.

As indicated previously, time is up. Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item of business.

Ms Á Murphy: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion, which aims to prevent repeat offenders from harming animals and to enhance transparency and enforcement in protecting animal welfare.

Animal welfare is a shared priority across our island. It requires a unified approach to ensure high animal welfare standards and promote North/South cooperation to strengthen enforcement. Whilst we have made significant strides since the passage of the Welfare of Animals Act 2011, it is clear that more work lies ahead. We must continue to advance efforts to ensure that that legislation, along with the penalties that it imposes, acts as a strong deterrent to those who would harm animals.

In 2021, the former AERA Minister Edwin Poots, working with the then Justice Minister and other key stakeholders, took important steps to explore the creation of an all-island register of individuals convicted of animal abuse. That initiative was a recognition of the deep concerns of animal welfare charities regarding those convicted of such heinous and grotesque acts. However, the Minister cited legal and financial challenges, with concerns including compliance with data protection laws and the cost of establishing and maintaining a register. In March, the current AERA Minister stated that the creation of an all-island register was "untenable". It is crucial that we carefully examine the legal and financial issues involved in the establishment of the database.

A balanced approach should be explored to ensure effective enforcement and compliance with the law. Protecting animals is a priority, but we must ensure that the system is as robust and effective as possible. In addition, we need updated data on the number of individuals who reoffend after conviction to fully understand the scale of the issue and ensure that any measures that we implement are necessary and effective in preventing further abuse.

Our commitment to protecting animals must remain steadfast, and I am confident that, with the right actions, we will achieve even greater progress. We must continue to advance efforts here and across the island to ensure that legislation acts as a strong deterrent against who harm animals.

Ms Bunting: I am extremely passionate about the issue. Cruelty to and the mistreatment and neglect of animals are utterly repugnant. Many of us believe that there should be zero tolerance, yet we find ourselves in the most bizarre of circumstances: although some have been banned from keeping animals, there is no official record of them beyond the court and, therefore, nobody to ensure that the court's judgement of a ban is upheld and enforced. It is clear that, in the last mandate, progress was being made. The key now is to build on it and finally move to establish the register.

In 2020, I raised questions with the then AERA Minister, Mr Poots. He advised that the responsibility for creating a register was not entirely in his gift, as the data was held by the Department of Justice. He further cited issues of data protection, human rights and cost that had to be overcome but said that he was engaging with DOJ and would continue to do so to see whether those issues could be resolved. He indicated that he had requested his officials to take those efforts forward and develop potential next steps before the end of that year.

Mr Poots elaborated, saying that he did not get all the issues around data. Since most of the offences are public, the cases have been through the courts and so are already in the public domain. After all, the issue is to ensure that those who have been found guilty of cruelty to animals do not have the opportunity to do it again. The more people who are aware of that, the better.

At that time, the Minister cited considerable concern in the DOJ about how to handle and engage in compliance with existing procedures. He said that he hoped that, before we reached the end of the mandate, DOJ would be in a position to give the new Minister room to move it forward in conjunction with a future AERA Minister. Here we are, again seeking to move it forward. It is clear that there was movement and progression at the previous Minister's direction and under his leadership. All that remains is for the current Ministers to pick up his mantle.

Shortly after the restoration of devolution, I asked the current Minister whether he would bring forward proposals on an animal cruelty register, to which he responded that he was aware of the case for it and that his Department had identified operational challenges. I know that a Minister is not bound by a predecessor's views. However, it is clear that work was being done to progress the register, which matters to a multitude of our citizens and all right-thinking people but now appears to have stalled.

In March, the Justice Minister indicated that she had not had formal discussions with her colleague in DAERA about the register, as policy sits with his Department, but was open to discussing how best her Department could support his on the penalties and fines attached to animal welfare offences, whether that is through a register or otherwise.

Let us turn to sentencing. Many in Northern Ireland have been horrified by the cases that they have seen and are, at best, unhappy with the sentences meted out. Those are only the ones that receive press attention. In the last mandate, I asked the Minister whether she would make representation to the then Lord Chief Justice to ensure that judges made full use of the sentences available to them for animal cruelty offences. I am told that Northern Ireland has some of the most stringent sentencing available on animal cruelty. There are, however, few examples of stringent sentences being handed down. There are multiple repeat offenders, and sentences involving a ban on keeping animals cannot be implemented or enforced, which renders the sentence redundant and subjects further animals to cruelty and mistreatment.

The Minister indicated that sentencing was entirely a matter for the independent judiciary, taking into account all relevant factors in the individual case. She stated that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had the power to refer animal cruelty cases to the Court of Appeal, if he deems that the sentence handed down in certain Crown Court cases is unduly lenient. That might be fine, if any animal cruelty cases went to the Crown Court, but they almost never do. From where is the appeal request on lenient sentencing to come?

In my first meeting with the Lady Chief Justice, the issue of sentencing — the public's understanding of it and lenient sentencing — arose, so I took the opportunity to bring to her attention the public concern over the sentencing in some cases and the inability to appeal. The bottom line is this: if bans are to be meted out as part of a sentence, that sentence must be enforced, and it is impossible to enforce such a ban if there is no register. The whole thing becomes a farce and, thus, is far removed from being a deterrent or a means to prevent repetition.

If the will were there, it would be done. I believe that it is the will of the House and of the people of Northern Ireland, so let us get it done and provide more than lip service to issues of animal welfare and protection.

Mr Dickson: As someone who has had the sad duty to report a number of animal cruelty cases in my elected lifetime, I believe that there is no question that those who commit acts of cruelty against animals should be fully accountable for their actions. However, while the intention behind the motion is commendable, we have to approach it with a clear understanding of the complexities that it presents.

At the motion's core is a shared desire to ensure that individuals convicted of animal cruelty are prevented from reoffending. I wholly concur with and support that sentiment. Once someone has been demonstrated to be a danger to animals, they should never again be allowed to own or care for them. I recognise that the current system has shortcomings. The fact that only 12% of those convicted of animal welfare offences in Northern Ireland between 2018 and 2022 received custodial sentences is a stark reminder that much more needs to be done. However, we must be realistic about how we can address the issue. A register of animal welfare offenders may seem like an appealing solution, but it raises significant legal concerns. The most pressing of those relates to data protection. Any register that contains personal information about convicted individuals must comply with strict regulations, including GDPR. Legal advice indicates that establishing such a register, especially one that is accessible to third parties such as charities or pet retailers, could conflict with current data protection laws.

In addition to the legal challenges, the financial implications are substantial. Setting up and maintaining a register would require considerable resources, so, while we can support the further exploration of the idea, it would be somewhat misleading to suggest that a register could be implemented quickly or easily.

Despite the challenges, the Alliance Party remains committed to improving animal welfare. Indeed, under the leadership of our Minister at DAERA, Andrew Muir, we have made significant progress in tackling issues such as the illegal breeding and smuggling of puppies. We have also recognised the need for stronger protections and better enforcement, especially when it comes to preventing reoffending by those convicted of cruelty.

I appreciate that we share the goal of holding those convicted of animal cruelty to account and preventing reoffending, but we need to recognise the legal and practical challenges of having a register as proposed. Instead of offering unrealistic promises, it would be helpful if the Assembly could focus on practical steps that strengthen our animal welfare laws, ensuring that they are enforceable and effective and make a real difference.

Mr Dunne: I welcome the opportunity to speak on an important motion on animal welfare across Northern Ireland.

It is appropriate that the United Kingdom, as a nation of animal lovers — animals both domestic and farmed — has one of the toughest sentencing regimes in the world for animal cruelty. It is imperative that we in Northern Ireland keep pace and, indeed, lead the way on animal welfare when compared with neighbouring jurisdictions.

Our party is fully committed to ensuring that animals receive the necessary protections from harm and cruel mistreatment. We have been pleased to see recent progress in the area, as my colleagues have said, to tackle pet abductions and immoral puppy breeding practices. However, the statistics for animal abuse and those responsible for it show that, far too often, repeat offenders are able to get access to animals continuously, despite having already been punished for heinous animal cruelty crimes.

There is a very important role for the Department, our councils and the PSNI around animal welfare. We need to see a more coordinated, collaborative and joined-up approach to tackling animal cruelty. As can be the case on a range of issues here, there are often 11 different approaches to animal welfare across our councils — something that is not unique to the issue of animal welfare, where we have that variation, positively or negatively, across our 11 councils.

There is also a body of evidence that highlights an inconsistent approach by our judicial system to animal welfare sentencing across Northern Ireland and the awarding of sentences, including disqualification orders. Recent figures show that just 12% of those convicted of abuse or neglect towards animals end up with a custodial sentence. From that, we can take two points. First, it is clear that we need stronger deterrents to send a message to would-be abusers and, importantly, to prevent repeat offenders. Secondly, it is clear that reputable dealers and rehoming charities do not have access to the information to vet individuals who express an interest in purchasing or assuming care for an animal. Moreover, our local police officers and animal welfare officers are unaware if a potential offender already has a track record of animal cruelty when investigating complaints and potential crimes. By introducing an animal welfare offenders register, we can equip the relevant organisations with the tools to crack down on those responsible for these cruel, heinous and barbaric crimes, but we can also ensure that offenders are accountable for their crimes. Accountability is crucial, and we could do more on that.

Whilst there are legitimate concerns around the register's implications relating to budgets, data protection and human rights, there is evidence from across the world that it can be done, and I believe that it should be done. As my colleague Michelle McIlveen rightly highlighted, a number of examples exist around the world, including in New York and Finland, that demonstrate that it can work. Every effort should be made by the Minister on best practice from around the world. I appreciate his efforts, to date, on this important issue.

As has been said, there is strong appetite around our council chambers, with seven out of the 11 having debated or passed motions calling for the creation of a banned offenders register, since 2019 — something that has been supported by a number of charities, including the USPCA. I noted that one of the Minister's first visits was to the USPCA and that he stated that he wanted to make animal welfare a priority. This is an opportunity for him to demonstrate that with actions. Without such a register, the ability of the relevant statutory agencies with animal welfare enforcement responsibilities to ensure that bans on animal possession are enforced is severely limited. This is a welcome opportunity to put that forward. With those points in mind, our motion calls on the Minister to look seriously at establishing a register and to ensure that he consults with Ministers in the Republic of Ireland and, importantly, across the UK to ensure that we remain a world leader for animal welfare protection.

We all know the value that so many of us place on animals. We are often reminded of that, particularly when we go round the doors and see the number of dogs — often not just one but two or more dogs in, sometimes, every other home — and the love that they bring to so many people across our community in every corner of Northern Ireland. It is important that we give a voice to them today. I encourage the Minister to work with all colleagues and, through a joined-up approach, to look at a range of measures to improve the welfare of animals across Northern Ireland.

Mr Brett: As a proud member of the all-party group on animal welfare, I am pleased to make a short contribution to the debate. First and foremost, I pay tribute to my colleague the Member for Strangford Michelle McIlveen not only for tabling this important motion but for being a strong and relentless champion for animal welfare issues in our party, for many years. I thank her for that. I know that the Minister shares our passion in relation to addressing these important issues, and we look forward to hearing his remarks later today.

Animal cruelty and those who engage in it are a scourge upon society. I do not think that anyone outside the Chamber, or anywhere, would disagree with what we are trying to achieve: a ban on anyone who has been convicted of animal abuse being allowed to keep a pet or breed a pet.

We are all united in that and committed to working with the Minister to try to see how, collectively, the House and the Executive can deliver on that shared goal. As my colleague highlighted earlier, the fact that only 12% of the most extreme cases of animal welfare issues result in a custodial sentence is something that we should all be concerned about, and I am sure that it is something that the Minister continues to raise with his colleague the Justice Minister.

Budget pressures face all Departments, but the cut in funding for animal protection officers in our councils, which was highlighted earlier, is clearly an issue of concern. The Member for South Antrim Mr Blair and I proudly served on Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council over 10 years ago, and it was an issue that he and I worked strongly on. I was delighted that John and I were able to ban circuses with wild animals from being able to operate on council-owned property, and continued campaigns to ensure that the investment needed in animal welfare protection was at the forefront. That speaks to the issue: it is not a party political issue, but is something on which all Members of all sides of the House are united. In North Belfast, it is an issue that I raise regularly. I pay tribute to one campaigner in my constituency in particular: Ms Krystal Allen, who, every time I canvass or speak to her, asks whether we have managed to get the register in place, because it is such a vital issue.

When the Minister sums up — Members have articulated the difficulties in creating a register — what other aspects can we support the Minister in doing to ensure that preventing animal cruelty continues to be high on the agenda? It is a moral imperative upon us, as legislators, to put in place the strongest possible protections for animals across Northern Ireland, and if the House speaks today with one voice, united on this important issue, we can continue to work together to protect animals, which we all want to do.

Mr Durkan: The issue of animal cruelty stirs great emotion in many people who recognise the sentience of animals and their right to live free from human abuse. Equally, the persistent failure to deal adequately with the perpetrators of animal cruelty continues to enrage many. Most of us find the crime of abusing a defenceless animal particularly disturbing, serious, unacceptable and deserving of a custodial sentence. However, despite the horror and disgust that those crimes evoke, we have failed to implement robust laws and processes either to deter would-be offenders or prevent reoffending. More must be done. The figures that have been cited — only 12% of those convicted of animal cruelty receive a custodial sentence — communicate just how low down in the pecking order the welfare of animals is here. Animals that can feel anxiety, fear and pain deserve our protection. It is high time that the Executive acted to ensure the welfare of animals and to deliver justice to those who perpetrate these terrible crimes.

The SDLP led the charge for the establishment of an all-island cruelty register, launching its campaign and petition on the matter a few years ago, recognising that animal welfare knows no borders. To tackle animal cruelty across the island, an all-island approach is absolutely necessary to prevent offenders from owning pets across the jurisdictions. In response to my earlier request, the Minister stated that the creation of such a register was untenable and that a clear evidential need was not identified. How can that possibly be, when we see so many high-profile and heartbreaking cases in the media? The evidence is all too clear. How many more examples do we need to see before real action is taken?

As I said, the SDLP would like to see a cross-border approach. At the very least, as Mr Dunne said, we would like to see a consistent, cross-council approach to animal welfare, with councils adequately resourced and empowered to do more.

We feel that the motion could go a wee bit further. While the creation of a register is welcome, we must also look at preventing known animal abusers from acquiring a pet by other means. We have no reliable register of animal breeders in the North. There is a huge black economy in which unscrupulous puppy breeders are willing to hand vulnerable animals over to anyone with the money to buy them. Indeed, serious animal welfare considerations remain with regard to some legal dog-breeding establishments. There are farms, and there are factories. Moreover, with no registered dog breeders at all in huge swathes of the North, the picture emerges of an unchecked and unregulated black market in which we have no real idea of how many dogs there are. Without implementation of wider legislation that takes seriously the issues around breeding and dog ownership, we stand little chance of ending animal welfare crimes.

I was glad to receive a commitment from the Minister to introduce Lucy's law in the North, which will, effectively, spell the beginning of the end of puppy farming here. I would like an update from the Minister on the Department's progress on that issue and, hopefully, a time frame for implementation.

Whilst more stringent controls on those who can acquire a pet would be welcome, and tougher sentences for animal abusers are greatly needed, those actions alone will not go far enough to ensure that our animals enjoy the safety and protection that they deserve. Whilst we commend much in the motion and will certainly support it, I reiterate the SDLP's call for the Executive to go even further and act to establish an animal welfare commission, following the example that was set by the Scottish Government. If we are truly to take animal welfare seriously, we need a comprehensive, well-funded and evidence-led strategy to tackle animal abuse.

Mr Gaston: Some weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending an event held in Parliament Buildings by the Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group. I undertook to explore some of the issues that the group raised with me. I make no apology for drawing heavily from its policy priorities document, which, in a logical and devastating way, highlights how devolution has failed the animals that we are talking about. The first page of the document opens with this telling sentence:

In England, the Animal Welfare Regulations 2019, better known as Lucy's law, are designed to prevent third-party sales. There are loopholes that we can learn from. In particular, we must stop the importing of puppies and kittens from outside the UK to then be sold on by dishonest sellers to innocent members of the public. However, at least a start has been made.

As well as seeking tougher sentences, there is a lot of merit in the suggestions that we introduce regulations on breeding establishments and subject rehoming organisations, sanctuaries and pound and kennelling facilities to licensing and inspection. I note that, while the Westminster Government introduced compulsory microchipping of pet cats in England earlier this year, there is no such plan for that in Northern Ireland that I am aware of.

We are falling behind the rest of the UK in how we deal with those issues. Even when it comes to what is already in place, the system simply is not working. There are up to 10 animal welfare officers working across Northern Ireland. That figure is woefully inadequate given the job that they are required to perform. I am reliably advised by those who engage with the sector that that number is regularly much lower due to staff sickness. When I sought to explore the extent, the Minister washed his hands of the matter and said that it was for councils to deal with. There is an urgent need for a guiding hand to oversee the issue. If it is not for the Minister and DAERA, who is it going to fall to?

Mr Carroll: I support the motion, but I also want to draw attention to animal cruelty that happens on a deep societal level and is usually deemed acceptable or, even, lauded. The organisation of our society around the profit incentive has widened the rift between humans and nature to a point beyond all recognition. In particular, the widespread abuse of animals in factory farms is animal cruelty on an industrial scale.

Moy Park was recently lauded for being the first company in the North to reach a turnover of £2 billion even though it cut its workforce by 7% in the process. For now, leave aside the fact that there has not been a statement from any Minister about Moy Park's profits, which really shows the power of capital to avoid ever being questioned or challenged. Moy Park has a serious problem with animal welfare, but nobody seems to want to talk about it. Video evidence of the treatment of chickens at Moy Park is disgusting and abominable. Chickens in the factory farm live in horrifying conditions in double-decker sheds. Birds are left unable to walk, they live with horrific injuries and they are deprived of water. That is bad enough, but people are also supposed to eat that stuff. In 2022, chickens at Moy Park died in a particularly cruel way — slowly and of heat exhaustion — because of inadequate ventilation during a heatwave. If that is not textbook animal cruelty, what is?

In addition to treating animals with abject cruelty, Moy Park is a notorious polluter of the local environment that damages our soil quality and pollutes our water, constantly breaching legal limits for pollutants at Lough Neagh. Executive parties reward Moy Park for its impressive animal cruelty with industrial derating, which is likely to be worth millions, if not tens of millions, of pounds. On one level, parties bang the table about tougher sentencing, but, when it comes to Moy Park, it is a case of "Fill your boots". I predict that there will be no arrests of the senior management or chief executives of that organisation.

We also need to talk about the role of landlords, who often force people to get rid of pets or prevent them from having pets. People should be able to have pets, not only for the obvious health benefits but for the enjoyment that they bring to their lives. Landlords should not have a veto on that. Surely those landlords who force people to give up pets are, by extension, engaging in animal cruelty.

My final point is about the fact that the North is the only part of these islands — in the UK, at least — without a ban on hunting with dogs. I know that the Member for South Antrim John Blair is trying to rectify that, but it is a serious hole that needs to be legislated on if we are going to stop animal cruelty.

Ms Sugden: I support the motion to establish a register of animal welfare offenders. We must strengthen our efforts to protect animals and prevent repeat offences. If people are capable of that behaviour once, they are capable of it again. It would be remiss of us not to use that information to protect animals, particularly when animal welfare issues are increasing and becoming more sinister.

Animal welfare is not an isolated issue but a reflection of the health values and humanity of our society; it is deeply embedded in the wider societal challenges that we face. Earlier this month, I sponsored an important animal welfare conference in the Long Gallery, hosted by Causeway Coast Dog Rescue, which brought together key stakeholders from across these islands, including Dogs Trust and Battersea Dogs' Home. A key theme was the link between animal abuse and human violence. It is well documented that those who harm animals are more likely to commit violent acts against people. By recognising that cruelty link, we can help our wider community. That underscores the fact that improving animal welfare is not just about animals but about creating safer and more compassionate communities for everyone.

The issue is not new to the House. I recall responding to a similar debate when I was Minister of Justice eight years ago, so it remains an active concern for Members, the public and advocacy groups. I expect that most Members in the House, including the Minister, are supportive of a register. However, as has been mentioned, there are challenges with its implementation, including the legal framework, public accessibility and cooperation across all the relevant agencies. I recall responding with similar concerns when I was Minister, but we need to work through those challenges because the issue persists. Perhaps it is helpful that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs are from the same party: the cooperation might between the two Departments might be better than it previously was.

For the register to work effectively, we need to underpin it with a solid legal framework. There is enforcement through the Welfare of Animals Act 2011, but that remains fragmented. A centralised register with clear legal backing would streamline enforcement and ensure that bans on offenders are not just theoretical but enforceable. A register of that kind will not only act as a deterrent but ensure that convicted offenders are prevented from owning or acquiring new animals. Currently, the enforcement of bans on offenders keeping animals is inconsistent. A register would close that gap by providing a centralised, accessible resource. It would enable rehoming centres, pet sellers and law enforcement to easily verify whether an individual was prohibited from keeping animals. That transparency is crucial to building public trust and ensuring that those who report abuse feel that their concerns are taken seriously.

Finally, as other Members and I mentioned, cooperation is key to underpinning such a register across all agencies, including the Department, councils and the PSNI, and essential for the success of such an initiative. The fragmented nature of the current system has led to inconsistent enforcement and confusion about roles and responsibilities. As MLAs, we all receive reports of animal welfare issues in our constituencies where there has been no follow-up. People feel that nothing was done, and councils say that they do not have the enforcement powers. That in itself warrants a review of current animal welfare legislation. We need to focus our efforts on the perpetrators so that they will not be allowed to keep animals again. It makes no sense that we have that information yet allow that to happen. In a way, that puts the responsibility back on to us as Members.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Andrew Muir, Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, to respond to the debate. Minister, you have 15 minutes.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for the respectful debate and for the opportunity to respond.

I understand and empathise with the concerns of Members, stakeholders and the public about animal welfare sentencing. The Welfare of Animals Act 2011 made it an offence to inflict unnecessary suffering on an animal. At that point, the offence was triable in a Magistrates' Court, and the maximum available sentence was six months in prison. In 2014, Members raised concerns with the then Minister about the limitations of the penalties in the Act, following a horrendous animal welfare case in which the perpetrators received suspended sentences. The Minister listened and undertook a review, and parties in the House worked together to introduce tougher sanctions. Those included the ability to refer animal welfare cases to the Crown Court and the potential for five-year custodial sentences.

The new sanctions became law in 2015, and, at that juncture, Northern Ireland had the toughest penalties for animal welfare offences in the UK and Ireland. It was viewed as a triumph for animal welfare and a recognition that the House and the people of Northern Ireland would not tolerate animal cruelty. Tellingly, Scotland enacted five-year sentences only in 2020, with England and Wales following suit in 2021. Therefore, it is evident that we have the tools and ultimate sanctions to deal with offending.

Our animal welfare laws are on a par with anywhere in these islands. I must stress, however, that I cannot control how animal welfare prosecutions are taken forward, nor can I dictate what sentences should be handed down by the judiciary. Quite rightly, no Minister has the power to intervene and take charge of criminal cases. I am not shirking responsibility, but I want to be frank when I say that there is no legislation that I can commend to the House that would resolve everyone's frustrations around sentencing.

The courts and judiciary operate independently and are free from government influence. No matter how worthy the subject under scrutiny, that should always be the case. At present, the Public Prosecution Service could choose to send animal welfare cases to the Crown Court rather than to the Magistrates' Court. My understanding is that its decision depends on the severity and circumstances of the case, and the maximum sentences available will differ depending on where the case is heard. When the PPS determines that a case be heard in the Crown Court, the maximum sentence is five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

It is clear from the correspondence that I receive that the citizens of Northern Ireland view animal welfare offences as some of the most serious types of offence. Some of the letters highlight a disparity between the expectations of the public and how those cases are processed in the judicial system. I recently asked my officials to engage with the statutory agencies across the justice system to better understand the rationale when they determine which court will hear animal welfare offence cases. It is important that we get an understanding of prosecution policy and which factors determine how a case is handled. It is vital that the organisations in the justice system, which are, quite rightly, focused on their own responsibilities and functions, be made aware of the public's views on animal welfare and how they expect those who inflict pain and suffering on animals will be punished. We must get maximum utility out of the powers that we have. I am conscious that my predecessor, Edwin Poots MLA, now Speaker of the House, wrote to the Lady Chief Justice in 2021 to seek clarity on sentencing guidelines. The Lady Chief Justice's office advised that judges are very conscious of their range of sentencing powers when passing sentences. Her office made it clear that sentences must be based solely on the evidence that is provided and take appropriate account of any sentencing guidelines and mitigating and aggravating factors.

The sentencing guidelines for animal welfare offences are published and available to view on the Judiciary NI website. Those guidelines were most recently updated in November 2018. Any case for further update of those guidelines is a matter on which I will engage with stakeholders in the time ahead. I will talk about that planned engagement with stakeholders. With respect to the sentences that are available, I am content that the range of penalties that are available here is appropriate and on par with what is available to judges across the rest of the UK. I want to make it clear that I respect the role of the judiciary here and the importance of impartiality, and I highlight to Members that the full use of the sentencing that is available is a matter for judges who do take into account the individual aspects of any particular animal welfare case that is before them.

On bans and disqualification orders, the motion states:

but it also refers to:

I will endeavour to provide some detail around current powers because, as the motion suggests, the law here already enables individuals to be prohibited from owning animals. When a person is convicted of either a section 4 offence, causing unnecessary suffering, or a section 9 offence, failing to meet the needs of animal, a court has the discretion to impose what is known as a disqualification order. The nature and intent of disqualification orders can be varied, which gives the court scope to deal with a broad range of circumstances. For example, a person can be disqualified from owning animals for a defined period of time or given a lifetime ban, depending on the gravity of the case. A person can also be banned from participating in the keeping of animals, having influence on the keeping of animals, transporting animals or even arranging the transport of animals. When a disqualification order is handed down, the court can also take any animals that the person owns from them and arrange for them to be disposed of. Finally, if a person who has received the disqualification order holds a licence for a regulated activity involving animals, that licence can be revoked. I reiterate that the decision to impose a disqualification order does not rest with my Department, the council or the police. The decision to impose that order is a sanction that can be applied only by a judge.

From the statistical data that has been supplied to me covering the period from 2018 to 2022, I am aware of four people who were found to have breached a ban on keeping animals. Even one person breaching a ban is too many, so, be assured that, where a breach of a ban is detected, action is being, and will be, taken.

On a register of animal welfare offenders, which is the substantial aim of the motion, it is not the first time that my Department has been asked to consider establishing a register of offenders. The desire to implement a register first surfaced in 2014, when the then Minister, Michelle O'Neill, instigated a review of the implementation of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. As part of that review, stakeholders asked that consideration be given to publishing the names and details of offenders on a central list. In essence, such a central list already exists. Data on convictions is held on the Department of Justice's Causeway system and can be accessed via the criminal records viewer (CRV). Officials determined that it would be possible, in theory, for organisations beyond the criminal justice system to access the criminal records viewer, but each organisation wishing to do so must be able to demonstrate a legitimate business need, such as national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country; the prevention of disorder or crime; the protection of health or morals; and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In short, criminal records data is deemed to be highly sensitive personal information, and the bar to access that information is set at a high level.

The review also found that, even if a case could be made for public access, organisations would have to sign up to a data sharing agreement and must abide by strict control procedures. Finally, it found that the creation of a central list that was made available to non-statutory bodies would engage difficult and complex issues around freedom of information, data protection, the rehabilitation of offenders and protecting certain human rights, particularly the right to life and the right to a family life.

Following that analysis, there was insufficient evidence or justification to recommend that a register be established. The review concluded that a better option was to continue to focus resources on front-line enforcement duties. Many organisations also stated that they deployed a range of different measures to provide assurance regarding the suitability of those to whom an animal is rehomed.

The final report, which addressed the matter, was formally published by the then Minister, Michelle McIlveen, in November 2016.

Since taking up this role, I have fielded many questions about creating a register that operates not just here but on an all-Ireland basis. I asked my officials to re-examine all of the available evidence, and I met my counterpart in the Irish Government, Minister Charlie McConalogue, to determine whether there was a desire for some sort of cross-border register. The legal complexities and protections that were present in 2014, when the ask was first made, still pertain today. We cannot shy away from the fact that there are safeguards in sharing personal data and that those are difficult to overcome.

My officials have advised me that one potential workaround would be for my Department to put in place a team that would have access to the Causeway system. Third parties could then make requests for information to that team, which would determine the veracity and lawfulness of the requests. That approach would require significant investment in staff and resource and would certainly need ongoing legal support. Work would need to be undertaken to scope out costs, but broad estimates from 2021 suggest that annual costs could be about £1 million for staff, the securing of the necessary IT and training. Unfortunately, that is money that my Department does not have. It is questionable whether such an approach would ever pass the value-for-money test. We should never apply the value-for-money test to preventing cruelty to animals in Northern Ireland; I am just talking about how we would evaluate it and make a business case. It is also questionable whether such an approach would deliver benefits and have the impact that we want to see in safeguarding animals against cruelty.

My officials also stated that they had explored the possibility of a voluntary code, where animal rehoming organisations and commercial pet shops would be required to get prospective animal owners to apply for a basic AccessNI check. That would disclose the details of that check to the organisation or business concerned before the transfer of the pet took place. It was felt that that way forward could be implemented once guidance is developed and that it could be operational within months. There would be no cost to the public purse or rehoming organisations, and it would allow access to all unspent convictions.

Towards the end of 2022, officials engaged with the Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group to test their proposal. The Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group ruled out implementing the proposal, as it believed that it could lead to potential delays to rehoming pets due to the wait for the criminal record check; that rehoming centre staff could be put in a volatile position if they refused to rehome an animal due to previous convictions; and that it may dissuade potential owners due to the additional cost of the check, which is £16. While I respect the views of the Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group, it could be argued that those concerns would exist even with direct access to the criminal records viewer.

As it stands, no other part of the UK or Ireland has plans to create or establish a register of animal welfare offenders. When I spoke to Charlie McConalogue in September, he outlined that his Department was not contemplating establishing any form of register. The Welsh Government invited RSPCA Cymru to lead a task and finish group to explore the feasibility of a register in 2018. That exercise involved examining the effectiveness of registers operating in Finland and parts of the USA, as has been mentioned here today. The conclusion reached by the Welsh group was that no evidence could be found to prove that registers are as effective as desired; indeed, the findings of the group indicated that animal welfare agencies in the USA had concluded that the registers did not work. The report concluded that the operation of a register would involve a significant cost to government and that there are legal barriers that would prevent the establishment of the register. That mirrors the experience of my Department.

I have approached the matter with fresh eyes and an open mind. I have brought it to the attention of the Irish Government. I have not been found wanting. I have probed the topic in depth, as officials will know. It is hard to escape the fact that my Department has explored the matter on three separate occasions and creating a register remains legally complex and cost-prohibitive. If the rescue and rehoming sector or similar organisations feel that they need additional safeguards, an option already exists to establish their own processes around AccessNI checks.

Ultimately, my vision is to take Northern Ireland to a place where we do not have to rely on reactive enforcement. I want Northern Ireland to be a place where the lives of animals are appreciated and valued and people realise that maltreatment and abuse is abhorrent and wrong. Strong legislation and robust enforcement powers are only one component of achieving that aim. We also need to engage, educate and inform current and prospective animal owners on making the right choices and to give them the information that they need. To achieve that vision, I need the support of everyone in the House, all stakeholders and people in Northern Ireland with an interest in the well-being of animals and the general public.

I will say a few things to conclude. I support the motion, and I am happy to look at the issue again. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed in the House. The Member from North Antrim Timothy Gaston commented that we have fallen behind: that is partially due to the fact that the House did not sit for a number of years and we were not able to bring forward policy and legislation. I am glad that we are here, and I will use the rest of the mandate to the best of my ability to progress policy and legislation. I am engaging with the Finance Minister about the resources that can be allocated to my Department so that it can bring forward policy and legislation in the next financial year and beyond, because doing so requires resources. Over the next period, we will engage with the relevant stakeholders, whose work I immensely value, to understand the policy and legislative priorities that we can take forward.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I will finish in one second.

A question was asked about Lucy's law. We will bring that forward during this mandate, but I will engage with stakeholders about what else we can do. If the Department can get additional resources, that will give me much more scope to bring things forward. I will consider the issue that has been raised today, because we need to do what we can to tackle animal cruelty in Northern Ireland.

I am happy to give way to Gerry.

Mr Carroll: Do you have any concerns about industrial animal cruelty, which I raised?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have run out of time.

Mr Muir: I will follow up in writing with the Member.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I call Tom Buchanan to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. I advise you, Tom, that you have 10 minutes.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all the participants in today's debate.

The creation of a register of animal welfare offenders is an essential step in the protection of our animals from the hands of those who treat them with such cruelty, inflicting untold pain on them and, in some cases, leaving them to die in some of the most horrendous circumstances. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber has, at some stage, seen photographs or videos of animals that have been in a very poor condition. Therefore, we must all strive to ensure that animals in our society, whether farmed animals or pets, are cared for and treated appropriately; that those who abuse animals are punished and pay the price for what they have done; and that those with statutory and legal responsibilities for animals' care and welfare and for enforcement have the required support and resources to carry out their responsibilities.

In the absence of a register of animal welfare offenders, bans on convicted offenders are particularly worthless. Offenders can be banned by the courts one week but, within a few weeks, can acquire animals again and reappear in court on further cruelty charges, simply as a result of the fact that the authorities and rehoming charities and other responsible bodies have no knowledge of those individuals' status. If we are serious about avoiding repeat harm and taking a preventative approach to crime that impacts animals, we cannot shrink from our responsibility to exhaust all avenues to make progress on the matter. While there are complex issues around data protection, human rights and cost, those must be addressed and overcome.

The lack of a central banned offenders register means that reputable dealers and rehoming charities do not have access to the information that they require to vet individuals who express an interest in purchasing, rehoming or assuming care of an animal. It also results in police officers and animal welfare officers being unaware of whether a potential offender is banned from owning animals when they investigate fresh complaints. Another approach that we need to consider is raising awareness among our young people and educating them about responsible ownership and the value of animals. That should go a long way towards rooting out the evil crime against our animals, but the register is one of the main things that we need the Minister to introduce.

I will focus on some issues that were raised on the Floor today. My colleague, in proposing the motion, spoke about enforcement measures and said that they needed to be robust and effective. That is the big difficulty: the measures are not robust and effective enough to cut out the problem. She spoke about her disappointment with DAERA cutting financial resources to councils and pointed out that, in 2016, seven councils called for the establishment of an animal welfare register. She said that the cut in funding will have devastating effects on councils that are seeking to carry forward their work on animal welfare issues. She also talked about data protection and cited other areas around the world where such a register is already in place.

Declan McAleer spoke of the importance of government agencies working together to address this important issue. It is key that Departments all work collectively to address the issues that we have before us.

John Blair said that his party takes the issue seriously. Well, his party has the AERA Ministry and the responsibility sits there, so let us see whether the Minister will now take positive action on the issue. It is all very well to stand up in the House and say that they take the matter seriously, but let us see what positive action will be taken following the debate.

Robbie Butler spoke of the USPCA proposals to strengthen animal welfare. Of course, the USPCA brought forward proposals, raised concerns and talked about how the Assembly should take note of the issues.

Mr McGlone supported the call for the Minister to move forward with the establishment of a register for those convicted of animal welfare crimes. He spoke about a public petition that was brought to the House some time ago. He said that our key priority should be to ensure that a register is established in order to protect the animals in our society.

Áine Murphy spoke of the Welfare of Animals Act of 2011 and said that more work is needed to strengthen it. She mentioned the problems around data protection and the requirement for updated data on offenders. She said that we must remain steadfast on the protection of our animals. There is a clear message coming from around the House today that we all need to stand steadfast on the protection of our animals.

My colleague Joanne Bunting said that she is extremely passionate about the issue. She talked about the bizarre position that there is no record of the people who are already banned from keeping animals. That is where the downfall is: there is no record of those who are banned from keeping animals. She spoke of work that was done in the House in the past and said that all that remains is for the Minister to pick up the mantle and progress with the register. I think that everyone around the House will agree with that: it is up to the Minister to pick up the mantle of the work that has already been done and take it forward. She said that sentences must be enforced but it is impossible to do that without a register. She said that we should move forward and get it done rather than paying more lip service to it. While we have paid lip service to it around the Chamber today, let us now make progress and get something done about it.

My colleague Stephen Dunne spoke of the important role for the Department, the councils and the PSNI and mentioned the need for a more joined-up approach. While councils and other agencies have responsibilities, it is up to the Department to give the lead to the councils. We have 11 councils that perhaps do different things, but, if the Department were to take the lead and set the standard for them, the councils would all take the same approach. Again, there is a role for the Department there. My colleague talked about the inconsistent approach in the justice system and said that a stronger deterrent is required. He also said that those who have been charged must be held accountable for their actions.

He spoke of the love that domestic animals bring and how many families across Northern Ireland have that love for the domestic animals.

My colleague Phillip Brett, a member of the all-party group on animal welfare, spoke about animal cruelty and how those involved are a scourge on society. We all agree that those involved in animal cruelty are a scourge. It is morally imperative that we, as legislators, put in place legislation that is as strong as possible to stop animal cruelty.

The Minister set out the legislative process that exists. He said that action will be taken where a breach is detected. He wants this to be a place where animals are protected and valued. He raised some concern about data processing and data protection. Minister, all those issues can be overcome. Where there is a will, there is a way, and if you are prepared to take this forward, there is no doubt that legislation on a register for animal welfare offenders can be brought to the House and supported.

Therefore I commend the motion to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next item of business is a motion from the Opposition on raising awareness of the dangers of vaping amongst children.

Mrs Mason: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: For clarity, the motion is not from the official Opposition. Chill your jets. It is the way the motion is written.

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. Two amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Cathy, please open the debate.

Mrs Mason: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

We are facing a growing crisis in our schools that poses a significant threat to the health, well-being and education of our young people. Vaping has rapidly emerged as one of the biggest concerns among schools, parents and young people themselves right across the North. Something that was once confined to a small portion of society, and was seen as a tool to help people stop smoking, has become one of the top disciplinary challenges for schools. I hear constantly from principals that vaping on school grounds is becoming uncontrollable. It is now one of the primary issues that they must deal with daily. I have sat in meetings with principals who have reached into their desk drawers and pulled out bags of hundreds of confiscated vapes. They have also described scenes of police vehicles and ambulances being called to school grounds, sometimes on a daily basis.

Principals, teachers and school staff are rightly concerned about the rising number of children who are vaping. Their concern stems from the fact that they feel ill-equipped and unsupported in tackling the growing problem. Staff are struggling to keep up with the scale of the issue and they are doing so with minimal guidance and resources. The situation is untenable and unfair. Let me be clear though: the recent move to ban single-use vapes is a positive step. It shows a willingness to address the problem, but unfortunately it falls short of tackling the broader issue. The reality is that refillable and reusable vapes remain as easily accessible as disposable ones.

In preparing for the debate, I met with a range of public health experts. It is clear that there are practical things that we can start looking at now that could make a difference. The Tobacco Retailers Act was introduced in 2014. Things have moved on so much since then, and we need to keep up. We could look at a new licensing regime for retailers who sell the products and get tougher on those who flout the law and sell them to children. These devices are marketed with bright, eye-catching packaging, appealing advertising and, most concerning of all, sweet flavourings that are designed to attract young audiences. A study from King's College London found that the colourful designs on vape packaging, alongside enticing flavour options, were far more appealing to young people. The most commonly used vape flavour amongst children is fruit, which 60% of young users are choosing. That tells us something important. We are not dealing with an accidental issue here. Vape companies are deliberately targeting young people with their products, and that should alarm us all.

Removing single-use vapes does not address the underlying pressures that young people face, particularly in a school environment where peer influence is strong. Schools are under enormous pressure trying to enforce disciplinary measures for students caught vaping on school grounds. Right now, the default position is often to suspend those who are caught, but that approach is causing further problems. Students who are already struggling with nicotine addiction are being removed from their classrooms, missing valuable learning time and possibly falling further behind in their education. We need an expert-led process that aims to eradicate vaping in schools whilst ensuring that it does not create educational disadvantages for those children. The current response is not working, and it risks leaving vulnerable children even more marginalised.

Nicotine e-liquid vaping is only part of the issue. There has been a sharp increase in reports from principals that students are vaping marijuana, THC liquids and even more dangerous synthetic drugs such as spice. That is where the issue becomes even more concerning. Some schools have been forced to vacate classrooms and designate safe spaces for students who are high on those substances. Just imagine the impact that that is having on the educational environment, not just for the students who are involved but for everyone in the school. It is unacceptable that under-resourced schools are being forced to surrender facilities to deal with those dangerous situations.

The educational and health impacts are profound. Not only are the students who vape those substances at serious risk but their peers are being affected. Children who witness a classmate being escorted out of a room because they are high on illegal substances can become distressed. Worse still, there are cases of students being spiked and unknowingly vaping substances that they are unaware of. That serious child safeguarding issue must be addressed with urgency. Principals are also being forced to take extraordinary measures. Some have had to close certain toilet blocks and supervise others to prevent students from using those spaces to vape. That is simply not acceptable. Schools should not have to lock down essential facilities or stretch their already thin resources even further just to combat this issue. It highlights the severity of the problem and underscores the lack of support that schools are receiving.

The Minister of Education and his Department must step up and acknowledge their responsibility here. Teachers and school staff need support, training and the resources necessary to address vaping in schools effectively. It is not an issue that can be left to individual schools to solve on their own. A comprehensive strategy is urgently needed. We must ensure that young people are provided with the correct, up-to-date information on the risks of vaping. It is crucial that children understand the risks not just to their health but to their education and future. We need a comprehensive plan that goes beyond just banning single-use vapes. We need a strategy that tackles the vaping crisis on all fronts through education, better support for school staff and a legislative process that works.

Vaping is not just a school issue; it is a community issue, a health issue and an educational issue, and it requires a comprehensive, united response. Vaping in schools is a crisis, and we cannot afford to ignore it. Let us act now before more young people are harmed by this dangerous trend. The health, well-being and future of our children depend on it.

Mrs Guy: I beg to move amendment No 1:

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

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I support the motion. Our amendment is intended to complement the motion and acknowledge that this is an issue that, like many others, requires cross-body cooperation. Parents, carers, teachers and young people are concerned about the prevalence of vaping among under-18s. Data shows a huge growth in the number of young people who are vaping. The Northern Ireland young persons’ behaviour and attitude survey 2022 states that 21·3% of 11- to-16-year-olds reported using an e-cigarette; that is one in five. It is illegal to sell vapes to anyone under 18 in Northern Ireland. However, the 2024 Underage Vape Sales report notes that, in Northern Ireland, there was:

Enforcement of these laws belongs with local councils, which is why our amendment includes councils as a necessary partner in addressing the issue. Enforcement can play a part, but it is fallible when we consider that young people are getting vapes from older people who are buying them for them.

An increasing counterfeit market and buying vapes online are other access points for our young people, who are being enticed by smart marketing, different brands and designs and a huge number of flavours. It is clear that young people are a key demographic, or, arguably, the key demographic being actively targeted by these products. The idea that they exist solely for the purpose of helping smokers to quit is long past credible. In fact, there is an evidence base that vaping is now creating new, young smokers — or rather, new, young, cigarette smokers, which is an important distinction in this debate. The reality is that this is a multimillion-pound industry, prevalent in popular culture, that will look to attract new customers wherever it can and protect its own interests.

The thing that I really worry about is that we do not know the long-term health implications. I fear that we are sleepwalking into a health crisis. Last year, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health released a stark statement calling for the outright ban of disposable vapes, given their popularity among young people, which it says is fast becoming an epidemic. One extract from that statement is:

Even without such studies, a recent statement from the British Toxicology Society detailed a pretty terrifying list of risk factors, such as nicotine addiction, causing damage to developing brains, anxiety, depression, poor concentration, ingestion of heavy metals and the spiking of vapes with substances such as spice.

Turning to the wording of the motion, I support its intention and fully acknowledge that schools should be getting further support to stop vaping happening on school grounds, but I worry about the scale of the issue in schools and outside of schools. Having teachers, parents, youth workers and healthcare professionals all raising awareness about the risks is good, but we need to accept that those interventions will not necessarily persuade kids, many of whom are trying to fit in or are living out some teenage rebelliousness.

As policymakers, however, we have the power to do more. Our amendment calls for the Education and Health Ministers, along with local government, to work together to end youth vaping. We should approach this with the same urgency and seriousness as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. We need to put a ban on disposable vapes, which is something that my colleague Andrew Muir has committed to doing. We need to see what can be done around heavily restricting advertising, flavours, packaging and shop displays. We need a harsh clampdown on shops selling to young people, and I know that that will take funding; the introduction of age-of-sale requirements for non-nicotine vapes, which they already have in Scotland; the potential limiting of where can stock vapes; and, of course, making support available to schools.

I thank Sinn Féin for tabling the motion and, as a mother of teenagers, for refocusing my mind on just how important, prevalent and scary this issue is. I hope that our amendment will receive cross-party support.

Mr Brooks: I beg to move amendment No 2

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, David. You have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. Please open the debate on the amendment, David.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Vaping is clearly, as we have heard, a growing issue across our society. I am not a smoker or a vaper, but, in engaging in the discussion, I think that it is important to do so honestly and rationally and to recognise that, while, in general, all substance addiction is harmful and should be actively discouraged, evidence suggests that, relatively speaking, vapes are significantly less harmful than cigarettes, which were, I suspect, more prevalent in the school years of most Members in the Chamber. We all know of smokers who have used vapes to stop smoking. Where they are used in that way, they can be a positive.

That having been said, addiction is not where anyone should want to be. The motion is, of course, specifically about our schools, and we do not wish to promote or facilitate addiction to any substance among our children and young people, who, clearly, do not begin as smokers. Our schools, which should be places of learning and growth, have seen a rise in students using e-cigarettes. In 2022, one in five 11- to 16-year-olds who responded to the young persons' behaviour and attitudes survey reported having used a vape, which represents a rise of 2% since 2016. Some 6% said that they had vaped more than once a week, a doubling of the equivalent number in the same period. That trend is, of course, of concern.

While the habit may be less toxic than using cigarettes, it is not difficult to see why vapes, with their wide range of flavours, may appear more attractive to students — we have heard that already — and lack some of the stigma that underage smoking carried in the past. That is at the heart of efforts to restrict flavours and better regulate the industry. Research has shown that, unsurprisingly, the range of flavours and colours acts as a hook for young people in particular.

We know that nicotine can impair cognitive function and memory, which is the opposite of what we want for our teenagers as their brains are still developing, least of all in our schools, which are tasked with teaching children and encouraging them to reach their full potential. We know that the vapour in many e-cigarettes contains harmful chemicals. I will not try to pronounce their names, but they are known to cause lung injuries and heart damage.

There have been efforts in other countries to combat the growing prevalence of vaping in schools. In Australia, the Government have enforced strict regulations on vaping products, making it harder for minors to access them, and schools have adopted strong anti-vaping education programmes that highlight the physical dangers of vaping and also address the psychological impact of addiction. Students are engaged in discussion to promote healthy living and decision-making, and schools have installed vape detectors in bathrooms to monitor and curb that activity in real time.

Canada has restricted advertisement and flavours of vape products through measures similar to those being considered in the UK. The Not An Experiment campaign, which is aimed at educating students about the dangers of vaping, has been implemented in schools nationwide. I looked at the Physical and Health Education Canada website earlier today. It seems to be a useful resource to support public health messaging to young people. I must acknowledge that our Public Health Agency (PHA) has developed something similar to support teachers, parents and others who work with children and, indeed, that the Department of Education has its Safer Schools NI app, which supports teachers, pupils, parents and carers on a range of safeguarding issues, including vaping.

In other parts of the UK, schools are working with parents, local health services and police to encourage a joint approach against underage vaping. Involving families in the conversation encourages the reinforcement of anti-vaping messages at home. Importantly, that approach often also encourages those who have developed an addition to engage with counselling, health and other support to end their use. Sanctions may be appropriate, clearly, particularly where there are repeated instances, but we all want that to be proportionate, encouraging learning from mistakes and supporting behavioural change where there is addiction.

The international examples show in particular what our amendment reinforces: reducing vaping in schools requires a multifaceted approach. Our schools have tools provided to them by the Department to assist them to meet their statutory requirements on substance abuse. It is a societal issue, however. It enters our schools from beyond their walls, and, whilst schools have always had a role in education about the dangers of substance abuse and addiction, addressing that cannot fall to them alone. We need a collegial approach and a strategy that includes stronger regulation, active education, parental involvement and health support for students who are already addicted. For that reason, I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr Crawford: It is unfortunate that vaping is often seen as harmless and perceived to be fun and a trendy alternative to smoking. The harsh reality is that it carries significant risks that we cannot overlook. Each year, countless young people are drawn into the world of vaping as they believe it to be a safe and fashionable choice, but let us be clear: vaping is not without serious consequences. It is often marketed as a safer alternative to traditional smoking, but the truth is far from that misconception.

In recent years, we have witnessed a drastic rise in the popularity of vaping among our young people. What was once a trend, often dismissed as harmless and fun, has now revealed itself to be a serious public health concern. Research has shown that nicotine is particularly detrimental to the developing brains of our children and teenagers and can lead to addiction, reduced impulse control, diminished attention span and an increased risk of mood disorders. The level of youth uptake of vaping has doubled since 2023 from 3·2% to 7·6% due to the accessibility, attractiveness and relative cheapness of single-use disposable vapes. Schools are also aware of the impact of vapes, with many installing vape detectors to discourage young people from illegally vaping on school premises.

Furthermore, there are growing concerns about the illicit substances and vapes that have been found on school premises, and currently there is a lack of legislation to support schools and local authorities in dealing with the matter. An Audit Office report highlighted concerns about smoking, and especially vaping. The report found that there are 2,200 smoking-related deaths per year in Northern Ireland, with increases in smoke-related diseases such as lung cancer, premature heart failure and strokes, as well as around 35,000 smoking-related hospital admissions annually. Therefore, Members, it is essential that we look at ways to discourage people from starting to smoke and continue to reduce the overall prevalence of smoking in Northern Ireland.

Short-term research has shown that vaping has a multitude of health implications for young people under the age of 25, but especially those under the age of 18. Nicotine is a highly addictive substance that is often found in vapes, and it can cause serious damage to a young person's brain development, impacting their learning, memory and attention. With many studies still ongoing, it will be interesting to see the long-term effects of vaping on individuals. At the end of 2023, the Ulster Unionist Party published its vaping policy, and some of the suggested guidance and regulations from our policy paper include increased officer-led enforcement throughout councils to do spot checks on retailers and businesses that sell vapes to ensure they are not being proxy-purchased for children or sold directly to children, and harsher fines and penalties for businesses that sell those products illegally.

In closing, I urge Members to take the issue to heart. Let us commit ourselves to raising awareness of the dangers of vaping among our young people. Together, we have the power to safeguard the health and future of our children to ensure they have the opportunity to thrive in a world free from the grip of addiction.

Mr McNulty: Having been invented a little over 20 years ago, vaping has, incredibly and sadly, become ubiquitous in our society. While vaping was initially launched with the sales pitch that it would help smokers who wished to escape their cigarette addiction by moving to a so-called safer interim alternative, it is now clear that vaping and the vaping industry have an agenda, and that includes attracting and addicting new users. Many of the new users have never tried cigarettes, and many of them, regrettably and scarily, include our children. The proliferation of vape shops in our high streets, with their colourful signs that offer sweet and fruity nicotine highs, lure many of our young people to take up this highly addictive habit that causes damage to their lungs, adversely impacts their educational outcomes and increases the likelihood of creating a new generation who will move on to lethal cigarettes.

On top of that, vaping is not cool. Young people of all ages do not suit vaping, and it is a scourge on our society. School leaders across the North have highlighted the fact that vaping is a plague in our schools and said that the problem is at crisis point. We desperately need action. I welcome the motion, which recognises the harm caused by vaping, the scale of the problem and its impact in our schools.

Why are vapes marketed as a confectionary product when they are a nicotine product? A 2022 Public Health Agency survey reported that 21·3% of 11- to 16-year-olds in the North have tried vaping. Fidelma Carter from the Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke charity said that 17% of young vapers do it regularly, which is a shocking figure. Without action, further risks will be created.

As young people navigate their studies and the often challenging reality of peer dynamics, relationships and digital addiction, they now also have to contend with a novel 21st-century drug that lacks any long-term testing. At the same time, our teachers, who deal with a multitude of diverse and challenging tasks in, at times, poor and under-resourced schools, now have to meet the added demand of policing a sizeable minority of vape-addicted children. I say that again: teachers now have to meet the demand of policing vape-addicted children.

Whilst the true long-term damage of vaping cannot yet be known, we already know enough to know that more must be done. The story of Belfast 12-year-old Sarah Griffin, who, last year, suffered a collapsed lung and ended up in an induced coma for four days, should alone prompt us to do more to curb the scourge of vaping, but so too should the less-reported stories of addicted teenagers who are unable to focus without the crutch of their vape, racked by anxiety, headaches and withdrawal.

Today, we look back at the history of cigarettes: the mass advertising, the glamourisation and the societal omnipresence of a drug that we now know to cause premature death to the majority of users through use as intended. We do not want to look back in another 30 years and see the same thing with vaping, regretting that we did not do more. Whilst it seems credible that vaping is significantly less dangerous than smoking traditional forms of tobacco, it is not without its health risks, and we should never allow it to be used by our children. Our teachers and school leaders have many challenges to contend with already, and we must urgently reckon with the modern iniquity of vaping.

It is incumbent on the Minister of Education to take the crisis seriously and work with his Department to draft a plan to educate our young people on the risks of vaping and allocate the time and resources that our schools need to address the problem. However, tackling the crisis is not the responsibility of only the Education Minister, and policing the problem should not be the sole responsibility of our teachers. I suggest that the Department of Health, the Department for the Economy and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs look into how they can play a role in supporting and collaborating on the drafting of any future policies that may help to prevent our children and young people succumbing to this highly addictive drug. Littering, and the damage that it does to our environment, is another big aspect of vaping that has to be dealt with. The AERA Minister should address that.

Miss Hargey: Thanks to everybody for taking part in this important debate. I thank the Minister for being here. As has been said by most Members, vapes and e-cigarettes are still being researched to fully understand their implications. As we move through, we can see those implications in our communities and, importantly, in our schools. From the health research that has been done, we know that vapes are highly addictive. As has been said, more than one in five 11- to 16-year-olds has tried them. We know that the problem is not unique to this place. Indeed, increased usage of such devices by our children and young people is a global issue that we are all grappling with.

There have been many questions about how the devices are marketed. Many believe that the packaging and the flavours aim to entice and attract young people to use them. Given the recent health advice that children should not use vapes, it is highly concerning that children who have never smoked are using them. They are going straight to vapes, which is a concerning development. What is also concerning for children and young people is that, in many schools, we see the use of vapes that contain illicit substances that are synthetically made in factories.

We know, from other illicit substances, that they are higher in potency and that their safety and impact cannot be verified; indeed, the substances that go into them cannot be verified. Ultimately our children and young people are inhaling those substances. Some young people have had to be admitted to hospital for treatment. Our concern is that we will start to see deaths because they do not know what they are taking, they do not know what is in them, and, importantly, they do not know their potency.

It is fair to say that the issue is a societal one; there is no doubt about that. We must first look at the health implications and how trauma and social disadvantage play into the overall issue. For that reason, we must ensure that, from a prevention point of view, there is a cross-departmental approach and that we look at the intersectionality of the issue. It is right that the Education Minister is here, but we need to understand what engagement he is having with the Health Minister and, importantly, the Justice Minister to take a rounded view of all these things.

It is also important to hear what we are doing to build support and capacity at a community level, because we increasingly hear frightening stories from parents, communities and, as the proposer of the motion said, many principals who have to deal with vapes in a school environment. It is something that they probably never thought they would have to deal with, and now they do. What engagement is the Minister having with the other Departments. What support and advice is being given to principals? What capacity and support can schools be given to have wider engagement with local communities?

I will give one example from my community in the Market area. Two weeks ago, they launched a community toolkit called "Amplify", which looks at how to build healthy communities and tackle substance use and trauma at a community level, working with Queen's Communities and Place, the local community organisation and, importantly, the schools. One of the key issues is that the school struggles with how it can be supported and how it can have the resources to engage in the important conversations that are taking place. I use that one community as an example and ask the Minister to look at the Amplify project, because it is very much being led by children and young people in that community and schools in that vicinity want to engage in it. It is one example that the Department of Education could lift and use, with the support of Queen's University as a local learning institution that is looking at the issues in the broadest sense. I welcome the debate and am keen to hear the response from the Minister.

Ms K Armstrong: I will be honest: I am not on the Education Committee, and I am not on the Health Committee. I speak as someone whose child went through the education system and as a member of a couple of boards of governors. Vaping is a pandemic that is sweeping through every school in Northern Ireland, including, unfortunately, some primary schools. The Education Minister is not the only person responsible for getting rid of what is, as others have called it, an absolute plague. There are things that need to be done. That is why the amendment that Alliance has tabled, which mentions councils, is vital.

The reason I say that is that one of the main bus stops in a rural village in my constituency is right beside an ice-cream parlour. The ice-cream parlour advertises in its window honeycomb ice cream and chocolate ice cream and then goes on to list fruit vapes. That is a shop that is targeted completely at children and families. It is beside a bus stop; it is across from a primary school; it is around the corner from another primary school; and it openly displays the sale of vapes. The shop is targeted at children, but it sells vapes. They are not hidden behind a screen, and the flavours are all wonderfully exciting and brightly coloured. It is an absolute disgrace. We need our councils to step forward and, as part of their role in stopping the sale of cigarettes to under-18s, look at what is happening with vaping.

There also has to be a question asked of the Department for the Economy about such shops that sell confectionery. We need to tell the Department to change this, get the licensing sorted out and stop the promotion and sale of vapes to children. It is not just vapes: other shops sell sunbeds and sweets to children at the same time, and they all target areas near schools.

From the Education Minister's point of view, there needs to be cross-departmental consideration of how we can end the problem, because vaping is not good. While many say that people vape in order to get off cigarettes, vaping is not good for a child when vapes are full of synthetic rubbish such as spice, which has been such a terrible blight on some of our schools across Northern Ireland. Children in those schools have had to be taken to hospital because they have used spice in vapes.

I am aware that some schools have had to take drastic action to control the amount of vaping. They are applying for things such as additional smoke detectors: vape smoke detectors to identify where vaping happens in school buildings or outside. I would love the Department of Education to invest in those smoke detectors to assist our teachers, classroom assistants and boards of governors in finding out where children use the vapes. Some schools have invested in glass panels in the access doors to toilets — not in the toilets — so that they can watch those private spaces to make sure that nobody is vaping, because it is dangerous not just for the person who is vaping but for the other young people who are around it. I would love the Department to put out a clear communication to all schools to ban parents from vaping at school gates. Far too many parents or people who collect children vape at school gates. We do not want smoking or vaping there. We do not want children to think that vaping is a normal habit.

The risks of vaping to our young people are far too high. As my colleague Michelle Guy said, children are also turning to cigarettes. Vaping is not having the effect of stopping cigarette smoking; it is encouraging smoking in all forms.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Education to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion and everyone who took part in the debate. Information has been given that I want to take away and have my officials look into, because we need to tackle vaping collectively.

I visit many schools and engage with many school leaders and teachers. It is clear that the issue is of significant concern in our schools. Kellie Armstrong outlined from her experience as a school governor how challenging it is, and she spoke about the marketing of vaping products that she sees in her locality. There has been a rise in the popularity of vaping among children and young people. Members rightly made the point that, at one point, vaping was talked about as a substitute for smoking cigarettes and a way to get people off them. It is now proving to be a gateway and is drawing more people into taking a harmful substance. We need to be careful about speaking of vaping as a positive substitute, given the evidence that we have of its impact. There are challenges in seeking to restrict the use of vapes, addressing challenging behaviours and educating young people about the harmful risks of vaping. As I said, for many young people, vaping acts as a gateway to using dangerous substances, so we need to ensure that our schools are smoke-free and vape-free.

There is no doubt about the growing challenge. As of 2022, more than a fifth of 11-to-16 year-olds in Northern Ireland reported having used an e-cigarette; nearly a quarter of year 12 children reported that they currently vaped; and the proportion of 11-to-16 year-olds who regularly vaped had doubled from 2019 to 2022. Young people often explain their reasons for vaping as peer pressure; social image; the perceived lower health risks of vapes compared with cigarettes; to support their mental health and reduce stress levels; and to address low self-esteem. Those are some of the misplaced reasons why young people have been vaping.

We need to prevent young people from starting to vape in the first place. It is an important matter of public health, and, in certain circumstances, it can be a criminal justice issue. Therefore, my Department will work closely with the Department of Health, the Public Health Agency and, if necessary, the Department of Justice and the PSNI, following appropriate guidance and regulations.

The Public Health Agency has worked with key partners to produce up-to-date resources to raise awareness and support discussion with young people on vaping. That included writing to schools in March of this year to provide factual information and advice to inform young people, teachers, parents, carers and others working with young people about vaping, the law and the associated risks.

It is important that we first educate our children and young people on the risks of such activity and equip them to make positive choices. As part of the curriculum, pupils at primary level are taught about the importance of making good choices and being aware of the effects of drugs and alcohol on their health and the health of others. At post-primary level, pupils explore the concept of health as the development of a whole person, and they investigate the effects on the body of legal and illegal substances and the risks and consequences of their misuse. Schools also have the flexibility to work directly with external organisations, such as the PHA and the PSNI, to provide learning opportunities in the delivery of those important aspects of the curriculum. Furthermore, all schools are required to have a drugs policy in place. The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has published drugs guidance for schools in Northern Ireland. As a Department, we will continue to address those issues as part of the statutory curriculum.

We also have a duty to safeguard our pupils from harm. A school's safeguarding and child protection policy should link to its drug policy and include the requirement to notify the police in relation to an incident relating to illegal substances. The Department's Safer Schools Northern Ireland app provides guidance and support for teachers, pupils, parents and carers on a range of safeguarding issues, including vaping.

We also need to promote positive behaviour in our schools, so there is a statutory duty on schools to have relevant policies that set out the behaviour requirements of pupils. Most schools will set out the sanctions that they would impose regarding vaping in school through their behaviour policy. However, it is important that we always give young people the opportunity to learn from mistakes and then to develop as individuals. The Department's guidance, 'Pastoral Care in Schools: Promoting Positive Behaviour', sets out how a school should develop a discipline and positive behaviour policy using a whole-school approach, including consultation with pupils and parents.

I turn now to focus on the particulars of the motion. The alarming rise of vaping amongst children and young people is a concern that we all share. It is an issue that goes beyond the school gates, reflects wider societal issues that education cannot resolve on its own and impacts on the health and educational outcomes of our young people. It is therefore a matter that requires a collective effort.

First and foremost, we must acknowledge the undeniable evidence that vaping poses a serious risk to a child's health. What might be marketed as a safer alternative is, in reality, introducing harmful chemicals into young bodies that are still developing. We are witnessing the impact of the trend unfolding in our classrooms, hallways and the school grounds, where more and more children are being drawn into this harmful behaviour. It is not only detrimental to their physical well-being; it distracts them from their studies and affects their concentration, attendance, participation in school life and, ultimately, impacts on their educational outcomes.

Teachers and school staff play a critical role in this effort. They are on the front line, seeing, at first hand, the detrimental impact that vaping has in our schools, but they cannot tackle the issue alone. It is essential that we provide them with the support and resources that they need to raise awareness and inform our children effectively. We need a comprehensive and collective approach to addressing vaping in schools. As set out, it is important that we educate our young people on the risks of vaping and equip them to make good choices, safeguard our young people and improve their emotional health and well-being and have clear policies and procedures in place to promote positive behaviours in our schools.

We also need to consider the wider context. In October 2023 — last year — the UK Government announced their intention to create a smoke-free generation in England by stopping children born on or after 1 January 2009 ever legally being sold cigarettes. The key proposals in relation to e-cigarettes, which are more commonly known as "vapes", included restricting flavours, plain packaging and bans on point-of-sale displays.

Similar measures are already in place in relation to tobacco products.

I am aware that there was a significant amount of work by officials in the Department of Health to secure a legislative consent motion in respect of Northern Ireland's inclusion in the 2024 Tobacco and Vapes Bill. However, the Bill fell on the dissolution of Parliament, following the calling of the general election earlier this year. The King's Speech outlined the need for a new Bill on the matter to introduce progressive smoking bans. My officials will continue to work with the Department of Health and PHA colleagues, as they progress work to stop a new generation from becoming addicted to nicotine or other substances. I believe that the majority of people in Northern Ireland and the majority of colleagues here, in the Chamber, are in agreement that we must do everything that we can to protect young people from the harmful effects of vaping.

In closing, I echo some of the key public health messaging on the issue: vaping is not for children or young people; vaping is not harmless; the best thing that you can do for your health is to be smoke-free and vape-free. That is messaging that we must aim to work together to support and reinforce, collectively, if we are to protect the health of our children and our young people.

Thank you, again, to Sinn Féin for tabling the motion and to all colleagues in the Assembly who spoke to it.

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

I call Peter Martin to make a winding-up speech amendment No 2. You have up to five minutes.

Mr Martin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The greatest struggle that I will have is to read through this handwriting for the next five minutes, but I will certainly do my best.

In summarising the debate, for which I, like my colleague has just done, thank Cathy Mason for bringing, I think that it has been an interesting and informative debate for everyone in the Chamber, and it has been useful to highlight the matter in the Assembly. I shall summarise a few of the arguments and make some closing remarks.

The proposer of the motion highlighted that a licensing regime for the selling of vape products could be useful and went on to highlight the measures that principals are having to take to reduce vaping in schools.

The proposer of amendment No 1, Michelle Guy, stated the fact, which we heard quite a few times this afternoon, that nearly one in five 11- to 16-year-olds has used a vape, and she went on to suggest that vaping could, indeed, be a gateway to smoking cigarettes.

My colleague David Brooks, who proposed amendment No 2, stated that reducing vaping in schools required a multifaceted approach and that parents, teachers and the PHA all have a role to play in trying to bring a solution to the motion that we are debating today.

Colin Crawford highlighted a number of the dangers of smoke-related illnesses and called on the Assembly — this has been done today — to raise awareness on that particular issue. Justin McNulty said that schools were at crisis point and that there was incredible demand on teachers to meet the challenges of vaping in schools.

Deirdre Hargey said that the research on vaping is still out and, as such, we do not know how safe, I suppose, or dangerous it actually is and that, now, there is evidence that shows that children who have never smoked are going straight to vaping. Kellie Armstrong highlighted a shop and made an important point about the proximity of the normal products that kids would want to buy, such as ice cream and sweets — that is certainly what my kids buy a lot of — to vapes and the dangers that that legitimately presents to children who are going there for other products. The Member also highlighted that the Department for the Economy has a role to play and that this is, indeed, a cross-departmental issue.

In his response, the Minister said that vaping can act as a gateway to other drugs and other drug use. He said that all schools should be smoke-free and vape-free and that that is an important matter of public health; that all schools should already have — I imagine that they do — a drug policy in place; and that this is an issue that goes well outside the school gates. That has been reflected on by other contributors to the debate. He said that any approach to this issue should be collective and comprehensive.

In summarising the arguments for amendment No 2, I commend it to the House. I believe that amendment No 2 not only covers off and respects everything in the motion — as has been stated, it is a very important motion — but covers and includes the cross-departmental model about which we have heard so much in the Chamber this afternoon. Very importantly, it also includes the clear DOH and PHA responsibilities. My view is that this is not really just a matter for the Department of Education. That was reflected on by Members throughout the House. We use the phrase "cross-departmental", and nearly every Department has been mentioned at some point this afternoon. I commend amendment No 2 to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Danny Donnelly to wind up on amendment No 1. You also have five minutes.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to wind up on the amendment tabled by me and Alliance Party colleagues. I thank the Sinn Féin Members for proposing the motion and the DUP Members for their amendment. We are content to support all three.

Our amendment introduces a single change to the motion. In addition to the Minister of Education bringing forward a plan to end vaping in school grounds and reducing the numbers of young people vaping more broadly, we want the Minister of Education working with the Minister of Health and local councils on the development of such a plan. The dangers of vaping have been well heard today, and they are becoming increasingly apparent, particularly among young people. There is a role for vaping as part of a smoking cessation plan to help long-term smokers to quit, but that should not be relevant for children and young people. As was mentioned earlier, there is an emerging evidence base to suggest that vaping can serve as an introduction to nicotine and that vape users are more likely to take up smoking than non-vapers.

Research conducted by Asthma and Lung UK highlighted that over 80% of young people in Northern Ireland are concerned about the growing use of vaping products and their use in their schools. Other issues raised by young people included environmental waste, which is a consequence of disposable vapes, and which my party colleague the AERA Minister is addressing; the marketing and promotion of vaping products to young people; and the lack of knowledge about the long-term effects of vaping. Some of those concerns were supposed to be addressed by the UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which, I am hopeful, will be reintroduced in the new parliamentary term.

I have had the privilege of working with the Youth Assembly and I attended one of its events in the Building on this issue. I applaud its work on the matter. I also had the opportunity to ask some young people — Aaron and Olivia — who were doing work experience with me this week about their experiences. They said that they know of young people who had been hospitalised because their vapes had been laced with other substances. Again, that is incredibly concerning. They have seen students who cannot concentrate in class and students who become agitated and even violent when they do not have access to vapes. They have seen pupils leaving classes to go and vape in the toilets multiple times throughout the day and sometimes multiple times in the same class. That is bad for those children, who are harming their own health and losing their time in classes, but it also makes the bathrooms full of clouds of vape, which will have an impact on other students. They also reported shops selling vapes to young people without checks, even when they were in school uniform, which, again, I was very concerned to hear.

While it is understandable that Sinn Féin brought the motion to the Assembly and addressed it to the Department of Education due to its focus on children and young people, tobacco and vapes are the responsibility of the Department of Health. In fact, we have discussed this in the Health Committee, and we believe that a collaborative approach between the Departments is necessary. That has been referred to multiple times today. As was highlighted by my former council colleague, Michelle Guy, we have also included councils on the basis that they have a responsibility for environmental health. In the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, councils were to be given additional enforcement authority. It is therefore important that our 11 councils and their representatives are also involved in the decision-making. For those reasons, I encourage all Members to support our amendment.

I will now discuss a few of the comments from other Members in relation to our amendment. Cathy Mason spoke about the lack of regulation in vape selling. Again, that was something that was mentioned by the young people. Colin Crawford spoke of the health implications of vaping for those under the age of 18 and those under the age of 25, which are concerning. Justin McNulty spoke of the proliferation of vapes and vape shops and said, particularly memorably, that vapes are marketed as a confectionary product rather than a nicotine product. That is a strong point. Deirdre Hargey highlighted the fact that vaping is a cross-departmental issue and that there are pressures on schools and communities alike. She highlighted the Amplify project in her area as being a good example of a project that works against vaping

My colleague Kellie Armstrong highlighted the prominence of vapes in shops that also sell sweets and even sunbed sessions. She said that she would like to see a ban on vaping at school gates. I agree, because vaping at school gates normalises the behaviour. Minister Givan highlighted the unacceptable rates of vaping amongst young people and committed to working with the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice, the PHA and the PSNI to address vaping in schools. He also highlighted the proposed restrictions on vapes in the 2024 Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will, hopefully, yet come to pass.

I hope that Members can support our amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Órlaithí Flynn to wind on the motion. Órlaithí, you have up to 10 minutes.

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

Danny and Peter have given thorough accounts of Members' comments, so I do not want everyone to have to sit through that a third time. [Laughter.]

I thank them for those accounts. All the comments have been helpful. Words that were repeated in Members' remarks include "crisis", "epidemic", "scourge on our society", "absolute plague" and "significant concern". It is clear that everyone takes the issue seriously and is concerned about it. Thanks again to Danny and Peter for summarising the debate.

I welcome the opportunity to wind on the motion, which is about reducing the number of young people who vape or might consider vaping. I hope that it will go some way towards doing that. Throughout the debate, Members addressed crucial issues including to what extent accountability for tackling the growing problem, specifically on school grounds, should rest with the education system. Members also covered issues related to the health system and the role that the Department of Health can play in reducing the number of young people who vape: we heard about some of the legislation that will, hopefully, be passed in the Assembly to ban smoking and some vapes. Last but not least, Members addressed what responsibilities the justice system, the police and councils have in relation to the manufacture and sale of vapes, including illegal vapes that can contain very harmful and potentially life-threatening substances and drugs.

I doubt that many young people or school students are watching today's debate — although there are two in the Gallery who are on work experience: you are more than welcome. However, if any other young people are watching or pick up on some of what Members have said in the debate, the critical message that I would like them to take away is that vaping is dangerous and bad for your health. As we know, far too many young people pick up the habit as young teens. It has damaging consequences for their health and can, sadly, act as a gateway to other drugs and, ultimately, to addiction. We know that, in many cases, young people pick up the habit in the company of their friends and peers in the school environment, as the Minister said.

What worries me most about the trend — the huge increase in the number of children smoking vapes — is the danger posed by some of the substances that the young people are smoking. Some of those kids are not even aware of the dangerous substances or drugs contained in some of the vapes that are already in circulation in many of our schools. The problem potentially affects us all: every single one of us in the Chamber and every single one of our constituents. We all have connections to young people: sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, neighbours, friends or whoever. We are all connected to young people in some shape or form. Vaping, including of dangerous vapes that are spiked with drugs, has already reached our streets, our schools and our young people.

Earlier in the year — in April, I think — the PHA warned the public that use of the drug spice is now all too common here in the North.

Thankfully, parents have already been urged to talk to young people about the dangers of vaping unknown substances, especially spice, which some vapes contain. Spice mimics the effects of cannabis. It can have serious side effects, including nausea and mood swings as well as a loss of muscle coordination.

Synthetic cannabinoids are relatively new. A lot of evidence is still being gathered on them, but the Public Health Agency has already alerted us to the fact that people can have severe reactions after using them. I do not know whether that information is out there among the general public, especially among young people. Using those drugs with vapes could make them even more unsafe. We know that spice is available in liquid form and is being used in e-cigarettes and vapes. Regrettably, there is demand for that drug locally. Most worrying for us all, however, is the fact that children and young people are accessing vapes that contain that drug.

These issues are, of course, much broader than the education system and what the Education Minister can do to tackle them. It comes back to the justice system, the police and any other avenue that we have to try to stop individuals who have found a way to exploit children and young people and put them in danger by putting spice oil into vapes. I am glad to see that PSNI's local neighbourhood teams have been doing some outreach work by visiting schools to alert them to the dangers of the vapes, particularly the drugs that are in them.

The PHA has encouraged parents and guardians to talk to their children about the dangers of vaping potentially dangerous unknown substances. Unfortunately, though, we are hearing reports of primary-school children vaping, so it is happening at that very young age. I am dealing with families, not just from west Belfast, who have already been affected by the issue. Kids have been taken out of school and cannot go back. Sadly, in one case, a child is already in the throes of addiction as a result of getting spice in a vape.

I alert the Minister to the important point that Deirdre Hargey made about the Amplify pilot project. I do not knows loads about it, so I will go away and research it. If there already are community toolkits that might work, we could use them in other areas and communities.

The public health advice that has been put out to parents and guardians is completely correct in telling them not to wait until they perceive there to be a problem. Instead, they should start thinking now about prevention and have early conversations with their children and young people. The same advice should apply to everybody in the Chamber, and to all Departments: please do not wait. What are we waiting on? Are we waiting on more hospital admissions or a death? We know that it is a problem and that it is impacting on young people. It has reached young people, so what are we going to do to tackle it? Hopefully, if the motion is agreed, everyone can chip in and do their bit to make a difference.

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Andrew McMurray to raise the matter of homelessness in South Down. Andrew, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to raise the issue of homelessness in my constituency of South Down and, more broadly, in Northern Ireland. I think that I can be confident in saying that there is no Member for whom homelessness is not a regular issue.

This is my first opportunity to secure an Adjournment debate, so I spent a bit of time reflecting on the issues that I want to raise. There is a concept model known as Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Put very simply, it is a pyramid of needs that human beings require to be satisfied. If the base needs are not or cannot be met, those above them cannot be fulfilled. Some Members may be familiar with it. For me, it may be a hangover from being the child of two social workers or from my postgraduate studies in youth community work, but, as a concept, it has always stuck with me.

We in the Chamber are lucky and privileged to be in the position that we are in. It would be remiss of me not to use my position to speak up for those who are not as lucky or fortunate as I am. Before I go on, I want to state that, due to how the statistics are compiled, I will refer to council areas as well as constituency areas at times. That is just a hangover from the way in which they are compiled. As of 30 June, 58,241 people were officially homeless in Northern Ireland. That is one in 33 people, up from one in 34 people in the space of six months. Of those, 5,447 were homeless in the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area. Just 10 years ago, the figure was 2,536. The number of individuals in statutory homelessness in Newry, Mourne and Down has increased by 115% over the past 10 years. That is the third-highest increase among the 11 council areas.

The provision of temporary accommodation is skewed towards Belfast, so, for every homeless person in Newry, Mourne and Down, there are probably others who have had to leave the area in order to move into temporary accommodation in Belfast or beyond. Indeed, an instance was recalled to me of when an individual was placed on a bus from Downpatrick to Derry in order to receive shelter for a night. While the issue may manifest itself in a city or town outside my constituency, that is not to say that it is not a problem in my constituency.

In Northern Ireland, nearly six of every 10 households in statutory homelessness in June were families, and close to 20,000 homeless individuals were children and young people under 18. To paraphrase Bruce Springsteen in 'The Ghost of Tom Joad':

I refer back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs: those people are, quite literally, surviving, and all other development needs are put on the back-burner.

Those numbers are shocking, but they are not even the full story. There are also the so-called hidden homeless, who would be eligible for help from the Housing Executive but have not yet come forward. For example, staff at one local homelessness organisation told me about a young man in his 20s who had come through the care system and was now sofa-surfing. After a while, he had outstayed his welcome. At that point, he emerged from being hidden homeless and sought support from said organisation. Nobody knows for sure how many people are affected by hidden homelessness. In 2020, a report by the charity Crisis estimated that the number could be between 70,000 and 112,000, or 9% to 15% of all households in Northern Ireland.

It is fair to say that Northern Ireland as a whole is experiencing a homelessness crisis, but, first and foremost, homelessness is a personal crisis for each individual affected by it. It is a deeply frightening and unsettling experience to find yourself without a safe and secure home. Research shows that homelessness has a negative impact on people's health and life expectancy. It leads to increased risk of contact with the criminal justice system as well as other negative physical, psychological and social impacts.

A member of staff at one of the local homelessness organisations in Downpatrick spoke to me about the poverty of hope that many homeless people experience and the devastating impact that that has on their lives. I will read out her words, because she put it better than I ever could:

We discussed the housing emergency in the Assembly last week. You cannot prevent homelessness without an adequate supply of housing. That cannot be overstated, and it was discussed in the Chamber last week during the debate on the SDLP's motion. As such, I will focus on some of the other issues that are faced by homelessness organisations in South Down and beyond. I also pay tribute to the charities and organisations working in the sector and the very valuable work that they do in supporting men, women, young people and families in South Down at a very vulnerable point in their lives. I thank them for taking the time to speak to me in preparation for this discussion and for sharing their experiences and concerns with me.

All the conversations with those involved in the organisations were humbling and, at times, moving. MACS Supporting Children and Young People provides supported housing and a range of other support services for children and young people aged between 16 and 25 who are homeless, are at risk of homelessness or are struggling in other ways. The Simon Community operates a hostel in Downpatrick, where it offers temporary accommodation and support to people who present as homeless. The Housing Executive in Downpatrick does its best to support people experiencing homelessness and housing stress short of homelessness every day and to move them into accommodation as soon as possible. I also thank Homeless Connect in Belfast, which shared its insights into homelessness statistics and policy issues with me. Those organisations provide a roof over the head of people who are experiencing homelessness, but they also provide invaluable personal support, which is so important to helping people to move on and successfully sustain a tenancy in the future.

Voluntary organisations, such as MACS and the Simon Community, are doing all that they can to help, but conditions in the sector are very difficult. Very often, those organisations work with individuals to place them in temporary accommodation. The word "temporary" suggests that that is for only a short period, but that is not always, or even usually, the case. I met a gentleman who became homeless because of a relationship breakdown and slept in his car for some time. He has now been living in temporary accommodation in Downpatrick for 18 months and cannot spend time with his daughter because he does not have a home. I refer back to the hierarchy of needs: emotional, social and educational needs cannot be met if you are struggling to meet the need of shelter.

Homelessness support staff told me that they knew of people who had been in temporary accommodation for several years. Those cases are not exceptional. In April this year, 63% of households living in temporary accommodation had been there for more than six months, and 44% had been there for more than a year. That stretches the definition of "temporary". It is, of course, a stark expression of the housing crisis that we are experiencing.

For many, there is very little hope of moving on any time soon. In Downpatrick, the average number of housing points needed to get into social housing is 170·4. You get 70 points for being homeless. There are currently 3,986 households on the social housing waiting list in Newry, Mourne and Down, 1,300 of which have been waiting for over five years. Only 360 allocations were made last year. Private rentals are often unaffordable for low-income households and often present other access hurdles as well. The Simon Community runs a deposit scheme and has plans to provide affordable rental housing through its creating homes scheme, but property is expensive in South Down.

I will spend a little bit of time talking about the challenges that housing support staff face in providing support to people in need. The first priority of the Housing Executive's homelessness strategy for 2022-27 is to prioritise homelessness prevention. That is incredibly important, because it can prevent further harm. It also saves a lot of money. However, prevention is under immense pressure. Staff recruitment and retention is an enormous challenge for the sector. Trust relationships are key to effective support, but frequently changing agency staff makes that very difficult. That has a negative impact on good outcomes. Homelessness support is a very challenging and skilled job. It is demanding in emotional terms, too.

It takes a committed and passionate workforce to provide the service, but that is not often reflected in the pay or working conditions in the sector. In fact, I have heard from people working in the sector that some of them have made use of food banks and that many struggle to make ends meet. I quote from one of the conversations:

The sector needs to be professionalised. The staff working there are already professional to all intents and purposes, but working conditions are not.

At the root of all that is funding in quantity, stability and structural terms. Quantity-wise, a lot of housing support is funded through the Supporting People programme grant, which has been frozen since 2007-08. The Minister for Communities has promised above-inflation increases to the Supporting People programme, which is brilliant, but it does not make up for the 15-year freeze. Stability-wise, the homelessness agencies that I spoke to were not sure whether that increase would be recurring. The homelessness service budget was also squeezed, and many services are now funded on a month-to-month basis. That uncertainty means that they can neither recruit people nor increase pay. The looming increase in minimum wage next year might mean that many of the organisations will become unviable, if funding is not increased accordingly. Structurally speaking, prevention services are funded out of the same pot as temporary accommodation, but only the latter is subject to a statutory duty. As the demand for temporary accommodation increases, as it has done fivefold since the COVID-19 pandemic, the squeeze on prevention tightens. We need to turn that around.

Finally, I will briefly reflect on the character from whom the Simon Community takes its name. While his name is attributed to that particular organisation, the character referenced bears relevance to all those involved in the homelessness sector. Simon of Cyrene is the gentlemen who is referenced, and, if you know, you know. To give Members a bit of context, I will say that Simon stepped forward and undertook to share the burden of something that was almost impossible to bear. He had to bear it alone, and he did so without speaking and without fanfare. When he completed the task, he went back, unreferenced, into the background. That is very much what those in the homeless sector do with such grace. They deserve our utmost thanks and respect for doing so.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. All other Members who speak will have approximately seven minutes.

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

I sincerely thank my constituency colleague Andrew McMurray for securing this important Adjournment debate.

Homelessness is not just a personal misfortune; it is a societal failure. In Ireland, we face a crisis of social and affordable housing, which is made worse by the rising cost of living. With over 88,000 people waiting for social housing, 75% of whom are in severe housing stress, it is clear that the current system is unsustainable. Families across the country are being pushed to the brink, and extortionate rent prices, coupled with a severe lack of available homes, force many into a state of insecurity.

Our social housing stock is declining at an alarming and unsustainable rate. The Department for Communities must take urgent action to stop that. We need bold and immediate steps to ensure that new social and affordable homes are built, particularly in areas such as South Down. My colleagues will appreciate that 40% of the rural housing need in the North exists in South Down. We know that all too well, but it is a shocking statistic.

While co-ownership has been a successful route to home ownership for many, it is severely underutilised in South Down. In 2023-24, the area saw the delivery of only 19 new co-ownerships homes, making it one of the lowest-performing areas. The Minister must do more to allow families to find a realistic path to sustainable and secure housing.

For many of our constituents in South Down, the dream of living in the communities in which they grew up is slipping away. In villages such as Rostrevor and Hilltown and towns such as Warrenpoint and Kilkeel, the cost of housing has skyrocketed. That, along with the rise of Airbnbs and the shortage of rental property, locks young people and families out of their home towns. The very communities that shaped them are becoming financially inaccessible to them.

We need immediate decisive action, and the Minister must recognise the urgency of the crisis and prioritise the publication of the housing supply strategy. That is a critical step towards building new and affordable homes that can secure the future of our communities. The housing crisis affects us all. If we are to ensure a fair, equal and prosperous future, we must tackle it head-on, and we must tackle it now.

Ms Forsythe: I thank my constituency colleague Andrew McMurray for securing the debate this evening.

We know that becoming homeless can happen to anyone. Over 48,000 are now on the waiting list for social housing in Northern Ireland, with 8,452 presenting as homeless in the most recent reporting period, October 2023 to March 2024. It really is such a significant issue in Northern Ireland, and it is good to speak about it in the House this evening.

Homelessness is widely misunderstood. Many just understand it as looking around and seeing people living on the streets, and the real challenge that we face is explaining and raising awareness of what it really means. The definition of "homeless" includes people staying with friends and families, those staying in hostels, rough sleepers and those living in homes that are unsuitable for them.

In rural areas such as South Down, homelessness looks very different from what it looks like in urban areas. Rural homelessness is an unseen crisis in the countryside, driven by limited access to services and an absence of affordable homes. Rising rural homelessness is an inevitable impact of housing shortages. The extent of the crisis is unclear as limited rural data is captured in many official statistics. The figures show that homelessness has increased overall in the last decade, and, while interventions have helped in urban areas, their impact is less successful in rural communities. I would like to hear the Minister's assessment of the specific challenges regarding homelessness in rural areas.

The recent publication of the Budget this year paints a bleak picture, with only 400 new-start social homes to be built. The Housing Executive has made its case and has told the Communities Minister that it needs £20 million to more fully fund the homelessness fund. The crisis is real, and we are all well versed in the financial pressures that we face. I appreciate that the Minister is under pressure, but we need to keep being well versed in the issue and raise awareness.

The issue of temporary housing is significant and is acutely felt in South Down, with it being one of the most common things raised in my office when it comes to housing issues. Hotels, vacant homes and flats in rural areas of South Down have increasingly been used for temporary accommodation for people from outside the area, which, with the lack of communication, has caused significant disruption and misunderstanding about what is happening in quiet country towns. The constant turnover of people and the lack of consultation with the community, local police, elected representatives, the Housing Executive and some housing associations has resulted in a lot of local crisis, public meetings and interventions. In the absence of permanent housing solutions, I recognise the need for the temporary accommodation, but I ask the Minister to please provide some clear guidance to housing bodies to enter improved communication to communities with relevant stakeholders moving forward.

Another issue that is repeatedly being raised with me with regard to temporary accommodation, where people are moving in and out of areas, is children being moved in and out of schools, the change of school environment and the lack of transport. With temporary accommodation often lasting for significant periods, there is a lot of difficulty and communication barriers, and I ask that officials in the Education Authority (EA) and the Department for Communities work more closely to avoid disruption for those children.

The absence of information on homelessness by constituency or town reduces the transparency on where some of the issues lie, especially in areas like South Down, where our data being published is for the Newry, Mourne and Down district. As Andrew outlined, that demonstrates significant issues and movements, but the transparency around what it means for rural communities is hard to pull out of that data, as issues are often skewed by the bigger towns and the city of Newry in the reported figures. To really grasp the issues in those rural areas, we need to reflect on how we capture the data and report it.

Where the housing supply is limited and when any funding is awarded in South Down, we face an additional challenge. If and when the budget is awarded, Newry, Mourne and Down council's planning system is one of the slowest in the country and has the longest waiting lists, with it being some two and a half years before many cases are even looked at. That is a potential additional crisis, if funding becomes available. I ask the Minister if there are plans for his Department to work with councils to expedite planning when any new proposed social housing may become available for the district.

I return to the point that I made at the start: anyone can become homeless. Many people who are deemed homeless do not even consider themselves to be. Many people come to my office facing a variety of issues — health crises, family issues and addiction management — and, often, they are moving between locations. They move between friends and families, staying in spare rooms and sofa-surfing. I struggle to help them when they do not accept that they are deemed to be homeless. When they can accept that and present as homeless, their journey to the support that they need can be navigated. However, there needs to be increased awareness of hidden homelessness and what it really means for people. I ask the Department for Communities to commit to providing information on and increasing awareness of hidden homelessness. As an elected representative, I will be happy to promote anything on that that I can in the constituency.

The work of the voluntary and community sector in this space is invaluable in South Down, given that, as with many services, things are centralised to the cities and larger towns. I recognise the work of the churches and, as Andy mentioned, the Simon Community and our County Down Rural Community Network. Those organisations are invaluable in providing support for and raising awareness among people in our community when needed.

I fully realise that the Minister is under immense budgetary pressure. I appreciate the opportunity to raise with him in the Chamber some of the issues facing us with regard to homelessness in South Down.

Mr McGrath: I thank our constituency colleague Andy McMurray for bringing the Adjournment debate to the House. Regardless of whether people are in South Down or South Antrim, the issue of homelessness has relevance, and, sadly, it does not appear to be getting any easier.

All of us here will have been contacted in our constituency offices by people who are crying out for a home that they can call their own. We represent them as best we can, work alongside officials in the Housing Executive and ensure that they get every support possible through agencies such as Housing Rights, yet, time and again, we hear that people's points just are not enough for them to be allocated a property. That is a cause of frustration for us and for the individuals who contact the offices. I have no doubt that it is also a cause of frustration for the Housing Executive, the social housing organisations and, indeed, the Minister.

We continue to find ourselves in the midst of a housing emergency in which demand outstrips the supply of social housing, so much so that, just last week, the SDLP secured a commitment from the House to recognise that housing emergency. It is our hope that action will follow from that. The action that we need is for the 47,000-plus people who are on the Housing Executive's waiting list. In our constituency, there are well in excess of 3,000 applicants in housing stress, more than 1,000 applicants who are homeless and more than 750 people who are on full-duty status. Whether they are from the 'Point, Downpatrick or the rural areas around the Mournes, we have far too many people and families who face homelessness or are homeless already.

We all know that those are not just statistics and that there are people, often with families, behind the numbers. Being unable to have a home to call your own causes disruption for families. Being forced to move into temporary accommodation and hostels can often bring an unwarranted stigma. It can also cause issues in education, as Diane Forsythe referenced, when families are moved about and children have to move from school to school or are so far from their school that they face long journeys each day.

If we are to address homelessness, we really need to address rising rent costs. They are spiralling out of control, with Housing Executive rent prices in parts of South Down the second highest across the North. The local housing allowance for people in those parts of South Down does not meet the rent price. I ask the Minister this question: what more can the Executive do to look at the lived reality of those who find themselves in housing stress, having to make an application for social housing and suddenly realising that they can no longer afford to live in an area that has been their home for so many years? What hope can the Executive offer the people in South Down and across the North who are homeless?

As one of my constituents reflected to me about the process:

The homeless people who I know in South Down, who passionately care about their area, do not need another strategy. They need action that will get them a home, and they cannot wait any longer. When will the Executive start delivering homes for people in South Down? When will the Executive stop letting people down?

Homelessness and poverty go hand in hand. We must get serious about combating poverty as well. Poverty is, after all, a political choice, and we need our Executive to finally choose a course of action that will not leave people in poverty but will give them the best possible start in life, beginning with a home to call their own. To the Northern Ireland Executive, the people of South Down will undoubtedly say about homelessness and poverty, "Are you going to do something about it? Can you just get on with it?".

Mrs Mason: It is clear that much, much more must be done to tackle homelessness across our society and particularly in South Down. As everyone else has done, I thank Andrew McMurray for bringing this vital issue to the Floor and for referencing those many Housing Executive stats from our constituency.

There is limited temporary accommodation in South Down. The Simon Community and MACS in Downpatrick provide a great level of support to those who are homeless or are at risk of homelessness. St Vincent de Paul, the Pantry Foodbank in Castlewellan and Newcastle and the Fountain Foodbank in Downpatrick are amongst the local organisations that go above and beyond to help vulnerable people access food, home-heating fuel, toys for Christmas and much, much more. There are many organisations right across the North that do great work to relocate and rehome vulnerable individuals.

The distressing reality for many who are at risk of homelessness is that they are likely to be forced to seek temporary accommodation in either Belfast or Derry if they are unable to rely on family and friends, which they should not have to do. That is the heartbreaking reality for many in South Down, and I sincerely worry for all those who are in temporary accommodation over the Halloween weekend after hearing really recently of the heavily pregnant woman in Derry who has been told that she must move within days from her temporary accommodation in a local hotel due to the city's Halloween celebrations. That 25-year-old nursing student has been failed by the lack of available social and affordable housing, and she has been in and out of hotels and B&Bs since applying for social housing.

Homeless organisations provide vital support to people who are without a home, and I commend all those organisations, volunteers and everyone who has worked immensely hard to provide shelter to the homeless and the most vulnerable. However, they are under significant pressure. That is unsustainable and is putting further strain on those who provide help to the most vulnerable in our society.

How can we take tackling homelessness seriously when we still have not seen a long-term plan to tackle the issue? My office, like others, regularly deals with families that are facing homelessness. I must add that our local housing officers do their very best to help and offer support. Again, the reality is that we do not have enough homes here in the North to place those families. To put a temporary roof over their head, families are being forced to move their children out of their local schools and out of the communities that they grew up in. We need the Minister and his Department to focus on fixing housing and on working to ensure that everyone, particularly young children, has a secure roof over their head. Housing is a human right, and the Minister must work to deliver safe, decent, social and affordable housing as a priority.

The recent announcement about the old Downe Hospital site in Downpatrick and the ongoing work by Clanmil Housing to turn the site into social housing is welcome. That process brings fresh hope that the construction of much-needed new homes in Downpatrick will commence in early 2025. That is a significant development after a long period of inactivity, and we are pleased to see momentum building to address critical housing needs in the area. The need for single lets and adaptable lifetime homes has never been more pressing, with many local families and individuals waiting for suitable long-term housing solutions. I am calling on the Minister to work to ensure that those homes are delivered now at pace. There cannot be any more delays. We need creative solutions to develop affordable and social homes in Downpatrick, Newcastle, right across South Down and, of course, right across the North.

Mr Allen: I join colleagues in thanking the Member opposite for securing this important Adjournment debate. Those who may be tuning in would be forgiven for mistaking which constituency we are talking about. Obviously, today, we are talking about South Down, but the statistics show that the impact of homelessness and the lack of social housing and housing provision on individuals is not unique to South Down; it is reflected across every one of our constituencies.

I welcome the Minister back from his recent trip to the US and look forward to hearing his comments on the work that he and his Department are doing to tackle this important issue.

I have had the immense honour of representing East Belfast for nine years. Each year, when the House has been sitting, we have talked about housing, homelessness, poverty and the impacts that those different issues have on our constituents and many of the people who come to our offices. Many of us can talk about the horror stories and the situations that constituents are highlighting: for example, living out of black bin bags; living out of suitcases; being moved right across Northern Ireland; or going to the Housing Executive only to be told that the temporary accommodation being provided is tens of miles away from their communities, their support networks and where they grew up. The reality is that, in many cases, homelessness leads to people and their children being lifted from the communities that they have known and, as I said, from their support networks and the areas that they know and are accustomed to. It results in many instances of children being unable to attend school. I have seen that in my office.

We have moved from a system of prevention and intervention to a system of managing expectations. That is the fundamental reality of what we have, because demand is far outstripping supply. We and, indeed, many of those on the front line — they have been commended, and I echo those comments — in the Housing Executive and in the plethora of organisations at the coalface are managing the expectations of constituents and of those who, in desperation, are reaching out to them for help and support. I will come back to the important point that the reality is that demand is far outstripping supply.

We look at the statistics, and, as Members said, these are ordinary people. They are people right across all our communities. We are all fortunate: each one of us here this evening will go home to a warm home. How many of our constituents can say that? Each one of us will go home to a roof over our head. How many of our constituents can say that? Who knows? Any one of us could be at risk of homelessness. That is why it is important to get this right and do all that we can and collectively work together. We can stand and pontificate, point fingers and blame, but I know, as, I am sure, does every Member, that that it is not what our constituents want. They want us to work together, work with the housing associations, other providers and interested parties and work with cross-departmental colleagues to deliver change. We need to lay the foundations of change. It was just last week, as has been commented on, that we declared, again, a housing emergency. Again, we referred to having a housing crisis, but we seem not to be able to get a grip of it.

We need to tackle it head-on. We need to look at the broad range of issues and the broad range of solutions. We need to look at how we can tackle issues in areas such as water and waste water infrastructure. There are instances where we are going forward with developments, but the infrastructure is not there to deliver them. We know that we have a problem. We can continue talking about it or we can collectively put our shoulder to the wheel and deliver for the over 47,000 households on the waiting lists. I will put that in context: those over 47,000 households would fill our national football stadium more than twice over. Indeed, a point that I highlighted last week is that I do not even believe that that is the true extent of our housing crisis.

Fundamentally, we need to deliver. We need to deliver change. We have the housing supply strategy. I am prepared to put my shoulder to the wheel with the Minister. My colleagues are prepared to do the same. We need to do all that we can to deliver for those who need us to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for Communities to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member who secured the debate and congratulate him on doing so. I welcome the opportunity to respond. I also congratulate him on his Bruce Springsteen quote — I do not think that anybody had that on their bingo card today — and I look forward to more quotes from The Boss in future.

I recognise many of the issues and concerns that the Member and others have raised on homelessness and housing in South Down. As I have stated in the past, in reality, many of the issues are seen throughout the country. They include growing homelessness pressures and use of temporary accommodation, the demand for social housing and increasing waiting lists, the availability and cost of private rented homes and the difficulty of delivering the necessary infrastructure to provide new homes. Those concerns are not faced in just one constituency. Across Northern Ireland, there is need and demand for high-quality, affordable and sustainable homes that simply is not being met.

Housing in all places is a priority for me, and it must be seen as a priority for the Executive. I have said numerous times in the Chamber that we need a whole-system approach to address the issues that impact on supply. That means that the challenges cannot be addressed by one Department alone but will require an Executive commitment and funding to match. It is welcome that the Executive made provision of more social, affordable and sustainable housing a key priority of the new draft Programme for Government (PFG), but the Executive must now demonstrate that they are committed to that priority.

The whole-system approach is fundamental to the draft housing supply strategy that I am finalising and that I will bring to the Executive in the coming weeks. The strategy will provide a long-term framework to help to bring about the system changes that we need and to facilitate the PFG priority. One of the five key objectives of the housing supply strategy will be the prevention of homelessness and development of housing solutions for those most in need. I want to improve the response to homelessness. The sector is under significant strain as a result of increases in the need for temporary accommodation and demand for social homes, the growth of waiting lists and the issue of the availability and cost of private rented homes.

I want to make homelessness rare, brief and non-recurrent and to make the strategic shift to prevention, but we have an immediate issue with the use of temporary accommodation. That costs money that is not being spent on homelessness prevention or supported housing schemes, and staying in insecure, temporary accommodation is not good enough for families. I want to prioritise prevention, to create as much capacity as we can in homelessness services and to make a long-term commitment to developing housing-led and housing-first provision.

It will take time to achieve those ambitions, however, and our short-term focus must continue to be on supporting those who are in crisis. Ultimately, we need more social homes. In the past three years, my Department has invested over £510 million in the social housing development programme (SHDP). That investment recognises the importance of infrastructure. Like water and sewerage connections, social housing is a key part of our infrastructure and a vital asset for us and generations to come. In the year before last, we started 1,950 social homes. In the previous financial year, across Northern Ireland, over 1,500 were started. This year, I would like to have started 2,000, but my Department did not have and was not given the money for that. I know that no Minister is happy with the budget that they received, but I am particularly disappointed because starting 600 social homes this year is not where we need to be. I will continue to bid for further funding to support the SHDP and to help to deliver much-needed additional new social homes.

My next priority is to take action to protect the Housing Executive so that it can continue to provide decent homes for our households and families. I am actively pressing for a solution that will enable the Housing Executive to increase routine and planned investment to deal with maintenance backlogs and fund a programme of retrofit to improve energy efficiency in homes. To do that, we need the Housing Executive to be able to borrow in order to allow the investment that is needed. I am pushing that almost daily in order to ensure that we achieve that change in how budgeting is treated.

My officials and I are in the process of investigating how we can do that without reclassification or significant restructuring.

I will also push forward with work to reform the private rented sector in order to improve the security and quality of tenure for the individuals and families who use it.

I want to mention the Supporting People scheme, because high-quality, effective housing support can make a real difference in people's lives and enable them to live more independently in the community. I am proud of the Supporting People programme, which has been in place for over 20 years, and all that it continues to achieve in offering vulnerable people the opportunity to improve their quality of life. It is vital that the programme is funded to support young people, those with mental health issues or physical or learning disabilities and older people, so that they can thrive in their homes.

I will turn to some of the comments. I will not address them all. There was a common theme throughout the debate, and I will pick up on something that a number of Members said. Cathy Mason said that I needed to focus on fixing housing, and Sinéad Ennis said that immediate action needed to be taken. Andy Allen said that the time for talking is over and we need action, and Colin McGrath asked what we are doing to get on with it. I am pleased to say that we are making progress on the issue.

Mr McGrath said that we do not need a strategy or a plan. I will check Hansard, but he said that the last thing we need is another plan. I think that we do need a plan, and we need to be in a place where we bring all the parties together, because it will take a whole-system approach, and that will be brought forward. That does not mean that action has not already been taken; in fact, in the few months that I have been in office, action has been taken on issues that have been left for far too long. I have already brought forward—.

Mr McGrath: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: Yes.

Mr McGrath: Respectfully, action, yes. How many social homes did we start this year, and what was the target?

Mr Lyons: If the Member had listened to me earlier, he would have heard those figures. He will understand the budgetary constraints that I am under.

Mr McGrath: Give them to me again: 600.

Mr Lyons: Yes, 600. He will understand the budgetary constraints that I am under, but, even with the budgetary constraints that I face, I have taken action in other areas. I am using the other levers at my disposal to make a difference on the issue. Intermediate rent was not done before in Northern Ireland and is now being progressed. We are using financial transactions capital to help with move-on accommodation. I increased the property value limit for co-ownership. I have given additional funding to the Supporting People programme. I am securing additional funding for the social housing development programme. For the first time ever, I have been able to secure a commitment in the Programme for Government that housing will be a priority for the Executive, and I am bringing forward a housing supply strategy that recognises that it is not an issue for just one Department.

Other Members have rightly indicated the issues around planning. I have stood up for a Sinn Féin Minister in the Executive because I believe that we need the investment in waste water infrastructure in order to deal with some of the housing issues that we face. That is why it is a whole-system approach. That is why we need a plan.

Those actions are being taken with the limited levers that are available. With the budgetary constraints, action is still being taken. Why am I taking those actions? It is because I recognise and understand the importance of housing. If you give somebody a good home, it helps their educational and health outcomes, and it helps with the pressures on nearly every other Department. Safe, secure and warm homes are one of the most important things that we can do, and I am committed to doing that.

Mr Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will give way briefly to the Member.

Mr Allen: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the housing crisis and the challenges that face housing are not unique to Northern Ireland. Will he talk about any engagement that he has had with colleagues in the UK Government about support from them? The Minister mentioned tackling the UK-wide housing crisis in his recent statement on housing.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. The issue was helpfully raised at the British-Irish Council, and I talked to colleagues from other parts of the UK, Ireland and the other islands about some of the actions that have been taken. Those have been useful and fruitful conversations, and it is important that we learn about what is happening in other jurisdictions, such as how to better use the private sector and make the most efficient use of the homes that we have. There are also some ideas about what we can do with empty homes.

Another point that the Member raised that is worth mentioning relates to the demand and supply issue. That goes to the heart of what it is.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Will the Minister bring his remarks to a close?

Mr Lyons: We need to make sure that we have more homes.

Lastly, Diane Forsythe was absolutely right to mention rural areas, which will be taken account of in the housing supply strategy. I recognise how important the issue is. We will do everything that we can to make sure that we fix the problem and that everybody in Northern Ireland has a home.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for that response.