Official Report: Tuesday 19 November 2024

Mr Speaker: The usual rules apply.

Mrs Mason: I extend my warmest congratulations to Downpatrick and County Down Railway on its remarkable success at the recent Social Enterprise NI awards. That distinguished local organisation achieved a double win, securing not one but two prestigious awards, which is a testament to its exceptional contribution to our community and, of course, our heritage.

First, I commend Morgan Young, the railway's operations manager, who was awarded the title of "Emerging Leader of the Year". Morgan's journey is nothing short of inspiring. From beginning as a 14-year-old volunteer to becoming director and operations manager at only 18, he has proven to be a remarkable role model for young people across the North. His dedication to the preservation and operation of steam locomotives and his leadership across the organisation clearly impressed the awards panel and stands as a shining example of youth leadership.

In addition, the railway was awarded the title of "Social Enterprise of the Year". That recognition is especially significant, given the challenges that Downpatrick and County Down Railway has faced over the past year. Severe flooding last year devastated its premises, causing substantial damage and demanding immense resilience and hard work to recover. Despite those setbacks, the railway's volunteers all pulled together, embodying their values of determination, inclusivity and, of course, community service. As the railway celebrates 40 years of service, the award honours not only its historic and social impact but its ethos of accessibility, tradition and community partnership.

I also make special mention of Robert Gardiner, whose dedication to and passion for the railway is uplifting. He truly deserves to be extremely proud of the award. Downpatrick and County Down Railway's achievements showcase the best of the North's social enterprise and reinforce the values of organisations dedicated to social, environmental and community-orientated goals. I am really proud to recognise its outstanding contribution. I am sure that the entire Assembly will join me in celebrating its success.

Mr Harvey: I draw the House's attention to the tremendous work of Operation Christmas Child, which is led in the UK by Samaritan's Purse.

As we all look forward to the next major event in the calendar, the Christmas season, I acknowledge the mammoth task that is undertaken yearly by the thousands of volunteers who gather shoeboxes and fill them with small gifts for children less fortunate than our own. The excitement that those gift boxes bring to children across the developing world each year cannot be overestimated. The supply of everything from soft toys, puzzles and board games to more useful gifts such as toiletries and personal care items brings the joy of receiving and opening a present to hundreds of thousands of children who otherwise would not get to experience the excitement that Christmas brings.

This year, the target is to reach an extra 260,000 children who might never have received a gift before. Many thousands of drop-off locations are already in full swing across the UK, with volunteers receiving and collating donations from the public. In my constituency, Ballynahinch Baptist Church will be the designated hub, and there will be many others across the Province.

There is a range of different ways in which to support the scheme. People can donate online or make their own shoebox. Many of our local secondary schools do a fantastic job in support of Operation Christmas Child. This Christmas, as we remember the greatest gift ever given — the birth of Jesus and the hope of the gospel — I encourage all Members to support that wonderful cause, be it through donation, promotion or support of those who do so much to ensure that thousands of children across the world, who otherwise would miss out, benefit from the joy of Christmas.

Ms Nicholl: This Thursday marks Carers Rights Day, and the theme this year is "Recognising your rights". The aim is to help carers recognise their rights and help them access the available support. Carers UK estimates that approximately 12,000 people across the UK become unpaid carers for a partner, family member or friend every day. That is a remarkable statistic, but it is probably not a surprise to Members, who, I am sure, know carers or are carers themselves. The importance of unpaid carers in our society cannot be overestimated, yet they are so often undervalued. Each and every day, thousands of people, many of whom have disabilities and health conditions themselves, dedicate themselves to looking after family, friends or loved ones. They do some of the most important and valuable work in our economy.

Although it is important that carers know what their rights are, I am also determined to do what I can in this place to ensure that their rights are enhanced. When the Minister for the Economy launched the consultation on his 'good jobs' employment rights Bill, it was very disappointing that paid carers' leave was omitted from it, particularly given the fact that we debated a motion in March 2024 in which the Assembly supported the provision of paid carers' leave. To those who are juggling unpaid care with work, paid carers' leave is one small way in which we can ensure that our carers can take time off to look after their loved ones. Ahead of Carers Rights Day, I therefore urge the Minister to reconsider the omission of paid carers' leave from the proposals for the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill and ensure that the rights of carers in Northern Ireland are not only maintained but enhanced through legislation. Evidence shows that that would not just benefit carers but help the economy and lower our spending on social security, making it a win-win policy for everyone. Alliance will continue to champion the importance of the issue and to support carers across Northern Ireland.

Ms D Armstrong: Last night, I attended the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) rally at the Eikon exhibition centre in Lisburn. Over 6,000 farming folk attended what was a phenomenal show of the strength of opposition to the Chancellor's proposed draconian taxes on farm succession and inheritance. The number of young people in attendance was most noteworthy. They are our future farmers, and we owe it to them to safeguard their future livelihood. They were there to send out a message of confidence in and commitment to their industry but also to share their fears about where the taxation policy is taking us. There were many older farmers present as well. In fact, all generations were represented. That signifies the threat being felt to the industry in Northern Ireland. Simply put, without farmers, there will be no food or protection of the landscape.

Recently, I spoke to a sixth-generation farmer who hopes to see his grandchildren running the family farm. He remarked on how much the industry had changed.

Small family farms require many farmers to engage in off-farm employment to generate sufficient income to cover all the associated costs and investments that are required to ensure that farms comply with farm quality assured schemes, the Red Tractor scheme, health and safety, biosecurity etc. The general public simply do not see that often, but that is what it takes to run a farm.

Farmers feel that the agricultural property relief tax will be the final straw. Future generations will have to sell portions of the land or take on additional borrowings, with associated financial and mental well-being challenges. Is it right that we ask our young farmers to take on that burden of inheritance tax? As someone remarked last night, "When the farmer dies, the Inland Revenue will be at the door chasing the inheritance tax". The words that I took away from last night were "anger", "uncertainty", "disappointment", "apprehension", "dread" and "heartbreak". We cannot allow this threat to future generations of farming.

The Assembly must speak with one voice, oppose the measures and take the message to Westminster that the nation's food security relies on protecting those who work the land for this generation and the next. I applaud the young speakers at last night's rally. Their message must resonate loud and clear: no farmers, no food. The Assembly must speak with one loud voice and oppose the measures.

Mr McGrath: I speak today for the many people across my constituency of South Down and my home town of Downpatrick who have a deep-seated love for the Quoile river and are committed to ensuring that it is preserved for future generations. Those of us who were born in the town or those who have chosen the town as their home will have many memories of time spent at the Quoile river, enjoying walks alongside it, fishing for pike of unparalleled quality and size or even enjoying the scenic views that are so identifiable with our town.

A close-knit community and the county town of Down, Downpatrick has suffered in recent years as Belfast has grown and expanded outwards and other towns have developed their home-grown tourist products. That was evidenced most clearly last year when we witnessed the horrendous floods that hit the town with such brutal and unstoppable force. Those of us who were on the ground that day orchestrated what was initially and largely a community rescue operation, whether that was to help people stuck in cars that were submerged in water or to salvage family-run business stock. The aftermath of the floodwaters reflected, in many ways, Downpatrick at its very best.

There followed many questions as to how the waters rose so quickly and what could be done to prevent it from happening again, yet what we have been treated to is a report that essentially said that the town flooded because of lots of rain. In June, we were told that it would take another eight months to produce a report that may indicate what needs to be done and that, in some instances, any measures may take up to eight to 10 years to be implemented. What state will our county town be in in 2033, if we have to wait that long for things to be done? How many of our home-grown businesses will be around then?

The people of Downpatrick love and know their town. They tell us that the riverbed of the Quoile has been allowed to build up with silt and sediment and that, in instances such as last autumn, the water simply had no place to go. The pipe network around the town must be inspected regularly to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Those are just a few of the measures that will not cost tremendous sums of money or consultancy fees but could help to safeguard the future of Downpatrick. We have seen how Lough Neagh has been allowed to fall to rack and ruin. The people of Downpatrick demand this of the Executive, and the SDLP echoes the call: do not let that happen to our River Quoile.

Mr Robinson: I record my heartiest congratulations to Bovalley Community Association in Limavady, which, on Thursday, was announced as an awardee of the King's Award for voluntary service. The King's Award is the highest civil award given to local volunteer groups across the UK to recognise outstanding work done in their areas.

Bovalley is a group that I have worked closely with since the days when it was based in Anderson Crescent in Limavady. When it outgrew those premises, there was a huge effort to ensure that the good work that the fantastic volunteers were involved in to make life better for those around them was not lost. After extensive lobbying, we secured a former Housing Executive property, and the rest is history. The seeds were planted, and a huge oak tree has grown ever since. Bovalley is a group that can call on over 30 volunteers of all ages who do sterling work across all ages, especially with vulnerable groups that experience poor educational, health or social outcomes.

I thank Bovalley for all that it does.

I congratulate it for that remarkable, headline-grabbing success. I send from the House our warmest best wishes, and I encourage the group to continue doing what it is doing. It has been an incredible journey from small beginnings in which it has done its community incredibly proud. I say this to the group: we appreciate your dedication and we are excited to see what further positive impacts you will bring to the area that you serve so well. I am personally so very proud of all that you do and that you have achieved. Here's to many, many more years of good work and continued success for Bovalley Community Association.

Mr Boylan: I am immensely proud of Armagh Christian Brothers' School (CBS) and Coláiste Chaitríona, Ard Mhacha

and the positive impact that the Irish-medium sector has had on our community. Armagh CBS currently educates 207 pupils in its Irish-medium stream. In March 2024, the school was granted normalisation to increase enrolment to 245 pupils, starting from September 2024. While that recognition of demand is welcome, we know that it will fall short of what is needed in September 2025. To highlight that point, 23 pupils will leave rang a seacht

this year. Meanwhile, 69 nursery pupils attend Irish-medium nurseries across Armagh city, all of which are feeder schools for Armagh CBS. Importantly, Armagh CBS is the only primary immersion education provider within an 11-mile radius.

Given those factors, enrolment will continue to grow significantly, underscoring the critical need for appropriate facilities. The Irish-medium stream at Armagh CBS has only six classrooms. One of those is a mobile unit that has reached the end of its life. In April 2024, the school submitted a minor works proposal, seeking two replacement mobile units under the school enhancement programme (SEP). The Department has proposed delivering a double mobile unit to replace the condemned mobile unit and providing an additional seventh classroom. Whilst that is a positive step, it falls short of addressing the real and immediate needs of the Irish-medium stream. Armagh CBS requires nine classrooms to accommodate its growing student population effectively. To meet that demand, it is imperative that Armagh CBS can provide suitable facilities for Irish-medium provision by September 2025. I will be writing to the Minister to urge him to act decisively to provide the nine classrooms that are needed to meet current and projected demand. The community of Armagh has embraced Irish-medium education, and it is only right that the facilities are put in place to nurture that growth.

Mr McReynolds: I rise to speak as chair of the all-party group on ADHD and, again, on behalf of the ADHD community, which is being failed by our health system in one of the most unjust ways that I have seen for some time in my involvement in politics. Since meeting a constituent at the start of this year, who had been told that he would have to wait for eight to 10 years for an assessment for ADHD, I am now learning that that is likely to be a made-up figure, to be honest, because no one actually knows when he will receive it. I will be submitting a petition to you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of thousands across Northern Ireland who are demanding long-overdue action. I have been contacted by a huge volume of people who are shocked that we have no commissioned services here. To make matters worse, we have no record of the number of people who are waiting for a diagnosis, because there is no need to keep those records.

The latest injustice is that some who have gone down the private route for a diagnosis, which is grossly oversubscribed, are being told by their GP that their shared care arrangements are coming to an end and that, if they are lucky, they will have 180 more days of medication and, after that, they will be on their own. That medication is transformative, 95% safe and improves the quality of life of those with the condition. In recent weeks, I have, sadly, received emails and phone calls from people in tears, not wanting to go back to the daily struggle of ADHD without medication. As one person put it to me:

This will create multiple inequalities, increase the backlog in mental health services and have ramifications across Departments here. Medication is the first avenue of treatment under NICE guidelines, but we now have some GPs putting people in limbo and into chaos. I get the arguments and the need for nuance and I understand the legalities, but, in my head, I rationalise it this way: people with ADHD are having their care removed and their quality of life diminished. What other condition would this happen with? Across the world, ADHD is not being recognised as a major problem, and the medication is transformative. In Northern Ireland, decisions are being made that are making people struggle. I urge GPs who are contemplating the removal of shared care arrangements to please think twice. I urge the Health Minister to rapidly accelerate work that he told me his officials were finalising; to intervene outside of this work, which could take many more years to bear fruit; and to intervene now to help a community that is being pushed to the brink.

Mr K Buchanan: Last week, I raised the issues of social media — its benefits and negatives. This week, I highlight the case of my constituent, Craig Ballentine from Cookstown, who, after travelling to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for a short holiday, has been detained in Dubai after posting on social media. I spoke to Craig on Friday and have offered him and his family support. Initially, when Craig was first detained, he was unable to contact his family. Currently, he has been released from custody but, due to a travel ban, he cannot leave the country and return home. Due to cybercrime laws in the United Arab Emirates, he could face a custodial sentence. He has been transferred from Abu Dhabi to Dubai, where he now awaits either the case against him going to court or charges being dropped.

Craig was not expecting to be detained when he returned to the United Arab Emirates after commenting on an online review about the problems that he had with a former employer. I understand that Craig's former employer had reported him to the UAE authorities as having absconded from work when he did not appear for work, despite Craig's having provided a doctor's certificate as proof of his illness. Craig has found the whole experience to be very traumatising, and his family, understandably, are also worried and stressed. I wish for the issue to be resolved soon and I wish Craig well.

Dr Aiken: Today marks a sad anniversary; it is 1,000 days since Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Putin and his military, his paramilitary forces and the proxies that he has employed from Iran, North Korea, Syria and elsewhere have been unable to defeat Ukraine, which is a testament to the Ukrainians' courage, tenacity and ability to fight the most brutal of attacks, launched with a degree of ferocity not seen on this continent since the Second World War. For the Ukrainians, it has become a war of survival. If Ukraine loses, there will be no Ukraine. The fate of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is such an event that can only be imagined, and judging by how Putin has steadily eliminated those who stand against him, it cannot be one that he is looking forward to.

This is not an abstract war far away. As we have seen over the weekend in the Irish Sea and with the cutting of cables in the Baltic, Russia is in conflict with us right now. The term "hybrid war" is one that we must come to terms with and understand, as the Ukrainians have. The battle over social media, the attempts to manipulate the energy supplies, the cyberattacks, the sabotage and the deliberate heightening of tension by the use of useful idiots and fellow travellers voting against support for Ukraine in the European Parliament are just some examples of what is happening right now.

We do not have to wait for Russia to attack: in many ways, it is doing it right now. Freeloading on defence like our Southern neighbours is beyond scandalous. We need to be building up our defences and reinforcing our critical infrastructure as this war continues — a war that extends far beyond the Crimea, the Donbas, the skies over Kyiv and beyond. Defence and security are never cheap, but not investing in defence is the surest way to disaster. Spending 3% of our GDP on defence now is a lot better than having to spend 50% of it in a major war. Equally, to paraphrase that great European statesman, "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job". We should give Ukraine the weapons it needs and, more importantly, the authority to use them to make sure that this horrible war in Ukraine does not last for another 1,000 days. Maybe you will all join me in saying "Slava Ukraini".

Ms Brownlee: I rise to mark Diabetes Awareness Day, which took place last Thursday, and to reflect on the ongoing challenges faced by individuals and families impacted on by diabetes. This is particularly personal for me as my wee son Lyle was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes this time last year, at only three years old. Lyle's journey into this new world began with signs that we did not recognise as diabetes. We had no family history and no knowledge, and he was only three.

It is critical to look out for extreme thirst, frequent pain, fatigue and weight loss: the four main signs of diabetes. When we got to the Royal, he was in diabetic ketoacidosis, a life-threatening condition. Thanks to the excellent care of the medical team, however, we left the hospital within just 10 days, equipped with the knowledge and confidence to manage that complex condition.

Part of this year's campaign aims to address the stigma around diabetes, highlighting the voices of the diabetes community in order to open conversations about the impact and stigma and to start to change the mindset. Nobody sees it, but it is about being up in the middle of the night with jelly babies to treat a hypo; the stress of doing your weekly food shop; the raised eyebrows when your diabetes technology beeps in the office; and the questions, "Should you be eating that?" and, "Did you eat too many sweeties?".

Diabetes is a complex condition. Oversimplifying what it means to live with diabetes and why it develops can contribute to the harmful stigma. Research found that over 50% of people living with diabetes miss healthcare appointments and that 80% have experienced negative attitudes because of their diabetes.

While it is manageable, it brings a constant pressure. It is a roller coaster of highs and lows as we strive to maintain blood sugar levels within a safe range. Modern technology, such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors, offers remarkable support, but the daily effort is unrelenting, and the fear of complication never fully subsides.

Here in Northern Ireland, we must do more to improve the lives of those living with the condition. That includes better education on the early signs and symptoms of diabetes so that others do not face the same frightening experience. It also means ensuring access to the latest technology and resources, tackling the stigma and supporting organisations such as Diabetes NI that do incredible work for our communities.

Mr Gaston: I will start by quoting a song:

Those are the words of a song by Patricia MacBride, a member of the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. Her views are hardly a secret. The appointment of Ms MacBride as a victims' commissioner in 2008 caused outrage when, in her official biography, she described her brother as an "IRA volunteer" who was "killed on active service". Ten years later, on 23 October 2018, Ms MacBride referred to the 10 victims of the Shankill bomb, claiming that the bomber Thomas Begley was a victim in the same way as the people whom he bombed.

In spite of all that, the deputy First Minister thought it appropriate to sign off on Ms MacBride's appointment as a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission. What a shameful betrayal of innocent victims. The assertion of Emma Little-Pengelly on social media that political opinion cannot be a reason to refuse to approve the appointment is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. Views that endorse or express acceptance of violence and terrorism are not protected political opinion, and — my goodness — I have cited enough evidence of that in this statement. Ms MacBride's defence and glorification of the IRA's terrorism were ample grounds to refuse to approve her appointment to such an important office, and the deputy First Minister should be ashamed of failing to do so.

Mr Martin: Farmers are the backbone of our country. Agriculture contributes an enormous amount to our economy, especially in Northern Ireland, and the recent decisions on changes to inheritance tax and agricultural property relief as part of the autumn Budget have had devastating consequences. The decisions are short-sighted and completely ignore the obvious adverse impact that the changes will have on the sustainability of over 24,000 family farms throughout Northern Ireland. One consequence is that fathers will not be able to pass on family farms to their sons and daughters.

Societally, however, as has been said, farming ensures food security for our country: the ability, in a time of crisis, to feed our nation.

The appalling inheritance tax reforms could instigate the destruction of family farms that have been preserved and maintained for decades and, in some cases, centuries, as family members are forced to sell land and assets to cover the sizeable bill in the wake of a parent's death.

That is simply not good enough. As, ironically, the now Prime Minister Keir Starmer said last year:

In Northern Ireland, agriculture is structured uniquely, with a high number of small to medium-sized, family-owned farms. DAERA has estimated that one third of farms in Northern Ireland could suffer under the new tax. It is encouraging to see the work of the Ulster Farmers' Union in opposing the new measures with a particularly vocal campaign that has received public backing. That was reflected last night, when 5,000 people attended a rally organised by the UFU in Lisburn, which reminded us that, if there are no farmers, there is no food. I encourage not only the UFU but the National Farmers' Union (NFU) to step up their protest if the Government will not change the odious policy. The NFU, using figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), suggested that it could affect as many as 70% of farms in the UK; in fact, DEFRA has now admitted that it was not consulted on the new tax prior to the announcement.

The DUP has not wavered in our position that farming is one of the most crucial sectors in Northern Ireland and the wider United Kingdom. We stand shoulder to shoulder with farmers. The DUP's Westminster team, led by Gavin, is working with others to lobby for a reversal of that appalling policy.

Mr Speaker: I call Maurice Bradley. Mr Bradley, you have a couple of minutes.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be brief.

I congratulate Coleraine-based charity Ashes to Gold, which has been awarded the King’s Award for Voluntary Service 2024. Ashes to Gold is a registered charity that serves the people of the Causeway coast and glens area. Its work is dedicated to promoting positive mental health and supporting those in need. Ashes to Gold provides purposeful activities to individuals in the Causeway coast and glens area who want to increase their confidence, motivation and self-belief while learning new skills.

The King’s Award for Voluntary Service is the highest award a local voluntary group can receive in the UK. It is equivalent to an MBE. The Coleraine charity is one of only 22 groups throughout Northern Ireland to receive the award this year. With over 50 volunteers, including eight counsellors, the Ashes to Gold team donates over 1,500 hours of its time every month to make the lives of those involved in the project much better. I take my hat off to Ashes to Gold, and I congratulate it on that well-deserved award.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. That concludes Members' Statements.

Ms Nicholl: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Subject to Standing Order 65(1)(c), will the Speaker make a judgement on whether the Communities Minister was guilty of a breach of good order in the Assembly Chamber yesterday when he aggressively told me to sit down while I was seeking clarity on the Alliance Party's position in support of funding of childcare?

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for raising her point of order. Before I get into that, I note that a number of points of order were made yesterday that my office is considering. However, from initial review, there were clearly occasions yesterday when Members fell short of our standards of debate. I will deal with the individual matters once I have completed my consideration of them. For now, I remind all Members and Ministers that the House expects courtesy, good temper, moderation and respect in exchanges between Members. Members know that I like robust debate and for Members to articulate their views powerfully in the Chamber on behalf of their constituents, but you can do that and demonstrate good manners at the same time. I was brought up in a home where the saying was, "Manners maketh the man". They maketh the woman, too, of course; it covers everyone. I expect good manners at all times.

I also remind Members that points of order are for raising procedural points with the Speaker and not for political point-scoring. If a Member has an issue with something said during a debate, the proper response is to seek to make an intervention or respond to it in a later contribution.

I can confirm to the Member who has just spoken that the issue that she raised is one of the issues that I will return to.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly on my plans to review environmental governance in Northern Ireland.

Environmental governance is about ensuring that the decisions we make about how we protect and enhance our natural and marine environment are effective. They could be decisions on policy and regulation or on resourcing. Crucially, it is also about accountability: making sure that there is proper scrutiny and oversight of those decisions and accountability for the outcomes achieved as a result of their implementation. I am very conscious of the level of interest from Members and the wider public in how we address the increase in the environmental challenges that we face. People care deeply about our natural environment. They worry about the degradation of sites of environmental significance and about biodiversity loss, and they want to see greater protection for our environment and greater accountability.

The blue-green algae blooms that appeared in the summer and last year at Lough Neagh generated real concern and had a real impact, including on those who live along or earn their livelihood on the lough and its connected waterways. They have also been a wake-up call for us all. There has been a realisation that, for generations, we have not been good custodians of our environment and that that needs to change.

The environmental challenges that we face are complex and cannot be addressed in isolation by any one organisation. That is why we are absolutely committed to working with a wide range of voluntary advocate groups and industry representatives to address the challenges and ensure that we protect the environment for everyone who lives here. The implementation of the now-agreed environmental improvement plan (EIP), the Lough Neagh action plan and other policies that my Department is taking forward will make a difference, but there are no quick fixes. Undoubtedly, more could be done with more resources, and I will continue to make the case for investment in our environment. Today, however, is about oversight and accountability. It is about the steps that I am taking to highlight the need for tighter governance and to ensure that we understand the best model by which that can be secured.

Strengthening environmental governance has been and continues to be a key priority of mine since taking up ministerial office in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Like Lough Neagh, it is a complex issue that will not be fixed overnight. Optimal structures and processes need to be in place to enable positive environmental outcomes to be achieved. Prior to the UK leaving the EU, the majority of environmental policy development and implementation in DAERA was linked to transposing a wide range of EU directives into domestic legislation. The Environment Act 2021 brought in a range of environmental measures, including a new legal framework for environmental governance and accountability. Those included the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) functioning here, the preparation and publication of a statement on environmental principles and the obligation to produce an environmental improvement plan. Any proposals to improve environmental governance therefore need to be set in the context of that changed regulatory landscape.

I will say a little shortly about the component parts of the current landscape, but, first, I will say something about the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). NIEA is an agency of my Department. It has its own chief executive and accounting officer and has operational flexibility to operate within the legislative and policy parameters that exist, but it is certainly not independent; in fact, it has no separate legislative basis, and the powers and functions that it carries are carried in the name of the Department. That is the reality; it is not a criticism. It is really important that I make it clear that the many calls for a different environmental governance regime and, indeed, my desire to see one are absolutely no reflection on the dedication and commitment that I see every day in the staff of NIEA. They are public servants who continue to work tirelessly to protect and enhance our natural environment whilst regulating the activities that can adversely affect it.

NIEA staff are firmly at the front line of many current, high-profile environmental issues, working to address the ongoing threats to nature and water quality from a range of factors, including climate change, the pollution of our freshwater environment and the continued decline of our biodiversity. Their jobs are demanding and often challenging, and they frequently involve working out of hours and in difficult and sometimes dangerous situations. Any changes that we decide, in time, to introduce to strengthen environmental governance will build on the foundations laid by NIEA staff. I thank them for their commitment and dedication to our environment.

I now turn to the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP). From 2022, we have also seen the extension of the role of the Office for Environmental Protection to include Northern Ireland. As Members will know, the OEP provides an environmental oversight function previously undertaken by the European Commission. It is tasked with holding government to account for the proper implementation of environmental law and has recently issued a number of reports to do exactly that, including one just today. It is important to recognise, however, that taking action against individuals or private businesses remains the responsibility of the NIEA and other enforcement agencies.

Section 50 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 requires the Executive Office to establish an independent office to be known as the Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner (NICC). The commissioner's functions are:

of the Act. When the commissioner's office is established, we will need to work with it to understand the governance role that it might play in our environment and how it will interact with the work of the OEP.

I will explain the background to the creation of an independent environmental protection agency (IEPA). The environmental governance landscape is already complex, and there are a range of options for how it could be improved. That could include the creation of an independent environmental protection agency. Members will be aware of a number of reviews that were carried out in the past on the need for an independent environmental protection agency. The most recent was a 2015 consultation led by the Department of the Environment that sought views from the public and from organisations. The overall response rate of 37 to the 2015 consultation was relatively low, but 26 — 70% — of the respondents were in favour of an independent agency being created. Much has changed since the 2015 consultation, including the formation of DAERA on 8 May 2016, when the Department of the Environment's functions were largely transferred to that Department.

More importantly, perhaps, public understanding of and opinion on environmental issues has changed substantially as a result of increased concerns about environmental degradation and climate change. For a variety of reasons, not least the absence of Ministers and the Assembly, competing priorities and resourcing constraints, there has been little movement on establishing an independent environmental protection agency. That has led to growing concerns and frustrations among a number of groups that feel that more needs to be done. I accept that.

I am therefore committed to bringing forward proposals for improving environmental governance in Northern Ireland. I am keen for such proposals to reflect a thorough exploration of models that would deliver improved and more independent environmental governance than what is currently in place. In order to improve Members' and the public's confidence in our environmental governance arrangements, I want to ensure that that is done right. I therefore do not plan to rush the decisions on such an important and complex matter. There is clearly a need to consider the substantive issues involved in moving to a more robust model of environmental governance, and I am keen to obtain an independent view to ensure that the best possible outcomes can be achieved.

I am therefore pleased to announce that I have appointed an independent panel with appropriate experience and expertise that will oversee a review of current environmental governance arrangements in Northern Ireland and provide recommendations for improvement for my consideration, including on how to enhance scrutiny, accountability and public confidence. They may contain proposals for establishing an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland, including the potential shape, policy and legal responsibility of such an organisation. The estimated cost, deliverability and time frames for implementation of each option will also need to be considered.

The independent panel will lead a call for evidence on improving environmental governance in Northern Ireland and will use information gathered from the process, along with other relevant factors and research, to inform its recommendations. The panel will provide its independent recommendations to the Department on the basis of its assessment and findings, and I will not seek to influence those in any way. A stakeholder reference group will be established to support the work of the panel, and membership of the group will be confirmed in due course.

Members will want to know a bit more about the membership of the panel. Dr Viviane Gravey will chair the panel. She is a senior lecturer in European politics at Queen's University and has considerable knowledge of environmental governance in post-Brexit Northern Ireland. Dr Gravey will be assisted by Diane Ruddock, who has now retired from the National Trust as external affairs manager, and John McCallister, who is a member of the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) and provides a wealth of experience of the agriculture industry.

Together, they will use their experience and independent expertise to take forward a short, focused review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland. It will include a brief review of current arrangements in Northern Ireland, which will be supported by the Department’s initial scoping exercise of the environmental governance arrangements that are in place across the UK and Ireland, so that they can take lessons from the various approaches that have been adopted by others; taking forward a call for evidence and engaging with interested parties and stakeholders to understand views and opinions and identify best practice in related work areas from other parts of the UK, Ireland or elsewhere; exploring options to improve environmental governance; and consideration of the linkages and interdependencies between the environmental governance being considered and other functions and business needs in DAERA and other relevant organisations.

Delivering that review will require the independent panel to engage with relevant key stakeholders, including, of course, the OEP, and the process will be confirmed in due course. My officials will support the work of the panel in an administrative capacity. The terms of reference for the panel’s work and how people can engage with it will be published later today. I have asked the panel to produce an interim report by spring 2025, and the review will be completed by summer of next year. Following my consideration of its recommendations, I intend to identify a preferred way forward, which I will take to the Executive so that we can reach agreement on any proposed new arrangements before they are presented to the Assembly.

In taking this forward, I am mindful of the commitment contained in 'New Decade, New Approach':

In closing, as I have said many times, there are no quick fixes for the significant environmental challenges that we face today, and environmental governance is no different. However, rest assured that I am fully committed to strengthening environmental governance in Northern Ireland and, by doing so, improving public confidence in our governance arrangements and, ultimately, reducing our environmental degradation. I hope that this announcement will be welcomed by Members, as its outworking will provide up-to-date and robust evidence to support the preferred option. That will allow us to progress this work with credibility and confidence. I will, of course, update Members when the environmental governance review has concluded and following Executive consideration.

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

This issue, particularly environmental improvement protection and an agency to provide that, has been talked to death in the Assembly. The Minister's party and my party have committed to it. I am a bit puzzled by paragraph 30, which states that the panel's recommendations:

Is that a mistake, or is it a commitment to a "will", a "shall", a "but" or a "maybe"?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. I believe in an independent environmental protection agency, and I am on the record in that regard. This is about a genuine attempt to improve environmental governance in Northern Ireland. I am setting up an independent panel so that we can look at how we can improve environmental governance. I am open to whatever recommendations it comes back with. I will be surprised if it does not come back with a recommendation for an independent environmental protection agency, and, if it does, it may be considered. Let me be clear: the review is a genuine attempt to move this forward. Once the report comes back, I will give it due consideration and bring it swiftly to the Executive and then to the Assembly.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the Minister's announcement. Indeed, it is very much in keeping with the Ulster Unionist Party's proposal of about six months ago when my predecessor, Tom Elliott, whilst in support of the creation of a review, asked for an estimation of governance. I appreciate that.

The Minister talked about the stakeholder group. Will he assure us that under-represented groups, such as the disabled and children and young people, who have previously been neglected in government policy, will be consulted on the establishment of the panel and its membership?

Mr Muir: The stakeholder reference group still has to be established. We will want to make sure that relevant views are considered as part of that, and the panel has already defined a number of groups with whom it will want to engage. Of course, the panel will be open to further engagement.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire fosta.

Assuming that the independent panel that has been announced today leads to the creation of the independent environmental protection agency, we will then have the IEPA, the Environment Agency, the future climate commissioner and the Office for Environmental Protection. How would the creation of an IEPA, if that is what the review leads to, affect the role of the OEP and those other organisations?

Mr Muir: The Member touched upon the important issue of the complexity of the landscape that we are in. We have the Office for Environmental Protection, the NIEA, the climate commissioner, who will come on board, and the just transition commission. That is why it is important that we give that matter careful consideration.

Many people come to me and say that they want an independent environmental protection agency. My support for that is clearly on the record. What I have not heard, however, is exactly what its functions should be, what it should do and how it would fit into the way forward for the environmental governance landscape. That is the key issue, and I am establishing the panel so that we can consider the landscape that we are in and where we want to take things.

I hear the concerns around that, and that is why I am taking action on it. I hope that people will see it for what it is, which is a genuine attempt to try to improve environmental governance in Northern Ireland. I could have come to the Assembly and said that I am setting up an independent environmental protection agency tomorrow, but what about the details of it? What would its powers be? How would it be funded? Where would the accountability measures for it be? It is also important that we engage with society on those issues so that we can bring forward very clear proposals that would have the support of society in Northern Ireland, because we need to work together on those issues.

Miss McIlveen: Whether it is the NIEA or an independent environmental protection agency, it is imperative that a body be appropriately funded and staffed. Will the panel look at the performance of NIEA in the correct context while recognising underfunding? What process was undertaken to identify and appoint the panel? Is it not somewhat disingenuous to suggest that the recommendations "may contain proposals", when two of the panel have already stated their desire for an independent environmental protection agency?

Mr Muir: I decided to ask the individuals to serve on the panel. I believe that they bring appropriate expertise on academia, the environment and agriculture. I think that they will do a very good job, and I am grateful to them for stepping forward to serve. The NIEA is part of my Department. I am proud of the work that it does, and capable individuals work there.

Part of the issue in any consideration of an independent environmental protection agency is resourcing. That is crucial, because it also feeds into the structure of the organisation. You could set up an independent body, but, essentially, the funding could then be determined as part of Budget rounds and stuff like that. That could also be a consideration when thinking about its effectiveness. That is why we need proper consideration of how anything will be resourced. That is for the panel to engage with people on and to consider.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the statement and for the progress that has been made on the review of environmental governance. What difference does the Minister think that an independent environmental protection agency, or a similar body, might make in preventing environmentally damaging scenes such as those that we see recurring at Lough Neagh?

Mr Muir: A number of issues can be teased out from that. One is public trust and confidence. That is where the independence point arises in how the body would be structured and how you would ensure that it genuinely was independent. Some people may say to me that other bodies across the UK, Ireland and Europe are independent, yet they are under the direction of Ministers, so when you tease it out a bit more, you find that the consideration of the issue is a bit more detailed.

The other point relates to the body's ability to take action to deal with environmental issues and being able to have the confidence to speak out on the issues of the day. The chair of the Office for Environmental Protection was on the radio this morning debating the water quality report, and that was a constructive contribution to the issue.

I come here, as the Minister, looking for increased and strengthened environmental governance. I do not shy away from it, and that is why it is important that it is done.

Ms Á Murphy: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, will you explain how the members of the independent panel were chosen? What exactly were the processes in the appointments or the applications?

Mr Muir: In considering members for the panel, we had to look at the different expertise that was required. It was not a public appointment process, because it is a very short, focused piece of work that requires expertise. Those were the people whom I appointed, and I believe that they will do an excellent job.

Mr McMurray: How does the regulatory regime that has been in place for Northern Ireland Water since its foundation in 2007 fit as part of this review?

Mr Muir: I am taking that forward separately, because one can walk and chew gum at the same time. I have asked officials to review the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI), which has been the arrangement in place for NI Water since 2007, when it was founded. I am on the record as saying that I do not believe that that statement is fit for purpose and that we need to call time on SORPI. I want to move to a situation where, in a regulatory context, NI Water is treated like any other polluter in Northern Ireland, and I am working on that as well.

Mr Gildernew: I welcome the Minister's statement, particularly around the issues of scrutiny, accountability and public confidence, given the matters that he and I have previously discussed in my constituency. Is he able to assure us that the new arrangements will ensure that communities can access those helplines as and when they are needed and that a robust and timely response will be available to them?

Mr Muir: The Member touches on the importance of setting up the panel. That is why I am taking this approach so that the public can engage with the panel and have their views heard. I am keen to do that, because this is a genuine attempt to ensure that people's issues are heard and that their desires for improving environmental governance can shape the way forward. I am genuinely committed to doing that and I am making a real attempt to try to move the issue forward.

Mr McAleer: Minister, the statement referenced the NIEA. Without pre-empting the outcome of the inquiry that you are setting up, how do you envisage that NIEA will interface or sit alongside the new proposed IEPA?

Mr Muir: It will be for the panel to come back with recommendations. Members will know that NIEA performs various functions. I am very conscious of the good work that NIEA does, and I expressed my thanks to its officials in my statement because I am very grateful for the excellent job that they do. However, we need to consider what any future arrangements will involve and how that will interface with NIEA. The panel will tease that out in the time ahead. I am not going to prescribe exactly how I feel that NIEA should perform, because there are other environmental governance functions in Northern Ireland beyond NIEA that we will want to consider.

Mr Clarke: Minister, in your statement, you clearly commend the work of NIEA. However, is bringing in an independent agency not a duplication and does it not increase bureaucracy? Were you listening last night to the farmers' views of your environmental statistics so far?

Mr Muir: It is not a duplication: it is a genuine attempt to ensure that there is not duplication and that we consider a better way forward. I am listening to people, and I get the concerns around environmental issues in Northern Ireland. Farmers are the custodians of our countryside, and they are doing an excellent job. There are many examples of that across Northern Ireland. We all know that we need to do better, and that is what this is about: it is about trying to do things together. We would do well to listen a bit more in Northern Ireland, and this is an attempt to do that.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, like me, you are a champion for young people's voices. How will the panel engage with young people, and who else do you envision the panel engaging with?

Mr Muir: The list of organisations that the panel will engage with will include youth groups in Northern Ireland, such as, for example, the Northern Ireland Youth Forum and the Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster. It is important that young people's voices are heard in relation to this, and that is what the panel will be doing in the time ahead.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I was startled by this statement. In the past 20 years, we have had, I think, four reviews of environmental governance and, in that time, we have seen Europe's worst environmental crime at Mobuoy and one of the most startling examples of environmental degradation at Lough Neagh. Your party's 2022 manifesto said that you would set up an independent environmental protection agency. It did not say that you would set up a panel or consult on whether to set up an environmental protection agency: it said that you would set up such an agency. Are you running scared from actually delivering on environmental protection, and is it not the case that if this panel reviews on, maybe, whether to set up an environmental protection agency by next summer, there is no chance whatsoever of it passing into law by the end of this mandate?

Mr Muir: That is entirely untrue, Matthew, and you know that. You know that I am firmly committed to the environment in Northern Ireland. You know that I stand very strongly in support of our manifesto. However, I face significant challenges in this job, one of which is about how to bring people with us and improve our environment together. That is what I am firmly committed to doing. This is a very strong statement from me about working with people and trying to improve environmental governance in Northern Ireland.

I am on the record as having said, time and again, that I believe in having an independent environmental protection agency. That is my belief and my view. I am looking to improve environmental governance in Northern Ireland in the time ahead. By appointing an experienced and respected panel, I have taken the issue to another level: it is about doing it. With the greatest respect, I say that the SDLP reviewed that previously, and it went nowhere. I am trying to take it somewhere.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for his statement and his commitment to the environment. What impact will improved environmental governance have on the tackling of illegal dumping and fly-tipping?

Mr Muir: A key issue is how we work together, particularly in central government and local government, to address those issues. It is key that we look at that. The next step of the review of environmental governance will give us the opportunity to do that. From looking at previous reviews, it is apparent that there is a need for collaboration on those issues. The current review will, hopefully, provide a way forward whereby we will have an improved way of dealing with the issues that the Member has outlined.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for another marathon statement, but, sadly, it seems that we are running round in circles a bit.

The Minister is aware that I am working on a Member's Bill that includes provision for the establishment of an independent environment agency. I was half hoping that the Minister would beat me to it, but, from his statement, it appears that that is unlikely to be the case.

The Minister referred to a review carried out by the SDLP. Does the Minister accept that, at the time of that review, the majority of Ministers in the Executive were opposed to the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency, whereas now there is a majority in the Executive and in the Assembly that has repeatedly voted in favour of the establishment of an IEPA?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the Member's Bill and am working to engage constructively with the Member on it. There are lots of good elements in the Bill, and we talked about those recently. I believe that we can work towards introducing the Bill in this mandate. As the Member knows, we have a multi-party Executive. It is an arranged marriage that has brought us together, and I need to bring people in the Executive with us. I am committed to doing that, not to grandstanding on the issue.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his statement. The Minister will be aware from last night's rally of the strength of feeling among farmers about the issue of planning and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. There are 200 applications in the system, many of which are for replacement buildings on farms. Has the Minister found or is he trying to find a solution to the situation?

Mr Muir: The Member outlines the issue of air quality and ammonia in Northern Ireland and how my Department, as a statutory consultee, is replying to the relevant planning authorities on that. I am aware of those concerns.

When I took on this ministerial office in February, I inherited a number of challenges, one of which is the issue that the Member has outlined. I grasped the issue and have been convening ministerial round tables to consider a better way forward. I am chairing those round tables. We had a meeting last week, and we will have a meeting in January, which will be to consider, primarily, the issue of replacement buildings.

I am committed to finding a better way forward, because the current system is not working for our environment or for farmers in Northern Ireland. I am determined that we chart a better course in tackling those issues, which will probably be aired further in the Chamber today, given some of the motions in the Order Paper. We need to find a way forward, and we need to be conscious of the legal framework and the recently published report of the Office for Environmental Protection.

Mr McNulty: Minister, thank you for your statement. You called attention to the commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' to the Executive establishing an independent environmental protection agency, but you seemed to then recoil from that position: mixed messaging. What if the independent panel cannot reach an agreed position on the establishment of an independent EPA? What then?

Mr Muir: Ultimately, that sits with me. It is for me to bring decisions to the Executive and then to the Assembly. I have commissioned the process to move this forward, but it will come back to me and will be for me to determine a way forward. The Member is aware of the wording of the New Decade, New Approach commitment. It relates to climate change legislation, which is something that I also seek to progress.

There has been no mixed messaging from me. I am very clear that I believe in having stronger environmental governance. I also believe in an independent environmental protection agency. What is more, I am determined to do something constructive about it.

Mr Gaston: Minister, in a previous answer to me, you advised the House that 24% of excess phosphorous entering the water environment in Northern Ireland is from waste water treatment works, yet your statement does not even mention the Department for Infrastructure or Northern Ireland Water. After your experience last night, Minister, why have you not learned that, as Minister of Agriculture, you should not be afraid to speak up for farmers and point the finger at the ministerial colleagues who are contributing to the environmental problems?

Mr Muir: I am the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and I am focused on the entire remit of my Department. I have consistently been on the record about the arrangement with Northern Ireland Water, known as "SORPI", which puts Northern Ireland Water in a separate regulatory regime compared with others. I have made clear the need to call time on that. It is not fit for purpose, and I have asked officials to review it. It is not acceptable that NI Water is treated differently as a polluter compared with everyone else, and I am working to address that.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister. He will know that Northern Ireland Water has special dispensation; in fact, we do not know the full scale of the pollution. We know that 40% of storm overflows already fail the standard and, indeed, that 1,200 overflows are still to be assessed. When, exactly, will we see details of what his Department will do about SORPI? Time is ticking on this really important issue. Farmers are not always to blame. It is important that we deal with the problems in our Government on the issue.

Mr Muir: I have tasked officials to review SORPI. I understand that that review will be concluded by the end of the year, and I will then take it forward. I will be looking for the support of Members. For me to be able to remove the separate regulatory regime for Northern Ireland Water, I will need support from Members in the Assembly. I am very clear that NI Water pumping sewage into our rivers, lakes and loughs is not acceptable, and it needs to end.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Mr Lyons: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to points of order made earlier, is it in order for me to say that I understand that concerns have been expressed about comments that I made as I was leaving the Chamber yesterday? I believe in the cut and thrust of debate. I believe that we need to robustly challenge each other in the Chamber. I can give it, and I can take it, but I understand that there are those in the Chamber whom I have, perhaps, sincerely offended, and I am more than content to apologise for that. We need to continue that robust debate, but I understand the concerns that some have expressed today.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for making that point of order.

We now move to a statement from the Minister for Communities. Members may take their ease while the Deputy Speaker takes the Chair.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I again remind Members that questions must be concise. This is not an opportunity for debate or long introductions.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I wish to update the Assembly regarding winter fuel payments in Northern Ireland.

Being in government is about making choices. Sometimes, we have to take difficult decisions in the best interests of the people we serve. The Labour Government have sought to portray the decision on the winter fuel payment as difficult but necessary: I could not disagree more. I have previously set out my opposition to their move, and I will continue to make the case for full reinstatement. It was not in the Labour Party manifesto; it was not even mooted by them beforehand. Secondly, I do not believe that there will be a significant financial saving, and, finally but most importantly, I believe that it will be detrimental to the health and well-being of many of our people, especially those who just fall short of qualifying for pension credit.

As we all know, winter brings many challenges. For our older people, staying warm and healthy during the colder months is particularly important. Energy costs are not just a financial issue; they affect people's comfort, health and quality of life. The decision by the Labour Government to remove the winter fuel payment from pensioners who are not on pension credit or other means-tested benefits has left many of our people feeling anxious about how they will manage their energy bills this winter. The decision has had a significant impact, and I recognise the need to act quickly to provide relief.

In my statement to the Assembly on 10 September, I advised that I had asked Executive colleagues to ring-fence any Barnett consequentials for cost-of-living support this winter. That request was to enable me to do whatever I could to alleviate the worst consequences of the winter fuel payment changes announced by the Labour Government. I have kept my promise. I am pleased to announce that I have secured £17 million to help mitigate those winter fuel payment changes. I thank my Executive colleagues for supporting my bid for that funding.

My goal is simple: to ensure that every pensioner in Northern Ireland has some support to stay warm and safe during the winter. We understand that the costs of fuel and energy are a burden on many households, particularly those on fixed incomes, as is the case with our pensioners. On the basis of the available funding, I asked my officials to explore options to help and support the pensioners impacted by the loss of the winter fuel payment. Following careful examination of each of those options, I can confirm that a one-off winter fuel payment of £100 will be paid to all pensioner households affected by the Labour Government's decision. I believe that that initiative reflects my commitment to fairness, compassion and responsibility towards our older population.

My officials are now working at pace to prepare and bring forward the necessary legislation to finalise arrangements. The payment will be made available to all pensioner households that have had their winter fuel payments removed. There will be no application process, as we will automatically identify eligible individuals through existing records. That approach will ensure a smooth and efficient distribution of payments without the additional burden of application forms or red tape. The payment will be made before the end of March 2025. However, I am working closely with officials to deliver it as soon as possible.

As previously stated, it is extremely important that people ensure that they are receiving all the benefits that they are entitled to. Recent pension credit promotional activities by my Department have been successful, and the number of pension credit applications has increased significantly. During the period of August to October 2024, 3,026 pension credit applications were received. That is an increase of around 56% on the number of applications received in the corresponding period last year, during which there were 1,941 applications for pension credit.

Furthermore, last week I announced an uptake in additional benefits of £62 million in 2023-24 through my Department's Make the Call service, £21 million of which went to pensioners. That free and confidential service puts people in touch with support that they may be entitled to but have not been claiming. Pension credit in particular can provide access to a range of other supports and benefits, which can be a lifeline for our older generations. I want to ensure that all available support and entitlements go directly to those who need them, so I encourage everyone to make the call.

There is also good progress being made on the fuel poverty strategy, which has the vision of a warm, healthy home for everyone. I look forward to launching the consultation in the next number of weeks. The actions from the strategy will eventually deliver future benefits for the people of Northern Ireland, but we are all acutely aware of the energy well-being needs of today. That is why I hope that the additional support will be welcomed by the pensioner households affected by Labour's decision. I have heard the stories from those who are worried about what the cut has meant for them. Although I may not be in a position to reinstate fully that which has been removed, I pledged to the House that I would do what I can to help, and that is what I have done today. I hope that the announcement brings some comfort to those who were most affected. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, March 2025 helps no one today. You know fully about the struggles that people face. Today, £100 buys 150 litres of heating oil. That really does not go far enough to help those who are struggling. Will you clarify for the House whether the support is per household or per pensioner?

Mr Lyons: If he had listened to my statement, the Member would have heard that it is for pensioner households. All that we get is criticism from the Opposition. It is not the constructive opposition that we were promised but just negativity.

The Labour Government, of whom the SDLP is a sister party, removed in its entirety 80% of the funding that was available for winter fuel payments, which meant that 80% of pensioners were going to lose out because of that decision. I stood here and said that I would do what I could with what I had. I bid for the funding and secured it, and I am getting that funding out to people across Northern Ireland.

I have been clear that it is not what I would like to be doing. I would like the payment to be fully reinstated, but I am doing what I can. I would be interested in hearing what, if Mr McCrossan were in my position, he would have done differently. I believe that we have put the best solution that we could in place to provide some comfort to those who are in need. He is shaking his head. I would love to hear his alternative, but, of course, he does not have one.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Minister, I very much welcome this morning's statement, which confirms that £17 million will be allocated to all the households that lost their winter fuel payment. The Labour Government's decision to remove that vital payment from so many pensioners was cruel and callous, and they should reverse it immediately.

While it is welcome, it is only a one-off payment and does not fully replace the payment that was taken away by the British Government. Minister, will you bid for any further funding that may become available in order to top up the scheme? How will you ensure that pensioners are protected in the longer term?

Mr Lyons: The Member asks a couple of questions. First, as I outlined in my statement, it is a one-off payment for this year, because that is the money that I currently have available. I, of course, hope to be in a position to extend the household support fund. I emphasise, however, that, although the payment is not a permanent one — we are not in a position to do that — we are doing what we can to help.

The Member raised the important issue of longer-term support. I will go out to consultation shortly on a fuel poverty strategy. We will have the anti-poverty strategy in the new year as well. There are many issues to do with fuel poverty that need to be addressed. That is where the funding can have the greatest impact for the longest period. I look forward to going out to consultation and getting responses, but it is important that, in the meantime, we give whatever help we can, which is what I am doing.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement. It will be really welcome in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The Minister has put in place extra help for debt services, and he has now put in place fuel support for pensioners. Will he tell me whether, rather than just saying that the payment needed to be fully restored for constituents, any other party came to him with a concrete plan? Will he provide a breakdown of exactly what the payment will mean for constituents across Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I am tempted to say that, if the Member thinks that the Opposition or other parties will come forward with alternative proposals, perhaps she is being a little naive. She will be aware that lots of people like to sit on the other side of the Chamber and pontificate about what they would like to see, but they have no concrete plan to deliver it and no idea of where it would come from.

The payment will assist almost a quarter of a million pensioners. Those are people who live in households that would otherwise have lost out. It is not everything that we would like to be in a position to give, but it is some help that will be available for them.

Ms Mulholland: I wonder why the Minister felt it appropriate to give notice of his statement to an east Antrim Facebook group before the House was notified, which contravenes Standing Order 18B. Maybe the Minister could clarify why he did that.

My question is this: was any consideration given to alternative approaches to the flat-rate payment, such as a targeted system that takes into account varying levels of need among pensioners to ensure that the funding achieves maximum impact?

Mr Lyons: First, in any online post or comment that I made prior to my statement today, I said that I would be coming forward with a proposal. I did not indicate in those posts —.

Ms Mulholland: You said:

Mr Lyons: Yes. I said that I intended to make a statement to the House. Is it in any way inappropriate for me to indicate that I will make a statement to the House? No, it is not. In fact, I know that that is not the case because I spoke directly to the Speaker and told him that I intended to make a statement. I asked him whether he had an issue with my publicising the fact that I was going to make a statement to make people aware, and he said no. The Member is shaking her head, but I spoke to the Speaker and got that assurance. She is still shaking her head: maybe she had conversations with the Speaker that I know nothing about. I gave no detail of the information in my statement or about the extra £100 that will go to households that did not previously get it.

The reason why it is a flat-rate payment that will go to all pensioners is that we have limited tools at our disposal in how we allocate the funding in Northern Ireland. We are using the existing Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) systems. They are in place, and we have permission to use them for this year. It is right and appropriate that we do this as quickly as possible.

I did not want to get us into a position where we had an application process and people had to fill in forms or that our older people had to go online or get someone to help them. We would then have needed to use very many man-hours of Department officials' time to deliver the payment. I wanted the support to go out as simply and straightforwardly as possible. That is why we have done what we have done.

Mr Allen: I join colleagues in welcoming the positive announcement by the Minister. I recognise the action. My party and I have engaged with him positively on those measures and others, and I am sure that he will recognise that.

The Minister highlighted the increased uptake in applications for pension credit. Will he provide more information on the number of those that will result in a positive award, how many will fall within backdating processes and how the policy aligns with his ambitions for the fuel poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: Additional applications have been made for pension credit. Obviously, those need to go through the system, and it will take a little time before we have the information about the number of people who were successful. Those who are entitled to pension credit will not only see its full restoration but have the ability to avail themselves of many other benefits.

The objective of the fuel poverty strategy is to make sure that everyone lives in a warm home. The emergency fuel support certainly aligns with that strategy, which I hope to be able to put in place after consultation, in that it will ensure that people have more resource specifically to pay for their fuel needs.

Ms Ferguson: I, too, very much welcome the Minister's announcement of the £17 million in funding and the one-off winter fuel payment of £100 for all pensioners who have been affected. Does the Minister plan to address any potential gaps in support for pensioners who may not meet the eligibility criteria or those who may receive £100 but still struggle? Is there any slippage in that £17 million that can be set aside for those pensioners?

Mr Lyons: We expect the full £17 million to be used for the winter fuel payment for those who will lose out, but, again, I take the opportunity to encourage people to use the Make the Call service. We have had a fantastic response to that. Millions and millions of pounds of additional benefit are being delivered to people across Northern Ireland, simply because they are now applying for and getting the benefits that they are entitled to. I encourage the Member and others to, in the first instance, get people to use that service.

Mr Buckley: Minister, I welcome the statement. It is hugely welcome that this is the first devolved region to attempt to deal with the deceit, hurt and lies of the Labour Party's decision to remove the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners across the United Kingdom. What has been the attitude of the Labour Party to date in his conversations with it about potential recurring funding or reinstatement of the fund? Does the Minister believe that, in the coming years, we will see an overturning of the policy?

Mr Lyons: As the Member knows, I am extremely concerned about this and the impacts that it will have. That is why I have raised it at every level that I have been able to as a Minister. I have spoken to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and to DWP, and, together with Executive colleagues, we have written to the Prime Minister. I would characterise the response as disappointing. It is disappointing because they do not seem to understand the plight of older people in Northern Ireland, and it is disappointing that so many continue to parrot the line that this is somehow a way in which we give lots of money to millionaires when the vast majority of people, of course, do not find themselves in that category.

The Member asked what, I think, the prospects are of them changing course on the policy. I am not sure, but I certainly think that they should. I do not think that it will save them any money at all; in fact, it might cost more, because you will have more people moving on to pension credit who will get not only the winter fuel payment but all the other benefits that they may be entitled to. It is an ill-thought-out policy and, I have to say, very disappointing. It is not dissimilar to issues that we were talking about last night in relation to the changes to agricultural relief with regard to inheritance tax. They are ill-thought-out policies that will have a detrimental impact on some of those who need our support and help.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. It is certainly welcome, particularly as you say that it will assist those who fall short of qualifying for pension credit. What action are you taking to tackle the broad issue of fuel poverty? Bearing in mind that giving £100 to pensioners in Northern Ireland, including those who do not actually need that payment, is a scattergun approach, when will you tackle fuel poverty, Minister?

Mr Lyons: First of all, we have a draft fuel poverty strategy that will go out to consultation in the next number of weeks. It is important that we set a longer-term plan for how we deal with some of the issues. I strongly disagree with what the Member said about a "scattergun approach". The vast majority of people who will avail themselves of the additional support will need it, and I would rather be in a position where we give it to everybody and some who do not need get it than be in a position where many people who need it do not get it at all. It is important that we provide that support.

I got extra funding as a Barnett consequential. I bid for that, and it came for the household support fund, which is there to help the households that will be struggling this winter. It is entirely appropriate that we put it towards those who find themselves less well off compared with last year. However, of course, we need to have longer-term plans in place, and that is exactly what I will do with the fuel poverty strategy.

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

I welcome the statement, as my colleagues have. Minister, you did not consult the Communities Committee before giving the statement: why?

Mr Lyons: I have corresponded with the Committee, of course, and we have talked through this at previous meetings. There is limited scope for us, and there was really limited debate for us to have about it. There were not many good options for us and not many good options available for the distribution of the payment, but it was my prerogative as Minister to go forward and find a way as quickly as possible to help those who are in need. That is what I have done.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. A few months back, when the winter fuel payment was cut without any consultation or warning, pensioners across the United Kingdom were absolutely shocked and devastated. The Minister said at that time that he was committed to delivering what he could, and I am pleased to see him here delivering on that promise. That is very welcome to many pensioner households across South Down. On the administration of this, how can we ensure that our constituents' details that are stored on the system are current and up to date to ensure that we are maximising the delivery of the scheme?

Mr Lyons: First, if someone was in receipt of a payment before, they will continue to be in receipt of that payment, because we still have the details in the DWP system that we are using. However, as always, there are those who feel that they may miss out or that there have been some issues that mean that they have not got the support that they thought they were otherwise going to get, so, of course, there will be support from my Department to make sure that we can help those who fall through there. I want to make sure that we do have that support available and that people do not feel that they are lost and do not know where they can go if there is an issue.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for this very welcome announcement, and I commend him for it. We all share concerns that increasing numbers of older people are being targeted by scammers, so can the Minister confirm that his Department will not be sending any correspondence or requests for bank account details or other personal information to senior citizens to enable this payment?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. I want to confirm that and be very clear, and I would appreciate it if Members could share that information as well. My Department will never ask for bank details or personal information by phone, by text or by email, and we have updated the benefit-related pages on nidirect to make that clear. If anyone does get such a message, it will be a scam, and you should report any suspicious emails or text messages that are asking for your bank details.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Minister. I hope that, when you said earlier that plenty of man-hours would be spent on this, you meant that plenty of woman-hours would be spent too.

Minister, if the Committee for Communities had had the opportunity to discuss this with you, one of the things that we would like to have done would have been to ensure that you have enough support. Of the £17 million, is a portion going to be withheld for your Department to administer the scheme? Can you explain how the computing system will work to identify the people who are not on pension credit?

Mr Lyons: First, thankfully, very few man-hours or woman-hours will need to be used on this, because we will be using a system that is already in place. That takes me to the second part of the Member's question, which is in relation to how this is processed. Essentially, there is the data set of everybody who was previously getting it. Those who are on pension credit will have been taken out, so we will be using the remainder to process this. It will take some time, because we are using the DWP system, and we need to get in there. DWP has given us permission to do that and said that it will deliver this. We need to get a slot to get in there because, obviously, the IT systems are used for various different changes, including the current winter fuel payment changes that will be taking place in the rest of the UK. As I said, I hope that that will happen as soon as possible. I will continue to put the pressure on to ensure that those who are in need get this as soon as possible.

Mr Durkan: I welcome the statement from the Minister. This is good news, but, for poor pensioners who were getting £200 or £300 and who are now getting £100, and maybe not until the end of March, it will be too little and it will be too late. I am not sure whether the Minister wants to have to come back and make another apology to the House, but the SDLP Opposition have been in touch with the Department, making proposals around the extension of the warm homes discount scheme and, indeed, means testing.

I will come to my question, Minister. When can we expect to see the publication of the anti-poverty strategy, yet another of the Minister's priorities, which has been "coming soon" since he took office 10 months ago?

Mr Lyons: Let me say this about the anti-poverty strategy: it has been a requirement, under the 1998 Act, for coming onto 26 years to deliver an anti-poverty strategy. None of the previous Ministers has been in a position to do that. As I have already confirmed and am happy to confirm again, that will be brought to the Executive in January. It has been a priority for me. I have been making progress on it. I want to make sure that it is fit for purpose. I want to make sure that I have buy-in from Executive colleagues, which is why I have set up an interdepartmental working group so that we can make progress on those issues and tackle the root causes of poverty and not just deal with the symptoms. As I have said, it will be brought forward, and I look forward to delivering, once more, in this Department.

A Member: Hear, hear.

Mr McGuigan: How will the Minister's Department report on the impact and outcomes of the funding to ensure accountability?

Mr Lyons: This is a continuation of what was previously in place, albeit at a lower level. It is a one-off payment, and I think that we can all agree that it will be of value and worth because it is going to those who have otherwise been forgotten by the Labour Government.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his statement. This is significant news that will be very much welcomed by our constituents in East Antrim. We have touched on the PAC's report 'Child Poverty in Northern Ireland', which was launched this month and called for a new anti-poverty strategy. I very much welcome the Minister's commitment to that. Will the Minister detail what actions his Department is taking to address the root causes of poverty in society and how we can support the most vulnerable in our society?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. Again, I am happy to confirm to the House that good progress has been made on that. We need to tackle poverty in a number of ways. We need to make sure that we prevent people from falling into poverty, that we help those experiencing poverty and that we find a way to get people out of poverty. Those will be the three pillars of the strategy. It is about making sure that we break down the barriers to employment and that, for those who cannot get employment or older people in society, we have a safety net that means that they can live comfortable and warm lives.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. What safeguards does the Minister have in place to ensure that no eligible pensioners are missed in the automatic roll-out?

Mr Lyons: We will be using the database that was used in the past, which, we believe, will cover everybody who is entitled. However, if there are any issues, as I said in the answer to a previous question, we will provide support to ensure that people can get in contact with us if there are any problems.

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

Will the Minister explain why he has prioritised a one-off payment rather than alternative forms of ongoing support for pensioners, particularly in the absence of a fuel poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: I would have hoped that the Member would welcome £100 for all those who lost out as a result of the Labour Government's changes. Why did I prioritise this? It is because I bid for and secured funding on the basis that it would be used to help those who had otherwise lost out. That money was ring-fenced from the Finance Minister to me for that purpose. I was not able to use it for anything else, because it was there to ameliorate some of the impacts of the winter fuel payment cut. It is fairly straightforward, I would have thought.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement. He has already answered most of my queries. It underscores the need for pensioners to review their benefit entitlements to ensure that they receive the support available to them. Has the Minister engaged with any Department other than DWP to ensure that nobody misses out on the one-off payment?

Mr Lyons: Certainty, most of my engagement with UK Departments has been with DWP. However, on the wider issue of the winter fuel payment and the need for its reinstatement, I have raised that at every opportunity with every UK Minister who has any responsibility in the area. It is a one-off payment, but I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision, see sense and restore that funding. The decision that they have made will end up costing them more. I encourage others in the House to make that case to the Government so that we can help those who are in need.

Mr Chambers: As a proud pensioner, I have to declare an interest in the topic. What role did third-party stakeholders, such as charities, community organisations and pensioners advocacy groups, play in helping him to shape the policy?

Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to have delivered for Mr Chambers and, more importantly, for many other people across Northern Ireland. On the engagement that I have had, many people contacted me to encourage me to take action like that which I am taking today. That will, I think, be welcomed.

I know that there are questions about the universal nature of the payment, but we have to understand the processes, tools and levers that were available to us; they were limited. I wish that we were in a position simply to give the resource to those who are most in need, but, unfortunately, we have to take this approach. The organisations that the Member refers to will understand and recognise that action of a universal nature was needed because there was simply no alternative. I send a message to those who find that they do not need the funding that they have been given. I encourage them — I am sure that the Member agrees, as he is nodding — to consider giving that support to the fantastic charities and organisations that help those who are in need. I hope that the Member will consider that.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his statement, which will be very much welcomed by pensioners in the Foyle constituency. It is important that we send a clear and consistent message about how the payments will be received. Will the Minister remind the House of the eligibility criteria for the Government's current winter fuel payment scheme? Will an application process be required for his one-off payment?

Mr Lyons: As many Members will be aware, changes made by the Labour Government restricted those who would receive the winter fuel payment to the category of pensioners in receipt a benefit, such as pension credit. I have decided that those who previously got the payment but are no longer eligible will get support of £100 that will be paid directly into the bank account that receives their pension. I am pleased to confirm that there will be no application process. When it comes to email and other types of scam, do not send your personal information. You will not be requested to fill out a form or do anything like that — it will be automatic. I want to make sure that that message hits home today, because I do not want the payment to be used as an opportunity for anyone to take advantage of our older citizens.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his statement. We are all aware that, under the previous UK scheme, households that did not need the winter fuel payment received it anyway, as the Minister mentioned, rather than its being targeted at real need. What is his assessment of the concern that his approach simply replicates the issues with the previous scheme but with everyone receiving less?

Mr Lyons: I understand that. I recognise that many people who do not need the payment — it will not be essential for them — will get it, but I was in the position of having to decide what to do with the money that I had secured. First, it was right to bid for the money from the household support fund. It was appropriate to use that for older people. The question then became, "How do I distribute that money?". Doing it on the basis of what we have and the decision that I have announced today makes it universal. Using the IT system is the only way for us to get the money out quickly, without going through an application process and needing people in the Department to manually process it. Very few options were available to me to get that money out, but, as I said, I would rather find myself in the position of giving some money to those who do not need it than see those who do need it get nothing at all.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, thank you for your statement. Many pensioners in my constituency and throughout Northern Ireland will really welcome the one-off £100 payment. My household will get it, but I do not need it. I would like to regift it as part of a process set up by your Department so that the money can go to the charities that are trying to tackle fuel poverty throughout Northern Ireland, such as Bryson House and others. Will you set up a system whereby those who, like me — sorry, my household — do not need the money, can send it back to be targeted to those who need it? Surely, that would be a better way to do it. It would not be a very complicated process to tell households, "If you do not want this money, you can send it back to the Department, and we will ring-fence it and give it to the appropriate charities that are dealing with fuel poverty on the ground".

Mr Lyons: I sense a thawing of relations between Sinéad McLaughlin and I.

Ms McLaughlin: I do not think so.

Mr Lyons: Oh. She does not think so. [Laughter.]

I spoke too soon.

Regardless, I welcome it that she supports the action that I have taken today. I was going to say to her that I did not think that it was possible for her to be in receipt of the winter fuel payment, but I will not make any comment after what she just said.

I understand her concern. I welcome the fact that there will be people like her who want to give that resource —.

Ms McLaughlin: My household.

Mr Lyons: I apologise. There will be people like her who want to give to someone else the resource that would have gone to their household. That would create an additional layer of bureaucracy in my Department, and the process of determining who is best placed to do that would be significant. There would be all sorts of procurement and bidding issues as well. In the short period of time that we have, I ask that those households use their discretion to decide where the resource should go to help those who are in most need. The Member mentioned one organisation. That would be the quickest, simplest and most straightforward thing to do.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for his statement and congratulate him for bringing forward the scheme. I have listened to some of the questions and heard some of those who will receive the payment coming up with all sorts of ideas because they do not want it. Of course, they are in the privileged position of not requiring it, but many people do require it. Is there a danger that some of the ideas from some of those in the Chamber who may receive the payment would lead to some of the money being used to implement the scheme instead of going to pensioners? There would be a cost to changing the scheme. Surely, Minister, that is why you made the decision to have a quick roll-out. Some may criticise that, but their MPs were happy to support it at Westminster. Your approach is the best option.

Mr Lyons: Yes, I can confirm that it absolutely is. I have scars from the experiences that we had during COVID. It is not easy to draft papers and put together a scheme, with an application and verification process. Getting such a scheme out would not only take more time but more work and more staff, which would cost more money and leave less money for those who need it. If anyone else had been in the position that I find myself in today, they would have taken the same route. If our desire is to help those who are most in need to get the support that they require as quickly as possible, this is the best way to do it. I did not want to go down the route of application processes, appeals and all the extra work that would need to be done as a result. It was my decision on the advice of officials in the Department. I know that we will face challenges. Some will get the payment despite their not needing it, and the amount may not be enough for others, but I want as much of the money that I have secured as possible to go to those who actually need it. That is what I have delivered today.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I welcome your statement in response to the assault by the Labour Party against some of the most vulnerable in our society, who depend on the winter fuel payment. You have confirmed that the new payment will be paid through the DWP system. If the payment does not arrive, should people contact DWP or the Department for Communities? Will those who would have newly qualified this year for the winter fuel payment now qualify to receive the £100, since the policy has changed?

Mr Lyons: Yes is the answer to the last question. The payment includes everybody over the age of 66. We will provide the necessary assistance to those who find themselves in a position in which they had expected to get the payment but did not get it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we move on, I remind Members that they must be in the Chamber for the statement if they expect to be called for a question. That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

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

Mr Lyons: The draft Electrical Safety Standards for Private Tenancies Regulations 2024 aim to remove danger to life and to reduce the risk of injury and damage to property. The regulations therefore introduce five-yearly certified electrical safety checks of a private rental property's hardwired electrical installation by a qualified electrician. Northern Ireland census data shows that, over the past 40 years, the percentage of households that privately rent has nearly doubled. Today, over 300,000 people live in over 130,000 privately rented households. As Members would expect, growth in the sector has been matched by increasing diversity in its tenant characteristics. There are now more families with children in the private rented sector than in the social sector. There are also around 27,000 people living in the sector who have disabilities, while nearly 18,000 tenants are aged 65 or over.

It is imperative that we remind ourselves why the regulations are important. 'Recharge', a report by Electrical Safety First (ESF), estimates that nearly 60% of all accidental fires in Northern Ireland homes are caused by electrical faults. It also highlights the fact that events are particularly traumatic for those in higher-risk groups as a result of, for example, their age or their having a disability. Compared with that in the rest of the United Kingdom, there is currently limited electrical safety protection for private tenants in Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government, for example, required private rental properties to have mandatory five-yearly electrical checks from 2015. A similar requirement was introduced in England in June 2020, and Wales followed suit in 2022. In Northern Ireland, although private rental landlords must undertake an annual safety check of gas boilers, there is no mandatory legislative requirement for them to check a rental property's electrical system. Currently, it is recommended only that landlords ensure that electrical fixed-wiring installations remain safe to use.

I therefore think that Members will agree that it makes sense that, as a safeguard for tenants, we move to legislate to introduce five-yearly electrical safety checks of a private rental property's hardwired electrical installation. Given the technical content, the regulations have been developed by my Department with assistance from an expert advisory panel. The panel included representatives from Electrical Safety First, the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS), council enforcement divisions and the Department of Finance's construction division.

The electrical installation must meet the required standards specified under the regulations, and landlords must provide a copy of the electrician's report to their tenant and, on request, to the council. The inspection will investigate key issues, including whether any part of the electrical installation is overloaded, whether there are any potential electric shock risks and fire hazards and whether there is any defective electrical work. Following the inspection, the landlord will be given a report from the electrician. The report will explain the outcome of the inspection and state whether any further investigative or remedial work needs to be undertaken. Where the inspection report details that remedial action needs to be taken to fix any identified faults, that work must be completed within the time frame specified in the electrician's report. Written confirmation must then be obtained from the electrician when the fault has been dealt with. As with the other parts of the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, councils will be responsible for the associated enforcement action.

The regulations were subject to a 12-week consultation that ran from September 2023. The estimated financial impact on landlords was highlighted in the regulatory impact assessment and was drawn to stakeholders' attention during the consultation period. The financial impact was assessed as not being overly onerous on the sector, on the basis of the cost of five-yearly inspection being in and around £200. Remedial action would attract an additional cost, but that needs to be viewed in the broader context of tenant safety and the reduction of damage to a rental property due to an electrical fault.

During the consultation, no major issues emerged that required substantive change to the regulations or the associated guidance notes. The two main points that were raised and accepted with the agreement of the advisory panel related to the need for an appropriate lead-in time for compliance to take account of the supply of electricians to complete the inspections and an early communication strategy to raise awareness among key stakeholders of the legislative change and the requirements outlined in the regulations. Both points were taken on board in setting operational time frames, and my Department has been proactive in raising awareness of the potential legislative change. Furthermore, the regulations will be accompanied by easy-to-read guidance notes that explain the inspection and reporting regime in a step-by-step process.

The measures are proportionate, common-sense changes that will further improve health and safety for people living in the private rented sector. They will protect life and reduce the risk of serious injury. The changes are good news for tenants, landlords, the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and the health service. Most importantly, they are good news for preventing avoidable fatalities. I commend them to the House.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I declare an interest: I own a residential property from which I receive a rental income.

As Chair of the Committee for Communities, I support the introduction of the draft Electrical Safety Standards for Private Tenancies Regulations (NI) 2024. The regulations represent a critical step forward in ensuring the safety and well-being of tenants in the private rented sector here. After thorough examination of the regulations, the Committee was content to endorse them and the protections that they seek to implement.

The Committee, at its meeting on 20 June 2024, was briefed by Electrical Safety First on the need for legislation to address a pressing need. Committee members were told that 58% of accidental house fires are caused by electricity, with such incidents imposing an annual cost of £47·1 million on the public purse. The group advised the Committee that enhancing safeguards is crucial to ensuring people's safety and well-being in our ever-increasingly electricity-dependent lives, describing the range and quantity of devices that we all have plugged in and charging at home daily.

The regulations will include mandatory five-yearly inspections, meaning that landlords must ensure that the hard-wired electrical installations in rental properties are inspected by a qualified electrician at least every five years; tenant protections, in that tenants will receive reports within 28 days of inspections, ensuring transparency and accountability; enforcement mechanisms to ensure that local councils are empowered to issue remedial notices and, where necessary, undertake urgent remedial work to address violations; and penalties for non-compliance, whereby landlords failing to comply may face fines of up to £5,000 or fixed penalty notices.

Electrical Safety First further advised the Committee that, in order to safeguard all tenants regardless of tenure, it is crucial to implement electrical safety checks every five years and that that should involve a thorough inspection, conducted by a trained, qualified and skilled electrician, accompanied by an electrical installation condition report. Any identified faults should be promptly rectified within the specified time frame.

Following the briefing, the Committee wrote to the Department requesting an update on the status of the regulations on electrical safety in the private rental sector that were coming forward under the Private Tenancies (NI) Act 2022. From the response received, Committee members were pleased to note that Electrical Safety First has been active in advising on the content of the regulations and that it has a representative on the expert advisory panel, mentioned by the Minister, that the Department set up to inform the development of regulations on alarms and electrical safety being made under the Act.

Committee members were, therefore, pleased to note that the draft regulations conformed to the requirements specified in the Electrical Safety First briefing paper on the mandatory five-year certificate, the requirement for qualified electricians and clear time frames for remedial actions. The Committee also welcomes the fact, as, I am sure, do all Members, that the legislative intent is to reduce the risk of injury death caused by an electrical fault and to ensure that rental properties meet the required safety standards. By introducing the regulations here, we will catch up with protections that are already in place in Scotland, Wales and England and have prioritised tenant safety.

The Committee wrote to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the Electrical Safety First briefing. The HSE highlighted to us the importance of preventative maintenance programmes, including the regular inspection and testing of equipment. It feels that those measures would align with the regulations' intent to enhance safety standards and minimise risks.

The Department has advised the Committee that the regulations will apply only to the private rental sector and not to the social sector, which encompasses housing associations and the Housing Executive. The Committee was advised that departmental officials are reviewing the decent homes standard that currently applies to social housing, including Housing Executive and housing association stock. The Committee strongly urges the Department to continue that work at pace, as we need to ensure that all housing is subject to high standards of electrical safety.

I move now to the implementation. The Committee feels that the phased introduction applicable to new tenancies from April 2025 and all tenancies by December 2025 strikes a practical balance, allowing landlords sufficient time to comply while ensuring the swift implementation of safety measures. The Committee commends the Department for committing to the development of accessible guidance notes to assist landlords and tenants in understanding their responsibilities.

The regulations are not merely about compliance; they are about safeguarding lives and ensuring that every tenant in the private rental sector in the North has the right to live in a safe and secure home with standards that reflect the dignity and protection that every individual deserves.

On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I recommend that the Assembly approve the draft Electrical Safety Standards for Private Tenancies Regulations (NI) 2024.

Mr Kingston: I rise as a DUP member of the Committee for Communities, along with my colleague Maurice Bradley. We welcome the fact that the Minister has brought forward the regulations to raise electrical safety standards for tenants in private rental accommodation. That is supported by the Committee, as our Chair said.

The Committee received representation from the Electrical Safety First charity, which is dedicated to reducing the number of deaths and injuries caused by electricity across the UK. It highlighted the fact that 58% of accidental house fires in Northern Ireland are caused by electricity. We are all becoming more dependent on electrical power for our homes, and, as with all power sources, there are safety risks, if proper standards and regulations are not followed.

The new regulations will require landlords to get their electrical installations checked and approved every five years by a registered electrician. That requirement will be added to the Private Tenancies Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, and the certificates will be available to the tenant and, on request, the local council. Beyond the scope of the regulations, we are told that most or all housing associations already carry out five-year checks; indeed, owner-occupiers should be reminded to arrange periodic checks on their electrical installations and not just to have them carried out as part of a condition report when a home is being purchased.

We welcome the regulations in the interests of tenant safety in the private rented sector.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister. I rise as a member of the Committee for Communities and as Alliance housing spokesperson.

In the initial briefing provided to the Committee for Communities by Mark O'Donnell, deputy secretary with responsibility for housing and sustainability, he confirmed that the Department would bring forward regulations for fire and electrical safety in the private rented sector. That comes as an outlier of sections 8 and 9 of the Private Tenancies Act.We put the requirement into legislation in the last mandate as part of the Private Tenancies Act. It is one of the improvement standards that the Assembly agreed to protect our private renters.

The purpose of the regulations is to introduce the requirement for private rented landlords to have the hardwired electrical installation of a rental property inspected and tested by a qualified electrician at intervals of not less than five years. During consideration, the Committee requested clarification from the Department of whether the guidance would include a requirement for specific qualifications for electricians to carry out the work. A departmental reply on 11 October noted:

The reply further notes:

The Department's reply noted that:

— but that, rightly —

I hope that the Minister can clarify that the regulations will state the minimum qualification that will be required for electricians to carry out the work in private rented homes. I ask the Minister if he can lay the guidance in the Assembly Library and supply a copy to the Landlords Association for Northern Ireland (LANI), which I welcomed and met last Friday. I appreciate that some landlords have said that it will add to their costs. However, most good private landlords, as confirmed by LANI, already carry out regular checks and maintenance on electrics in their properties. The introduction of the regulation causes them no issue or additional cost.

I look forward to seeing the easy-read guidance. Alliance supports the regulations.

Mr Durkan: I am getting flashbacks to my time on the Communities Committee as we scrutinised and prepared for the Private Tenancies Bill. Hopefully, Members will be patient with me. I am a wee bit cloudy on some of it.

I rise to welcome these proportionate and common-sense measures, which will save lives and, certainly, reduce risk. The Chair of the Committee and someone else talked about the extension of the standards to the social sector, albeit that many housing associations already carry out such checks as a matter of good practice. When the Minister makes his winding-up speech, can he clarify whether temporary accommodation approved and used by the Housing Executive is subject to the rigours of this legislation or any rigours at all, especially given the often vulnerable tenants and short-term tenancies that exist there? We have become aware of some properties being used for the purpose of temporary accommodation, the demand for which has grown exponentially, that are certainly substandard. People are being put at risk when they are put into those properties.

We will certainly support the regulations.

Mr Butler: I do not sit on the Communities Committee. However, I find it a really worthwhile announcement by the Minister. As a party, we welcome and support the change. It is something that, given my background in the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, I am particularly passionate about. I met some of the electrical safety groups previously in different mandates about coming to this point. It is all good news today, because it will bring a different level of safety and regulation to tenants in those properties.

I am surprised to hear the figure of around 58% that the Fire and Rescue Service has indicated for electrical fires. However, there is no doubt that one of the things we could do better is to educate young people in regard to that. One thing that I learned is that every electrical appliance that has ever been created has an element of a fault in it; there is no such thing as a perfect electrical item. Every item that you have — this is a word of warning to you guys, if you are charging your phones at night, for instance, and all of those things — carries a risk.
Mr Kingston usefully pointed out that we probably use more electricity than we ever did. We need to think about the load that people are putting on houses when they charge their cars.

I have a question for the Minister, if he does not mind. The regulations probably do not extend to Airbnbs, but, with more and more people using those for nights and weekends away, particularly in this country, could that be looked at as an extension to the regulations?

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

Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased with the consensus of support in the Assembly for these important regulations. I thank the Committee for Communities for its support and the positive way in which it has dealt with progressing the regulations. I will briefly address a few points that were raised.

In response to Kellie Armstrong's point, I confirm that electricians will have to be qualified to a certain standard, which is up to the eighteenth edition of the rules that are currently in place. LANI, which is on our stakeholder list, will be notified.

Mr Durkan raised the issue of temporary accommodation. That is counted as a single let that is operated under a licence rather than a private tenancy. However, the Housing Executive has advised that it will endeavour to mirror the requirements in the regulations for single-let properties.

Mr Butler asked about Airbnbs. I do not wish to pass the buck on that one, but that is the responsibility of the Department for the Economy, so, perhaps, he could address his query to Minister Murphy. I thank Mr Butler for his reminder about the faults that exist in all of our electronic devices. We will all sleep a little less soundly tonight, knowing that that is the case, but it reminds us of the importance of making sure that we have sufficient regulations in place to deal with such issues. Ultimately, we want to cut down on the risk. It will always be there, but we will do what we can to make it safer.

It is essential that private rental tenants in Northern Ireland are offered the same protections from electrical risks as their counterparts in other jurisdictions. In legislating for mandatory five-year safety checks of a property's hardwired electrical installation, I have done just that. Anyone who rents out a property is responsible for the safety and suitability of that property, and many of the incidents that we have seen or heard of in the news could have been prevented by minor investment in health and safety measures.

I am grateful to the Committee for Communities and the House for their support, and I urge the House to support the regulations.

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

Mr McAleer: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): 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 in which to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Declan, please open the debate.

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

I welcome the opportunity to address an issue that is of immense importance to the agriculture community and has a far-reaching impact that affects farmers, families, our rural economy and, ultimately, food security. The motion acknowledges that bovine tuberculosis remains a serious and persistent threat to farming in the North. Not only does the disease present an animal health crisis but it represents a matter of economic and social importance that impacts on our communities in profound ways.

I emphasise the urgency of the motion and the need for DAERA to act decisively. Bovine TB is a highly infectious disease that has devastating consequences for livestock. It creates significant economic and emotional challenges for farmers, which include the cost of testing, cattle losses, movement restrictions and ongoing uncertainty. Recent figures show that bTB-related compensation costs run into millions of pounds annually. That is an unsustainable burden. Farmers are central to the issue and deserve our respect and support. Agriculture is the backbone of the rural North, and our farmers' dedication ensures food security and resilience. Those farmers bear the brunt of bTB's impact and will lead the efforts to eradicate it, however, and, for them to succeed, they need clear support and strong guidance from us: their representatives.

One organisation that has been crucial to addressing the crisis is the TB Eradication Partnership. It deserves our gratitude and commendation for its work and its commitment to tackling the disease. The TB Eradication Partnership has undertaken essential work to identify, assess and address the spread of bTB. It has done so with dedication and through collaboration. Despite our collective efforts, we are still faced with a high prevalence of bTB across the region. We need a strategy that brings lasting results and that integrates scientific evidence with a holistic approach to eradication.

That brings us to the core of the motion, which is a call on the AERA Minister to bring forward a comprehensive and holistic bovine TB strategy. Effective strategies must be backed by science and rooted in an evidence-based understanding of disease transmission and control. Tackling bTB requires a well-rounded approach that addresses multiple factors including wildlife control, cattle management, biosecurity and testing. Only through a multi-pronged strategy can we expect to achieve a lasting reduction in bTB rates and, ultimately, eradicate the disease from our herds.

Evidence from across the globe shows that effective bTB control requires targeted wildlife intervention alongside robust cattle management practices. In England, the badger control policy reduced bovine TB incidence in herds by 56% in intervention areas, while field trials in the South of Ireland have shown clear evidence that proactive badger removal leads to infections in cattle declining significantly. Similarly, New Zealand and Australia achieved bTB eradication through wildlife management targeting reservoirs such as brush-tailed possums, combined with stringent cattle testing and movement controls. Those successes underline a critical point, which is that tackling wildlife reservoirs is not optional if we are serious about eradicating bTB. Without addressing the upstream driver of infection, farmers and rural communities will continue to bear the cost of ineffective disease control.

As policymakers, we must act decisively to implement evidence-based and targeted interventions to protect our agriculture industry, safeguard animal health and secure the livelihoods of our farming families. Wildlife management therefore is a key component of any effective strategy. Let me be clear: wildlife control must be done in a way that is humane, scientifically justified and ethically managed. Our goal should be to protect the health of our cattle and the integrity of our natural environment. Bovine TB does not recognise borders, and its impact is felt across the entire island of Ireland, which highlights the need for a coordinated approach to tackle the disease on both sides of the border.

Research from the North shows that 21·3% of roadkill badgers that were tested were infected with bTB. That figure, although alarming, is likely to be an underestimate due to the limitations of post-mortem testing. To put it in perspective, it is over 20 times higher than the rate in our cattle population. As a wildlife reservoir, badgers perpetuate the cycle of infection, making it impossible to eliminate bTB from our herds through cattle-focused measures alone.

Experience in countries with limited wildlife reservoirs shows that rigorous testing, biosecurity and cattle movement controls can achieve disease eradication. However, in the North, Britain and the South of Ireland, where badgers are a significant reservoir of bTB, such measures alone have proven to be insufficient. That stark reality highlights the need for targeted, science-driven wildlife interventions to break the chain of infection.

Our farmers, livestock and rural communities bear the burden of the disease. If we are serious about protecting their livelihoods and eradicating bTB, we must confront the issue with evidence-based policies that prioritise animal health and public confidence. Let the Assembly commit to comprehensive solutions that address all sources of infection, including wildlife, to secure the future of agriculture here.

I cannot stress enough that the time for action is now. We cannot afford to delay the implementation of a comprehensive bTB strategy. The financial, emotional and social costs of the disease have been carried by the farming community for far too long. The motion serves as a reminder that, while we have made efforts in the past, our work is far from over. We must commit to seeing this through, and to giving our farmers the tools, resources and support that they need to overcome the challenge. By supporting the motion, we can affirm our commitment to the future of agriculture here. We are committing to the well-being of our farmers, the resilience of our rural economy and the health of our livestock. Let us work together, across party lines, to ensure that a strategy is developed and implemented swiftly. Let us make it clear that we will not rest until bTB is a problem of the past, our farms are free from the grip of the disease and our farming community feels the full support and strength of the Assembly.

I commend the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Michelle McIlveen to move the amendment.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): The management of the PSNI estate, including acquisitions, is entirely an operational matter for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB). I will, however, continue to work with the Chief Constable, my Executive colleagues and the Department of Finance to ensure that we have a police service that is properly resourced in all aspects for the challenges that it faces.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for her answer. Given her Department's recent allocation from the Executive of an additional £39·3 million, will police officers now get their pay award? How long will it take to see much-needed additional PSNI officers on the ground to relieve the pressure that serving officers are currently under?

Mrs Long: I am not sure how that question relates to the estates strategy for the PSNI, but, nevertheless, I am happy to answer it.

The recent additional funding allocation of £39·3 million to my Department includes £36·7 million that has been allocated to the PSNI. The Member will be aware that the Chief Constable has welcomed that allocation, as it meets in full the pressures that the PSNI identified to sustain policing in this financial year. It is now for the PSNI to produce a business case for that, but I have given my approval to the recommendations of the Police Remuneration Review Body (PRRB).

Mr Beattie: During COVID, the Department of Justice necessarily had to spend £4 million on a mass mortuary on the Kinnegar site. Upon the sale of Kinnegar, was there any clawback for the Department of Justice for that investment?

Mrs Long: The investment in that particular piece of work is not something that would be clawed back from the sale of the site. The structure has already been dismantled. As you know, we were able to use the site at the behest of the MOD, so no clawback is involved.

Mrs Long: My Department continues to oversee a multi-agency programme of work to implement the Gillen review's recommendations. That work includes progress against a range of recommendations intended to support child victims of serious sexual offences, including the ongoing delivery of a judge-led voluntary protocol to expedite serious sexual offence cases involving child witnesses under 13 years of age in Belfast Crown Court and Antrim Crown Court. An evaluation of the protocol cases in 2023 found that there was a 70% reduction in the average time taken between reporting the crime and court disposal. The principles of the protocol have been extended to similar cases for children aged under 16 across all court areas. Sexual offences legal adviser (SOLA) services have been provided successfully, giving free legal advice and support to more than 2,000 adult complainants in serious sexual offence cases. Those services will shortly be extended to child complainants. My officials have engaged with stakeholders, including children and young people, to develop the child SOLA scheme, which will provide general and specific legal advice on their case and ensure that their interests and wishes are communicated to the court.

Remote evidence centres (RECs) have been established in Belfast and Craigavon to provide a safe, comfortable space away from the court building for vulnerable witnesses, including children, to give their best evidence by video link. So far this year, 317 witnesses, including 133 children, have attended, or are scheduled to attend, an REC to give evidence. All achieving best evidence (ABE) interviews with child victims of sexual offences are now conducted by a specialist ABE cadre with expertise in that area.

The Minister of Health and I are also committed to considering the development of a Barnahus-style model for Northern Ireland to provide a multidisciplinary and rights-based response for child victims and witnesses of violence.

My Department also continues to provide funding to support services for child victims of sexual crime. That includes funding for Victim Support NI to deliver the children's independent sexual violence advocate (ChISVA) service and the NSPCC young witness service, which supports young victims and witnesses who are called to give evidence. We also contribute funding to the ASSIST NI advocacy service, which is dedicated to providing support to all victims of domestic and sexual abuse.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. It is widely accepted that establishing, as she mentioned, one child-friendly setting, where children do not have to repeat their story constantly, provides better support for child victims of sexual abuse. The Minister mentioned the Barnahus scheme. Will she give us more of an overview of what her Department's plans are to establish such a scheme? We know that it has been very successful in the South.

Mrs Long: We are very committed to looking at the Barnahus-style model for Northern Ireland. There is a successful model in Iceland, there is one in Scotland, and there is now one in the South. It is something that we want to do. The joint working group completed some benchmarking of current relevant services against the Barnahus quality standards. The group gained some useful information from several study visits that it made. The next stage is that we will use those findings to develop high-level options and commence analysis of costings.

Ms Egan: When will we see the full roll-out of the under-13 protocol?

Mrs Long: That is, ultimately, a matter for the judiciary, in that it is a judicial-led protocol, but the fact that it has now been extended to under-16s across the board augurs well for our seeing it more widely extended. We would certainly support that. Importantly, there are other ways in which we can assist child victims, particularly younger child victims. As I said, we intend to do some work with child SOLAs and to extend the REC programme, but there are other pieces of work that we are committed to taking forward, including a trial of pre-recorded witness statements and evidence.

Mr Crawford: In reply to a recent question for written answer, the Minister admitted that her Department does not keep records of young people who have received support after their case has concluded. Will the Minister commit to changing that so that information is captured to enable us to better understand the whole process for young victims and witnesses?

Mrs Long: It is not for the Department of Justice to maintain a record of people once they have exited the justice system, which is the last point of contact for which we are responsible; they then move into services that are provided by the Department of Health. It is important that we recognise that, once people have gone through the justice system and completed that journey, they move into those other services. It is something, however, that I would be happy to raise with the Department of Health.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, in response to a question for written answer from me, you said that you were committed to proceeding with the reform of the reasonable belief defence in rape cases, as per the Gillen review. Specifically, will the reform that you are looking at include a change to the way in which a jury can ascertain in a court proceeding how and whether the defendant specifically sought consent?

Mrs Long: I hope to address that during this mandate, but it is a sensitive and complex legal issue on which we will need to take significant advice. We are keen to consider including it in the final Bill that we intend to introduce in the mandate.

Mrs Long: I was pleased to present five innovative and transformative bids from my Department to the interim public-sector transformation board. Following consideration by the interim board, I welcome the fact that three of those bids have moved forward for further consideration. The bids relate to three key areas: speeding up and transforming the criminal justice system; reducing reoffending and prison population initiatives; and electronic monitoring for those on bail or on licence. All three bids present innovative and transformative solutions to some of the challenges that face the justice system. Although the timescale for notifying the outcome of the stage 2 assessment has not been confirmed yet, I understand that the interim board will provide advice to the Finance Minister and that recommendations will then be made to the Executive. I look forward to the consideration of the recommendations at the Executive.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister. Will she provide further detail on the three bids that have been selected for further consideration?

Mrs Long: Yes, I am very pleased to provide some insight into the bids that have made it through for further consideration by the interim board. We made a bid, which has been supported by the Criminal Justice Board, to speed up the transformation of the criminal justice system. That bid is in partnership with the Public Prosecution Service and will, among other things, reduce demand through providing a proportionate response to offending, including increasing non-court disposals. It will invest in early engagement across the justice system, including between police and prosecution, and prosecution and defence, to maximise efficiencies. The bid will also seek to utilise and exploit technology to support transformation.

Our bid to reduce reoffending, alongside measures to address the prison population, involves the Department for Communities. It includes provision for investments in a bail support scheme to divert people from custody, the roll-out of enhanced combination orders through the Probation Board as an alternative to short prison sentences and a review of the Prison Service framework for delivering rehabilitation.

Finally, we have a bid to create a multidisciplinary team to examine the technical and policy implications of implementing GPS location monitoring for those on bail or licence to be fitted with an electronic tag as part of their release conditions.

All three bids present innovative and transformative solutions to the challenges facing the justice system. I am wholly convinced that, should we receive funding through those bids, it will afford us opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency and to meet the increased and changing demands on the system, providing stability for the future.

Mrs Long: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 4 and 8 together.

I share the Chief Constable's ambition to increase police officer numbers. However, the reality is that police officer numbers cannot increase without additional funding, which I have been actively working to secure through the appropriate channels. My officials have been working closely and constructively with the Chief Constable and his team to support the PSNI on the development of a plan to recover police officer numbers and to enable a case to be made to the Department of Finance for additional funding.

I acknowledge that the Chief Constable expressed disappointment that the draft Programme for Government does not adequately reflect the issues that face policing here and that he wants to see the commitments strengthened. I assure Members that I will continue to support the Chief Constable where I can while respecting his operational independence.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for her answer. She has often asserted her respect for the Chief Constable's operational independence, and I am glad to hear her support for his operational ambitions. Will the Minister tell us how she will put forward the argument to her Executive colleagues about the importance of funding the police to allow them to grow to the numbers to which the Chief Constable aspires?

Mrs Long: In the first instance, it is not about the numbers that the Chief Constable aspires to. We are undertaking a separate work stream in parallel with stabilisation processes to identify what the right size of the Police Service should be. We will work with the Chief Constable and others on that. However, the issue is about what we can do in this mandate. We have only three years left, and there is limited capacity in the training school. Therefore, we are trying to add roughly 150 officers to the PSNI each year. Funding for that will come through a business case, in which we will set out the cost to society if we do not achieve that objective. That would take us up to just shy of 7,000 officers, which is the target figure that we agreed for that phase. It will, however, require the support of my Executive colleagues, including the Minister of Finance, to get that business case through.

Mr Speaker: Ms McLaughlin is not in her place.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, if the funding allocation for policing falls short of what is required to facilitate further recruitment, what additional work will you do with the Chief Constable on the stabilisation of policing?

Mrs Long: One of the key things for stabilisation is ensuring that we stave off the attrition and loss of officers to other parts of these islands. The recent allocation allowed the PSNI to, first and foremost, clear what was left of its in-year pressures, but it will also put us in a position from which we will be able to, as I have already done, indicate our support for the PRRB pay recommendations. That is important. If we do not pay our officers, they will go elsewhere to jobs that are perhaps more straightforward and less stressful. That is the first stage of the stabilisation process.

As I said, the second stage is looking at getting money for the business case so that we can deliver more officers into the service. The Executive — certainly, the Executive parties have done this — have expressed their desire to see that happen. I am confident that it will be taken seriously as a bid going forward. The third strand is looking at what shape the overall numbers in the Police Service should take in the years ahead. The report that the Chief Constable commissioned reckoned that it was somewhere between

and that 7,200 was about the right number. We are now looking to see how we can get to that and maintain it.

Mrs Long: I am committed to ensuring that the risk that is posed to victims of domestic abuse is assessed and managed as effectively as possible. Members will be aware that Leonard Consultancy conducted an independent review of the multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) arrangements on behalf of all strategic partners involved. The review examined MARAC's operational effectiveness and identified potential learning and opportunities for improved effectiveness.

My Department has now established a dedicated multi-agency working group to consider and respond to that review's findings, with a view to strengthening the responses to and protections for victims of domestic abuse. The group's key objectives are to identify costed recommendations for new multi-agency risk assessment arrangements and supporting processes; improve risk assessment and management in order to increase the safety of victims of domestic abuse; and reduce the risk posed by perpetrators of domestic abuse. The working group plans to hold a series of facilitated workshops to work through and agree recommended changes for how new arrangements should operate.

Through those workshops, members will consider how to build in a "person of concern" focus in order to ensure that new arrangements will focus not only on reducing the risk to the victim but on reducing the risk from the person of concern. I am confident that this work will result in a robust multi-agency arrangement that will make a material difference to the safety of high-risk victims of domestic abuse.

Mr Donnelly: Thanks to the Minister for that answer. Is the Minister considering more immediate interventions for high-risk victims?

Mrs Long: As part of the work that we are undertaking, we are exploring the potential to pilot arrangements for a daily risk assessment meeting (DRAM) that would operate in support of MARAC in the first instance but would look at more immediate interventions for high-risk victims. We are also exploring how to pilot the arrangements in a single health and social care trust area, building on already established partnerships between trusts and the PSNI. We hope to launch that pilot in January and run it until the end of the financial year 2025-26, with an evaluation to follow.

Ms Ferguson: In relation to MARAC, what consideration will be given to a child or children of victims of domestic abuse?

Mrs Long: It is important that, when we look at those who are at risk, we consider the impact on children. As you are aware, in the domestic abuse offences, there are statutory aggravators that take account of children being aware of, having had sight of or hearing domestic abuse taking place. It is important that, when we look, for example, at that person of concern, who is essentially the person about whose violent behaviours we are concerned, we remember that that person of concern will have links to other people, including children, as well as the main intimate partner, who may be the subject of their domestic violence. That will be taken into account.

Mrs Long: The provision of stable accommodation for those on release from prison is a critical factor in ensuring desistance from reoffending and resettlement into the community. Whilst responsibility for the allocation of housing sits solely with the Department for Communities and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Northern Ireland Prison Service takes a proactive approach to preventing homelessness by ensuring that everyone coming into custody is assessed and those with accommodation needs are given appropriate support. A number of initiatives are in place with statutory and voluntary and community sector partners to mitigate the risk of homelessness for those leaving prison. Despite those measures, 265 prisoners were released from a custodial sentence without a permanent forwarding home address between 1 November 2023 and 31 October 2024.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, has your Department had discussions about enhanced pre-release housing assessments, strengthening partnerships between prisons, councils and homelessness charities or introducing a mandatory post-release housing plan? What regular audits and reviews of prisoner reintegration strategies have taken place thus far, considering the immense stress on housing throughout Northern Ireland at present?

Mrs Long: Initiatives are in place to mitigate the risk of homelessness, but, to be clear, when somebody leaves prison, they leave the care of the prison system and the Department of Justice. We cannot, for example, retain people in custody or deprive them of their liberty at the end of their sentence on the basis that they have nowhere to go.

Prisoners will often not share the information with us. Many have not given us a forwarding address. They are not obliged to, once they have discharged their sentence. It is widely acknowledged that there is a lack of suitable social and affordable housing, and that is felt acutely by those who are leaving prison. A protocol for the management of accommodation and the related support needs of people in custody was published by the Housing Executive in December 2023 and sets out a collaborative approach to addressing accommodation needs by the Housing Executive, Housing Rights, the Probation Board and the Prison Service.

The Prison Service has also put in place initiatives to mitigate the risk of homelessness for those leaving prison. They include an assessment of prisoner needs on committal, which includes their housing arrangements and enables staff to put in place interventions, for example, to prevent someone on a short sentence losing their tenancy. The introduction of housing advisers in Maghaberry provides early intervention on housing needs and allows decisions on accommodation to take cognisance of other resettlement factors, including health and employability. There is also the use of approved premises to enable appropriate support and supervision arrangements to be put in place for high-risk offenders who are subject to public protection arrangements in Northern Ireland and the introduction of a partnership project between Hydebank Wood Secure College and Belfast City Council's Complex Lives, looking at how better information sharing at committal and release could support the females most at risk of chronic homelessness.

It is not an issue that is only or even primarily for the Department of Justice. We are willing to play our role in a collaborative effort with other Departments to ensure that we do better by those who leave custody. We know that having a home is one of the main reasons why people desist from offending.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, you will be well aware that many of those who are homeless on leaving prison are homeless because of addiction and mental health issues, so what are you doing to ensure that those prisoners, when they are sentenced and are in prison, get the assistance and intervention that they need around mental health and addiction? Can we be given reassurance that every sentenced prisoner with those issues gets the intervention and help that they need?

Mrs Long: Every prisoner who is committed to our care, whether on sentence or on remand, will be asked questions and can share information with us, up to the point that they wish to do so, about any historical issues with their mental health or with addiction. There are therapeutic services, but they are provided not by the Prison Service but by the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, as is all of the healthcare for prisoners. There are other interventions that are made in the prison setting to deal with addiction, with the trauma that often predates the addiction and with mental health issues and to provide the correct support. The key to this is to ensure that that through-the-door support continues and that there is continuity of provision in the community. Unfortunately, as many Members will recognise from working with their constituents, it is the lack of community-based interventions around addiction and mental health that is often the stumbling block for people on release from prison rather than the absence of those supports in the prison.

Mr Dickson: Minister, will you agree that your Department and the Northern Ireland Prison Service have made a major contribution to assisting those leaving prison with their housing by changing the day of their release during the week? Do you agree that providing stable housing helps to stop reoffending?

Mrs Long: Absolutely. If people have housing, employment and family support, they are much less likely to offend in the first place and, indeed, to reoffend, so it is a huge part of the work that we do on rehabilitation. On bail and remand reviews, that is a decision that was taken by the Lady Chief Justice when we had discussions with her in respect of the vulnerability of people being released, often on a Friday afternoon, when mainstream services have ceased for the week, leaving them to cope over the weekend without that support. That initiative that she has piloted by moving those reviews to earlier points in the week so that, when people are released from custody, they have access to those services is hugely beneficial. It at least gives people an opportunity, when they are released into the community again, to make the best start possible.

Mrs Long: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 7 and 12 together.

I condemn all acts of violence that endanger the safety and well-being of women and girls. In recent times, we have seen an increase in reported violence, including attacks in the Derry City and Strabane District Council area. My Department is continuing to work collaboratively with other key Departments to help eradicate violence against women and girls. That includes work under the domestic and sexual abuse (DSA) strategy, which is led by my Department and the Department of Health and builds on new offences and measures that I introduced in the last mandate to tackle domestic abuse, non-fatal strangulation and stalking that are actively helping to keep women and girls safer.

We know that women and girls are not exclusively affected by domestic and sexual abuse, but they are disproportionately so. Therefore, the measures to address domestic and sexual abuse under the strategy will also directly contribute to the broader goals of ending violence against women and girls. The delivery of the outcomes and objectives under the strategy is supported by a three-year action plan that sets out a range of specific actions that are intended to create a lasting change. For the 2024-25 financial year, a ring-fenced budget of £1·62 million has been prioritised from the Department of Justice’s core budget to support the delivery of cross-departmental work to tackle domestic and sexual abuse.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her response. What measures is she taking, as Minister of Justice, to increase the confidence of women and girls in the justice system and ensure that they get proper access to support?

Mrs Long: Most of the support for victims is provided via other Departments in collaboration with my Department. However, there is a range of cross-departmental priorities where we have allocated funding, including the ASSIST advocacy service; advocacy for the families of victims of domestic homicide; training for law enforcement and other front-line professionals; support for domestic homicide reviews; interventions such as Operation Encompass; and the development of educational resources within the CCEA hub, all to support the prevention of domestic and sexual abuse. Funding in that area is also coming from the Executive Office for the Executive's strategy for ending violence against women and girls.

From my perspective, building confidence is about ensuring that people get the service that they need when they need it and that, if they do not get the service that they need when they need it, they know the routes to complain about that. It is important that people are familiar with the Victim Charter and the Witness Charter; understand their entitlements and rights; and feel confident enough to exercise those, even at a point of crisis.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Minister for her answer. Understandably, women across the north-west still feel unsafe. There has been a community response, including self-defence classes in Limavady, which is brilliant. Since those attacks just weeks ago, has the Minister engaged with the policing and community safety partnership (PCSP) for Derry and the wider north-west?

Mrs Long: Yes. The Department has engaged with the PCSP on additional funding and how it spends the money that it has at the moment. I am aware, for example, that the PSNI has increased patrols and that the PCSP has additional measures in place, whereby people can get alarms to carry with them for additional reassurance. There are challenges, and it is not an easy issue. Ultimately, my Department mainly leads on the issue of policy, and there are no quick policy fixes to violence against women and girls.

On the operational side, delivery of service generally falls to arm's-length bodies over which I do not have direct authority and control. However, it is important to say that we have engaged with the local community, the PCSP and the PSNI to ensure that they have the resources available to do the work that they need to do in that context.

It is also important to say that, if people remain fearful and afraid, that is unacceptable. We need to change the culture in this place and in other places where it is acceptable to be aggressive, violent or abusive towards women. Until we get that right in the House and everywhere else, we will not see a sea change in how women are treated on our streets.

Mrs Guy: How is the Minister targeting or focusing on the perpetrators of abuse against women and girls?

Mrs Long: There are programmes that allow perpetrators, either through self-referral or police referral, to engage directly with us. For some time, the Department has funded the Promoting Positive Relationships programme, which is run by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. It aims to provide men who are alleged to have been abusive in their intimate relationships and whose children have been assessed by social services as being at risk with an opportunity to engage in intervention involving an integrated group work programme. The purpose of that programme is to develop their knowledge and skills so that they can have healthy, non-abusive relationships.

As part of the new DSA strategy, the Department is undertaking work to look at costed options to enhance measures to address such behaviours. The White Ribbon campaign has come to Hydebank Wood to work with our young men and women to challenge attitudes. We have had a number of partnerships, but it is important that, at all times, we recognise the power of peer intervention. In Hydebank Wood, we focused on how young men would react, if they saw peers behaving in a way that, they thought, was unacceptable. We can all learn from that, so that, when we see someone behaving in a way that is aggressive and unacceptable, we are not afraid to speak out and stand up for a person who may be fearful.

Ms D Armstrong: Will the Minister outline how many times her Department has engaged with the Director of Public Prosecutions when sentences for violence against women and girls have been too lenient and how many sentences that applies to?

Mrs Long: First, it would not be appropriate for me or my Department to engage directly with the Director of Public Prosecutions or the judiciary on any specific sentence, because they are completely impartial and independent of the Department and it is right that they should be. However, at the criminal justice board, for example, we discuss sentence leniency and the perception that that creates in the community and the fact that people often feel frustrated that, having managed to get someone convicted for a serious offence, they find that the sentence does not appear to match the crime. We have that conversation.

There are already powers for the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal against a sentence on the basis of leniency.

Those powers are slightly convoluted and complex, so something that I hope to do in one of my Bills in this mandate is simplify and expand the list of sentences that can be appealed for leniency in order to make that process much easier.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mrs Long: First, I share the Member's concern about the rising number of domestic-related homicides in Northern Ireland. That is one reason why we have introduced domestic homicide reviews. The learning from those reviews will, I believe, be instructive in ensuring that our partners who respond at an operational level are able to do so better and to constantly refine and improve their performance in protecting the public.

I came here from an event to mark International Men's Day, and it is important to acknowledge the number of male victims of domestic and sexual abuse, who often struggle, due to the stigma around admitting that they are victims of abuse and the difficulty of accessing services. One of the pieces of work that we are funding the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime to undertake is an assessment of the services that are available, with identification of the gaps in service, so that we can better provide those services to the people who need them most. It is important to recognise that domestic and sexual abuse is no respecter of race, gender, age, colour or creed. We need to recognise that many abuse victims who live with that pain never disclose it to anyone. I thank the men who disclosed it for the research that was produced, because that has been hugely helpful in guiding what the Minister of Health and I will be able to take forward as a programme in response.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, Criminal Justice Inspection has identified the "fragmented" approach across the justice system as a barrier to access to justice. How will your Department ensure better working relationships between organisations across the justice system in order to create a unified approach that keeps victims' needs central and ensures that the system supports and protects them?

Mrs Long: One thing that I have done is ensure that the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime can attend the quarterly meetings of the Criminal Justice Board so that, as we discuss the changes that we wish to make to the justice system to improve access, speed up justice and introduce new protocols, we ensure that victims are not peripheral but at the heart of what we do.

Relationships in the justice organisations are less of an issue, perhaps, than some of the barriers that we face through discontinuity in our IT systems and other practical measures. There is also an independence issue that limits what the Department can do beyond encouraging and incentivising that cooperation. I find those who sit around the table at the Criminal Justice Board to be fully committed to making the journey for victims as seamless as possible. Where that does not happen and someone comes along with a complaint that they feel that they have been ill served by the justice system, I ask Members to do this: make them familiar with the Victim Charter and the Witness Charter, and, if you feel that they have been let down, make a complaint.

Mrs Long: We have good engagement, through our domestic and sexual abuse expert panel, with organisations that support male and female victims of violence. We also take other opportunities to engage with them throughout the year.

The Men's Advisory Project (MAP) is a really good example of an organisation that speaks up for and supports men who find themselves in that particular situation. An important issue that has arisen as a result of the research is that a light has been shone on just how few men report domestic abuse. Although 31% of victims of domestic abuse last year were male, we know that only around 50% of them reported it. Sadly, fewer still are willing to make a report to the police and the authorities in order to pursue justice.

I understand the frustrations that people have. Getting justice can be daunting and complex, but it is important, because until we hold those who are responsible to account, we will not see a sea change in attitudes and culture.

Mr Brooks: I understand from the report that a lack of refuges and a lack of access to family may be barriers to men's coming forward. That does not all fall within your remit, Minister, so do you plan to have conversations with other Ministers to see how men can be supported across the Executive?

Mrs Long: It is not just something that I plan to do but something that I have been doing. At a constituency level, I wrote to the Minister for Communities about the fact that non-resident parents, even if they have shared custody, are entitled to housing benefit for only one additional room in their house by dispensation. If they have three children, all of different sexes, where are they all supposed to go in the one room? It therefore denies men the right to take up their shared custody arrangements as they ought to. There are real issues with our processes and procedures, which need to be more nuanced. The issue for the Housing Executive is that the same people cannot be counted twice. Unfortunately, that needs to happen in blended and separated households if relationships are to be maintained.

We are trying to work our way through such issues. They are not easy to resolve, but it is important that they be resolved. My Department will introduce a small grants scheme in the next few weeks. I encourage organisations that work in that particular space to make an application. Whether it is to do studies on prevalence or to provide front-line support to people, it is something that we are very open to funding.

Mrs Long: On 1 November 2021, the Northern Ireland prison population was 1,559. On 1 November 2024, it was 1,925, which is an increase of 24%. Although the population position has not become precarious as quickly as we had expected, it remains highly challenging and very finely balanced. Pressures continue to be felt most acutely in Maghaberry prison, where over 450 prisoners share cells daily.

Mrs Guy: How are those numbers affecting resource pressures in the Prison Service?

Mrs Long: My focus and that of the director general is on ensuring that the Prison Service has the resources that it needs to ensure that it can focus on its key priorities, which are keeping people in custody safe and secure, keeping those who work in that environment safe and secure and supporting individuals in their rehabilitation and resettlement after they are released from prison. That is why I approved an increase in officer numbers across the Prison Service by 75.

Earlier this month, the Prison Service launched a new recruitment campaign with the intention of employing more than 100 new prison officers. It is important that our prisons be properly resourced, because, without the ability to make interventions, provide education and challenge offending behaviour, we will release people back into the community who have not been rehabilitated and not changed their attitudes or behaviours, and that will lead to more victims. It is a wise investment, and it is one that we need to make.

Mrs Long: The Member will be aware that we had to split the original business case, which included that work and the kitchen block, in two. We are now advancing the business case for the smaller accommodation block and the kitchen, and we will then look at the larger accommodation block. Those business cases are at the outline stage, but everything is contingent on our receiving the required resources to ensure that we can replace the facilities at Magilligan prison. Those of you who are familiar with Magilligan prison will be aware that, somewhat like Trigger's broom, there is more now holding it together than there is of the original substance of the buildings.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for her answer, and I agree. Does she recognise and accept that the prison has been ageing and decaying for many years and that it is important that there is investment in the facility, which will provide long-term employment for hundreds of people while ensuring a reduction in reoffending among the prison population?

Mrs Long: Absolutely. When I visit Magilligan, one of the key things that I recognise is that what happens in the prison is not reflected in the estate on which it takes place. There is some excellent, important work happening through the Prison Service on rehabilitation, care for elderly prisoners and support for families, who are not well served by the current estate. We are absolutely committed to maintaining our site at Magilligan. It is an essential part of the estate. I am absolutely convinced that we need to invest significant money in the estate in order to ensure that we have a prison that is fit for purpose and fit for the future. With my colleagues in the Executive, I will seek additional resource for the prison, because, without that, we will not be able to progress.

Mrs Long: The Police Ombudsman has not returned to work at this point. The Department has ongoing conversations with the ombudsman's office to ensure that it has the requisite authorities to be able to continue with its work. At this point, there has been no indication of the date on which the ombudsman will return.

Ms Brownlee: Has the Minister had any contact with the ombudsman about the release of the Kingsmills report?

Mrs Long: The chief executive and the chief investigator have already received the delegated authority to allow them to release reports. The absence of the ombudsman is therefore not a barrier to the release of reports.

Mrs Long: My engagement with the Law Society and the Bar Council is ongoing. I will meet the Bar of Northern Ireland tomorrow, and I met the Law Society last week. As you know, Mr Speaker, I intend to bring a statement to the House in which I will set out my response not only to the Burgess review but to wider issues across the legal aid landscape, not only criminal but family and civil legal aid. It is important that I engage with the sector around that.

On payments, through easements in the Department, we have been able to allocate additional resource to the legal aid budget, which means that, as of today, we are about £1 million shy of the maximum spend last year of £114 million, which is the highest spend in any part of these islands.

Mr Harvey: Minister, I was going to ask whether you would consider reallocating some of the £13 million earmarked for the new prison cafe at Magilligan to help to address the issue, but you are, obviously, already addressing it. Thank you.

Mrs Long: I find it slightly ironic that one DUP Member is asking me to spend more on Magilligan while another is asking me to spend less. The simple answer to your question is no, I would not consider it. That is because it is capital investment for Magilligan. That money is being invested in a necessary development that will ensure that we can feed our prison population and train them in hospitality, both of which are essential. We lack two things in legal aid: a sustainable model and revenue funding. It would not be appropriate for me to move capital to revenue.

Mr Speaker: Your challenge is to do that in 30 seconds, Minister.

Mrs Long: Domestic homicide reviews provide organisations with an opportunity to reflect on policy and procedure and determine whether those can be amended or improved. They are vital because they keep people who are at risk of domestic abuse safer. To date, four executive summaries have been published. Some of their recommendations have already been implemented, and work to implement the remaining ones is under way.

Mr Speaker: Well done. Thank you. That draws to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Justice. Members should take their ease. We will resume the previous item of business once the Chair has changed.

Miss McIlveen: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Michelle, you will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Members who tabled the motion for highlighting this important issue, which faces livestock farmers across Northern Ireland. All of us who represent rural constituencies are acutely aware of it, and many of us have referred to it in other debates and in questions to the Minister.

The eradication of bovine TB became departmental policy in 1964, but, 60 years later, the incidence of the disease remains high. Sadly, the Department's efforts have been largely unsuccessful. In 2023, TB herd incidence exceeded 10%, and, in the first half of 2024, a 22·5% increase in TB reactor animals was seen. In the UK, only Scotland is officially tuberculosis-free. The current departmental policy is a continuous cycle of testing, removing and compensating. While that has slowed the spread of the disease, it has not eradicated it. If figures for this year are indicative of a trend, we are now at risk of seeing the disease spiral out of control.

A key factor is the transmission of TB from wildlife to cattle and vice versa. Ideally, we want to see healthy, thriving wildlife and healthy, thriving cattle that are free from TB. An outbreak of bovine TB has devastating consequences for farm businesses. It has not only a significant financial impact but an emotional impact. I know that to be so from visiting farms around the country during my time as Agriculture Minister and from those in my constituency who have come to see me as their local MLA. Not every farm has a handling pen, and those that do may have only one in one area of their farm. That could result in a farmer spending the day gathering up cattle for testing. There are further costs in setting up isolation units, and there are cash flow problems if cattle fail a TB test. Our farmers are desperate for support and an effective plan to eradicate bovine TB.

The status quo will continue to cost the taxpayer millions of pounds each year that could be spent in other ways if the disease were brought under control. As we know, all TB reactors are removed for immediate slaughter, which may sometimes include full herds, if that is deemed necessary to stop the spread of the disease. We also know that the Department pays compensation at 100% of the market value for animals testing positive for TB. We know that the Department spent just under £55·7 million in tackling the disease last year. Given the increase in the numbers of TB reactors that have been seen so far this year, that figure will rise further. Bearing in mind the rising cost to the public purse, the Minister needs to look at a range of options to address the problem, and that includes wildlife interventions.

Badgers are much-loved animals and are symbolic of the British countryside. However, we know that the presence of badgers or access to badger-contaminated material such as silage clamps is one of several risks that increase the likelihood of infection. Farmers are, of course, alert to the need for biosecurity. Other risks include slurry spreading and the nutritional status of the animals. The scientific literature on the subject repeats that time and again. A review of the risk factor literature relating to the UK and Ireland was carried out by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. It reviewed 4,255 papers and concluded:

Therefore it would be foolish, when bringing forward a comprehensive and holistic bovine TB strategy, to ignore the need for some kind of wildlife intervention. Hence the need for that to be explicit in the motion.

Important work on genotyping isolates of TB has been carried out and informs research on the subject. That has shown that strain families can be identified that show that TB infection is local. It also shows that the strain types found in badgers very closely match the strain types found in cattle in the same location. That indicates an intimate connection between the species and the transmission of infection. However, it does not explain the direction of infection. Genome sequencing has indicated that transmission occurs both ways. Disease modelling consistently shows that having a wildlife reservoir of infection is key in maintaining the bovine TB epidemic. O'Hare and others advise that the simplest scientific explanation is that the reservoir is the infected badger population. Crispell and others reached the conclusion:

in fact, 10·4 times more frequently, and —

Downs and others stated:

That shows why it is important to address the problem in wildlife as part of any strategy.

Intervention is shown to have a measurable effect on bovine TB, and that is an important indicator of the contribution that badgers make to the spread of infection. There is a range of measures relating to wildlife intervention that could be looked at beyond a simple cull. Culling, whilst seen to be effective within those cull areas, can have a detrimental impact by disturbing badger social groups and increasing the ranging of badgers. That could spread TB to new badger groups and put other areas at risk. Furthermore, culling is not a long-term solution. Alternatively, there is vaccination instead of proactive culling. However, vaccinations are only effective on uninfected animals, meaning that a vaccination strategy would leave a large number of infected badgers, which, in turn, would lead to ongoing transmission of TB between badgers.

The alternative that could be considered is a test, vaccinate, remove (TVR) approach. That requires all, or almost all, badgers in an area to be captured and tested. The test must also be very accurate in correctly identifying those badgers that are infected and those that are not. This approach was trialled in Northern Ireland over a five-year period as part of a research project, rather than a pilot intervention or DAERA intervention policy. The effectiveness of the approach has not been tested appropriately to produce reliable data, as too few badgers in the local area were trapped, meaning that a significant proportion of infected badgers would still have been at large. The test, vaccinate and remove approach comes with significant costs, and it is very intensive. The cost of the research project over five years, covering an area of 100 square kilometres, was around £4·5 million. It resulted in 108 badgers being removed, out of a total of 1,240 that were captured, at a cost of around £3,700 per intervention.

The stated direction of travel in England and the Irish Republic seems to be vaccination following a reduction in the badger population. This still requires a substantial proportion of the badger population to be vaccinated over significant areas to ensure that the desired result is achieved. The DUP recognises that vaccination will play a key role in long-term strategies to eradicate bovine TB in our herds and in the wider wildlife population. We also recognise that that is some way off. If there is to be a deliverable strategy to address the continued rise of bovine TB in Northern Ireland, the Minister will have to make some difficult decisions. Those may be decisions that he personally is uncomfortable with, but they are needed to address this problem for the good of the industry and wildlife in general. We need to see meaningful progress. We need a balanced strategy with the aim of eradicating the disease, rather than managing a failed policy, which is costing tens of millions of pounds every year. The Minister must also look at all the evidence and bring forward a delivery plan and, potentially, legislative provisions that will deliver the best outcomes for farmers and for our wildlife.

There is an acceptance by the farmers of what they need to do and what they are doing, but the Department needs to address the fundamental and underlying problem. I look forward to the Minister's proposals over the next few weeks.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, and you did not take your full 10 minutes as you said you would.

Mr Blair: I speak in my capacity as a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and in my role as the Alliance Party's AERA spokesperson. I am mindful, too, of my role as chair of the all-party group on animal welfare.

The starting point for me is that the statistics speak for themselves when it comes to bovine TB. In the past decade, over 278,000 cattle and over 230,000 badgers have been killed in efforts to control the disease in the United Kingdom. DAERA figures state that, here, one farm in 10 has experienced the difficulties associated with a new TB breakdown in the past year. Further DAERA figures quote a £55 million spend by the Department in the last financial year, and it is said that that may rise to approximately £60 million for this financial year. In a time when budgetary pressures are so severe, that is money that could have been spent on other, vital initiatives across the Department.

As many Members who have spoken in the Chamber today and, no doubt, on previous occasions have expressed, this is not solely an issue about cattle. The disease affects our economy, food security and the welfare of both wildlife and livestock. We have all heard of the devastating mental toll that the situation takes on farmers. It is not just the financial losses that affect them. They also have to witness the culling of their cattle, animals that they have cared for so carefully. Even for farmers who have not seen an outbreak on their farms, the constant fear and worry about what the future may bring can be overwhelming. Therefore, the impact of bovine TB concerns the livelihoods of families who have dedicated generations to farming and are passionate about what they do.

The reality is that we need to find a way to address those challenges more effectively. I am grateful that the Minister is committed to delivering a holistic, science-led approach to tackling TB. The Minister tasked the Chief Veterinary Officer to help undertake a review of TB. That will be reported on imminently, and it can inform a new, comprehensive approach to tackling the issue in Northern Ireland. The Minister has made it clear that the purpose of the review is to ensure that the Department's approach to tackling TB is informed by the latest science, evidence and best practice.

I am also encouraged by the recent launch of the strategy to end the badger cull by 2029 from the new British Government. The announcement represents a new direction in defeating the disease. It does not solely rely on traditional methods but looks towards ethical, sustainable alternatives that consider not just the cattle but our wildlife populations. It must also address the public awareness initiatives that are critical to tackling the issue. Those should include educating farmers in best practices to minimise the risk of their cattle being exposed to bovine TB and greater focus on vaccination and bio-security measures, while also being vigilant about farmers' emotional stress.

The Alliance Party supports the motion and the amendment. We recognise the need for a strategic, well-informed, science-led response to bovine TB, but we must ensure that it does not compromise our ethical standards on the welfare of animals. Those in the sector and our wildlife and livestock deserve such a strategy to be implemented. We must remember that the common enemy here is bovine TB. We can combat it only by working together.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank Members for their contributions so far and those who tabled the important motion. Bovine TB is one of the most significant and expensive infectious diseases affecting our agri-food sector in Northern Ireland. As an MLA for the rural constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where TB rates are amongst the highest in the country and well above the Northern Ireland average, I often hear about the devastating consequences that TB has had on our cattle farmers and family farms.

TB impacts on the very fabric of our rural communities. As other Members have mentioned, our farmers, who dedicate themselves to ensuring our food supply, endure significant emotional and financial hardships due to that ongoing disease. The loss of livestock, rigorous testing protocols and movement restrictions create a relentless cycle of challenges that must not be overlooked. The annual financial cost to the Department of Northern Ireland's TB cost control programme is currently in excess of £55 million and, as others have said, is projected to surpass £60 million in the current financial year, with almost 10% of farm businesses affected by TB in the past 12 months. Members will agree that those figures actively demonstrate the shortcomings of the current programme. That is financially unsustainable and untenable, and it is why we need a comprehensive and holistic bovine TB strategy, which must be a priority for the Department.

It is essential that any measures include a targeted wildlife intervention, as proposed by the TB Eradication Partnership, a panel made up of scientists, environmentalists and experts. Farmers in Fermanagh and South Tyrone are being let down by the lack of action on an integrated and targeted wildlife intervention, which is prevalent in England and the Republic of Ireland. The evidence speaks for itself: where there is wildlife intervention, TB numbers fall. Northern Ireland must implement a mingled animal vaccination programme in low-infection areas, with targeted culling where TB levels are high.

The Minister must commit to eradicating bovine TB, and I will take his assurances on that. We should protect our farmers and safeguard our agriculture sector. The UUP will support the motion and the amendment.

Mr McGlone: I welcome the motion and the opportunity to highlight the issue of bovine TB and discuss how the Minister, with the support of his Executive colleagues, intends to address it. I am not sure what the amendment adds — I will support it, by the way — other than a specific mention of wildlife intervention. I presume that that intervention is science-based and would be covered by the text of the motion.

Those of us who represent rural constituencies are more than aware of the potentially devastating impact of a bovine TB infection on cattle herds, particularly on our smaller farms. There are over 1·6 million cattle in the North on over 20,000 farms. As has already been said this afternoon, at any point, more than 10% of those herds are infected with bovine TB. That is the highest rate across these islands and one of the highest across the EU.

The financial cost of the current bovine TB control programme is more than £50 million annually, with £36·5 million paid out in compensation last year. That cost is expected to be over £60 million in 2024-25. It is becoming financially unmanageable. There is excessive expenditure on trying to control the issue by, basically, wiping out cattle herds. That is the cost to the public purse. There is also the emotional cost to many people and families who have had the same blood flow in their cattle herds for many years. They have looked after their cattle carefully and precisely and tended to them to the utmost standards of animal welfare. The loss of a herd leaves some people in absolute tears.

Mr McNulty: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Sure.

Mr McNulty: On top of the emotional impact, there is a financial impact. Farmers are compensated for beasts that have to be destroyed, but having to close their herd for four months means that their farm turnover is completely stopped and goes off a cliff edge. That has an enormous emotional and mental impact, as well as an impact on their lifestyle.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. If other Members wish to make slightly longer interventions, we still have spaces on the speaking list.

Mr McGlone: OK, thank you.

It is vital that the Minister brings forward an updated, comprehensive and holistic strategy to tackle the infection as quickly as possible and to help address the many issues that colleagues have referred to.

Bovine TB is a serious threat to farming and impacts on our agriculture sector and our food production, which are key to our economy. We heard that last night near Lisburn. That said, the motion might be slightly premature. I say that because, in July, the Minister told the AERA Committee that he had tasked the Chief Veterinary Officer with reviewing all matters related to the bovine TB programme and policy, including TB eradication; indeed, he is, I think, due to present on that to the Committee soon. According to the Minister, it is intended that that review will ensure that the steps to address bovine TB are, as you would expect them to be, evidence-based and sustainable. The review has to consider best practice and issues in neighbouring jurisdictions. The Minister has said that he anticipates that it will be completed by the autumn.

On 10 October, the Strategic Investment Board published an independent review of the TB Eradication Partnership on behalf of the Department. That review is expected to inform consideration of any future partnership body in the context of the Chief Veterinary Officer's wider review. I expect that the Minister will update us on all of that today, but, unless the Executive parties commit to providing increased funding, it is likely that he will have to make compromises in his chosen strategy. I doubt that Members of the Executive parties will give a commitment to providing that necessary funding.

We have to wait until the Minister's new approach is published before we can assess whether it focuses on specific science-based strategies that have been proven to reduce bovine TB. Successive Ministers and Executives have attempted a variety of approaches to tackling bovine TB, all of which, they would have argued, were backed by scientific evidence, including the test and vaccinate or remove policy for badgers introduced by our now First Minister and an indiscriminate cull of up to 4,000 badgers a year proposed by the now Speaker. The latter approach was, of course, quashed in the High Court because the Department failed to comply with the requirements of a fair and lawful consultation.

There is another issue that we need to look at, which I mentioned in the Committee: the proliferation of deer. Deer are also carriers, and they are increasingly spreading the noxious disease. The Department, the Minister and all others will need to look at that too. I am sure that the Minister will be suitably cautious in his approach, but that caution needs to be balanced with pragmatic measures to reduce this awful disease, which is a plague on our rural communities, farms and farm families. It is awful. Equally, I expect the Minister to design a strategy for which he can provide sound, scientific backing.

Miss Brogan: We come together today to address a challenge that is central to rural life in the North of Ireland. Bovine tuberculosis persistently threatens animal health, burdening farmers with economic, emotional and social costs. To support the motion is to recognise the heavy toll that bovine TB takes on our farmers. For many, farming is more than a job; it is their life's work and their legacy. When bovine TB strikes, it disrupts livelihoods and threatens futures and demands urgent action.

Our agriculture sector is vital to our economy and society, yet bovine TB undermines it. Millions are spent annually on compensation, testing and control measures, while farmers bear the personal and financial strain of losing animals that they have raised and cared for. We need a comprehensive, science-based strategy to eliminate bovine TB. The strategy should not be a single measure; it should be a coordinated approach that brings together multiple components backed by research and evidence. Addressing bovine TB requires a strong, evidence-based approach that considers every factor involved in disease transmission from wildlife control to farm biosecurity, testing and vaccination. Wildlife management is a critical component. Any response to the challenge must be compassionate and ethically managed. Furthermore, it is important to remember that the disease does not recognise borders and that the spread of bovine TB in wildlife affects the North and the South of Ireland equally.

Improving biosecurity on farms is key to controlling bovine TB, but it is not the complete solution. Farmers need support, resources and guidance to implement effective measures. Vaccination, particularly for wildlife, is crucial to long-term TB control. Addressing disease reservoirs in wildlife is essential to the sustainable eradication of TB but requires ongoing investment. We must commit to supporting our farmers fully, listening to their concerns, understanding their needs and providing them with the necessary resources. By supporting the motion, we will send a strong message that we are determined to eradiate bovine TB, working alongside farmers with the right policies and science-based strategies.

Mr Irwin: I declare an interest as a partner in a livestock farm business. Bovine TB is an important issue and one that has generated significant concern for many years among the farming community in Northern Ireland. It is a battle that continues to rage, and much more could be done by the Department to drive down rates of disease effectively. Bovine TB is extremely costly to Northern Ireland, as has been said by other contributors. It cost £56 million last year and, according to the Minister, is estimated to top £60 million in the current year. Both figures are staggering amounts of money and represent a significant drain on departmental budgets. That having been said, I have a major issue with any moves to reduce the compensation paid to farmers for their impacted animals, as farmers are doing all in their power to limit the spread of the disease. Many aspects of the disease are outside their control.

One concerning issue that I have spoken about consistently is the lack of perceivable and meaningful action on the eradication of bovine TB from the Department. Other regions are much more active on eradication, but, sadly, the situation in Northern Ireland has remained static for many years, and the statistics clearly show where inaction has taken us. There has not been the same momentum or enthusiasm from the Department in Northern Ireland, and there is clearly much room for progress.

With the first half of 2024 having seen a 22·5% increase in reactor animals compared with the same period last year, there has never been a greater need for action. One in 10 farms has experienced TB breakdown in the past year. Those are worrying statistics, and they must focus the mind of the Department on taking meaningful action. For too long, there has been delay after delay, and, as time passes, statistics show that the problem simply gets worse. With a worsening disease scenario, the cost to the taxpayer increases even more. I agree that the situation is unsustainable. That, however, must be the call to action to drive down the spiralling incidence levels. The spiralling cost to the taxpayer must be the catalyst for change in responding to the disease.

Wildlife is certainly an area in which more action is required, especially given what we know already about wildlife transmission. While there are indeed complexities in the issue of wildlife carriers, there is a need to tackle the matter and not to shy away from it. I welcome any renewed focus from the AERA Minister. I know that many farmers who have experienced TB in their herds would welcome genuine efforts to address that destructive disease.

Ms Mulholland: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Assembly on the issue. Rural MLAs in particular will have heard some story from one of their constituents about how horrendous the situation is, and I have seen that not least in my constituency of North Antrim. We have to approach the challenge through a balanced and science-based strategy, as other Members have said. I thank my colleague the Minister for his ongoing work and his commitment to finding solutions. Looking outside the box to find solutions is key.

Bovine TB does more than threaten a herd: as others have said, it breaks bonds that have been built through generations, with every animal lost representing countless hours of care and dedication. People do not realise how important those animals can be. They are not just assets but members of the farming family, and losing them is devastating. The pain of seeing valued cattle lost, coupled with the stress of the ongoing financial pressures, is overwhelming. A farmer in my constituency told me that it was as if a black cloud had descended on his family.

We owe it to them to explore every solution that science and sound policy can offer. We have to ensure that our farmers do not feel alone in this battle and that they are provided with the support that they need to protect their herds and sustain their way of life.

With the herd incidence rates currently exceeding 10%, many farm families will have experienced at first hand the devastating impact of TB. As an Assembly, we have a duty to stand with our farmers and ensure that they have the support to fight the disease. As part of a comprehensive approach, we have to place a significant emphasis on biosecurity. Encouraging all to strengthen biosecurity is essential, and, by implementing more robust measures on our farms, we can significantly reduce the transmission of TB between cattle and limit its spread within herds. Personal responsibility plays a vital role here. Our farmers are the first line of defence in controlling TB.

A balanced and considered approach to wildlife interventions is vital. Protecting our farmers, their animals and wildlife go hand in hand. All are integral to our countryside, and our policies have to reflect that balance. The Chief Veterinary Officer, Brian Dooher, was, on commencing his role, commissioned by the Minister to undertake a review of TB, including consultations with veterinary and agricultural groups, the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute and our neighbouring jurisdictions. I look forward to and await the outcome of that work, which, hopefully, will provide us with a fresh and new start in the battle against bovine TB.

Financial sustainability is also very much at the heart of this issue. Our control costs reached £56 million last year, with the potential to increase to £60 million this year. The financial burden is unsustainable for farmers and the Department. If we want to achieve real, lasting progress, we need a strategy that focuses on measures to reduce those mounting costs. That will not only relieve pressure on the Department but ensure a sustainable future for our agriculture sector.

I acknowledge the progress made in other regions. In Wales, pre- and post-movement testing measures have been reintroduced, and those new regulations have helped to limit the spread of TB. In England, DEFRA is moving towards phasing out culling in favour of vaccination and enhanced biosecurity. Northern Ireland can learn from those examples and, hopefully, adopt practices suited to our unique needs and very unique environment. Hopefully, by embracing those best practices, we can strengthen our response to TB and tailor it to reflect the specific challenges and opportunities in this region.

Minister Muir emphasised the importance of a holistic, science-led approach to managing TB. My colleague John Blair highlighted the importance of prioritising biosecurity and collaboration, and he strongly urged that we fully consider a range of solutions in order to identify the optimum solutions grounded in science.

We have to support our farmers. They have long been the stewards of our countryside, and we must ensure that they know that they do not stand alone in this fight.

Mr Gaston: It is telling that the Minister and, indeed, the motion dance around the main issue. We often talk about the need to address the elephant in the room. In this case, there is a need to address problems that, in the main, are caused by badgers. If the Assembly and the Minister are to get serious about addressing bovine TB, a badger cull must be introduced.

The evidence supporting that move is clear. Farmers take all the preventative measures that they can, but, given that we know that 21·3% of roadkill badgers from across the Province have been found to be infected by bovine TB, it is obvious that farmers are operating with one hand tied behind their backs. That 21·3% figure almost certainly underestimates the true prevalence of infection in badgers, given the limitations of post-mortem testing. That level of infection is more than 20 times higher than that found in cattle. Badgers, acting as a reservoir for TB, continue the cycle of infection, making it impossible to eliminate the disease from cattle populations. A recent analysis of a badger-culling intervention in England estimated a reduction of around 56% in culled areas. The report states:

Similarly, a report from the Irish Republic found:

If we look beyond the British Isles, we find that Australia and New Zealand succeeded in controlling bovine TB in livestock through TB control programmes with a focus on wildlife intervention. New Zealand achieved TB-free status through the inclusion of a culling strategy of the brush-tailed possum. If the Minister is not going to address bovine TB through culling, I ask him to detail in his response his thoughts on the TB vaccine that the University of Cambridge and Pennsylvania State University are developing. The University of Cambridge research finds that vaccination not only reduces the severity of TB in infected cattle but reduces its spread in dairy herds by 89%. Andrew Conlan stated:

Regardless of whether your preference is for culling or a future vaccine, no one can deny the damage that TB is doing to our farms or that action must be taken. Unless, or until, the Minister is prepared to tackle transmission by badgers, the future of farms and farmers' livelihoods will continue to be put at risk because of the badger.

Mr Butler: My apologies for my rushed entrance. This is an important debate on bovine tuberculosis, which continues to plague our farming community. It impacts on not only agricultural output but the physical, mental and financial well-being of farmers across Northern Ireland. When I was first announced as the Chair of the AERA Committee, the first phone call that I took was from a farmer who talked about the more than significant impact that the disease is having on his business, his mental state and his wider family.

I have been listening to the debate, and I have heard that, so far, the Assembly has acknowledged the profound impact of bTB, and rightly so. The disease is a scourge on our livestock industry, a threat to our very economy and a challenge to animal and farmer welfare. I hope that today we will honestly and openly critically assess the efforts that have been made to date, highlight the gaps, which some Members have pointed out, and propose actionable solutions that will put science, welfare and sustainability at the heart of the Minister's response.

Let us first acknowledge the significant work that has already been undertaken, which Mr McGlone spoke about. The eradication strategy and the TB Eradication Partnership represent meaningful steps towards addressing the disease, but, as we know, different Ministers have taken various approaches so far, and we find ourselves in stasis. Stakeholder engagement has been central to the approach that everyone has tried to deploy so far. The Assembly should commend the efforts that have been made to consult widely and to incorporate those diverse perspectives. The Northern Ireland bTB report provided valuable data and insights. It is clear that a science-based approach is pivotal. Initiatives like targeted testing, biosecurity measures and the roll-out of risk-based trading have set a solid foundation, but that is what it is: a foundation. The motion, however, highlights the fact that we need a more "comprehensive and holistic" strategy that balances eradication efforts with the welfare of all animals and the sustainability of our rural communities. I thank the Members for tabling the motion.

The science is unequivocal, by which I mean that it says that there is no silver bullet for eradicating TB and that it is slightly more complex than having just one strategy. Any successful strategy must integrate multiple measures. The recent bTB vaccination report by the University of Cambridge, which Mr Gaston talked about, provides some useful evidence for the role that a vaccine could play. The vaccination of cattle and badgers could offer a humane and scientifically supported method of reducing disease transmission, but we are probably a little step away from that programme, and we cannot wait on all the findings from it. The research demonstrates that, when properly implemented, badger vaccination reduces bovine tuberculosis prevalence without resorting to widespread culling, which is very difficult for some people even to contemplate. Moreover, cattle vaccination, combined with differentiating infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA) testing, provides a pathway to long-term disease control. I do not believe that we, as a jurisdiction, currently consider or support vaccination as a tool in the eradication strategy, but we should not remove it as a future useful part of the holistic methodology that the motion tries to point us towards. I understand that that aspect of the solution would require significant investment in infrastructure, training and communication in order to ensure farmer buy-in and successful implementation and to minimise the cull that would probably still be required, which may be determined as absolutely necessary.

Animal welfare must be central to any strategy that we develop. It is a difficult truth that decisions about controlling wildlife populations often spark divisive debates, but the welfare balance cannot be ignored. Often, in the debate about animal welfare and bTB, our livestock are overlooked. Cattle are an integral component of our food system, and they deserve protection from the suffering caused by bTB. Equally, wildlife species like badgers and deer, which Mr McGlone mentioned, need to be treated with respect to reduce their suffering, and sometimes those are difficult decisions. The blanket culling of badgers has long been a controversial issue, and the evidence on its effectiveness for eradicating bTB is contested, but there is no doubt that it is a component of it. The University of Cambridge study confirms that vaccination could be a viable and ethical alternative.

Farmers need to be central in considerations around balancing welfare. The stress of losing animals to TB, enduring repeated testing and facing financial uncertainty is immense. Indeed, bovine tuberculosis is one of the leading contributors to farmers' deteriorating mental health. I hope that the Minister, in his response to the debate, grapples with the points that we have made and recognises that a holistic science-led approach is needed. He needs to not shy away from the issue during his tenure, because our farmers really need an answer from this place.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call on the Minister. Minister, you have 15 minutes.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members for tabling this important motion. Since coming into post at the start of the year, I have had numerous opportunities to hear at first hand the difficulties from a financial and well-being perspective that are faced by farm businesses that are suffering from TB in their herds. I have heard too often about the toll that TB breakdowns continue to have on our farmers' mental health. As Members have noted, cattle farming is an extremely important part of the Northern Ireland economy, and I value it. The value of trade in our bovine products is approaching £3 billion each year, with our processing sector employing around 8,000 people. Our bovine TB programme is essential in underpinning that trade, as it provides the necessary assurance to our domestic and international markets that our cattle and cattle products are safe. Indeed, our programme is approved by the European Commission, and it forms the basis of our access to trade cattle and cattle products throughout the single market.

I share Members' concerns about the disappointingly high levels of TB across Northern Ireland. Herd incidences here have remained above 10% since 2022. I am also acutely conscious of the more recent increase in animal incidence, which now stands at over 1%. That has risen from 0·55% at the end of 2014. That points towards large breakdowns and more cattle being slaughtered for disease control. Indeed, over 20,000 cattle have been removed from farms in Northern Ireland in the past 12 months. That has a direct environmental impact, and it has placed those farm businesses that are suffering from the loss of their cattle in a most challenging position. The slaughter of cattle for the control of TB results in a direct loss in farm income, especially for dairy farms, and has a detrimental impact on the genetics through the loss of key breeding stock. I recognise that, and I am fully aware of the need to take action.

The high disease rates also place significant pressure on my Department's budget. Last year, the cost of delivering our TB programme was over £55 million, with the compensation bill accounting for over £36 million. My officials advise that this year's costs could be in the region of £60 million. That also curtails my ability to allocate more of my scarce resources to tackling TB. Indeed, it is likely that additional TB measures may cost more in the short term, both from a resource perspective and due to finding more disease on farms, before we begin to see a more medium-term reduction in disease and expenditure.

I acknowledge that more needs to be done, which is why I asked Brian Dooher, after taking up his role as Chief Veterinary Officer earlier this year, to undertake a thorough review of our approach to tackling bovine TB, including the recommendations in the Department's 2022 bovine tuberculosis eradication strategy. The CVO has engaged widely as part of that process with farmers and their representatives, veterinarians, epidemiologists, environmental representatives and agricultural processors. He has also spoken with colleagues in neighbouring jurisdictions, and I thank everyone who has given their time to share their thoughts and knowledge with Brian and his colleagues. The CVO's review is nearing completion, and I will brief members of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee on its content and approach next week.

In the motion, Members have noted the important role played by members of the TB Eradication Partnership over its tenure from 2018 until the end of 2023. I agree, and I highlight the fact that the group provided valuable advice to the Department and to my predecessor and was an important conduit through which the Department could engage on the detail of specific TB policy matters with stakeholders. I have also had the opportunity to meet a number of former members of TBEP during my time as Minister, and I again take the opportunity to thank all TBEP members for their work during that time.

I also record my appreciation to the members of the TB strategic partnership group, which preceded TBEP. This is the Department of acronyms, folks. The TB strategic partnership group spent two years engaging with vets, scientists and farmers to develop a thorough and holistic package of measures designed to address all the factors that contribute to the spread and endurance of this difficult disease. Learning from best practice elsewhere, including places as far away as New Zealand and Australia, the TB strategic partnership group drew upon the best scientific advice available, including behavioural science, to support the Department with a set of recommendations that, following two further public consultations, formed the basis of our current bovine TB eradication strategy.

As some Members will be aware, the tenure of TBEP members drew to a close in 2023. My Department commissioned an independent strategic review of TBEP under the auspices of the Strategic Investment Board. The SIB report reiterated the importance of working in partnership with stakeholders and the need for me and my Department to have access to independent scientific advice when formulating TB policy. I therefore look forward to considering the CVO's review of our current approach and taking into account the SIB's review of TBEP to ensure that, as we move forward, correct stakeholder structures are put in place to have the best chance of success.

As I am quite sure Members are aware, addressing the endurance of bovine TB in Northern Ireland will not be easy or straightforward, and there are many challenges that we must collectively address if we are to finally set Northern Ireland on a path to eradication. I have already mentioned the unacceptably high level of disease currently circulating here and the challenge of funding additional disease control measures in a constrained public finance environment.

We must also recognise that efforts to control bovine TB here and in other parts of the UK and Ireland date back to the 1950s, yet the disease persists. It is clear from the behavioural science, supported by experiences elsewhere in the world, that bovine TB eradication efforts cannot succeed without the proactive engagement of all stakeholders. There must be shared ownership of any plan to eradicate bovine TB, with meaningful collective responsibility and a recognition of the skills and knowledge that each stakeholder brings to the table. That is crucial in changing the culture surrounding bovine TB here. I am acutely aware that there are strongly held and often opposing views among stakeholders on how best to proceed, but I believe that all stakeholders can and need to work together.

On biosecurity, further scientific evidence also points to the predominant spread of TB between cattle themselves. There are elements of our farming practices that are clearly unsuited to disease control, such as fragmentation of our farm holdings and the extremely high number of cattle movements that occur throughout Northern Ireland each year. The high TB incidence affecting our dairy herds may also reflect the intensification of that sector.

Members will also be aware of the limitations of the tuberculin skin test. Whilst effective for herd level surveillance, its lower sensitivity results in individual cattle with TB going undetected. Many in the Chamber will know what I am talking about. Again, the scientific evidence points to the need for increased use of supplementary interferon gamma blood tests. Such extra testing comes with additional cost, not least the pain of slaughtering more cattle, certainly in the shorter term. Given the high disease rates across Northern Ireland at present, I encourage all farmers to review thoroughly their measures for keeping TB out of their herds and to minimise spread if their herd is suffering from a TB breakdown. There are excellent sources of advice available, including on my Department's website.

I will turn to wildlife. Members and industry have frequently raised with me the role played by wildlife in the maintenance and spread of TB here. Indeed, the amendment to today's motion, which my party will support, reflects that. As Members will appreciate, strong views are generated on both sides of this very emotive debate. In parallel with the CVO's review, my officials are working to address the issues raised in the October 2023 judicial review decision, which overturned the previous Minister's proposal for a non-selective cull of badgers. When that work concludes, I will consider the finalised advice carefully before advising Members in the new year on any preferred way forward.

It has been clear to me since becoming Minister that addressing bovine tuberculosis is one of the most difficult challenges facing our cattle-farming sector and my Department. The key priority is to work with the CVO and his colleagues to put in place a deliverable and affordable set of measures that seek to halt the upward disease trend and the financial pressure that that creates for farm families and my limited departmental resources.

Difficult decisions will need to be taken. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of the House today that those decisions must be based on the best scientific evidence available, and they will be. I am committed to working with Members, farmers, vets and all our stakeholders on the challenges ahead. With Members' support, I will ensure that, once I receive the finalised CVO review, my Department, with the resources at its disposal, will put the current spread of TB into reverse and, in partnership with the industry and wider stakeholders, finally set Northern Ireland on the path to the eradication of this devastating disease.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Deborah Erskine. You have five minutes to wind on the amendment.

Mrs Erskine: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the debate. At the outset, I declare an interest in that my husband's family has a farm.

In the Chamber previously, we have mentioned the very real challenges that TB places on farms in Northern Ireland. In the past year, one in 10 farms has experienced the difficulties associated with TB breakdown. As has been discussed in the Chamber today, that takes a toll mentally and physically. We have the highest rates of bovine TB in Europe, according to the UFU.

The bottom line is that the status quo, whereby we do the same thing but expect different results, is no longer viable. The continuous testing and removal of animals and paying of compensation has far from dealt with TB. Instead, it wrecks family farms and surrounding farms. When you look at the cost to the public purse, you see that it is an issue not just for farms but for all taxpayers. Miss McIlveen mentioned that in her speech. In my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which has very high rates of TB, I have seen the very real consequences: farmers are at breaking point and unable to cope with the situation. Farmers care — they care about their animals — and they cannot bear the effects of this any more.

I want to briefly point to what some Members have said in the debate. Declan McAleer talked about wildlife intervention and said that it must be humane. That has come up in the Chamber, and Members have agreed on it. I apologise to Miss McIlveen and Mr Blair that I was not here to hear what they said, but I welcome the Alliance Party's support for our amendment. I know that Miss McIlveen is deeply interested in this issue and knows an awful lot about it. I welcome her passion. She really wants to make sure that the issue is dealt with for farmers in Northern Ireland.

I have not had an opportunity to formally welcome my constituency colleague Diana Armstrong to the Chamber. I welcome Diana to the Chamber, and I look forward to working with her on Fermanagh and South Tyrone issues. This is an issue that really affects our constituency. Patsy McGlone touched on the impact of the loss of herds on farm families and what it means. He mentioned deer, which is really important. I have seen wild deer in my constituency. They are quite prevalent, and it is important that he pointed that out. I thank him for that.

Mr McNulty: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes.

Mr McNulty: Does the Member think that it would be wise to consider the possibility of reintroducing the wolf to Ireland's landscape to control the wild deer population? Wolves were wiped out after the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.

Mr Buckley: I thought you boys were against hunting?

Mr McNulty: Are there merits in reintroducing the wolf to Ireland's landscape?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I will give the Member an extra minute for that.

Mr McGlone: An extra two, surely. [Laughter.]

Mr Buckley: We would like to hear that one.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Definitely not two. Not for that wolf-ful intervention. One extra minute.

Mrs Erskine: When a debate on a hunting ban comes to the Floor, we will see where Members stand on that.

Nicola Brogan commented on biosecurity and the importance of support to farmers, which is vital. I thank William Irwin for his contribution and for pointing out the compensation levels and the impact that any reduction in them will have on our farming families. Sian Mulholland pointed out the stress that bovine TB causes and the impact of that. We need to have effective measures in place to help with that.

I congratulate Robbie Butler on his elevation to Chair of the AERA Committee. Let us hope that we get this issue sorted out. I welcome the Minister's comments on the impact and cost of bovine TB and what it means for the economy, because it also impacts on our agri-food sector and we have to take cognisance of that. Timothy Gaston referred to the infection levels in badgers that were recorded in roadkill post-mortems, herd incidence and the evidence of that, which was a vital contribution.

There will be very difficult decisions to make on the issue. Looking at wildlife intervention is emotive, but we cannot do nothing. We have to move on this, and it is vital that we do so very quickly because time is ticking for our family farms and what it means for them.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, indeed, despite the wolf intervention.

Ms Á Murphy: I thank everyone for contributing to the debate this afternoon. It went a lot more smoothly than I initially thought it would, but it is great that we have consensus across the Floor. That demonstrates the nature of bovine TB, which is a disease that continues to weigh heavily on our agriculture sector and on the lives of countless farmers across the North. The Assembly recognises the severity of the threat posed by bTB, not only to animal health but to the stability and resilience of our farming communities. As we have heard throughout the debate, infected herds lead to lost livestock, lost income and mounting frustrations as farmers watch their hard work and, often, years of dedication in building up productive herds with excellent genetics being threatened by a disease that we have yet to control effectively.

In other countries, as has been mentioned, targeted wildlife intervention has proven successful in controlling bTB. The Republic, England, New Zealand and Australia have all successfully driven their infection rates down. The examples laid out by my colleague earlier demonstrate that controlling wildlife reservoirs is crucial to breaking the cycle of infection and ensuring long-term bovine TB controls in livestock.

Bovine TB is a cross-border issue that affects North and South, which underscores the necessity for a united approach to combat the disease across the entire island. Bovine TB data for the North is organised according to the boundaries of the 10 divisional veterinary offices, not the boundaries of the 12 DAERA Direct regional offices. The data includes the category of unique herd breakdowns, which are defined as herds with at least one bTB reactor in a given year, regardless of past infections. Those key stats for bovine TB in the North, from 2021 to June 2024, show notable variations in herd breakdowns across the regions. Locally, Enniskillen had the second highest incidence and Newry the highest.

Our farmers and farm families are the backbone of rural life and play an essential role in providing food security and sustaining our economy. Yet, year after year, they have to bear the brunt of this persistent disease at huge emotional and financial cost.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I thank Members for contributing to the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We are all here, ready for the next debate, so we will move swiftly on.

Miss McIlveen: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): 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 in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Miss McIlveen: The autumn Budget was a disaster for farming families and the rural community. The 6,000 people who attended the Eikon exhibition centre last night will attest to that. It was a Budget dreamt up by a socialist Government with no consideration for rural communities. While the new thresholds for inheritance tax and agricultural property relief have taken up the headlines, other announcements that the Chancellor made have negative implications. Cumulatively, taking into account the already precarious situation that local farmers face owing to policy inaction, the announcements will have a devastating impact on the viability of farming going forward. In turn, that will impact on farm prices in the UK, the brunt of which will be borne by the working person's pay packet, and on our food security when local food producers begin to drop out of the market.

The context of the announcements is that there are about 26,000 active farm businesses in Northern Ireland, employing about 51,000 people. Inheritance tax is payable at a rate of 40% of the value of the deceased's estate. Certain reliefs and thresholds, however, can reduce that liability. Agricultural land attracts two types of relief: agricultural property relief (APR) and business property relief (BPR). APR applies to the agricultural value of the land, while BPR applies to any value above the agricultural value. In most cases, APR could be applied at 100% to agricultural land that was being inherited, meaning that it had a value of zero for inheritance tax purposes. BPR applied where the land had a development value, and, if the owner had an operating farm business, it could also be applied at a rate of 100%.

Those reliefs meant that farms could pass from generation to generation without attracting inheritance tax liability. Families could avoid having to sell agricultural land to pay a large tax bill. The Chancellor has announced that full APR and BPR combined will be limited to £1 million and that relief for anything over that will reduce to 50%. As a result, farmers with assets of over £1 million will face inheritance tax of 20%.

A lot of misguided comments have been made on social media about the change to inheritance tax relief on agricultural land. They come from people who clearly know nothing about farming or about agriculture in general. They see figures such as £1 million, £3 million or more and think, "Yes, that should be subject to inheritance tax". They do not, however, take into account the fact that, while they may be worth millions, the farms are not liquid assets. The value is not realisable until the farm is sold, and, once sold, it ceases to be a functioning farm or ends up in some corporate farm. A family facing a huge tax bill simply does not have the money sitting in a bank.

Farming is a dangerous profession, accounting for 47% of workforce fatalities in 2023-24. Yet, the Government tell farmers to transfer land seven years before their death as a way around the change. An animal crush or an incident with machinery could cost a family farm more than just a family member. As someone pointed out last night, no sooner will the hearse have left the lane than the tax man will knock on the door.

As the Minister has stated to the Chamber, a third of farms in Northern Ireland would be affected by the change. The impact is even more stark for the dairy sector: 77% of dairy farms could be impacted on. A farm need have only 27 hectares to reach the threshold; in fact, as agricultural land prices are higher in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the UK, the change in relief will hit us disproportionately harder.

How are farmers meant to pay the tax other than by selling their assets, when, over the past 10 years, 60% to 80% of farming incomes has come from subsidies? Recently, we debated the weakening of the basic farm payment, and this announcement will heap further pressure on the future of family farms. It will inevitably accelerate the breaking up of farms, driving more young people away from farming when we need to encourage them to stay. It will affect our food security going forward. As we outlined in the previous debate, farm incomes have reduced by 46%.

A £1 million cap sounds high to the layman, but few viable farms are worth under £1 million, and even those are not high-earning. A viable farm is not necessarily a wealthy farm. Farms in Northern Ireland are asset-rich but often cash-poor. Meanwhile, farmers, like other employers, have seen their National Insurance contributions rise from 13·8% to 15%, along with the threshold for payment dropping from £9,100 to £5,000. That means that employers will pay more for each employee. Farm businesses in Northern Ireland pay and employ around 51,000 people. The tax on farmers will increase while their incomes have fallen dramatically. Worse, it will directly impact on the security of thousands of farm jobs and the pay and conditions for employees. It goes hand in hand with the increase in the national living wage, which will rise by 16·7%, from £11.44 per hour to £12.21 for those aged 21 and over. For those aged between 18 and 20 years, there will be a rise from £8·60 to £10 per hour. That is an inflation-busting rise in those salaries. No one is against people being paid a decent wage, but I highlight it as an additional financial pressure that has been placed on farmers in a Budget that already heaped pressures on them.

Bear in mind what else is being faced by local farmers: the ammonia regulations that choke development; being blamed for what we see in Lough Neagh; proposals to stop maedi-visna (MV) in sheep imports; failure to address bovine TB; the real-term reductions in the basic payment scheme over the past 10 years; the huge inflationary costs, including wages, that have accrued over recent years; the devastating impact of the winter storms on last year's potato crops; and the implications of what is in the Climate Change Act and the investment needed to address them. Is it any wonder that our farmers are responding to calls for action? We welcome the launch of the UFU's campaign to oppose the impacts of the Budget on family farms and the agri sector as a whole. I attended last night's rally and was delighted to see a unity of purpose across the political spectrum and the industry.

The announcement that agriculture and fisheries funding will no longer be ring-fenced was slipped in almost as an afterthought. Instead, its funding will form part of the block grant. That means that our agri-food sector must compete with health and social care and education for funding. It has always been our position that direct agriculture support should be available outside the Barnett formula. Ring-fencing was a recognition that food security is a national strategic asset, but that principle seems to have been abandoned by the Labour Government. The review of agriculture funding that was led by Lord Bew following the UK's exit from the EU recommended the need to provide ring-fencing for farm support. However, no similar exercise was commissioned prior to the decision to remove it, and that seems rushed and foolhardy.

As I indicated, farms in Northern Ireland have relied on having somewhere between 60% and 80% of their income subsidised. Removing ring-fencing has jeopardised that. That places an onus on the AERA Minister to press for an early and firm commitment from the Minister of Finance that future farm support budgets will be ring-fenced for the forthcoming financial year and ring-fenced and increased at least in line with inflation in future financial years.

Northern Ireland produces enough food to feed 10 million people across the UK. The Government should stimulate growth and investment in the farm sector, but instead, with that suite of announcements, they will drive people away. Just last year, someone said:

That "someone" was the now Prime Minister speaking to the National Farmers' Union (NFU). He is the new existential threat to farming that he warned about in that speech. If he were leading a listening Government, he would address those problems instead of compounding them. Agriculture is worth £6 billion to Northern Ireland, and it is our largest manufacturing sector. The consequences of the announcements will be rising food prices, food production that is threatened by the changes to APR, job losses and poor terms and conditions for employees.

The Minister heard the farmers last night. He heard their desperation. They need him to demonstrate his support to them, not by carefully scripted words but by his actions.

Mr Butler: I support the motion and express my deep concern about the UK Government's failure to adequately prioritise farming families and the rural economy in their 2024 autumn Budget. The decision to introduce new thresholds for inheritance tax and agricultural property relief represents not just a financial burden but a significant blow to the agriculture community, which forms the backbone of Northern Ireland's economy, culture and society. For anyone who wants to know what that looks like, there were over 6,000 farmers and their families at the Eikon centre in Lagan Valley last night, as the Member eloquently stated, to justify the import of today's motion. I thank the Members from the Democratic Unionist Party for the timely motion.

The introduction of new thresholds for inheritance tax and agricultural property relief risks jeopardising the viability of many family farms, probably more so in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Succession planning is already a challenge for farming families due to the high cost of farmland, the relentless and moving government policies and the uncertainties in the agriculture sector. The changes will force families to make impossible choices, such as whether to sell off parts of their land or assets to meet tax obligations, which will undermine their ability to pass on farms to the next generation.

Thankfully, our farmers are getting some airtime in the media to share their frustrations. We cannot ignore the additional barriers that this will create for new entrants to agriculture, if there are any. Young people, who already face challenges in accessing affordable land and resources, will be further deterred from pursuing a career in farming. That risks hollowing out the future of agriculture, as our ageing farming population will struggle to find successors who are willing or able to take on the financial and operational challenges of the sector. That seemed to be the single most resounding call at last night's event at the Eikon centre in Lagan Valley. At the start of that debate, we listened to a couple of young farmers outline the pressures that they now face with the viability of the very futures not just for them but for their children and their children's children.

The changes also discourage investment in farm businesses at a time when we should encourage farmers to modernise their operations, embrace sustainable practices and improve efficiency. The draconian tax policies make it less appealing to invest in the future. We know that, if we do not invest, farms cannot adopt innovations in renewable energy, precision agriculture and sustainable land management, all of which are critical to addressing the climate crisis and ensuring food security. I am not even sure that the Labour Government agree that we face a real, tangible threat to our food security.

Food security is a national priority, and we cannot afford to undermine it through short-sighted policies.

I often tell this story, and I will tell it one more time, although I will probably tell it again: I remember Brazilian beef being introduced for the first time when I was a butcher. We had been used to selling Northern Irish, Irish and UK beef, which is a quality product, for years. You cannot compare the two. The Brazilian beef comes in and blows the price that local farmers can produce it for, but it is nowhere near as good. In fact, there is a sell-by date of three months on the blinking stuff when it is in your fridge. How can it stay good for three months? I would love to know what has been pumped into it. Anyway, I will get off my hobby horse about Brazilian beef.

These policies risk diminishing our agriculture output and increasing our reliance on imports. We need to avoid that. The rising cost of food is already a concern for many families, and further pressure on local food production will only exacerbate the issue. Equally troubling are the Chancellor's decision to remove the ring-fenced farm support budgets and the failure to adjust them in line with inflation over a number of years. Without inflationary uplifts, the real value of farm support is eroding annually. For many small and medium-sized farms, the funding is not a luxury: it is essential to their survival. Farmers are grappling with rising input costs, from feed to fertilisers, and they need certainty about the financial support available to them, yet the Budget offers none. That lack of commitment undermines not only the livelihoods of farmers but the stability of the wider rural economy that relies on the success of agriculture.

The motion rightly calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to bring forward proposals to mitigate the impacts. There are a few here. I urge him to create a succession planning grant scheme; establish a young farmers' investment fund; and, although this might be more difficult, revisit targeted tax reliefs for farm incentives. The Minister will need to work closely with the Minister for Finance, perhaps to secure commitments to maintain and increase farm support budgets. Multi-year budgets are the gold standard, if they can be achieved, and we all need to face in that direction.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I see you looking at the button. Give me another second or two. I thank the Members who tabled the motion. It is really important, and we need to reiterate the calls to champion farmers and the sector at this critical time.

Mr McAleer: I too welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It addresses a matter of critical importance for our farming families, rural communities and the wider agriculture sector. The Assembly and, indeed, our party condemn the British Government's recent autumn Budget for neglecting the pressing needs of our rural economy and failing to support the very families who put food on our tables and keep our countryside thriving. The debate is timely, following the meeting in the Eikon centre last night, which, as Robbie Butler reminded us countless times, is in the Lagan Valley constituency. It was an absolutely phenomenal meeting, and we heard some harrowing personal stories from farmers who are going to be impacted on by the changes. I commend the UFU for organising the event. It is in Westminster today, meeting the Secretary of State and other leading political figures and taking the fight over there. I also commend the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society (RUAS) for making the premises available.

The decisions in the Budget reveal a deep disconnect from the realities that farmers face. The new thresholds that are proposed for inheritance tax strike at the heart of family farming. These measures jeopardise succession planning, making it harder for families to pass down their farm to the next generation. Farming is more than a business; it is a way of life. It is a tradition that has been rooted in our communities for generations. These tax burdens may force families to sell land in order to pay this unfair family farm tax, which will eat away at the fabric of our rural life. In addition to threatening succession, these policies stifle investment in farming businesses. Why would you invest in a farm if you were just going to pass on a huge tax burden to your children and the next generation? Modern agriculture demands continuous innovation, investment in technology, sustainable practices and great efficiencies. Farmers are already working to meet the challenges of climate change, food security and environmental responsibility, but, instead of supporting those efforts, the British Government have created an economic climate that makes progress harder to achieve. Farmers need certainty that their investments will secure not just their future but that of their children and grandchildren.

The consequences of these decisions go far beyond individual farms. If families are forced to sell land or scale back operations, domestic food production will decline. In a world where global supply chains are increasingly unpredictable, undermining local food production is not just short-sighted but irresponsible. I think that Patsy McGlone touched on that in his contribution at last night's meeting. Food security depends on resilient, productive farms.

Of course, this situation comes on top of the challenges created by Brexit, which stripped farmers of the stability provided by the EU common agricultural policy, and the British Government's failure to replace that support with adequate measures. Farmers now face rising costs and administrative burdens, without the certainty of stable funding. Equally alarming is the Government's refusal to ring-fence farm support budgets. Without that security, farmers cannot plan or invest in the sustainable practices that are needed to address climate challenges. Rising costs for fuel, feed and labour are pushing many to the brink. Expecting farmers to do more with less will bring greater personal financial strain and is deeply unfair and unsustainable.

If farm businesses falter, the economic fallout will ripple across the North and beyond. Agriculture is the backbone of the rural economy and supports thousands of jobs and industries. Undermining it will drive up food prices and hit hard-working families and the most vulnerable in society.

We need policies that protect farm succession and encourage young people to enter farming and which ensure that sustainable, modern agricultural practices can thrive. Food security must be a priority and be built on the foundation of strong, stable support for our farming community.

Our farmers are the custodians of the countryside, the producers of our food and the stewards of a way of life that enriches us all. The Assembly must give them the assurance that they are valued, that their contributions are understood and that their future is secure. Let us send a clear message that we stand firmly with our farmers against policies that threaten their livelihoods. The Assembly will support them today, tomorrow and for generations to come.

Mr Blair: The Alliance Party welcomes the motion, and we thank the proposer and her colleagues for tabling it. I also express our condemnation of the UK Government's total failure to protect farming families and our rural communities in the recent autumn Budget. The decisions made in that Budget regarding our agriculture sector are alarming. A limitation of £1 million of agricultural property relief brings farmers in Northern Ireland within the scope of inheritance tax. That has been made clear over and over again. That poses a direct threat to our farming families — a threat that is disproportionate in scale when compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. The financial burden and emotional stress placed on individual farmers are significant, especially as they also contend with price volatility, fluctuating incomes and unprecedented weather conditions, amongst other issues. On a broader scale, we cannot overlook the impact that that will ultimately have on our overall economy, as well as on food security. Despite the Chancellor's assurance that three quarters of claims will be unaffected by the changes, DAERA's data suggests that one third of farms here, and as many as three quarters of dairy farms, could be impacted on.

It is important to remember that this is a reserved matter. Nonetheless, the AERA Minister has been actively working to resolve the issue within the capacity available to him. He has engaged with the Northern Ireland Secretary of State and DEFRA to voice his concerns and to urge the UK Government to urgently rethink the proposed changes. The Minister has also worked with the Finance Minister to send a letter to the Chancellor outlining the disproportionate impact that the changes will have on family farms in Northern Ireland. I am delighted that that letter was co-signed by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister.

While we grapple with the recent announcements and the Minister works to reverse the changes, it is important to look at what could be done locally to minimise the potential impacts. The Minister recently launched the Farming for the Generations pilot scheme to support farm succession planning. That scheme will assist 60 farm families in creating succession plans, conducting a farm business review and developing a personal growth plan for the successor. Succession planning is crucial in preserving family farms in Northern Ireland, where many farms have been passed down through generations. Those farms are maintained by families who have consistently invested in their land. Increasingly, unfortunately, young farmers struggle to pursue their dreams of taking over the family farm. By creating barriers for new entrants into agriculture, we are hindering innovation and limiting growth within the sector. If we want to sustain our vibrant agri-food industry, we must continue to support and encourage young people to consider careers in agriculture.

Equally concerning is Westminster's choice not to ring-fence farm support budgets or to adjust funding levels in line with inflation. That signals a troubling disregard for the challenges facing our agriculture community.

Minister Muir has been making the case to Executive colleagues that the funding for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development should be earmarked locally in the Executive's Budget for 2025-26 and those beyond. The Alliance Party will continue to support the Minister's efforts, as that funding is crucial to addressing climate change, protecting our natural environment and supporting our economically and socially significant agri-food sector.

Our farmers deserve a commitment to stability and sustainable growth, not uncertainty and decline. It has been pointed out that they gathered in their thousands last night to remind us of that. We must, therefore, send a clear message of reassurance from the Chamber to our farmers, acknowledging their value and commitment to our society.

Mr McGlone: I thank the proposer of the motion and welcome the opportunity to highlight the failure of the British Government to prioritise farming families and the rural economy in the autumn Budget. The introduction of new thresholds for inheritance tax and the change to agricultural property relief will have a significant impact on farmers here. We heard that last night — any of us who were there heard it loud and clear — but we also heard the emotion, given the attachment of generations to the farmland and what the change could do and the instability that it could create. The raw emotion, and the fear for the future of many people who have had that land handed down to them through the generations, was palpable in the room last night.

The Minister has stated that it is likely that around one third of all Northern Irish farmers will be brought within the scope of inheritance tax as a result of those changes. In the dairy sector, that number could be as high as 75%. We have some of the highest-value agricultural land on these islands, which will amplify the impact. I know that the Minister has challenged the UK Government on the changes, but, unless that challenge is successful, there is a genuine risk to succession planning on farms.

I want to make this point, and I made it last night. Governments are entitled to do what they do, but the UK Government have to look at the bigger picture: the food security issue at a time when there is world instability. With world instability — God forbid it goes a stage further to even greater chaos on the world stage — one of the first things that is affected is food. We have some of the highest-quality food produce, which feeds 10 million people. Why do anything that is going to undermine that, jeopardise it and leave it insecure at a time when there is enough insecurity on the world stage? That is a major political issue for the UK Government when they consider this factor.

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

Mr McGlone: Yes, sure.

Mr Muir: Does the Member agree that, during COVID, the farmers stepped up and made sure that our families in Northern Ireland were fed, that they were a key and critical part of the fight against COVID, and that it is about time that the UK Government recognised the role that they play and how critical they are?

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

Mr McGlone: Absolutely. I take your point entirely. I would think that some of the new Labour MPs who have been elected to serve rural constituencies will be getting that message.

Back to my original point: this is certainly not the time to make this change. A time of uncertainty is not the time for the UK Government to create further uncertainty in the rural economy and food production. They need to seriously reflect on that issue.

I welcome the timely launch of the Farming for the Generations pilot scheme, which is targeting up to 60 farm families. The scheme has the potential to support farm families through planning for succession and to help ensure the long-term sustainability of farms. According to DAERA statistics, the average age of farmers in the North is 59; 36% of managers of family farms in the North are over the age of 65; and only 8% of such managers are under the age of 40. Succession planning will clearly play an important role in sustaining family farms. That is crucial to what we have been hearing about today.

Financial support for farming has been the subject of a number of recent debates, and we have heard it mentioned today. Had our amendment been selected, we would, once again, have highlighted how the actions of successive British Governments, in capping the level of agricultural support in 2020 and, now, removing the ring-fencing of that support, are a direct result of Brexit, which the DUP campaigned for. That is a reality.

Indeed, as a result of Brexit, funding for agriculture has suffered real-terms cuts. The annual funding for agriculture by the UK Government has been capped at approximately £330 million since 2020, £300 million of which is for direct payments to farmers. To maintain its real value, the overall funding should have increased to £389 million by the end of 2024, so there has been a cut of around £60 million this year alone.

From next year, agriculture funding will be included in the block grant. Funding that had been ring-fenced and guaranteed will now be part of the annual negotiations between the Executive parties. Funding to support farmers will now be competing with Health, Infrastructure and Education, which, almost inevitably, will lead to cuts in the support that farmers and farming families receive. The UK Government may have removed the ring-fencing of direct payments for farmers, but there is nothing to prevent the Executive from putting that ring-fencing back in place. As the Minister recently told the Assembly:

The Executive also have the power to uplift the level of that funding in line with inflation on an annual basis. They could guarantee that funding over a number of years and restore the certainty that farmers need. That is the message that I hope the motion's sponsors and all those who have spoken in the debate will take to their party colleagues in the Executive.

Ms Á Murphy: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion tabled by the Members opposite, which draws urgent attention to a crisis that is growing with each passing day. Our farmers are facing pressures that threaten not only their livelihoods but their well-being and mental health. As we discuss the implications of the British Government's autumn Budget, or rather the lack of priority that it places on farming families and the rural economy, let us remember that we are not just talking about numbers on a balance sheet; we are talking about people who are carrying an immense burden with little support.

Farmers are the backbone of the North, and, as has already been mentioned, many of us joined the farmers last night at the UFU rally to oppose the inheritance tax measures. We heard powerful testimonies and concerns from farmers who are worried about their children and grandchildren's futures. Farmers ensure our food security, contribute to our economy and steward our natural environment, yet they are under relentless pressure, which is hard to quantify. Amidst all the challenges that farm families face, the British Government have decided not to ring-fence farm support in the Budget, nor have they raised funding to account for inflation.

Our farmers are expected to meet increasing costs for feed, fuel and equipment without knowing whether they will have the support that they need. Without a secure, ring-fenced budget, there is no assurance that our farmers will have the necessary stability to invest in their futures, their farms or even their families. That lack of commitment sends a message that farming and farm families are not a priority, and those pressures take a toll on mental health. Farmers work day and night with no certainty that their hard work will lead to them breaking even, and they face long hours, isolation, financial instability and an unpredictable future. We are already seeing the impact of that stress playing out in our rural communities, with rising levels of mental health concerns. We cannot stand by as our farmers bear those pressures alone. The mental health crisis in rural areas is real and will only worsen if we do not act.

Agriculture is an all-island industry that is deeply interconnected across borders and through shared markets, supply chains and environmental challenges. The success of farms in the North impacts on the entire agriculture ecosystem on the island, from trade in livestock and produce to collaboration on stability and animal health. However, the absence of a ring-fenced Agriculture budget in the North undermines that vital sector, placing our farmers at a significant disadvantage compared with those in the South, where substantial, secured funding supports rural development and innovation. Without stable and predictable investment, farmers in the North face uncertainty, which limits their ability to plan, innovate and compete effectively. That threatens not only local livelihoods but the resilience of the all-island agri-food sector, thus weakening our shared capacity to address food security, climate change and rural sustainability.

Farmers need a long-term, ring-fenced Budget commitment in order to support agriculture in the North. Our farmers deserve ring-fenced financial packages in these uncertain times. Let us honour their work, support their well-being and protect the future of farming in the North.

Mr Irwin: As I did in the previous debate, I declare an interest as a partner in a farm business.

This is a welcome opportunity for the House to send out a united and resolute message to the Labour Government that this tax raid on farmers cannot be tolerated. I encourage all farmers, and, indeed, anyone with an interest in protecting our ability to produce food and be custodians of the environment, to record their opposition to the Treasury's callous and mad decision. I cannot recall a more direct threat to the future of farming than the decision in question. I have taken a considerable number of representations from farmers who are absolutely irate about the Labour tax raid. They see it, as I do, as a direct attack on farming. It is hard to imagine a worse or more backward policy than that which the Treasury has announced. It is vital that the decision be reversed.

Last night, we witnessed 6,000 people gather at a protest meeting at the Eikon exhibition centre. The message was very clear: farmers will not simply roll over and accept this draconian and damaging attack on farming in Northern Ireland. There are further protests taking place on the mainland today, and they will also serve to focus the minds of the decision makers. As our motion clearly points out, the outworking of the new thresholds for inheritance tax and agricultural property relief will, without doubt, be to impact negatively on succession planning on farms. It is an age-old practice that, generationally, farmers hand over the reins of the farm to younger family members who, naturally, are interested in farming, thus sustaining the family farm into the future. Should Labour proceed with the changes, natural succession will be dealt a massive blow through the levying of a huge tax bill on those young people. The Labour Government are effectively ruining agriculture. That is a shocking situation to envisage. Indeed, it is so counterproductive that it is hard to imagine a more negative and industry-damaging policy looming before us. Farmers are strong on food security and committed to producing high-quality food for our population. Why risk that security of supply?

On the ground, I hear very clearly that there is a requirement to send a clear message to the Labour Government that their changes must be reversed, and I stand solidly behind that message. When it comes to encouraging new entrants into farming, can you think of a greater discouragement to a young man who wants to continue to build on the hard work of his father than a half a million pounds tax bill? What a catastrophic and ill-thought-out policy by the Treasury. There must be an urgent refocusing, and Labour must place a new priority on farming in order to ensure that the UK, of which Northern Ireland is an integral part, is not left high and dry when it comes to its ability to produce food. We must not become a nation of consumers who rely on other countries for our food. That would be a foolish and negative development, yet it is a potential outcome of this bad Treasury policy.

As our motion also illustrates, there is deep discontent with the Chancellor's decision not to ring-fence farm support budgets or to increase funding in line with inflation. That again speaks to Labour's lack of understanding of farming. I encourage the AERA Minister and the Finance Minister to ensure that the level of financial support will be maintained and, in the coming financial years, increased. There is much work to do. For the good of the agri-food industry, it is time to meet the challenges head-on.

Mr McMurray: Like others, I attended the event in the Eikon exhibition centre yesterday evening. I was glad that I did, because I was able to hear at first hand the concerns of Ulster's farmers. I thank the UFU for organising it and the DUP for tabling the motion.

The farmers at that event were able to give context to how the issue affects them, so I will give context to my connection to the issue. My granda always told my mother that, if I had been called John, I would have inherited a farm somewhere between Claggan and Lough Veagh. I am far enough out not to have a pecuniary interest, but I wanted to declare an interest of sorts.

I share the concerns about the impact that the new inheritance tax rules and the changes to farm support budgets will have on farming families in Northern Ireland. Farmers are the custodians of the countryside, and family farming is the cornerstone of the agriculture sector. The new tax rules are bad for farmers everywhere in the UK, but farmers in Northern Ireland will be particularly badly affected due to the comparatively high value of agricultural land. The Chancellor says that only one in four farms will be affected by the new rules, but DAERA estimates that the percentage in Northern Ireland will be higher, with one in three being a more realistic estimate across different types of farms. For dairy farms, the number could be as high as three in four. I am sure that many other MLAs have come across this as well: none of the farmers whom I have spoken to recognises the £17,000 average price per acre. It is more like £20,000 to £25,000, so these new tax rules will strain our rural economies to the point of breaking.

Farmers play a key role as we transform into a greener and more environmentally friendly society. They take great pride in their role as custodians of the countryside. Older farmers have put in place nature-based measures that they will not see the benefit of but that will come to maturity for their children. Many are now aware that they will not be able to pass on their farm to allow those to mature. To farm in a sustainable way, first, you have to be farming. That is a quote from some of the people whom I have been speaking to. Farmers are not the sole reason for the environmental breakdown that we are seeing, but they are an integral part of the solution. As one farmer in my constituency put it, the best way to help farmers to be nature-friendly is for them to be profitable. If farms are profitable, farmers will feel comfortable and will invest in green measures.

Precarity is the enemy of innovation and investment. It is frustrating that the UK Government have decided to create barriers for young farmers rather than supporting them to carry their family farms forward in a sustainable way. Ending ring-fenced funding for agriculture will only worsen the impact on our farmers. Farm assets are built up over generations and require big investments, with farms, land, buildings and machinery passed on through generations. The implementation of inheritance tax is simply punishing the hard work that has gone before. Yes, those assets are valuable, but only because they enable farmers to run a profitable farm. If assets have to be sold off to fund a tax bill, farmers will lose that ability. Inheritance tax will hinder investment and development in the industry.

I know that Minister Muir agrees with me that this is a bad Budget for farmers, and he has written to the Chancellor, as have his Executive colleagues, outlining the concerns and urging her to reconsider the changes. The Minister is making the case to Executive colleagues for ring-fencing agriculture funding locally to ensure that we can continue to tackle the major environmental challenges that we face together while protecting rural economies and food security in Northern Ireland. I welcome all those efforts.

Some of the impact of the new tax rules can be mitigated by succession planning, and I want to highlight the Minister's efforts to help farming families through DAERA's Farming for the Generations pilot scheme. Also, I echo the sentiments expressed by the UFU president yesterday evening in encouraging all those who are potentially affected to seek professional tax and legal advice on the matter. Yet the despondency and anger over this matter are and were palpable. As was said to me last night, we can disagree on any number of things, on many points of principle, but this inheritance tax is wrong and should not be implemented.

Miss Brogan: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion as we defend the future of farming families and the rural communities that sustain us all. The British Government's autumn Budget does not prioritise farmers and protect the rural economy in the North of Ireland. Those are not oversights; they are political choices that threaten the very foundation of rural life and the agricultural backbone of our society.

It must be said, though, that Brexit has compounded the challenges facing rural communities. By leaving the European Union, the North lost the security and support of the common agricultural policy, which had protected farmers for decades. In return, the British Government have refused to ring-fence farm support budgets or adjust them for inflation. Farmers now face rising costs for feed, fertiliser and equipment due to Brexit-induced trade barriers and supply chain disruptions, yet they are expected to shoulder those burdens without adequate financial stability or support. The lack of a ring-fenced budget has created deep uncertainty. Farmers need secure funding to plan, invest in sustainable practices and meet the challenges of climate change and food security.

Brexit stripped away the EU safety net, but the British Government have failed to provide a meaningful replacement.

Adding to that pressure are changes to inheritance tax thresholds and agricultural property relief. Those measures will place financial barriers on family farms, making it harder for younger generations to inherit their land. Moreover, the lack of secure funding undermines critical agricultural initiatives. Climate change, animal welfare and food security demand sustained investment, yet, again, the British Government treat those issues as optional, not recognising that sustainable farming is essential to our shared future. When our farmers struggle, the impact ripples across the entire rural economy. Jobs are lost, businesses close and food prices rise for everybody.

The Assembly must stand firmly behind our farmers and demand a ring-fenced budget, ensure the continuation of sustainable practices and protect the future of family farms. Those are not just economic issues; they are about preserving a way of life and safeguarding the resilience of our rural communities. Let us send a clear message that the Assembly values our farming families, our rural economy and our food security.

Ms D Armstrong: At the outset, I declare an interest in this and the previous motion, as I am a farming family member.

I support the motion and thank the proposer for bringing it to the House. The debate follows the Ulster Farmers' Union rally last night at the Eikon centre. As has been referenced, over 6,000 farm family members attended that event. It was a phenomenal show of strength in protest at the unfair and unjust plans of the Labour Government to impose new thresholds for inheritance tax and agricultural property relief on farms. You had only to look to see how many young people attended that rally, young people whose future is being threatened by this punishing tax. We need to do all that we can to value their commitment to farming and protect their livelihoods.

The situation facing farm families is intolerable. Farmers have already had to navigate new environmental regulations; digital record-keeping; increased regulatory inspections; TB; bird flu; and EU regulations on the movement of animals. Last year, the average farm income dropped by as much as 44%. The new tax on inheritance is the greatest threat to succession farming that we will ever know. The Labour Government, with their ill-thought-out policy, will wipe out the next generation of food producers in this country, threaten food security and desecrate the land. Without the next generation of farmers, there will be no food.

Farmers are looking into a bleak future, and we must collectively do all in our power to reverse the policy. The uncertainty is, as others have said, taking its toll not only on farm livelihoods but on farmers' mental health. If the Labour Government are genuine in their calculations that the policy will affect only large farming estates, they should raise the threshold in Northern Ireland to higher than £1 million to reflect the smaller scale of farming in the Province. As others have stated, farmers are asset-rich but cash-poor. Many farms with an average of 80 to 100 acres will easily reach the £1 million inheritance tax threshold due to land prices, machinery and buildings on farms. To protect the average farming family in this country, we need to see the threshold raised.

As others have mentioned, the mean age of farmers in Northern Ireland is 59, with 36% of managers aged over 65, so, really, this is coming down the tracks. We have a major problem with succession planning. Despite recent DAERA initiatives, namely the Farming for the Generations pilot scheme delivered by Rural Support, which I welcome, farmers are still not able to grasp succession planning. On the one hand, not having had to face inheritance tax in the past, farmers saw no urgency to plan for farm handover; on the other hand, they were encouraged to expand and borrow from banks in order to meet that expansion. Now with the Chancellor's Budget announcement introducing changes to inheritance tax and agricultural property relief, it is ironic that the expansion of herds and flocks will push many small farms over the £1 million threshold when they already struggle to meet repayments and investment, leaving an impossible burden on successors. The Chancellor's decision will decimate food production in Northern Ireland. I say it again: no farmers, no food.

There is a route to a just and fair policy. The Chancellor must raise the threshold and ring-fence farm funding. The Minister of Agriculture needs to work with the Finance Minister to introduce increased inflation-proofed multi-annual support for the agriculture sector. That would be critical to Northern Ireland's economy. Without it, food production will be at serious risk. Therefore, I support the call for the Agriculture Minister, along with his Executive colleagues, to urgently press the UK Government to reverse the policy and introduce a Budget that ensures long-term, ring-fenced and increased financial support for our farmers and the wider agriculture sector.

I thank the proposers of the motion, which I support.

Mr Gaston: The motion condemns the actions of the Government in relation to their assault on family farms, and so it should. However, I will watch with interest how Members vote here shortly. As my party leader noted last night, just half of Northern Ireland's MPs bothered to vote when the issue came before the Commons, which is where the real power lies. Sinn Féin put its republican ideology before farming, and its MPs left farmers in their constituencies voiceless. Half of the SDLP did not show up, and the half that did supported the Budget. The Agriculture Minister's party colleague was not there to vote either. I remind the Minister that one of the biggest cheers last night at the Maze came when Jim Allister called out your ammonia policy, which is —

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — in place even though the Minister had to admit that agriculture is responsible for barely half of the pollution in Lough Neagh.

I give way to the Minister.

Mr Muir: If the Member were in any way aware of the issues in relation to ammonia, he would know that I inherited a situation in which, as was recently found by the Office for Environmental Protection, the Department had acted unlawfully. I am working through the issues.

If we have a genuine desire to turn around the UK's decision on inheritance tax, we need to work together and have a unity of purpose. If we divide, we will not be able to pursue a clear cause to overturn the decision. I wish that we could all come together in unity in the Chamber and in society on what has been proposed by the UK Government.

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

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much. There was a unity of purpose in the room last night; it certainly was not in favour of the Minister's ammonia strategy.

The Minister has already had an opportunity today to show that he has got the message from last night and has started listening to farmers. That opportunity came in the TB debate, when he could have responded by announcing a badger cull, but only more dither and delay was on offer. Maybe that is why the Minister literally fled the rally last night. An AERA Minister who has to run out of a rally defending agriculture is one who needs to reflect on whether he is in the right job.

The sound reasons why farm exemption from inheritance tax was introduced in the first place have not changed; indeed, they are now more acute. Farms are asset-rich but cash-poor. Inheritance tax inevitably means the breaking up of a family farm holding to pay the whopping death duties demanded by government. Inheritance tax is, at the best of times, a tax of government greed, but, when it prioritises the Chancellor's greed over farm survival, it plumbs new depths. It has been made all the worse by the Government's dishonest pretence that it will hit very few. That is not so. It will cripple family farms not just because the threshold is so low but because of the pretence of a protection of up to £3 million, which will apply only in rare cases.

In order to address the problem, many will have no option but to sell parts of the farm. That diminishes the viability of the farm. The major problem with selling ground is that a large percentage of the money raised may also be liable for capital gains because of the ongoing inflation in costs of land. If the Government care anything for farming — I fear that they do not — they must find reverse gear and do so quickly.

That said, many who will vote for the motion in a few moments' time need to look a lot closer to home than Westminster to find the cause of the problems in our largest industry. It ill behoves the House to pretend that it is exercised about farming when many of the challenges faced by the industry are and were created in this Building.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, over to you. You have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will address the two aspects of the motion. One is the earmarked funding, and the other is inheritance tax. I will start with inheritance tax, because it has been the issue of last night, of today and of recent weeks. As Members will know, the issues raised in the motion are a cause of significant concern and uncertainty not only for our farming community but for me as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. I spoke at the UFU rally last night, and the size of the turnout and the passion expressed showed how deep the concern is. The worry about it is significant.

Whilst I appreciate that decisions on taxation are a matter for the UK Government and are not devolved to the Assembly and our Executive, I was disappointed by the lack of engagement with devolved Governments in advance of the Budget announcements, given the far-reaching impact of the changes on other policy areas that are devolved. The changes announced to the limitation of agricultural property relief and business property relief at a rate of 100% to a combined value of £1 million came as a shock, and they have, rightly, caused real concern and anger in the local farming community.

As was said, £1 million may sound like a significant value, but it does not amount to a large area of land, especially in Northern Ireland, where prices are the highest in the UK and Ireland and are likely to average around £15,000 per acre by the time that the change would come into effect in 2026. Land values bear no resemblance to the income-earning potential of land, and they never materialise where land is passed down through generations of farming families and continuously farmed. Due to the policy change, that value could give rise to large tax bills.

Analysis undertaken by my Department suggests that the proposed tax relief change will affect around one third of Northern Ireland farms because the value of land owned by the farm exceeds £1 million in agricultural value. Those farms account for 60% of owned land and the majority of farm production in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, a large proportion of farms of significant size will be affected, including 75% of those in the dairy sector. Therefore, looking solely at the number of farms does not measure the impact on the sector. The limitations on APR and BPR tax relief will have far-reaching and potentially disproportionate impacts locally.

I do not agree with the UK Government's determination that the tax change targets wealthy landowners rather than family farms. It makes no distinction between the two. Land valued at £3 million and owned by a farmer is treated the same as it would be if owned by a non-farmer.

I met the Northern Ireland Secretary of State in the days after the Budget to outline the concerns that have been expressed in the Chamber. I also expressed those concerns yesterday to the Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Daniel Zeichner, in a meeting with other devolved agriculture Ministers, and I will continue to do so in meetings with other UK Ministers. I am also seeking to arrange a meeting again with the Ulster Farmers' Union to discuss this specific issue next week. I have encouraged the UK Government to engage further with the farming community so that they can have a better understanding of the concerns being raised, and I urge them to look again at the issue, given the disproportionate impact on family farms in Northern Ireland.

The ability to pass farms down through generations of farming families is crucial to securing the future of our agri-food sector. I am pleased to say that the letter signed by the First Minister, deputy First Minister, Finance Minister and me was sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, following work between Caoimhe Archibald and me, urging the UK Government to rethink their approach.

On the specific issues in the motion, I need to be clear that it will not be possible for my Department to mitigate the impact of the inheritance tax changes by refunding tax bills. However, I will do all that I can to make the case to the UK Government that they rethink the issue, and I encourage farmers to seek advice from a professional tax adviser on how to minimise potential tax liability via tax planning.

Food prices are determined by the market and are outside my control. I wish to see price stability, with food being affordable and prices at a level that delivers an adequate return for farmers.

On a positive note, my Department's new farm support and development programme contains a farming for the generations scheme, which is being rolled out as a pilot. The pilot scheme aims to raise awareness of the need for succession planning on farms and to support farm families through a three-phase approach: planning for succession, developing the successor and supporting the lead generation in the farm family. It will also link farmers without a family successor to new entrants to provide access to land and other resources. Evaluation of the pilot scheme will be input to a future farming for the generations scheme. Hopefully, that addresses the issue in relation to the inheritance tax matter that was raised in the debate.

I am very clear that I stand four-square in support of farmers in their opposition to the proposed changes to inheritance tax. There is a saying: united we stand, divided we fall.

We will not be divided. Other people may want to do that, but we should not do that in here. We need to stand united. In our approach to the UK Government, we need to be clear that we are very much united in supporting our farming community and in our opposition to the proposed inheritance tax changes, because that is the only way that we will be able to chart a better way forward. It is absolutely key that we do that.

On earmarked funding — the terms "earmarked" and "ring-fenced" are interchanged — and that change to budgets, that represents a break from the past. The money was previously received under the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. Then, following our departure from the EU post Brexit, it was earmarked, until the end of March next year, by the previous UK Government. Although the existing funding for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development will continue to be earmarked by Treasury until 31 March next year, it is important, in light of the change announced by the Chancellor on 30 October, to provide certainty on the funding after that. The announcement on inheritance tax has slightly overshadowed that, and it is important that we consider it. Whilst it is positive that funding levels have been maintained at £332·5 million, it is disappointing that funding has not been increased in line with inflation.

I recognise the significant contribution that agri-food and fishing businesses make to our economy and rural communities and the need to continue to provide support to ensure that our farm businesses can operate sustainably while playing their full part in the action needed to protect and enhance our environment, improve animal health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I have therefore formally asked the Finance Minister to ensure that the resource DEL that has been baselined in the block grant is treated as Executive earmarked — other people would use the term "ring-fenced" — funding for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development purposes and uplifted in line with inflation as part of the Executive's 2025-26 Budget exercise. I consider that important to support vital work to improve our environment and water and air quality and to safeguard food security.

The Budget announcement has created considerable uncertainty about funding for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development. However, there is an opportunity to address that in the Budget for the next financial year and to deliver for farmers, the fishing sector and our environment. I shall continue my engagement with the Minister of Finance and other Executive colleagues as part of the ongoing Budget 2025-26 exercise to seek that that funding is earmarked by the Executive following the end of the earmarking for three years by Treasury and the previous receipt of that funding from the EU as part of our participation in the common agricultural policy and the fishing policy.

Hopefully, I have addressed the issues in the motion. I have concerns about the funding. You can see that I have been working with the Finance Minister to address those. Some of the issues arise from Brexit. We got that funding from Brussels in seven-year tranches, and now that is going. I am working through the solutions and the issues, and I will not be found wanting on that, but we need to work together.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Jonathan Buckley to make a winding-up speech. You have 10 minutes, Jonathan.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today's debate has been important. Who would have thought that four months of Labour Government would have wreaked such havoc and destruction on the stable block of UK society? They have pickpocketed pensioners, tied the arm of small businesses behind their back with National Insurance contribution rises and destroyed the bedrock of our communities across this United Kingdom: our family farms.

I have deliberately stood in the Chamber beside a man who has been involved in agriculture his entire life. William Irwin, my friend and colleague, had to take on the burden and responsibility of running a family farm at 20 years of age when his father passed away. Under the inheritance tax rules that we have debated today, William Irwin would not have been able to take on his family farm. The family farm would have been broken up and destroyed, yet, because of the policies that we had in this country to support agricultural family farms, William Irwin was able not only to inherit his family farm but bring it to new heights and the level that it is at today. What is threatened? If Members listened last night to the farmers who were represented at the Eikon exhibition centre, they will know that it is about their children.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

It is about their children. The pressures that farming life brings, with high-value assets and low incomes, means that, for many of them, the changes will bring about the destruction of the farming unit. We all know that today's 20% inheritance tax will salami-slice the farm because it cannot be paid for with farm income. An important point that was raised with me last night is that the old must die, but the young can die. How many young family farmers will take on the family farm not knowing what the future will bring? My colleague Miss McIlveen mentioned the heartache that comes with family farm deaths. I lost two uncles in family farm deaths. You cannot plan for the future, yet families will be faced with huge tax bills, which will destroy the viability of farms and the fabric of rural communities. It does not matter whether you are a republican in Strabane or a unionist in north Antrim: this affects us all. The Labour Government need to face up to the reality because their approach is continuing to strip away the very fabric of this society. I look at inheritance tax as a jealousy tax and a tax of envy. It is a tax raid because it is on income that has already been taxed.

The changes in inheritance tax go to the very heart of the anger that farmers are feeling today. We talk about succession planning, the barriers to new entry, discouraging investment and rising operational costs. Farmers are facing a fight on so many fronts, and today they are shouting. They are shouting to the Government, "Don't put your boot on us. Put your hand down and lift us up". That is the type of language that Members need to get real with because we are undermining food security. In Northern Ireland, we have some of the most fantastic producers of quality farm food. Across these islands, we are known for that. Yet, zealot quests, be they from Treasury or from those who want to pursue net zero in cruel and ambitious ways, are destroying the very fabric of our society: the farmers, who have done so much.

We have to be realistic about the changes that will come as a result of the abolition of agricultural property relief. Many onlookers to today's debate will think, "A million pounds? That sounds like a lot of money. These farmers are rich. Why should they not pay inheritance tax in the same way as the rest of us?". That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a family farm is handed from one generation to the next. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the huge costs involved. It has already been mentioned that land prices in Northern Ireland vastly outstrip those in many other parts of the United Kingdom. It is not long before you tot up £1 million pounds, taking into account the farm dwelling, farm buildings and farm machinery. The estimates are that one in three farms in Northern Ireland and 75% of our dairy farms could be affected. I will go as far as saying that the change will be much more consequential because, as time rolls on, we will see our family farms and the generations of families that ran them ebbing into a distant past. Agriculture will be looked upon as an industry of the past. When Members go into the Senate Chamber and look up at the wall, they will see that three industries are represented: shipbuilding, linen and agriculture. Those are the three pillar industries of society. Those industries and the people who worked in them with blood, sweat and tears made this country what it was. Shipbuilding and linen production are gone, but agriculture remains, Members. We are receiving a lesson from the farmer today, which is, "Ignore us at your peril".

Last night, there was a significant gathering of those who are concerned about the autumn Budget. Indeed, some 6,000 people gathered. They were not just old people and not just men. Men, women and children, who make up our society, are worried. I was asked the question, "Jonny, what will tonight achieve?". It is a good question, because all of us in the Chamber know that the decision is not a devolved one. As I listened on, the gentleman said that he was worried about the viability of his farm, and I said, "If tonight has achieved one thing, it is this: there has been a recalibration". Parties in here are finding reverse gear, because, for too long, I have come to the Chamber and listened to Ministers and Members bring forward policies and table motions that are anti-agriculture. That is a fact, so let us not hide from it.

The former Green Party Member Clare Bailey introduced a Climate Change Bill that the evidence said would result in 80% of our livestock having to go and our processing sector being wiped out. Thousands of jobs on farms would be sacrificed on the altar of net zero by the agriculturally illiterate, who did not care about the devastation that the legislation would cause to farm families. Instead, they voted for it at Second Stage in the Chamber, with the exception of the TUV and the DUP.

Members, we earlier debated bovine TB. In Northern Ireland, 90,000 cattle have been destroyed in the past five years. They were taken to the slaughterhouse: years of family breeding ended because the Assembly could not deal with the wildlife problem.

In closing, my message to farmers is this: you have a captive audience in your political representatives right now. Do not lose it. Hold them accountable. The decision, if not challenged and reversed, will lead to worse decisions in the future for agriculture. To the Minister, I say this: get real on the issue, because running out of last night's meeting with your bow tie between your legs will not help the agriculture community deal with this real threat. I look forward to seeing the parties opposite bring forward policies that are pro-agriculture. Rest assured, you will be held accountable for every single one of them.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, please take your ease while we change the top Table.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Colin Crawford to raise the matter of special educational needs (SEN) provision in North Antrim. The Member has up to 15 minutes.

Mr Crawford: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. A pressing concern that affects countless families across North Antrim and, indeed, throughout Northern Ireland is the inadequate special educational needs provision in our schools. The matter transcends politics: it is about our commitment to ensuring that every child has access to high-quality education, regardless of their individual challenges or circumstances. As we know, the term "special educational needs" encompasses a wide range of conditions, including learning disabilities, developmental disorders and physical challenges, amongst others.

Sadly, many children who require additional support are not receiving it. Families navigate a complex and often overwhelmed system that struggles to meet their needs. Numerous reports and reviews have been carried out by the Public Accounts Committee, the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO), the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) and, in 2023, an Ipsos independent review. Those reports and reviews highlight time and time again the fact that the system is failing not just children with special educational needs but their families, teachers, support staff and the schools themselves.

The numerous reports and reviews emphasise that early identification and intervention are crucial when addressing the challenges associated with special educational needs. It is clear that the earlier we intervene, the better the outcomes. However, MLAs know all too well that that is not the reality in our constituencies. Parents have come to me at breaking point — I am sure that the same is true for other Members — because they are far beyond the statutory 26-week time frame for receiving a statement for their child. Parents tell me that they feel overwhelmed, unsupported and let down by the Education Authority (EA) as they try to navigate a stressful and exhausting process to secure a school place that meets the needs of their child.

We want our children and young people to attend the most appropriate school for them, with support to help them to overcome their individual barriers to learning. Unfortunately, because of a shortage of educational psychologists and a paperwork bottleneck in the EA, some children wait well beyond that time frame. A child who is waiting to be statemented may be without a school place at the beginning of a new term or be left in a school that is not appropriate for their needs.

Considering the statementing backlog, we need to look into other methods to ensure that there is early intervention for children at every level of our education system. The vital role of health visitors, speech and language therapists and the entire early years sector has to be explored so that children can get the support that they require before they are of school age.

The type of support that children and young people with special educational needs receive may vary widely, as their needs can be very different. Some SEN children attend special schools, whereas others attend specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS). Over 70% of children with special educational needs in Northern Ireland are educated within mainstream education. To meet that demand, 112 new SPiMS classes were established for the 2024-25 academic year in 105 schools across the country. The creation of specialist provision affords children with more complex educational needs the opportunity to be educated alongside their peers and siblings. It supports the integration and inclusion of all children, creating educational environments that reflect the wider communities in which children live, while supporting, as far as possible, parental choice of sector and location. Many schools report positive learning experiences for children, teachers and parents. Need, however, continues to outstrip the availability of places. Therefore, we must continue to open new SPiMS units at pace.

I take the opportunity to show my appreciation to everyone in North Antrim who works tirelessly to deliver meaningful change to children with special educational needs. A special mention must go to Castle Tower School in my home town of Ballymena, which provides education to those who are aged between three and 19 years with severe, moderate and physical learning difficulties. I will also give a special mention to the host of schools that have SPiMS units, which provide an important opportunity to move towards a more inclusive education model for all pupils.

There is a need to recruit and retain highly skilled and trained teachers and support staff. Such staff are the backbone of any SEN setting, but they experience huge workload pressures in their support for learners with special educational needs. That often results in stress, anxiety and burnout. I often hear from teachers that they are under significant pressure as they attempt to meet the needs of individual children, while children are presenting year-on-year with more complex needs. Teachers often feel that they are told to do inclusive education, often without support and resources. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that teachers have the knowledge and skills to create inclusive classrooms and that school leadership provides an inclusive and innovative environment where teachers can flourish.

The role of teaching assistants and support staff cannot be overstated. They bridge the gap between students with special needs and those in the mainstream classroom, ensuring that those students do not lag behind due to their unique challenges. We welcome the progress of the end-to-end review of SEN, which the Department of Education and the EA are taking forward. That will allow us to take an in-depth and objective look at the SEN system, make the changes that are necessary for more effective service delivery and ensure the development of solutions from policy development through to operational delivery.

The vision that is articulated clearly in 'Every CHILD: Department of Education's corporate plan, 2023-28' states that every child and young person with SEN should be "happy, learning and succeeding". We should accept nothing less. I want all SEN children in North Antrim and across Northern Ireland to have the same opportunities as their peers, the same choices about what they do and an occupation that is meaningful and enjoyable. I want all our young people to make positive contributions to their community and wider society. I want staff to feel that they are confident and capable of meeting the additional support needs of children in the classroom. I want parents to be confident in their child's education system. I also want parents to be communicated with at every stage of the process, and I want them to have the tools to support their children.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Other Members who wish to speak will have seven minutes.

Mr McGuigan: I thank Colin for securing the Adjournment debate. It is a very appropriate opportunity to discuss an important issue. I begin by declaring an interest. My wife is a special educational needs assistant in a school in North Antrim.

Every child, irrespective of background or ability, is entitled to an education. Every parent and family of a child with special educational needs is entitled to support. Ensuring that children with special educational needs and disabilities get the highest levels of support is a priority for Sinn Féin. Too many children with special educational needs and disabilities are being left behind, and too many families have to battle with the Department, the Education Authority, schools and transport providers for that appropriate support.

Those children and their families deserve better. In order for the system to work for everyone, early intervention is key, which the independent review of education recognised. Unfortunately, instead of early intervention, too often we see long waiting lists and a lack of cross-departmental working. We need to see the Health and Education Departments working side by side on the issue. Education teams, supported by health experts, will give those children the best possible start in life, because delays in early intervention have a clear knock-on effect on the next stage of development. From nursery to primary school, and from primary to secondary school, children should attend the most appropriate school for their needs. Without an early diagnosis, many children are left in mainstream schools without access to the support systems necessary for their social and academic advancement or without access to special schools or SEN units. Parents who try to circumvent the long waiting lists by seeking, in their frustration, private assessments are mostly told that those assessments, for which they paid large amounts of money, are not recognised by the Education Authority.

There has been a 50% rise in the number of children with a statement of SEN over the past five years and a 25% increase in the number of pupils in special schools. The Department — I know that the Minister has moved on this — needs to quickly develop the special school sector and provide additional special school places and classes. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether there are any plans to expand special school provision in North Antrim. Earlier in the year, I had conversations with the Department about a school in North Antrim that had closed down. I thought that it could have been used, but it did not meet the Department's requirements, which was disappointing.

As Mr Crawford mentioned, in Castle Tower in Ballymena in North Antrim, we have a first-class school where fantastic modern services are available for those children who need them and specialist staff provide the highest level of care and support to our most vulnerable children. However, the school and many like it are vastly oversubscribed. Castle Tower was designed based on a business case for 285 students. There are currently around 380 students enrolled at the school, with applications far outstripping available places. Castle Tower is the only dedicated SEN school in the whole of North Antrim. Children in our area are forced to travel long distances to access special educational needs provision in Coleraine, Limavady, Magherafelt and even, in some cases, Belfast. Those distances are difficult for any child, but, for a child with special educational needs or disabilities, such journeys are particularly difficult. We need more specialist provision, similar to the fantastic service provided by Castle Tower, available to our vulnerable children in North Antrim. Specialist units for SEN children are available in mainstream schools like Our Lady of Lourdes School in Ballymoney, Ballymoney High School, Dunclug College and St Patrick's College, Ballymena, but again, those schools can face issues with oversubscription and lack of resources. These schools provide excellent outcomes for some children who require SEN support, but, for many children, there is no substitute for special schools and the resource available in those specialist settings.

Every year, I am contacted by many constituents about travel for those with special educational needs. The most vulnerable often face the most issues with school transport. For example, there are often issues with the lifts on buses breaking down, meaning that SEN pupils who use a wheelchair cannot be lifted onto the bus. Another issue is the shortage of chaperones, who are essential for SEN pupils when travelling. That obviously causes stress for parents and the children, because the children cannot attend school when those issues arise, and they arise much too often. Another issue is the journey times for those with special educational needs. In some cases, these can be very long. I have constituents whose children live 15 to 20 minutes from school but face a one-and-a-half-hour journey every morning and evening, due to the fact that the bus has to travel around collecting other children in order to transport them to and from school. For many children with SEN, those travel times are very difficult. Sometimes children must leave the house as early as 7.00 am for a school start at 9.00 am and endure the same journey home. That happens to children as young as three or four, at preschool age, and many children struggle to or cannot cope with such journey times. The EA must engage with parents to provide suitable transport plans for those children to ensure that our most vulnerable do not have to endure excessive journey times.

In conclusion, I know that the Minister, whom I welcome, has inherited this problem and that, as a result of Tory austerity, our education system as a whole, and special educational needs in particular, has suffered from a lack of investment. I want to hear his plans and proposals, with a particular focus on improving the situation for children and parents in North Antrim.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for North Antrim, Colin Crawford, for securing the Adjournment debate and bringing the issue to the Education Minister's attention. We all grapple with the issue of SEN provision not only in our constituency of North Antrim but across Northern Ireland, as the number of children needing special educational support grows. The first point that I want to make is that we will try to support those children as best we can. Society demands it of us. It is also demanded of society.

A number of factors really worry me about the number of children whose parents require and are trying to obtain statements and the demand that the Education Authority needs to meet that it has not been able to meet. It is clear that it is failing those young people and their families. We all deal with such families, who are pulling their hair out. They not only know their children's needs and requirements — they know them best — but are fraught with worry when they let them go out in the mornings, because they know that the provision and support that the school should be able to offer to look after their children is simply not met. That should give us all nightmares. It certainly gives those parents nightmares.

The parents then come to us, and we try to deal with the Education Authority. I am sure that I am not the only MLA who feels that he is being stonewalled by the Education Authority. That may be tactical on its part. Have other Members had the experience of writing to the Education Authority simply to ask for information, only to be placed in a formal complaints process that they did not require? I do not want to be in a formal complaints process, and nor do the family; they just want answers. They want to know when and why: "When will the general assistance be there? Why do I have only 15 hours? Why not 24 hours or full time?". Instead of answering those questions, the Education Authority puts them into a formal complaints process, and they have to wait for the Education Authority to come back and say, "We have looked at our procedures. Everything seems to be right. Your complaint is not upheld". We do not want to be in a complaints process; we just want communication and answers.

I believe that the Education Authority uses its complaints process as a tactic in order not to engage with elected representatives and the people whom we support. That is blatantly wrong. It is really wrong for the Education Authority to take that avenue. Of course, people can go to the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, but, because the Education Authority has ticked all its boxes and gone through its processes correctly, that will have no prospect of success either. Quite simply, you are then complaining about the process rather than the failure to help a child. The tactic of using that formal complaints process is a complete deflection by the Education Authority, and it is absolutely wrong.

I want to know what policy the Education Authority uses to measure an individual child so that it arrives at an outcome of 15 hours of general assistance, 24 hours of general assistance or no general assistance. I want to know what policy it uses that is so robust that it can estimate an individual child's needs and requirements. I have yet to see the formal policy that it uses to make those decisions.

I thank the Minister of Education. I believe that he is listening and that he has a grasp of the scale of the problem. Since he has been in post, he has endeavoured to resolve the issues. This is not an issue that has come on his watch, but I can see that he is prepared to try to resolve it in his time. I thank the Minister for attending with me schools in North Antrim of late, namely William Pinkerton Memorial Primary School in Dervock and Ballymoney High School. The Minister will know that there are a couple more in the pipeline for him to attend. I know that the Minister has also attended other schools in North Antrim at the invitation of other MLAs and, in some cases, due to the pressing needs of principals.

The Education Authority is letting down not only children and parents but principals. Principals are pulling their hair out because they also want answers as to how the Education Authority can come up with results and assessments of what child needs what general assistance, be that 15 hours or more. They cannot get answers to the same questions; in fact, pressure is applied on those principals when they try to fight for their children.

Some of the cases are severe. Some of the children face severe challenges daily. Some of the conditions are even life-limiting. Principals and teachers are extremely concerned that they do not get support from the Education Authority when it comes to looking after those children. That alarms them, but it also alarms parents. We need to get a grip of the situation for the sake of the children.

Ms Mulholland: I thank my constituency colleague Colin for bringing the debate before us. Most of us will have had some of the families in our offices, explaining the situations that they have been in. Special educational needs provision in North Antrim needs to be looked at through a rural lens. Members have already spoken about some of the key issues, but, when you look at North Antrim and see some of the villages, particularly in the Causeway coast and glens area, where children have to travel for a long time and distance to get to the like of Castle Tower — there are brilliant SEN provision units in some of our schools — you see that there is an issue of spread in the more rural areas.

Despite the countless reviews and recommendations, the system continues to fail children and families across Northern Ireland, but North Antrim, with its dedicated schools, educators and voluntary organisations, reflects the struggles within the system and the possibilities of what we can achieve when we work together. For over a decade, report after report has painted a picture of a SEN system that is unable to meet the needs of our children. That is clear to see. The Minister and the Department have acknowledged the failure.

As many have said, the lack of provision has been inherited — it has not happened overnight — but the Department remains overwhelmed when it comes to our SEN provision and is consumed by statutory processes rather than being able to focus fully on the needs of children. Families and schools have faced a labyrinth of delays and miscommunication, and that has left children waiting for far too long for diagnoses, support and intervention. I do not think that that is because of a crisis of resource; sometimes, it is a crisis of priorities. There is a bit of bureaucracy taking precedence over outcomes, and the families would say that that is simply unacceptable.

One of the most significant barriers to reform is the lack of effective cooperation between education and health services, as mentioned by my colleague Philip McGuigan. SEN provision often relies on health professionals, such as speech therapists and occupational therapists, yet those services remain disjointed. I have just received a text message from the parent of a five-year-old child who attends Castle Tower saying that an incredible weight has been lifted off her shoulders by Castle Tower bringing those therapists into the school system, meaning that they do not have to look elsewhere. However, we are not seeing that for all families. That siloed system results in delays in diagnosis, in statements and in the provision of vital support. Those are delays that could cause harm to the children whom we should be helping.

I am particularly passionate about the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 (CSCA), which was designed to address the silo mentality across Departments. The Public Accounts Committee and the obligatory statutory review of the CSCA have made it abundantly clear that that legislation is not being utilised to its full potential. I have communicated that to the Finance Minister and, through many Assembly questions, to the Education Minister, because it is a useful tool if used to its fullest potential. It is a missed opportunity: it could and should be the foundation of a joined-up system that places children at its centre. Instead, it remains an untapped resource that is gathering dust while children continue to fall through the cracks. Agencies must embrace the cooperative ethos of the CSCA to align efforts across education, health and social care.

An actionable transformation plan — one that emerges from the end-to-end review of SEN provision — is desperately needed. The review cannot be another one that gathers dust: it must result in clear actions, measurable outcomes and time-bound goals. Only then will we begin to rebuild trust with families, educators and, most importantly, the children who depend on the system. The system should also identify needs early, as we know that early intervention is absolutely key to the most positive outcomes.

The challenges in North Antrim remain stark. I spoke to a SEN teaching assistant in Dunclug Primary School who shared some of the struggles faced by staff and asked me to share them today. If children wait years for a diagnosis, that delays their access to crucial resources like one-to-one assistance. If schools lack funding for essential resources, such as their sensory equipment, that can transform learning environments for the children they work with. She said that staff were overworked and were often responsible for multiple children with complex needs, despite being assigned to provide one-to-one support. That is just the nature of what they have to deal with. Training is sometimes inadequate, which leaves staff unprepared to handle the significant challenges that they face daily and were not necessarily expecting. She put it best when she said that earlier intervention can help a child so much more than letting them struggle for the next few years.

The issues are compounded by pay disparities. SEN teaching assistants in mainstream schools earn significantly less than their counterparts in special schools such as the fabulous Castle Tower, despite doing the same work. That inequity undermines morale and staff retention in what are already challenging roles. That is what I have heard.

I also want to cheer on the voluntary and community sector, which is stepping up and stepping in when the statutory sector fails. I have the privilege of engaging directly with the amazing efforts of the Compass Advocacy Network (CAN) in Ballymoney. That organisation exemplifies what can be achieved through grassroots initiatives to enhance lives and create change for individuals with learning disabilities, autism and mental health challenges.

Every delay and missed opportunity represents a child whose potential is going unfulfilled. Hopefully, we can see a full implementation of the CSCA, address funding gaps in the interim, invest in staff training in the interim and, in the longer term, get a transformation action plan and identify needs early. At the point of identification, we can look at early intervention.

Mr Gaston: I start, like the rest of the Members who have spoken, by commending my colleague Colin Crawford for securing the Adjournment debate. I also commend him for his volunteering work over the years, prior to coming to the House, with special needs kids. I know that SEN provision is a topic that is close to his heart.

It will come as no surprise to the House that I want to focus my comments on North Antrim and Castle Tower School in particular. The school opened in 2018 after a long-awaited £21 million investment in its 13-acre site. The issue facing the school is its extremely limited options for expansion. It has had to operate between the Castle Tower site and the site of the old Ballee Community High School, which is now home to the EA.

Given limited class sizes, the school, for obvious reasons, is now in the position of having to turn away children who are clearly in need of a place. It has simply run out of room. The demand for specialist services simply outstrips supply.

I commend one of my colleagues on Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, Councillor Matthew Armstrong, for his work on the issues affecting Castle Tower School. He previously arranged a meeting between the school, the Department and the council to urge some outside-the-box thinking about the school's facilities. His summary of how that initiative ended up, however, was this: to say that the Department loves wallowing in red tape would be an understatement. Although that is predictable, it is depressing. If the Department is to get serious about addressing the lack of special educational needs provision, it needs to abandon its piecemeal approach and start to make wholesale changes that will last longer.

There is one thing that I will say about Castle Tower School. There is an option available to the school to take over the old but dilapidated Ballymena Nursery School building. With an intervention from the Department, there could be an option to relocate Ballymena Nursery School to a new site and allow Castle Tower School to expand on to the Ballymena Nursery School site. I ask the Minister to engage with Castle Tower School directly in order to consider what help he can offer to meet the growing demand for the school, which supports much of North Antrim.

Ms Hunter: I take the opportunity to welcome the Member who secured the Adjournment debate to the Education Committee. We have had him with us for the past few weeks now, which has been great. I thank him so much for bringing the topic to the Chamber, because it is such an important issue.

Every child deserves the opportunity to thrive, yet for too many children with special educational needs and disabilities across Northern Ireland, including in North Antrim and in the wider north-west, that remains out of reach. Changing that is a priority for the SDLP. With nearly 20% of our school population identified as having special educational needs and over 22,000 young people having a statement, the demand for tailored support is undeniable and growing.

For so many, even getting a statement is unbelievably difficult. One principal, whom I spoke to just last Friday, said that the school was often put in the awful position of choosing which child should be sent for assessment, when many really need the support. Parents feel every bit of that. They are left running around in circles trying to find school placements, support that helps their child achieve and support inside and outside the classroom. Parents spend late nights worrying and early mornings trying their best to support their child and their child's needs, as well as attending multiple appointments in order to give their child the best start in life. From language therapy classes to sensory classes and more, parents are burnt out and exhausted from trying to make it all happen.

Before I continue, I thank the Children's Law Centre and the NI Children's Commissioner for their tireless hard work advocating for children with special educational needs across the North. I particularly thank Causeway Neurodiversity, which is a remarkable group of people who have come together from different backgrounds. They come from throughout the region, including from my constituency and from across North Antrim, and the group comprises parents, experts by experience, activists, health workers and more. They bring people together — they have an online platform on Facebook as well — to talk about the experience of being a parent who struggles with a child who has special educational needs. The group puts people with special educational needs at the forefront of the conversation in order to hear their lived experience. I thank that group for its hard work, its dedication and the support that it provides to so many families across my area and in North Antrim.

Education is, of course, at the heart of this conversation. The number of children who need specialised support has increased by 24% over the past five years, but, despite that, many families are left waiting for placements, battling an overstretched system that lacks sufficient resources. Today, over 1,000 additional SEN places are urgently required, along with specialist classrooms and adequate funding, to ensure that those children can access the education that they deserve. I thank the Minister and his colleague Alan Robinson for their work earlier this year to ensure that Rossmar School got the necessary capital funding to facilitate more space on its site.

I will now speak about Caleb's Cause and post-19 support for children with special educational needs. It really is a cliff edge. Those young people feel totally unsupported. Over the age of 19, going out into society can be an incredibly unnerving and uncertain time — for anybody — so it is really important that we do all that we can to support them. I note that Rossmar School is potentially looking at providing support for children and young people from the ages of 19 to 25. That could be an answer. We are looking at how we can support young people, and that could be a good way to go.

This is not just about what happens within the walls of the classroom. The failure to address SEN needs has a profound impact on children. Social anxiety, general anxiety, isolation, academic setbacks and mental health crises are, sadly, becoming all too common. The children whom we are talking about are not just statistics. They are future scientists, artists, carers and leaders. If we fail to support and protect them now, we fail to unlock their full potential.

Investing in SEN provision means more than just funding. It means ensuring that teachers have the training to meet the range of diverse needs, developing specialist facilities to support parents and young people and integrating wrap-around support for families. It means committing to a system that values every child equally. On that note, I would like to thank the incredible staff in those schools: for example, Sandelford School in my constituency and, of course, Rossmar School in Limavady.

We are talking about the provision of support for children with special educational needs. We also need to discuss respite care. Happy parents lead to happy children. So many parents whose children have SEN rarely ask for much, but, when they ask for respite care, they cannot get it. I had a constituent — it was a very sad story — whose teenage daughter, who has complex special educational needs, recently survived cancer and is doted on by her parents. The parents wanted to get away for a few days after a period of pain and uncertainty, but they were turned down at the last minute, and that was also in the wider north Antrim area. It just goes to show how common that is — that is just one story of many. Respite care is a fundamental support mechanism and safety net for parents to have much needed downtime. They are fantastic at what they do in supporting their children to be the best that they can be.

We urgently need to support parents who deserve rest from taking care of children who have special or complex needs. The need is urgent. Let us work together to build an inclusive education system that lifts up all children inside and outside the classroom. Their future depends on it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, and thanks to all Members who spoke in the debate. I call on the Minister of Education to respond. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank Mr Crawford for securing the debate and for speaking to these important issues. I join Mr Gaston in commending Mr Crawford and paying tribute to his volunteering work and particular interest in this area. I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate, and I will just lay out some of my responses to those.

Since I was appointed, this has been one of the main areas that I have been focused on in what I can do to improve the lives of all children and young people. I have prioritised better support for special educational needs — Members have recognised that — to make sure that we are aligning with the Executive priorities in the draft Programme for Government.

Mr Frew highlighted some of the issues that we are trying to resolve. I have visited a number of schools to which he invited me and schools that other MLAs asked me to visit. However, some of the most impactful visits that I have had were to special schools. While I have witnessed the impact of specialist provision in mainstream schools, special schools are exactly what they say: they are special and unique but they are very challenging environments.

Sian Mulholland, a Member for North Antrim, mentioned the issues around health support and therapies. I have witnessed the benefit of speech and language therapists, physiotherapists and nurses being available in special schools. That highlights the necessity of other Departments and trusts working with the Department of Education and the Education Authority to meet the need. It is a concern that I have about the withdrawal of services. That is why, shortly, I will meet the Minister of Health and some principals of special schools to discuss why that change is happening. I agree with the Member when she says that being in the school setting and then receiving additional medical support is critical. Why take a child out of school when you can treat their needs in school? There are increasing medical complexities for young people in special schools. Mr Frew spoke of the concern that many principals have about not having the expertise. We look to other Departments and the trusts to support us in that.

By September of this year, we had created over 1,450 new places. They were established to meet the needs for specialist placements, yet the picture for September 2025 and beyond remains very challenging. The statutory annual review for children and young people, with the statements of special educational needs process, has recently commenced. That will inform the EA's planning assumptions for September next year. Strategic area planning that is in line with the projected need will be key to ensuring that there is sufficient special education provision for future years, and the Education Authority is working on an operational plan that prioritises special education.

The Department recently carried out a survey across all mainstream schools, seeking their views so that it could understand their readiness to establish specialist provision. Mr McGuigan asked questions about schools in North Antrim in particular and what we are doing to support them. I can confirm that 49 schools in North Antrim responded to that recent survey. I am pleased to say that 23 of them indicated a willingness to establish new or further provision for September 2025 and beyond. The Department and the Education Authority will work with schools in North Antrim and other localities on the creation of specialist provision in order to meet future demand across all areas. I appreciate the Member's commitment to securing sufficient special education provision in North Antrim. The EA has identified that as an area that has pressure for additional places both in special schools and specialist provision in mainstream schools.

A number of Members mentioned Castle Tower School. I assure the Member, and all Members, that I recognise the challenges that are in North Antrim. I commend Castle Tower and the wider special school sector for their daily work in supporting our children and young people with the most complex of special educational and medical needs. That goes alongside the mainstream, where colleagues have embraced the opportunity to establish specialist provision to reflect the growing and changing needs in their local community.

The Education Authority works closely with sectoral partners and schools to build capacity into the entire system for the future, and it has been asked to submit proposals for any required extension of special schools. That will now be taken forward under the school enhancement programme. Members will remember the statement that I made in the House on the new capital strategy for special educational needs, which is a 10-year strategy. In that, I commissioned EA to do the work of finding out what provision we can enhance for every single special school in Northern Ireland and whether they require school enhancement programmes. As well as identifying where eight new schools need to be located in Northern Ireland over the next 10 years, we commissioned that piece of work, and EA will provide an update to me on that shortly.

The end-to-end review of special educational needs has now concluded, and I will shortly set out my reform agenda for special educational needs and disabilities. I assure Members that that is a delivery plan, not another review. I am clear on that. We need a delivery plan, not more review. Included in that will be a clear plan for the delivery of transformation across the education system in order to ensure that all children with special educational needs and disabilities have access to high-quality education through the delivery of the right support from the right people at the right time and, importantly, in the right place. That will mean significantly reforming our approach to how we support children, young people and their families.

At a recent event, a parent asked, "Who is preparing the community for my child?" We must take a whole-child, family, school and community approach in order to ensure that we improve outcomes for our most vulnerable children. Working closely with colleagues across the Executive, local government and the voluntary and community sector, we will tackle those issues. Education cannot do that alone.

Provision is not just about how we support our children but about where they go to school. Our schools need to be those vibrant hubs that are welcoming and safe places for children so that their well-being and learning can be promoted. It is clear that the school estate has suffered through a lack of investment and planning, and my statement to the Assembly in April indicated the biggest change to capital planning in a generation. I committed then to an ambitious, far-reaching, long-term plan that will require sustained and increased capital investment of around half a billion pounds over the next decade to rebuild and reconfigure the school estate across Northern Ireland in order to ensure that every child and young person is happy, learning and succeeding in their educational journey.

It is a priority that planning for special educational needs provision progress to a stronger strategic footing to ensure that the growing numbers of learners with special educational needs have timely access to appropriate education placements that meet their need. The strategic approach that I have set out will consolidate around my special educational needs and disabilities reform agenda and delivery plan. That will set in train a process to deliver and secure a better future for all our children with special educational needs and disabilities across Northern Ireland.

Our schools are leading the way in supporting and making provision for our children and young people and their families. I am immensely proud of the work that goes on in our schools. Every Member who spoke highlighted the excellence that they have witnessed when they have visited schools. As Minister, I am keen to support the reform that our families and schools have been calling for. I know that Members will continue to advocate for their constituents and, rightly, hold me to account as I seek to deliver on the reform agenda and support our young people.

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