Official Report: Monday 25 November 2024

Mr Speaker: I have received notice that the First Minister is unable to be in the Chamber today and that the deputy First Minister will respond to questions on behalf of the Executive Office at Question Time.

Mr Speaker: Jonathan Buckley has been given leave to make a statement on the death of Ken Reid that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should indicate that by rising in their place and continuing to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak. I remind Members that no interventions will be permitted and no points of order will be taken during this matter.

Mr Buckley: On Wednesday past, Northern Ireland lost a colossus in local journalism. Ken Reid passed away after a long battle with leukaemia. He truly was an inspiration to many Members in the Chamber and many of his colleagues with whom he worked for many years in local journalism. His career began in 1977 and led him to the heights of political correspondence throughout one of Northern Ireland's most difficult periods.

What other journalist could provoke a hushed moment in a family home? I remember, as do, I am sure, many Members, my parents saying, "Shh! Let us listen to Ken Reid". Such was his political antennae and analysis that many people wanted to tune in to listen to what he had to say. He was a trustworthy individual. Like many Members, I have been touched by some of the stories told following Ken's passing and by how Members across the House had a confidence and trust in Ken Reid that they do not normally have in journalists. Ken inspired that trust. It was a conversation.

I remember, on my first occasion of being elected to this place, being introduced to that man, who I had seen on television all my life. I think that it was you, Mr Speaker, who brought me down for a cup of tea or coffee with Ken. Immediately, Ken tried to school me. He said, "Here are a couple of books. You need to read them and really understand what they mean. Put them on your bedside table." Such was his knowledge, understanding and interest in all things politics that he truly was a man in a class of his own.

He interviewed seven Prime Ministers and some US presidents. He had such an opportunity to speak for so many, sometimes in such difficult circumstances. It is clear to see the sheer warmth that many of his former colleagues share for him. I do not think that I am alone when I say that I was particularly moved by Mr Nesbitt's tributes on TV and radio. It is clear what Ken Reid meant to you as an individual and, I am sure, to every one of your former colleagues.

Ken has passed, but his memory certainly lives on. When Ken was retiring, he talked to many of us about his love for his family. On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I say this to Ken's wife, Liz, his children Gareth, Sarah and Sophie and his grandchildren Summer and Hugo: Ken truly was a special man. He will be missed in this place, but he will be especially missed in your family home, and I give thanks for the life of Ken Reid.

Mr Kelly: I think that many people will want to speak about Ken Reid. As Jonathan said, he was liked by all, which, in itself, is a great achievement.

First, I send condolences to Ken's family and colleagues. I have listened to them, as Jonathan has, over the period since he passed. It is sometimes hard to listen to some of the stories, but he was clearly loved by his colleagues in journalism. I knew him since about the 1990s, so for quite a long period. He was north Belfast born and bred, which helped me, and he was a Cliftonville supporter, which also made it easier for the relationship.

I always found him to be very quiet, very respectful and very polite, but he was also very determined, because he was passionate about what he did. His passion was a very quiet passion in all that he did, and, of course, he was a political animal. It is fair to say that I never heard him be abrasive, which says something about a journalist who has to deal with politicians and others. He was someone who it would have been very hard to fall out with, and he was highly respected by all, as we will find out today and as we have heard over the past number of days. During his illness, which was quite prolonged and happened in bouts, he showed a great courage and, of course, became an advocate for others who were suffering.

I remember him through all the negotiations, through the transition from them, through the Assembly, through the

all the rest of it. I always found him balanced, which is also quite hard to achieve, and he also had a good sense of humour. In the middle of a corridor or in the middle of doing something in the Great Hall, he gave you a wee bit of a laugh. He will be well remembered, and, of all his achievements, the fact that he has friends across the board in every quarter is as good a legacy as you can have, and that is alongside all the things that he achieved as a journalist.

He will be sadly missed. As someone who is around the same age as him — I am slightly older — I remember saying, "What would you like to be remembered as? As someone who had a very full life?", and he said, "As a good human being". That was a very simple thing to say, and I think that it goes for Ken.

Mr Tennyson: I join colleagues across the House in conveying my sympathy and that of the Alliance Party to the friends and family of the late Ken Reid. In particular, at this incredibly difficult time, I offer my condolences to his wife, Liz, his children Gareth, Sarah and Sophie, his grandchildren Summer and Hugo and all his colleagues at UTV.

Ken was a towering figure of local journalism. He covered every major political development in Northern Ireland over the course of 30 years, including, of course, the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and the early and delicate days of the peace process here in Northern Ireland. Whilst I did not know Ken personally — he retired a year before I entered the House — I very much felt as if I knew him well, because he was a regular fixture on my TV screen, as he was for an entire generation. He shaped the public's understanding of key political events in those years.

It was clear from Ken's reporting that he was a man of great intellect, of great integrity, of compassion and of good wit and good humour. He pursued every story with tenacity but also with sensitivity and great care, and that speaks to the kind of man that he was. He was never fearful to ask the tough questions but, simultaneously, managed to command the respect of politicians from every side of the Chamber, and that is quite the feat. He leaves behind an enormous legacy, and I hope that that legacy will bring some comfort to his family at this very difficult time.

The tenacity with which Ken approached journalism was matched in his later years in his battle with illness. He conducted himself in those final years with a real dignity that, I think, is inspirational to all of us. Whilst it is those closest to Ken who will feel his loss most acutely, all of us in the Chamber, all of us in politics and all of us in Northern Ireland are the poorer for his passing. He will be sadly missed.

Mr Nesbitt: I rise to pay a particularly fond farewell to my friend and my former colleague. Ken bore his health issues with typical fortitude and concern for others. Numerous times, I asked him, "How are you?", and he quickly switched to talk about the wonderful healthcare that he was receiving from the nurses, doctors and allied health professionals. He was blown away by their relentless professionalism and compassion.

Ken spent his early years in journalism as a dedicated newspaper man. In fact, broadcasting came almost by accident. One day at UTV, we needed to interview somebody in Cork, where Ken was based. I phoned him and asked him whether he would be the reporter. He said yes, but on two conditions: that he did not appear on camera and that we cut out his questions. No sound, no vision: I think we can agree that that was quite an unusual request for a TV person. A few weeks later, we needed to interview that guy again. By this time, Ken had changed his mind. He said that sound and vision was OK. He had caught the broadcasting bug. That is how it began, but it ended with Ken being the most respected journalist I have ever met — the most respected journalist I have ever known, in fact. Why? Because he was authentic, curious, caring and compassionate. He was totally fair and impartial in his reporting, and he was completely trustworthy. He knew when to tell the audience what he knew and when to hold it up his sleeve. For all those reasons, he had friends on this side of the House, that side of the House, to my left, to my right, in front of me and behind me.

I had the pleasure of working with him for about a decade. We covered so much, especially the long, long build-up to the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement. We covered atrocities, not least the Omagh bombing. We travelled many, many times, reporting from not just Northern Ireland but Dublin, London and Washington DC. In those hundreds and hundreds of live exchanges, we never once rehearsed the questions and answers, because we had trust. More importantly, the public had great trust in Ken: they relied on him and valued his analysis. He was, frankly, for all that time, my broadcasting brother, and I am so grateful to have had that opportunity.

My condolences to all but particularly to Liz, to Gareth, Sarah and Sophie, to Summer and Hugo and to the rest of the extended family. I will finish with a thought for Ken, if he is listening. Ken, you always started revealing things to me by saying, "You know yourself", even when I did not. Ken, I hope you know yourself that you were loved and you are missed.

Mr O'Toole: It is hard to follow that tribute from Ken's friend and former colleague, Mike Nesbitt, which I think really sums up the esteem in which Ken Reid was held not just by Mike but by his colleagues and all in this region and, indeed, further afield. Like others, I grew up watching Ken Reid on TV. On UTV, he was a fixture talking about, first, the political process, which then became a peace process and then these institutions, and everything that has flowed from that. Some of it has been wonderful and transformative, and some of it has been, at times, depressing, frustrating and alarming. Through all that, the public, whatever their perspective and whatever their background, trusted Ken Reid. He was a credit not only to the broadcaster that he worked for but to journalism, because he built trust and authenticity, as Mike Nesbitt said.

I first got to know Ken Reid personally in a previous life when I worked in London. I met Ken a couple of times and had interesting conversations with him. I then came back here to be a politician at Stormont.

By that stage, Ken was in the last couple of years of his working life and was dealing with the illness that, as others have said, he bore with such dignity and good humour.

All of my conversations with Ken Reid were professional and interesting, but they were also life-enhancing because Ken, as many people know, was not just a sharp and incisive journalist. It is important to say that his warmth and good humour never stopped him from being robust and incisive, which was why audiences trusted him. Conversations with him were always life-enhancing. You could start by talking about the controversial issue of the day, such as what was going to happen with a talks process, the protocol or some falling-out that had happened at Stormont, Westminster or wherever. Quickly, you found yourself, almost organically, getting on to music or football. He was a huge fan of Cliftonville and Everton, and he was a big fan of Ballymena Rugby Club. He also talked about music, in which he was very interested. I remember having conversations with Ken about something that we were both interested in but is, perhaps, not widely held in affection in this part of the world: real ale. Ken was a big fan of real ale, and he and I used to talk about that.

Ken was a deeply warm and authentic person, but he was a hugely respected journalist, not just by people in the Chamber or in Northern Ireland politics but by presidents, Prime Ministers and Taoisigh, all of whom sat down with him. He challenged them and brought what they had to say to an audience at a time when people needed that information and proper journalism. His passing is hugely sad for his family, and my condolences and those of my party go to Liz, his children — Gareth, Sarah and Sophie — and his grandchildren. I also want to reflect on Ken's huge contribution to public life here and his contribution to journalism. He showed the importance of journalism and what it can do for democracy and society when it is done right, and, my gosh, Ken Reid did it right.

Mr Frew: I pay tribute to Ken and send my condolences to his family. Ken was a big personality, but he betrayed that in his own small way. For a journalist, that is quite a niche. He was a giant in his trade of journalism. Whilst we all speak to journalists, it is not often that you sit down and have a proper conversation with a journalist, but you did with Ken Reid. When I first met Ken Reid, he complimented me by saying that he had followed me in council. I was embarrassed by the fact that he called me "the Young Turk". He said, "Don't lose that. Democracy needs that in a place like this." So right he was.

Ken was a giant in journalism, but he was also a local man. He lived just outside Ballymena and loved Ballymena Rugby Club. He loved some of the premises in and around the town, and everyone knew him, not only because they had seen him on TV but because he took the time to talk to people. Ken was also not one of those people who did not want to talk about trade on a Saturday. He would openly talk to anyone who cared to listen. That was the gift of Ken Reid. We think, in this place, that democracy needs politicians, but actually democracy needs Ken Reids.

Mr Gaston: I join the House in paying tribute to the life of Ken Reid. Ken was one of my constituents, who, from humble beginnings as a newspaper reporter, became one of the most recognisable faces in Northern Ireland. While I am new to this place, no set of crisis talks were complete without Ken reporting live from the Great Hall or, more often than not, from outside in the cold.

In more recent days, we saw something of the other side of the man. When faced with the challenge of chronic leukaemia, he used his profile for good by campaigning to raise awareness of the condition. His colleagues at UTV and, indeed, throughout wider media circles will, no doubt, miss him deeply. I assure his entire family circle that they are in my thoughts and prayers.

Any death reminds us of the reality of mortality. Ken will rightly receive many tributes from inside the House and outside it, but his death reminds us of the words from scripture:

Members, we need to live our lives for the things that are of eternal value.

Mr Durkan: There has been a huge outpouring of grief, love and sorrow, as well as stories told, since the news broke last week of the passing of legendary local journalist and broadcaster Ken Reid. Ken was a constant in our lives and in our living rooms for as long as I can remember. He was in our living rooms to report on some of our darkest hours, as well as some of our brightest dawns, keeping us all up to date with and across the latest political developments in his straightforward, honest, insightful and inimitable style.

As a politician, I found it always a pleasure to be interviewed by Ken. He did not mollycoddle you, but he did not try to catch you out either. He knew that the story was never about him. That is what made him so great at his job. It was a real privilege to spend time with Ken and, on many occasions, to see him sitting in the canteen downstairs and join him for lunch. The conversation might have touched on politics a wee bit, but, invariably, more time was spent talking about the things that he loved even more: his family and football. We were united by a common love of Everton, something that, Ken joked, prepared him well for his tough battle against the illness and adversity that he faced in his last year. He faced that battle with huge bravery and typical humour.

Ken was, obviously, loved and respected by politicians, loved and respected by the public and loved and respected by his peers and colleagues. His loss will be deeply felt by many but by none more than his beloved Liz, his children and his grandchildren. We offer them all our support and love.

Mr Speaker: Before I conclude the Matter of the Day, I will make a few remarks about the late Ken Reid. Aside from Mr Nesbitt and Mr Kelly, I probably knew him longer than anyone in the Chamber had. Over the years, Ken established a trust with all of us that, I think, no other journalist achieved. That led to his breaking nearly all the big stories. We often heard Ken break stories that clearly came from Downing Street, because he had an in there. He was over in the White House, yet he still took the time to talk to political minnows such as me at the time. That was Ken's journalism. He built relationships and friendships and got nuggets here and there, and he pulled all of that together. He got the story, and he got it right. Ken did not have to come on air and apologise for getting things wrong, because he got the stories right.

I look at the type of journalism that Ken Reid excelled in and then at some of the gotcha-type journalism that exists nowadays. Those journalists will never break the big stories, because they will never gain the trust that Ken Reid did. It is a really significant and special achievement to have that level of trust across the community of politicians who represent Northern Ireland.

Ken and I disagreed on many things: on Linfield and Cliftonville, on Liverpool and Everton and on Phil Collins and Van Morrison. His taste in music was terrible, and his taste in football teams was terrible. Nonetheless, he was a really fine journalist and a really fine gentleman. Northern Ireland is poorer for the passing of Ken Reid. I pay tribute to him, and I extend sympathies on behalf of all Members to his wife, Liz, and his family — his children and grandchildren — at this difficult time. While all of us have sadness about Ken's passing, they have lost their loved one. Our hearts go out to them.

That concludes the Matter of the Day, and I thank Members for their contributions.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you give your opinion or guidance, if there is any guidance, on the absence of the First Minister from Question Time today? Is it proper, given that we will soon have the Christmas recess, that we have been given such short notice of the First Minister's absence? Is there guidance on appearance? We will not now have an opportunity to question both parts of the joint office until well into the new year.

Mr Speaker: The First Minister has given notice and has good cause not to be here. I encourage Members to respect that.

Mrs Dillon: I wish to speak about the flooding at the weekend. First, my thoughts are with all those whose homes or businesses were flooded, but I particularly reference the flooding in Coalisland and the Clonoe area, particularly the Kings Row area of Coalisland town.

Flooding has, unfortunately, been an ongoing issue in Kings Row over many years. People's homes have flooded when there have been serious storms or heavy rainfall. Work was done a few years ago to address the flooding. It did address it over several storms and periods of heavy rain, but, unfortunately, the rain on Friday night and Saturday morning brought serious issues for the residents of Kings Row in Coalisland. In particular, my thoughts are with a family who had to remove the remains of their mother from her home, which was a traumatic experience. The family were burying her this morning, and my thoughts are with them. The dignity with which the services carried out their work and helped the family to remove the remains was very much appreciated by them. I acknowledge that here.

Going forward, we need to ensure that no family living in Kings Row has to face that again. People are out of their homes in the mouth of Christmas, and their homes are destroyed. There is nothing more devastating than seeing your home destroyed, and trying to repair a water-damaged home is a horrific experience for anybody. We need to ensure that those families do not experience flooding again and can live in their homes. They are unable to get insurance because of the previous flooding. They need to be able to live in their homes and know that, when it rains, they do not have to panic or call their local elected reps and say, "Please, help us to get sandbags. Help us to get the agencies out here".

In that vein, I spoke to the Infrastructure Minister this morning, and he said that, if there is anything that his Department needs to do or has not done, he will ensure that it is addressed. He has asked for urgent updates from his officials on the matter but also for solutions going forward. We will have an inter-agency meeting facilitated, I believe, by the Mid Ulster District Council, but it must be pulled together urgently so that families are not in fear that their homes will be flooded again.

I call on all those responsible, particularly the housing association that owns a number of the homes, to ensure that all work is carried out with urgency to allow the families to return to their homes before Christmas. A lot of work has happened on the ground, and elected representatives were out helping residents this morning, as they were on Saturday morning. I commend the elected representatives who were on the ground on Saturday from early morning until late afternoon to help the residents.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Dillon: Particular regard goes to those residents, and my thoughts are with all the families who had to leave their home.

Mr T Buchanan: I condemn those who, under cover of darkness on Thursday night past, erected a large sign on the wall of Priest's Lane car park calling for a total boycott of all shops and businesses in Castlederg, as they had taken umbrage at the flying of a Union flag in the area.

It is nothing short of hate speech and an incitement to hatred that contributes to division and fear. It is a direct and deliberate attack on the minority Protestant/unionist community and all the business owners across the Castlederg area. Business owners are not responsible for what is placed on a lamp post in Castlederg. Therefore, to call for a boycott of businesses and state that there is no alternative to such action is but a continuation of the anti-Protestant/unionist campaign of hatred that caused devastation to many families in Castlederg over the thirty years of the IRA terrorist campaign.

We know that there has always been an alternative to the murder, the bloodshed, the bombings, the intimidation and the devastation caused by Republican-inspired sectarian bigotry and to the boycotts, both in the past and today. I call on those who erected the sign to remove it immediately. If it is not removed, the council must step up to the mark and have it removed. Business owners in Castlederg must be given full support, irrespective of the religious background they come from. Given the recent opening of the redeveloped Diamond area in Castlederg, the new play facilities at Castle Park and the COVID recovery paint scheme in the town, it is now time to get behind the businesses and the community and give them the support that they need, rather than taking such a divisive backward step.

Allowing the sign to remain damages not only the community's values but the council's credibility. The council must therefore demonstrate leadership and accountability and take swift and decisive action to ensure that the sign is removed and implement measures to prevent such incidents happening in the future. We cannot have that type of thing happening in Castlederg or any other town across Northern Ireland. Those days are in the past. It is time for those living in the past to come into the real world and seek to work together with everyone to ensure that businesses across Northern Ireland thrive and get the support that they require.

Ms Egan: Today marks the start of 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. The next weeks are time for action and reflection on the global theme: unite to end violence against women and girls. To coincide with the beginning of the 16 days is White Ribbon Day, which is a global movement that was started by men to combat violence against women and girls.

Research by Ulster University recently found that 98% of women in Northern Ireland have experienced at least one form of violence or abuse in their lifetime. That is shocking and unacceptable, and the solutions are everyone's responsibility. The challenge that I put to all legislators in our Chamber today is to amplify the voices of victims and survivors across all our briefs.

Since the Assembly returned in February, we have had the publication of the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls, alongside the strategy to tackle domestic and sexual abuse. New funding has become available to provide vital support for the organisations that propped us up in the absence of a functioning Government. That does not negate the fact, though, that until September, we were the only region across these islands that did not have a dedicated action plan to tackle gender-based violence. Those steps signify only the beginning of our Executive jointly stepping up to the plate and uniting to deliver for women and girls.

I cannot stand here and pretend that we can pat ourselves on the back. From 1 January 2023 to 30 June this year, 31,931 domestic abuse incidents were reported to the PSNI in Northern Ireland. This work is for everyone across our society to be involved in. Whether it is on providing preventative education, strengthening our justice system or providing support to victims, the message that we must send is one of change.

Today, Women's Aid Northern Ireland launched its annual figures. It reported that, in the financial year 2023-24, 527 women and 291 children stayed in one of its emergency accommodation refuges in Northern Ireland. We cannot be self-congratulatory when we are still playing catch-up on years of inaction, and women are paying the cost of that with their lives. Our approach to ending the epidemic must be to get everyone involved. We cannot be bystanders; we must all be vehicles for change and progress.

Dr Aiken: On Thursday, the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee sank further into irrelevance. Before the Committee were regulation (EU) 2024/2747, regulation (EU) 2024/2748 and directive (EU) 2024/2749 — hardly tripping off the tongue. Those regulations refer to the European Union's Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Act (IMERA).

The advice that we received made it clear that, if enacted, the regulations could have a significant impact on everyday life in Northern Ireland. They mean that, if the EU calls an emergency, it has substantial powers over the provision and control of goods and other activity wherever the writ of the EU applies, and that includes Northern Ireland. The rules and regulations have primacy over UK law and any Northern Ireland legislation. There is no definition of what the EU describes as "an emergency". It could be another pandemic, another war like that in Ukraine or even, as explained to us in Brussels recently, a trade war with Donald Trump. Even though there was little detail or, indeed, input from our Departments, it was clear that the only proper scrutiny was done by Westminster Committees, and they had significant concerns as well.

The purpose of Thursday's meeting was to ask whether we should hold an inquiry into the impact of such legislation. The public can view the responses of elected representatives, especially those of the Alliance and Sinn Féin members, but to not hold an inquiry just because the issue is complex or difficult to understand smacks not of due diligence on our part as a Committee but of just following a particular ideology. I have remarked before that the Committee is the most incurious that I have ever sat on. Its near-pedantic following of the letter of its terms of reference goes significantly against what the Committee's intent was clearly supposed to be, namely to act as a safeguard for the people of Northern Ireland. Yet again, for ideological reasons, the Committee has singularly failed to do so. The Democratic Scrutiny Committee is, I am afraid, neither providing much democratic scrutiny or accountability nor even functioning much as a Committee. The people of Northern Ireland deserve much better of their elected Members.

Ms McLaughlin: As many Members will be aware, I care deeply about regional economic balance. It is what drove me to stand for election in the first place and what drives me every day in the Chamber. That is because, having worked in business development for many years, I know all too well the inequalities faced by left-behind places and that our peace process and the agreement have not delivered prosperity for everyone. Of course, I see this every day in Derry. In my city, we feel the disparities in our economy deeply. They still hold back far too many people in our community, force too many of our young people to move away to access higher education and trap generations in poverty. That has terrible consequences for our population's health and well-being.

We should all want to see a society in which, no matter the postcode of your birth, you can go as far as your talents will take you. It has been welcome that, since devolution returned in February, a new emphasis has been put on regional balance by the Minister for the Economy in particular. I welcome the subregional economic plan, despite its limitations, and acknowledge the fact that regional balance features as one of the four pillars in the Minister's economic vision, but, as the Minister has said, he cannot achieve regional balance alone. That is the job of every Department. Although we have seen warm words, strategies and even the Programme for Government, which are welcome, they will not address the imbalances here. We need binding legislation that ensures that regional economic balance is a thread running through every Department's decision-making. Today, I will take another step towards introducing legislation as I launch the official public consultation on my private Member's Bill on regional jobs, skills and investment. The consultation is an opportunity for businesses and individuals to have their say on regional balance and the steps needed to finally address the inequalities in our economy. It is in everyone's interests that we break down barriers to opportunity and give everyone a fair shot by levelling the playing field once and for all. That is why I am pushing forward with legislation. I encourage everyone to contribute to this important debate.

Ms Ferguson: Over 2,000 families here are shielded from the worst impacts of the cruel British Government austerity agenda by the current benefit cap mitigation.

Our Committee for Communities, therefore, pressed the Department on Thursday past on the need to secure and extend them. I commend colleagues in Advice NI, particularly its head of policy, Kevin Higgins, and the wider Cliff Edge Coalition on what their campaign has done so far to raise awareness of the looming deadline of 31 March 2025. Just last week, I and, I am sure, many in the Chamber attended several relevant discussions, including the launch of the Audit Committee's report on child poverty, a meeting with the Cliff Edge Coalition and an event on Thursday that the Trussell Trust organised.

Over one fifth of families here have three or more children. The cruel two-child limit, therefore, has a particularly disproportionate impact on our families and contributes to scandalous levels of child poverty. Of the over 35,000 emergency food parcels that the community of food banks distributed between April and September, 71% were to households with children aged nought to 16. Even more recently, I and my colleague Pádraig Delargy MLA met our local Trussell food network foundation, which is based in Foyle. It is in the midst of preparing for a particularly difficult and busy time of the year. We all have a duty to end poverty and ensure that no more families endure the heartbreaking impacts of hunger and hardship. All families need to be provided with certainty and relief urgently. The Minister for Communities must urgently clarify whether he will extend and strengthen the current mitigation package, including the benefit cap mitigation, before 31 March. The Department should also outline what recent engagement the Minister has had with the Trussell Trust, Advice NI and the Cliff Edge Coalition. I am calling, once again, for the urgent publication of the anti-poverty strategy and for the protection of our existing mitigations.

Mr Kingston: Last month, the Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons, hosted a very successful and enjoyable evening at the SSE Arena honouring our athletes who competed and won medals in the Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. Those who represented Great Britain and Northern Ireland and those who represented Ireland were honoured. Many will now be looking forward to the next major games, which will be the Commonwealth Games. We welcome the fact that Glasgow has stepped forward to host the games in 2026, albeit with a reduced number of disciplines.

Of course, in the Commonwealth Games, our athletes from all community backgrounds unambiguously represent Northern Ireland, and we take pride in their representing our wee country on the international stage. We regret the push from some quarters to promote the view that we should scrap all previous convention and practice and no longer use the Northern Ireland flag, which is commonly known as the Ulster banner, at those games. I make it absolutely clear that the DUP would completely oppose removing the Ulster banner — the Northern Ireland flag.

We know that many issues around flags and anthems are established by convention. It is entirely clear that Northern Ireland has the Ulster banner, and it should be used on appropriate occasions when people and teams represent our wee country. We see it used across a wide range of sports, including football, golf, snooker, athletics, darts, bowls and many others. Such matters belong in the political arena for consideration by elected representatives and, in particular, this elected Assembly, where they are part of the ongoing process on flags, identity, culture and tradition. That is where such matters should be decided. We do not wish to see sporting bodies being divided against each other on the matter. We do not agree with those who wish to impose such a political matter on sporting bodies where the convention is clear and unambiguous.

Northern Ireland has a proud tradition of punching above its weight in sporting achievement. Let us all be proud of those who represent us at the highest level of international competition.

Ms Mulholland: The words that I am about to say are not mine. They are those of Sinéad, who is a Trussell service user from part of the group that launched the Trussell's 'Building blocks for a better future' report, on Thursday. I feel that they are important enough for the Chamber to hear fully.

Miss Brogan: Inniu an Lá Idirnáisiúnta um Dhíothú an Fhoréigin in aghaidh na mBan. Maraítear bean amháin gach 10 mbomaite. Nuair a léigh mé an fíoras sin, a Cheann Comhairle, baineadh stad asam: maraítear bean amháin gach 10 mbomaite.

Phléigh muid go min agus go minic sa Teach seo an foréigean in aghaidh na mban. Chuala muid uilig go léir na scéalta agus na staitisticí. Táimid uilig ar aon tuairim gur gá rud éigin a dhéanamh faoin fhadhb seo, agus ina dhiaidh sin féin, leanann an foréigean ar obair gan chosc gan cheangal.

Is é rud a shíleann daoine go fóill gur rud fánach é an foréigean in aghaidh na mban. Cá bhfuil mar a shílfeadh duine ar bith sin, a Cheann Comhairle, nuair atá na Náisiúin Aontaithe á rá linn go maraítear bean amháin gach 10 mbomaite? Déantar mná a ionsaí sa bhaile, san ionad oibre agus ar líne - is cuma cén aois a bhfuil na mná sin ann. Is annamh a thugann siad tuairisc ar na hionsaithe do na póilíní. Ní ligeann an náire dóibh tuairisc a thabhairt, agus creideann cuid mhaith acu gur beag an difear a dhéanfadh sé cibé.

Is geal liom go bhfuil straitéis anois againn le deireadh a chur leis an fhoréigean in aghaidh cailíní agus na mban. Déanaimid ár ndícheall daoine a chur ag caint ar fhadbanna sláinte agus intinne. Caithfimid an rud céanna a dhéanamh anois leis an fhoréigean in aghaidh na mban. Abraimis amach. Ní binn béal ina thost. Maraítear bean amháin gach 10 mbomaite. Níl sé inleithscéil.

Mr Brooks: Like many in the House, I spent some of this weekend dealing with residents in my constituency who had been affected by the flooding caused by Storm Bert. It has been a stressful time for them and their families. We know, especially in the mouth of Christmas, how they will feel, looking at their belongings that have been ruined by the water that got in. We need to step up and take action to assist them. I know that they are thankful for the contribution of the Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons, who has quickly brought forward the emergency £1,000 payments. We know that those will go only a short way towards mitigating the losses that have been incurred, but they will be of assistance in the initial stages, and the residents of the area are thankful for that.

I thank the Northern Fire and Rescue Service for the huge effort that its personnel made to clear the water at Park Avenue in Dundonald. I thank the community groups and agencies that attended the scene. Crosspoint Church opened the church to allow affected residents to come in to get support from various agencies, and Dundonald Orange hall made the same offer. Staff from the British Red Cross, Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, the local health trust and the Housing Executive all spent much of their Saturday as part of the emergency response to help residents who were in distress and families who could not, for quite some time, get access to residents who were stuck in their houses. I also thank the local businesses, including The Golden Chip and Café Nosh, that offered to feed those who were affected. In times like that, it is good to see communities coming together and rallying round to support those who have been most affected.

The issues in Park Avenue in Dundonald have been there for some time. In previous years, Joanne Bunting, Gavin Robinson and I, along with DUP council colleagues, have supported residents to get sandbags and so on as the waters rose. What they really want, however — their frustration came across at the weekend — is a permanent solution. When the river waters rise, they are left vulnerable. This incident was the worst for some years, but the water levels have been increasing and the warnings were there. I appeal to the Department for Infrastructure and the Minister for Infrastructure to investigate and find out what the problems are, because we need to see action. Ms Dillon said that the Minister is ready to step up. The residents of Park Avenue want to see that being delivered on. They want to see a permanent solution that means that they will not have to face this situation again this year or in the coming years. We need a permanent solution that can protect them.

Miss McAllister: I rise to speak about the tragic death of Gary McMahon in North Belfast. On Thursday 21 November, he was cycling to work when his life was so tragically cut short. First, and most importantly, I express my condolences to Gary's family and friends and all who knew him. I, and many others, are very sorry for their loss.

North Belfast is one of the least-serviced constituencies when it comes to safe cycling infrastructure. We have plans, we have plans within plans and we have commitments, but we do not have action. My partner and I cycle the same route that Gary took, and, for the past two years, we have done so with our children on the back of my partner's bike. Anyone who cycles in North Belfast will see what has happened as not just a dreadful and tragic accident but something that, perhaps, could have been avoided. However, people still cycle in North Belfast and into the city centre. They still use the route through Carlisle Circus because they have no other option, despite there being plans and commitments over the years. Over the past few days, I have had contact from many people in the cycling community of North Belfast and wider afield, and there is a lot of anger because of the years of commitments.

The Department for Infrastructure needs to urgently prioritise North Belfast and, in particular, the Crumlin Road/Ballysillan/Oldpark scheme and the connection between the city and the Cavehill area. That is a dangerous route that is used by many cyclists every day. Those are not massive requests. We are not asking the Department to go to the ends of the earth; we are asking it to implement what has been on the table for many years. Perhaps, in the coming weeks and months, Gary's legacy could be that the Department for Infrastructure turns away from its car-centric attitude and implements the changes that we need to see. Those changes are happening across Europe and the world, and Northern Ireland is, yet again, being left behind.

The coming days and weeks will be very difficult for Gary's family and everyone who has been touched by the tragic accident. We need to ensure that the momentum that has been built leads to action. I will ensure, through everything that I do as an elected representative for North Belfast, that we see action.

Mr Speaker: That concludes Members' statements. Quite a number of Members missed out this morning: if you try again tomorrow, hopefully you will get an opportunity.

Mr Speaker: I have been advised that there were issues affecting the receipt of some emails this morning. That situation is being investigated. In the meantime, I asked the Department of Education to provide hard copies of this morning's statement to all Members in advance of the Minister making his statement. Members will find those at the doors to the Chamber.

Should Members wish, I will suspend the sitting for five minutes. If Members are happy, however, we will continue with the ministerial statement. I call the Minister of Education.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): If the issue is at my end, I apologise. I am not sure whether the issue lies with the Department or the Assembly, but I am sure that your investigation will get to the bottom of it, Mr Speaker.

I am proud to announce a significant new initiative to fund and roll out defibrillators to all schools in Northern Ireland. The initiative is crucial for the safety and well-being of our society. The importance of having defibrillators in schools cannot be overstated. It will help to protect the lives of our young people, school staff and visitors. The initiative is designed to address the risk of sudden cardiac arrest. Sudden cardiac arrest can happen to anyone without warning. Whilst we know that it is more likely to occur in adults and older people, the heartbreaking reality is that young people are at risk too.

An automated external defibrillator (AED) saves lives by restoring the normal heart rhythm. Studies show that when a defibrillator is used within the first few minutes of a cardiac arrest, the chance of survival increases significantly. In fact, when CPR and defibrillation are provided promptly, survival rates can increase by as much as 70%. AEDs are cost-efficient, safe and easy to use, and they do not require specialist training. Having AEDs available in all schools will, quite simply, save lives. That is why I am investing over £700,000 of the funding from my new curriculum-led programme in the purchase and installation of defibrillators in all our schools, making sure that every school, from nursery to post-primary level, is equipped with that live-saving technology.

Over 600 schools still require defibrillators. A significant number of schools have already invested in defibrillators themselves. I assure those schools that my Department will fund the batteries and pads that are needed for the ongoing maintenance of their equipment. We will also fund replacement defibrillators for those schools when their current equipment needs to be changed. As we roll out the initiative, I urge every school to embrace this opportunity to enhance safety on their site.

Let me be clear: we cannot predict when a medical emergency will occur, but we can ensure that we are prepared. The initiative is not just about providing equipment; it is about building a culture of preparedness that complements our work in the school curriculum on CPR and awareness of defibrillators. CPR and awareness of the use of defibrillators have been mandatory elements of the school curriculum since 2022. To support the delivery of those elements of the curriculum, my Department has developed the community of lifesavers education programme in partnership with the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA), the Education Authority (EA) and the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service. That programme provides professional learning for teachers and resources and training equipment for schools. Over 500 teachers have been trained under that programme. In recent weeks, I also launched an interactive phone app that aims to build children and young people's confidence in developing vital CPR skills.

By raising awareness of the importance of defibrillators, we aim to make cardiac emergency an issue that schools are actively prepared to address. Having defibrillators in every school will provide a lifeline during moments of uncertainty, and I hope that knowing that help is close at hand will give our pupils, teachers and parents peace of mind. Today's investment is not just in schools: I hope that it will have a broader impact by providing vital equipment to our wider society. It is about building stronger and healthier communities. The defibrillators will protect visitors to schools, including local communities that use school facilities.

We will be working closely with the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service as we roll out the initiative, and I thank it for its support and advice.

All school defibrillators will be registered with the Circuit, the national defibrillator network, which provides NHS ambulance services with vital information about the location of defibrillators across the United Kingdom so that they can be accessed quickly to help save lives. In that way, school AEDs will become part of the community's emergency response infrastructure.

I am delighted to announce this life-saving investment. Together, we can create a future in which no life is lost simply because help did not arrive in time. All schools in Northern Ireland will have access to that vital, life-saving equipment by the end of the current academic year. The importance of defibrillators in schools cannot be overstated. They are life-saving instruments that can give children, staff and visitors the chance to survive a sudden cardiac arrest and continue to live a healthy, active life. Creating safer and healthier environments for our pupils is a top priority. We must prepare for the unexpected. Our schools must be equipped to respond to emergencies swiftly and effectively, because, when it comes to lives, every second counts. The funding will undoubtedly save lives. I am proud that we are taking this important step for the health and safety of our society.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Minister for his statement and warmly welcome it. Given that time is of the essence, is it possible to provide more than one AED for schools that are on a large campus or that have multiple buildings?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her kind remarks, which are appreciated. All Members will welcome the announcement, but it is made in recognition of the importance of providing such support in our school settings.

The Member is right to raise that issue. We carried out a survey, to which schools responded. A number of them already have an AED, and some of them have more than one, given the size of the school. We want to make sure that there is at least one in every school. Some schools have already invested in more than one AED because of the nature of the campus. My announcement is about ensuring that every school has at least one device, but the Member's comments are well made, given the size of some campuses. Should there be more provided? I want to make sure that all schools at least have one.

Mr Mathison: I also welcome the Minister's statement. We speak a lot about scarcity of resource in this place, but the question of what price we put on a human life is relevant in this context. How will the Minister ensure that, in every school, we have the right number of people with the knowledge required to use the defibrillator safely and effectively, should it be needed?

Mr Givan: I thank the Chairman for his comments. He is right to highlight the question of what price we put on somebody's life. Today's announcement is about intervening as early as possible so that we can sustain life, enabling the patient to make a full recovery. In circumstances in which that intervention cannot be made, it can take longer to resuscitate, which can have far-reaching medical consequences that reduce a person's quality of life. It can also require significant investment by the health service in providing the individual with lifelong support. We are therefore very much taking forward an invest-to-save project.

AEDs are designed to make sure that they can be used without training. I have been in a number of schools and taken part in the resuscitation programme. The device is capable of making people alert to whether a shock should be applied to the heart or whether they need to continue with CPR, so it can be used in the absence of formal training. In schools, resuscitation is part of the curriculum. Our schools are teaching young people how they can obtain the necessary skills.

Many years ago, when I was at high school, I completed my St John Ambulance certificate in CPR training. That training still takes place. We have invested in a new app for CPR training. The roll-out of the defibs will raise awareness to higher levels, and their promotion in school settings will help CPR training to be prioritised.

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

I also welcome the initiative from the Minister. We are all very aware of the pressures on the Education budget. Did the Minister ask his colleagues in the Health Department to shoulder some of the burden of the cost of the devices?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his support for the project that we are taking forward. He is right to raise the capital pressures that exist in my Department and others. In advance of getting near the end of the financial year, I have already been saying to my Department, "Let's make sure that we're in a position where we can spend capital funding". As you approach four months to go, it is difficult to stand up new contractors to carry out electrical or building work. The ability of the private sector to respond to that kind of capital work makes it difficult to spend funding on other capital projects. However, we are able to use capital funding for devices such as these.

Health's finances are very stretched, so the initiative will be 100% funded by my Department. In conjunction with the work that we do with St John Ambulance, it will have a clear health benefit, but it also ties in with the curriculum. The basis on which I have been able to bring forward the initiative is that it is a curriculum-led capital programme. CPR is part of our curriculum, so it meets that criterion. It also has the wider benefit of positive health impacts.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for what, as he said in his statement, will be a truly life-saving investment. He has already covered the element of training, which I was going to ask about. When the devices are in place, will there be an effort, in collaboration with other Departments, to increase the wider community's awareness of their location?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for those comments. He is right to raise the point about where they will be located. That is why we want every defib to be registered on the national network, the Circuit. Defibs in some locations have not been officially registered. If a defib is not on the national register, whenever you ring 999 and seek advice as to where the nearest defib is, the people at the end of the call will not be able to tell you, "It's at your local community centre", or, "It's at your school". That is why it is important that the devices be registered: it will help with accessibility.

Many schools have all of the security and fencing around them, but some do not. We will see whether the devices can be located on the external part of a school building so that they can be accessed by the community. Not every school will be able to do that because of fencing and the nature of the school's environment, but, where a school is open outside of school hours, I would very much like it if someone, responding to an incident in the wider community, were able to be directed to an accessible device on the external-facing part of a school building. As we roll out the project, we will seek to facilitate as much opportunity as possible for the community to avail itself of the devices.

Mr Chambers: I declare a personal interest in the increasing roll-out of that great Northern Ireland invention. It is a piece of equipment that, you hope, will gather dust due to inactivity, but, when someone suffers cardiac arrest, the prompt deployment of a defibrillator increases the chance of complete recovery. I commend the ministerial initiative, and I thank the Minister for it. I am sure that he will agree that it will contribute to saving lives.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Cathy Mason.

Mrs Mason: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Sorry. My apologies. Minister. [Laughter.]

Mr Givan: To be fair, that was more of a comment than a question. [Laughter.]

I did not hear a question.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): My apologies to you, Minister, and to Mr Chambers.

Mr Givan: I acknowledge the Member's support. It is a life-saving device. We in Northern Ireland should be proud of it, because it was Professor Frank Pantridge, a native of my constituency, who invented the technology that brought about the first defib. His statue is proudly on display outside Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council's headquarters. It is an important device, and I am delighted that we are able to extend its roll-out across Northern Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Now, Cathy, it is over to you.

Mrs Mason: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister and welcome the statement. It is well known that school budgets are extremely challenging for principals and school leaders. Clearly, there will be an ongoing cost for the maintenance of the devices. Will you indicate what that ongoing cost will be and confirm whether principals will be expected to take it out of their budgets?

Mr Givan: The Member is right to ask that question. In installing the devices, we will also undertake to meet the costs when batteries and pads need to be replaced, because those component parts require replacement before the device needs to be replaced. We will provide the support that is needed for the ongoing maintenance of the devices when they are installed.

Mr Martin: I echo the words of others in the Chamber in welcoming the announcement. I am sure that school leaders will join us in that. That provision could well be life-saving for many of our children.

Will schools that already have a defib in situ, which means that they will not get a new one as part of the roll-out, receive any further support from his Department in that regard?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. We surveyed schools to find out the number that currently have the devices. Two hundred and ninety-seven schools have installed them already, which recognises their importance and the need for them that exists. For schools that have a device, we will undertake, as part of the roll-out, to replace their devices when their life cycle requires it or, indeed, the batteries and pads, which need to be maintained.

Those 297 schools responded to the survey to say that they already had a device. Having a device in school is why Oliver McGreevy's life was saved at the age of 14 when he was playing rugby at Methodist College. Only a number of weeks ago, I met Oliver when we launched the CPR training. He spoke to me about how he may not have been here, had that device not been available and had the people who were on the rugby pitch not known where to go to get it. Thankfully, Methody had one of the devices. Oliver is now back playing his sport. The recovery process that he has gone through has enabled have a very active life. He got the support that was needed at the time to save his life, and, because the device was applied to him, that enabled a much better recovery. When you meet people like Oliver — I also spoke to his father — you understand that that is life-changing. He may not have been here but is here because there was a defib in his school. I want to make sure that every school has such a device so that, if that happens again in other school, that pupil will get the same opportunity to have their life saved.

Mrs Guy: I echo the comments that have been made in welcoming the statement. Oliver McGreevy, whom the Minister has just mentioned, used to be a neighbour of mine. I know him and his family well. I cannot describe the shock that I felt when I heard what had happened to Oliver. I cannot even imagine what his family was going through. It will provide such reassurance to other families with kids with heart conditions like Oliver's that that life-saving resource will be in their schools.

How will schools be contacted ahead of the defibrillators being rolled out? Whom do they get in touch with, if they have any questions?

Mr Givan: We carried out the survey to identify which schools have the devices and which do not, but not every school responded. We estimate that around 600 schools in Northern Ireland require the devices to be placed in them. All schools are able to avail themselves of the measure. We want this to be rolled out. Obviously, the Education Authority will now take forward the procurement exercise. That will be done in engagement with schools to ensure that those that need a device are able to receive one.

Mr Baker: Thank you, Minister, for the statement on that important initiative. I suppose that you have sort of answered my question, which just follows up on the importance of the devices being registered. There were some in my community that were not registered. After we got them registered, they were used within a week to save lives. I know that you have spoken about this a wee bit, but how can we guarantee that priority will be given to making the devices accessible for community use outside of school hours? Schools are in the heart of our communities. The more devices we have, the more lives we will save.

Mr Givan: The Member is absolutely right. Those unregistered defibs now exist in a number of areas, but we need to know where they are.

I run or try to run around Wallace Park in Lisburn, and I know that there is a defibrillator there because the council put it in and registered it. We need to make sure that they are accessible.

It speaks to the wider community response and the need for greater awareness. We all can tell stories of someone who had a cardiac arrest in whatever situation. There might be nervousness about how to respond and what to do. The benefit of defibrillators is that you do not need training. It is a challenge to all of us. When was the last time we updated our community resuscitation strategy? We have many community responders and community groups that have taken on the community responder role. That supplements the Ambulance Service in how it responds. All of us should ask ourselves, "If someone was with me right now and had a cardiac arrest, what would I do?". If you do not know the answer, that is a challenge: get yourself prepared. Where is the nearest AED? Have you been trained in CPR? CPR is critical if we are to make sure that we can try to save lives when a cardiac arrest happens.

Mr Buckley: The Minister will know that the roll-out of defibrillators has very much been community-led to date. With that in the mind, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the 297 schools that, through PTA funding and community business funding, have supplied them? Will he outline the process by which schools will obtain their defibrillators?

Mr Givan: Yes, I pay tribute to them. In all our constituencies, community groups engaged in fundraising to provide the devices. Often, a family member has lost a loved one or a friend loses somebody close to them, and they then get actively involved. Why did this become a priority for me? Why did I want it to happen? It was through some of the engagement that I had with young people who spoke to me about friends who had a cardiac arrest and, on one occasion, lost their life. That lady is now actively involved in promoting CPR and creating awareness. I thank all those who raise funds and create awareness for what they do. We, as a Government, have to enable our communities to respond. This will be a good enabler of that.

The Education Authority will now carry out the procurement process. This is very much on track to be delivered so that every school will receive its device before the end of the academic year. By June 2025, it will be rolled out in every school. That will also keep us in line with, for example, England, where every school received a defibrillator in 2023. They recognised the importance of it, and I am glad that we have been able to do it as well.

Mr Crawford: I join others in welcoming the announcement and thank the Minister for coming to the House to make it. Is the interactive phone app available now for pupils to download, and is it free?

Mr Givan: Yes, it is available. CCEA produced and developed the app. It helps to align the initiative with the curriculum, because CPR is part of the curriculum. I was at Methody a number of weeks ago when we launched the CPR app. I was able to see how it works on mobile phone devices to provide training to young people, who were then able to put that into real-world practice while I was there. Yes, the app is available, and it will complement having the defibrillators in schools. I very much hope that, while CPR is in the curriculum, bringing defibrillators into schools will help to generate a higher priority for the delivery of that part of the curriculum in schools.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. In rural constituencies like my constituency of South Down, emergency services have further to travel in the case of such emergencies, so I welcome the initiative being rooted in schools. I hope that it will make a big difference to our communities. It is great to see it in Northern Ireland, but will the Minister outline the position in some other jurisdictions?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for those comments. She is absolutely right to highlight the fact that, particularly in those rural localities, often there is only the school in the area, and therefore access to the devices will be important.

Where we can, I would like to see defibs being available, but they have to be in an environment where there is a constant temperature, and it is about what kind of box you would use to make sure that that happens. Allow the process to see how many of the devices we can locate externally to schools.

The Member asked about other jurisdictions. As I mentioned, in England, schools were provided with defibrillators in 2023. The Welsh Government offered defibs to all post-primary schools as well, but they have not been rolled by the Scottish Government or in the Republic of Ireland, where it remains a matter for individual schools. I am delighted that Northern Ireland has been able to do this. Not every other jurisdiction in the British Isles has taken it forward so far, but I very much hope that other countries will follow suit.

Mr McGrath: I welcome the excellent announcement, which builds on the work of the former Education Minister in ensuring that teaching CPR is included in the curriculum. There was quite a battle with the Minister before that and a threat of a private Member's Bill, but we got there and are building on it now, which is excellent.

I have often reminded Education Ministers that they are not just Ministers for schools but Ministers in charge of youth services. Will the Minister consider offering the scheme to full-time youth centres so that we can continue its spread? There is not a huge number of them, but it is always good to include them in the education family.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments and for the work that he has pursued on the issue. Again, he is right to pay tribute to Diane Dodds on the issue: in recent weeks, she has been pressing me about it. Michelle McIlveen was also involved, but Diane Dodds, only a number of weeks ago, raised in the Assembly the importance of having defibs. She engaged with me on that as well. It is an issue that all of us very much care about and want to see implemented.

I will come back to the Member about whether youth centres will be part of the scheme. I will follow up with the Member after the statement.

Mr McNulty: Minister, I warmly applaud you on your initiative to place life-saving devices and defibrillators in all our schools. With today's positive announcement, do you agree that it would be remiss not to recognise the importance of the work done by the Cormac McAnallen trust in the 20 years since his passing? Before his passing, not many of us knew about AEDs, defibrillators, resus and CPR. Since that, the Cormac Trust was set up in his name by his family, Brendan — RIP, sadly — Donal and Bridget, and hundreds of thousands of pounds has been spent on research and on placing defibrillators in schools. In many ways, the Cormac Trust was the genesis of defibrillators being available in sporting clubs and saving lives, saving lives, saving lives. It is important to recognise that today.

Mr Givan: I am more than happy to associate myself with the Member's comments about Cormac McAnallen and the work done over many years to highlight the issues. The tragic stories of sudden death on sporting fields have generated the interest that exists now in making sure that we provide the right support.

The Member is involved in sport. I am involved in sport and coach a number of clubs. When a participant in a club that I am in says to me, as a coach, "I have a heart monitor on; just keep a track of my heart rate", it makes me nervous about all of that. There is a challenge as to how, across schools, sporting clubs and society, we make sure that appropriate devices are available and accessible and that we are prepared with the skills that we need to intervene when something like this happens.

I absolutely associate myself with the Member's comments and pay tribute to the family as well.

Mr Gaston: I join other Members in wholeheartedly welcoming today's announcement on ensuring that a defib is present in each school throughout Northern Ireland.

I want to pick up on the point, Minister, about how there are 297 defibs already in schools. This is a fantastic opportunity to work with those schools to ensure that each defib that is already in situ is also registered with the link. When schools purchased them previously, there was a tendency to keep them in-house and use them primarily for themselves. It will be a missed opportunity if we do not work with schools that already have them to ensure that they are registered with the link and that, where possible, with the promise of help with maintenance going forward, they are put in accessible places so that the community can use them outside of school hours.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for those comments. He is right to highlight the necessity of making sure that the devices are registered on the national Circuit. That is absolutely vital. There is no point in having the device and only a small section of the community knowing about it. We need to make sure that they are all registered on the national Circuit because that can make a difference when somebody is in need of those devices.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Members. That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to introduce the Agriculture Bill [NIA 08/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision for the modification of assimilated direct legislation in relation to aid in the fruit and vegetables sector and information and promotion schemes for agricultural products; and for connected purposes.

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 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 on the motion.

Mr McAleer: Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on a motion that acknowledges the vital role of the sheep sector in the agri-food industry, recognises the lack of support for sheep farming and calls on the Minister to outline his plans to support it. At the outset, I say that the debate is not just about sheep farming but about the future of our uplands, our rural communities and the very fabric of our countryside. It is a matter of protecting a way of life, preserving a vital industry and ensuring fairness to farmers who play an indispensable role in producing the food that we all rely on.

While we currently lack a ring-fenced budget for agriculture, it is, nevertheless, crucial to table the motion to establish a much-needed sheep scheme to support our farming communities. Farmers across the North have voiced serious concern about the absence of a proposed sheep scheme, and we must recognise the public good of using land for food production. As we face an era of global uncertainty in food supplies, the issue is about more than farming; it is about food security, economic sustainability and supporting the custodians of our land.

During a meeting of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs earlier this year, County Antrim sheep farmer and sheep task force member Campbell Tweed emphasised to the Committee the urgent need for targeted schemes, particularly those focused on improving flock performance and genetic merit. He highlighted the fact that such measures, which are already in place in the South of Ireland, could enhance efficiency, market competitiveness and environmental stability across our sheep farms.

The latest agriculture census figures for 2023 published by DAERA reveal some concerning trends in the sheep farming sector. The total number of sheep in the North has decreased by 3%, leaving a population of just over 2 million. That includes a 2% reduction in breeding ewes, with numbers falling to 973,718 compared with 2022. It is also worth noting that larger farms with more than 500 sheep, as of 1 June 2023, now account for 41% of the total sheep population. That concentration of sheep on larger farms underscores the pressures that smaller farming operations face in maintaining their flocks in increasingly challenging economic and environmental conditions. Those figures highlight the urgent need for a sheep support scheme for the sector. With sheep farming making a significant contribution to our economy and rural communities, we cannot afford to ignore the pressures facing farmers today.

It is essential that we ensure the sustainability and future of sheep farming. Sheep farming is not just a tradition; it is an economic lifeline. The two million sheep that we have in the North are part of an industry that plays a huge role in the agri-food sector — a sector that is worth £5 billion. Livestock marts, which are at the heart of that economy, are not just places of trade; they are vital hubs for farmers to meet, share knowledge and support one another.

Farmers here face significant disadvantages. From 2025, sheep farmers face losing 17% of their basic payment unless they change their practices to include the growing of protein crops or the integration of cattle into their systems. For many sheep farmers, especially those in upland areas, those changes are simply not workable due to the nature of their land, their businesses and the climate. We need urgent action to ensure that those farms are not unfairly penalised and left without viable alternatives. Trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which import lamb that competes directly with our locally produced meat, have only added to the challenges. Meanwhile, farmers in the South have a sheep scheme in place, which gives farmers across the border a competitive advantage over our local farmers. That must be addressed.

The Ulster Farmers' Union has called for a sheep scheme to ensure fairness and support for our local farmers. Currently, 17% of the basic scheme will be modulated to pay for beef, carbon and suckler schemes, yet no funds are allocated to a dedicated sheep farming scheme. That inequity undermines the livelihoods of farmers in upland areas, where the climate and topography lend themselves naturally to sheep farming. The problem is compounded by the loss of the areas of natural constraints (ANC) scheme.

Sheep farmers in the North could increase profitability while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to research led by Dr Aurélie Aubry of the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), drawing on findings from the 2022 'Net Zero and Livestock' report, practical strategies include genetic improvements, such as using estimated breeding values and cross-breeding, to boost productivity, as well as nutritional innovations like supplementing lamb diets with microalgae to cut methane emissions by up to 25%. AFBI's long-term research has shown that enhancing key traits, lamb output, ewe longevity and growth rates can help farms become more efficient, environmentally sustainable and profitable. Those innovations highlight the potential of sheep farming to be sustainable and profitable, but a dedicated sheep scheme is essential to provide the support and resources that farmers need to implement the practices effectively and fully realise the opportunities.

The role of sheep farming in our rural economy extends beyond food production. Sheep grazing plays a critical part in managing our upland landscapes, supporting biodiversity and maintaining the open areas that attract visitors and underpin our tourism industry. Supporting sheep farmers is not a contradiction to protecting our environment; it will complement it. Sustainable sheep farming can be a cornerstone of climate action while continuing to produce high-quality food. As a representative of a rural constituency, I see at first-hand the massive contribution that farming makes to our economy and communities, but farming is more than economics; it is a heritage and responsibility. Future generations will be the custodians of the countryside but only if farmers are supported now. If we do not back our farmers, we risk losing not just our livelihoods but the unique character of our rural areas.

The Minister, who is with us today, has a key role to play. It is important that the Department sets up a sheep scheme to provide direct support for farmers, levelling the playing field with the South of Ireland and safeguarding the future of this vital industry. Supporting our sheep farmers is not just about economics or tradition; it is about fairness, sustainability and our shared future. Let us ensure that our farmers have the tools that they need to thrive, contribute to our economy and continue as custodians of our countryside for generations to come.

Miss McIlveen: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. While sheep farming contributes 4% of total agricultural output, it plays an important role in the Northern Ireland economy. In Northern Ireland, there are approximately two million sheep, which includes around 973,718 breeding ewes. According to the 2023 sheep census, around 38% of farmers in Northern Ireland have sheep, and the value of the sheep industry output was £106 million. Beyond that, sheep farming activity makes a significant contribution to the wider rural economy. It is estimated that the sector has one of the highest output multiplier effects in the Northern Ireland economy, turning £1 of primary output into £1.80 of output across the wider economy. The services that support the activity include scanning and shearing contractors and those involved in veterinary services, feed production, property maintenance, haulage, auctions, markets, and slaughtering and meat processing.

In Northern Ireland, 38% of farmers have sheep. There are over 25,000 farm businesses in Northern Ireland, and sheep production is a significant contributor to over 9,800 of those businesses. As a result, a threat to the viability of sheep enterprise will have an effect on the sustainability of more than one third of farms in Northern Ireland.

From a recent debate, we know, in general terms, about the reduction in the basic payment to farmers. Specifically, however, by 2025, sheep farmers will lose 17% of the basic payment scheme. That 17% will go to a £50 million fund for a protein scheme, a beef carbon reduction scheme and a cow suckler scheme. In order to regain that lost 17% of their basic payment scheme, sheep farmers will need to change their businesses to include cattle or protein crops. Sheep-specific support was not included in DAERA's future agricultural policy of 2022. That policy stated:

In response to questions raised by a number of Members, Minister Muir stated:

The Minister also said:

We fully endorse the recommendations of the Northern Ireland sheep industry task force earlier this year. In particular, we believe that proper consideration needs to be given to developing new programmes that pursue genetic improvement in sheep, increase capital investment and encourage effective land management. I appreciate that the Minister has indicated that he is exploring various levers in that regard, and I urge him to maintain regular engagement with the task force to that end. The Minister has the benefit of the task force, which has not only produced evidence-based recommendations but given a voice to the sector as a whole, which is something that was not available to previous Ministers.

The task force has five key asks of the Minister: a sheep genetic improvement scheme; a sheep health and welfare scheme; a sustainable land management and biodiversity scheme; bespoke sheep capital investment measures; and a sheep research programme. Those asks are based on a number of findings that are set out in the task force publication, 'A vision for the development of the Northern Ireland sheep industry'. That document outlines the fall in the Northern Ireland breeding sheep population, as the previous Member to speak highlighted, by about 30% over the past 20 years. Structural change over the past 10 years has led to much smaller flocks. The task force also found that almost 60% of ewes were to be found in severely disadvantaged areas, such as uplands, where farming is more challenging but where sheep numbers have been better maintained.

Only 55% of animals are slaughtered in Northern Ireland, and only 40% of production remains within the jurisdiction. That is a huge amount of work and production that could be retained in Northern Ireland. Some 6% of our wool deliveries contain damaged wool, whereas the figure for the UK as a whole is 4%. The wool is damaged as a result of it being delivered wet or containing contaminants. Suitable on-farm management could address that problem, but, again, that needs support, guidance and investment. Reducing the amount of damaged wool would improve farm output at minimal cost. Of significant concern is the poor quality of the fleeces compared with those produced by counterparts in GB. That quality could be improved by careful genetic selection.

A genetic improvement scheme would increase the value of lambs produced for slaughter by around an additional £1 million if even half of them were produced using high genetic value rams. We can already see the importance of departmental intervention. It is disappointing that the Department was not able to identify any steps that could be taken. The creation of the task force and its contribution are extremely welcome and timely.

It is clear from what has been produced that there is a need to develop strategies that improve economic and environmental sustainability, but we recognise the need for there to be adequate centralised data. The data is lacking at farm level and at industry level, and that is something that needs to be addressed. Doing that will ensure that any future interventions are evidence-based, but it will also mean that such interventions can deliver maximum benefit.

I also ask the Minister to reconsider any plans that he may have to stop testing for maedi-visna (MV), given the implications that the disease could have for the industry. Although the motion focuses on the steps that the AERA Minister can take to provide support to and protect the future of the sheep sector in Northern Ireland, there is a wider responsibility, which extends to the Westminster Government. We have already heard and debated the changes to agricultural property relief and employer's National Insurance contributions, which threaten the future sustainability of our farm businesses and undermine our food security.

I said just last week that the Labour Government are now the existential threat to farm businesses. Although they may seek to deal with the multimillionaires who are trying to avoid inheritance tax, they are also sweeping away family farms. The Government are raising food prices so that the poor will get poorer, and they are hitting the working man in his pay packet via his shopping trolley.

Like with many parts of the agriculture sector, the sheep farming workforce needs younger people to join it. For that to happen, however, sheep farming needs to be profitable and attractive. It needs innovation, investment and fair taxation. I pointed out in last week's debate that the Government seem to have abandoned food security as a strategic national aim, and that needs to be addressed.

As I regularly point out, farm income has fallen by 47%, and that has been caused by rising input costs, such as inflation on energy, feed and workforce costs. On the horizon are the costs associated with the climate policies that the authors of the motion have endorsed. Those policies will affect all sheep farmers, whether in upland or lowland areas. The sheep sector needs support and investment, regardless of the area, and it is unfair and unacceptable to single out some areas over others. That is particularly true where the practical outworkings of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 will potentially lead to a reduction in land available for farming across Northern Ireland.

Business income and profitability are broadly comparable for lowland and upland farms, yet farm businesses from disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged areas have received more financial support in recent years. For example, between 2018 and 2020, the environmental farming scheme (EFS) meant that only 705 out of 4,256 businesses were in receipt of support, and those were exclusively in lowland areas. Since the most recent reform of the common agricultural policy, the switch to a land-based payment has seen more funding under the basic payment scheme move from the lowlands to disadvantaged area and severely disadvantaged area land types. It is a scheme that the now First Minister introduced against official advice. She acted to extend those payments, but that could be done only temporarily, because the business case did not support a permanent change.

Agriculture support measures should not be in the business of taking money from farmers whose incomes are going down to supplement farmers whose incomes are going up. Rather than further regressive area-based payments, we want to see programmes that focus on efficiency and resilience in order to support productive, profitable and sustainable farms.

Finally, it is important that the Minister engage productively with the sheep industry task force to address the challenges being faced by the sector as a whole and to move the sector on to a more profitable and sustainable footing.

Mr Blair: It is my belief and that of Alliance colleagues that the motion provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the crucial role that the upland sheep farming sector plays in Northern Ireland. As a member of the AERA Committee, I have heard how upland sheep farming significantly contributes to the economic, environmental and social sustainability of areas of Northern Ireland. The presence of sheep farming in the upland areas helps maintain the landscape, promote nature recovery, increase biodiversity and restore natural habitats. It is an effective and sustainable method of utilising land that may not be ideal for other agricultural practices. It is therefore imperative that we recognise the unique contribution that our upland farmers make to lowering our greenhouse gas emissions and thereby to achieving the targets identified in the Climate Change Act.

As the motion references, research shows that the carbon footprint of ewes in the upland regions is 8% lower than that of their counterparts in lowland areas. That highlights the potential of our sheep sector to play a significant role in combating climate change. However, balancing the production of food and wool with environmental objectives presents challenges that add to existing significant issues. For example, sheep farmers across Northern Ireland face inflationary pressures: sheep prices rose by 55% from 2020 to February 2024. The recent report conducted by the sheep industry task force serves as an important resource for examining the current landscape and the future potential of the Northern Ireland sheep sector as a whole. The report highlights the specific challenges faced by sheep farmers in Northern Ireland while identifying opportunities for growth and improvement.

The AERA Minister informed the Committee that he had met the sheep industry task force to discuss the report, better understand the sector's strategic needs and explore potential future support measures for the sector. The unfortunate reality, however, is that, like other Departments, the Department faces tight budgetary and resource pressures. Furthermore, as has been mentioned numerous times in the Chamber in various debates, Westminster's decision not to ring-fence farm support budgets or adjust funding in line with inflation is severely impacting on our farmers, including upland sheep farmers. The in-turn effect on the Department is obvious. I will continue to support Minister Muir as he urges the Executive to allocate funding for agriculture, the agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development in the Executive's 2025-26 Budget and beyond.

While Alliance agrees with the motion in principle, we cannot ignore the challenging financial situation that we face. I am confident, though, that, when the Minister addresses the motion, he will express his openness to exploring potential solutions and will offer support, where possible. I am also confident that any future policies will align with the principles of sustainability and environmental protection. We in Alliance are content with the motion's aim and purpose.

Mr Butler: It is good to respond to the motion and the amendment, both of which are worthy of support, stimulate the conversation and exclude nobody. It is important that we highlight the critical role of the sheep sector in Northern Ireland's agri-food industry. As many of you will know from meeting those farmers, it is not just a livelihood for them; the sector is part of the very fabric and a cornerstone of our rural communities . It helps to knit together the economy, our environment and our heritage, particularly in less-favoured areas, where it is often the primary farm enterprise.

Sheep farming in upland areas not only supports local economies but provides environmental benefits, some of which have been spoken about. Studies from the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute reveal that the carbon footprint of ewes in upland areas is 8% lower than that of ewes on lowland farms. The amendment allows us to say that, regardless of that, we should not exclude any sheep farmers, but the facts speak for themselves. It demonstrates the sector's potential to contribute to sustainable agricultural practices while maintaining the viability of less-favoured areas.

Despite sheep farming's significance, it faces considerable challenges under the future agricultural policy. Many sheep farmers are grappling with the imminent 17% reduction in their basic farm payment scheme, which has been a lifeline to many who struggled to maintain their livelihood. Financial pressures threaten the future viability of sheep farming and, consequently, the vital contribution that it makes to the agri-food sector and the environment. Miss McIlveen put on record very well the additional burden that all our farmers, particularly sheep farmers, face with the potential 17% reduction and the draconian Budget that the Labour Government have foisted upon farming, business and industry. I echo the calls in the motion and the amendment for the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline a robust plan to support and safeguard the sector. We all must ensure that sheep farming not only survives but thrives.

The 2023 report of the Northern Ireland sheep industry task force was in our Members' packs. It is a vision for the development of the sheep industry, and it clearly outlines a path forward. The vision emphasises the need:

improved soil quality and better water management, all while:

and we know the benefits of sheep farming over other types of farming. To achieve that, individual farm businesses must be resilient. Economic viability is key to enabling investments and productivity gains through genetic improvements, better animal health and welfare and advancements in soil and grassland management. Those are not just aspirations but necessities, if the sheep sector is to continue delivering for our economy and our environment.

The challenges posed by diseases such as maedi-visna (MV) and bluetongue cannot be ignored. We must remain vigilant and proactive in safeguarding animal health, ensuring that our farmers are equipped with the resources and support needed to combat those threats. A lot of that will come down to their financial viability. At the same time, we must recognise the untapped potential for greater export opportunities. As a former butcher who tried to sell Irish lamb against New Zealand lamb, I know that there is no question about the quality of our product. Northern Ireland is renowned for high-quality sheep meat and wool. By investing in market access and branding, we can expand our reach to international markets and secure better returns for our farmers whilst showcasing the best of Northern Ireland on the global stage.

The environmental benefits of sheep farming are undeniable. Properly managed grazing supports biodiversity, enhances soil health and contributes to carbon sequestration. Those practices are not just beneficial but essential to our collective effort to address the climate crisis, as John Blair mentioned. It is heartening to see organisations such as the Ulster Farmers' Union and the National Sheep Association powerfully advocating for their members in the sector.

We must act decisively and collaboratively. I call on the Minister to engage with farmers, the industry and stakeholders and environmental experts to craft policies that provide tangible support so that the finances are not stripped out of our sheep industry. That will include financial assistance, investment in research and innovation and measures to improve market access and resilience for our sheep farmers.

Mr McGlone: I welcome the opportunity to highlight the need to support and safeguard the future viability of sheep farming in the North. Sheep farming is an integral and important part of our agricultural economy, and it contributes around 4% of total agricultural output. In 2023, the sheep industry contributed £109 million to the Northern Irish economy. It provides a wide range of goods and services while playing a hugely important part in sustaining many of our rural communities.

Upland sheep farming in particular plays a vital role in less-favoured areas. It is often the only viable type of farming available on land that is not suitable for growing crops or raising cattle. It provides essential income and employment in those rural communities. As with other agriculture sectors, sheep farming faces the problems of an ageing workforce. In order to safeguard its future viability, it must be an attractive career option with pathways for new entrants and farm succession.

Despite the sector's importance, there was a lack of specific measures to support sheep farmers in the future agricultural policy for the North that was developed under the previous Minister. The Ulster Farmers' Union has expressed its concern that sheep farmers now face losing 17% from the basic payment scheme. It is concerned that funding for maedi-visna control measures has been withdrawn and that there is no more funding for the sheep scab scheme.

In January 2023, the sheep industry task force published a report identifying the sheep sector's needs and made proposals to encourage its development. I believe that the Minister and his officials met the task force to discuss the report, and I am sure that the Minister will respond to that. The Minister has indicated that he is keen to understand the sector's needs and will consider adopting proposals to meet them. However, that was in the context of ring-fenced farm support funding provided by the British Government. That would have been challenging enough; however, since Brexit, the annual funding for agriculture has been capped at approximately £330 million. To maintain its real value, the overall funding for agriculture should have increased to £389 million by now. That is a real-term cut in funding of around £60 million this year alone.

Following the British Government's autumn Budget, the situation has changed again. The new rules for inheritance tax on agricultural land pose a risk and, indeed, a big worry for many who are thinking of farm succession. Instead of managing our ring-fenced fund for agriculture, the Minister will now be faced with the dilemma of negotiating with his Executive colleagues for a share of the block grant. As I have said before and as, I expect, the Minister will repeat today, it was within the power of the Executive to ring-fence funding for agriculture locally. They could, if they wish, put additional funding within that ring fence to provide for the proposals brought forward by the sheep industry task force. If Members are serious in their concern —.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that it is all well and good to note the needs of the sector and the struggles facing hill and sheep farmers but we need to see clear commitments and measures from the Minister and the Executive to assist and safeguard farmers, farming families and communities?

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

Mr McGlone: Thank you very much, and I thank the Member for his intervention. I get entirely what he says about loads of take-note debates but little rubber hitting the road when it comes to Executive action. That is exactly the point.

In that regard, if we are serious about that and seriously want to help farmers, Members and parties in the Chamber can do so. They can negotiate. The Minister can negotiate on our behalf. He has committed to doing that, and parties can call on their colleagues in the Executive to support the Minister's bid to ring-fence funding for agriculture locally. They should also lobby those colleagues to support the provision of any additional funding required for the proposals brought forward by the sheep industry task force. That is when we will see the colour of the money.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, as Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Emma Sheerin. Thank you. Take your ease.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): The competition to appoint a new Commissioner for Victims and Survivors was launched on Monday 11 November. The appointment of the new commissioner is essential to inform the development of policies and help ensure that the longer-term needs of victims and survivors are addressed. That is a key priority for the Executive. We are keen that the new commissioner is appointed as soon as possible, and we encourage anyone who feels that they could fulfil the role, to apply. The closing date for applications is 12 noon on Friday 29 November, and we hope to appoint the new commissioner early next year.

The date of appointment may be impacted on by any notice period that the successful candidate is required to serve from their previous position. The appointment process is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and, as such, must comply with the code of practice for ministerial public appointments.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for her response. The Minister will be aware, through social media, of a sign that has been erected in Castlederg calling for the boycott of businesses and stating that there is "no alternative" to such a call. Does the Minister agree that that is an incitement to hatred and an attack on the minority unionist culture and the business community, and is further intimidation to that experienced by many innocent victims over recent years? Will she join me in condemning the action and calling on Derry City and Strabane Council to have it removed with immediate effect?

Mr Speaker: Order. That is some distance from the initial question, but I will leave it in the hands of the deputy First Minister.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know that the erection of such a sign will have caused significant hurt and distress throughout the community, but particularly to victims and survivors. I agree with the Member: it is absolutely wrong, and the council should remove it immediately. All intimidation is wrong and all sectarianism is wrong, and it is appalling to see that this is happening in 2024. I absolutely agree with the Member that we should stand united against the action. I welcome the fact that, across the House, Members have united in opposition to what has happened.

Mrs Dillon: Does the deputy First Minister believe that the commission is still beneficial and required, going forward?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. Absolutely. We know that many, many thousands of victims and survivors continue to carry the pain of injuries and the loss that they have suffered, and that many of them continue to mourn. It is also incredibly sad that, in recent years, we have seen continued hurt being brought upon victims and survivors by words and actions. That should stop; it must stop. Victims and survivors have suffered the most in this place over the decades since the Troubles, and we should be there to support and help them.

That is why it is important that we have a commissioner to champion the issues for victims and survivors, fight for additional support for those who are bereaved, for example, and help people navigate the like of the severely injured pension process. Of course, we also know that, sadly, many, many thousands of victims have not had justice. Therefore that fight continues, and we will be there to support them through it.

Mr Gaston: A previous victims' commissioner Patricia MacBride caused outrage after being appointed when she described her terrorist brother as an "IRA volunteer" who was "killed on active service". Will the deputy First Minister advise the House why she did not veto her appointment to the Judicial Appointments Commission, given that views that endorse or express acceptance for violence and terrorism are not protected political opinions?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The arrangements for appointing commissioners to the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission are set out in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. I make it clear that that nomination was made by the Lady Chief Justice. Miss Patricia MacBride has served as a lay magistrate for the past 19 years since 2005, and continues to do so. Regardless of what I may or may not think of her views and opinions, clearly, in law, somebody's political opinion is not grounds to refuse a nomination.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. We have been clear that we must build on the common ground that we all share to realise the potential of the site for the benefit of all. However, we recognise that that will require us to move with consensus and sensitivity. We are absolutely committed to working with the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation to achieve that. No decisions have yet been made about the future of the site.

Mr Boylan: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Can the Minister respond to this question about the regeneration of the site: will there be a need to improve the road connection?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. I say that as one of the MLAs for Lagan Valley in which the site sits. There is a recognition that that would require investment. Of course, we must move forward with consensus on the site. We must move forward in a way that does not cause any further hurt or offence from the site.

As regards any development of the site, if anybody has gone to the Balmoral show, for example, they will know the infrastructure challenges around the site. Indeed, in recent years, that has been improved significantly. I had the opportunity to speak at the rally against the family farm tax just last week at the site. Again, the infrastructure challenges around the site were clear to many of those thousands of people who attempted to attend that rally. Yes, of course, any future development will require significant investment in infrastructure.

Mrs Guy: In April, my colleague Sorcha Eastwood led an Adjournment debate on the Maze/Long Kesh site. In that, the First Minister remarked that you would get options from the board on how to proceed to unlock the potential of the site. What options did the board provide you with on how to unlock the potential of the site, and how will you proceed?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. I understand that the Member attended the site and spoke with the board there just last week.

As outlined in that debate, there will be a process of engaging with the board in relation to its views on the way forward. The board was appointed just recently. Its members have been in now for a number of months. I have no doubt that they will look at the previous plans and proposals and will look to revise those. Key to that is ensuring that we maximise what is already there: the very successful Balmoral show; housing the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society (RUAS) and the Ulster Aviation Society, which is going from strength to strength and had 7,000 visitors over the Heritage Open Days weekend, which is an incredible testimony to its many volunteers and the wonderful collection that it has there. I urge anybody to go down and visit there. Of course, the Air Ambulance has been called out over 4,000 times since it took up position at the site in 2017.

There is much to work with, and we look forward to hearing those proposals developed by the board and to considering them in due course.

Mr McGlone: Previously, it was said that the business plan would be revised now that the outcome of the internal relocation exercise is known. Will the deputy First Minister provide us with an update on that work, please?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. The Member is absolutely correct. A draft business plan was submitted, but it included some aspirations around further works that would be required. Most of those were to do with health and safety and the protection of the site. As the Member will be aware, the budget is incredibly difficult, and many of those bids were not met. Therefore, the board is revising that business plan, which we hope to get very shortly. The board will have had some confirmation of the budget envelope within which it is working, and it will be looking at that and prioritising what works. The board is subject to a number of legal obligations, particularly because of the health and safety requirements at the site and, of course, the listed status of the buildings when it comes to basic maintenance and protection. The board is looking at the business plan, and we hope to get it very shortly. I suspect that that will be in the next number of weeks.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We met Vaccine Injured and Bereaved Support on 10 July 2024. The group shared its concerns and experiences with us in what was a powerful and emotive meeting. We thank those people for being so open with us about their difficult and painful experiences. We know that it was not easy for them to come along and tell of their personal experiences. On behalf of the group, we wrote to the Minister of Justice to raise an issue about coroner’s inquests and the group’s concerns about a number of investigations that have been identified as being related to COVID-19 vaccines. We have also written to the Minister of Health to ask him to consider issues around care pathways for those who are suffering from health issues that are, potentially, related to COVID-19 vaccines. We understand that the Minister of Health has since met the group. We hope that that will lead to further understanding of the wider issues for all those who are affected.

Mr Frew: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer, for meeting Vaccine Injured and Bereaved Support and for the actions that came out of that meeting. She may not be aware that not only does VIBS-NI operate and do sterling work in Northern Ireland, but there is a new charity called UKCV Family, which represents all the vaccine injured and bereaved throughout the United Kingdom and is helping a growing number of people in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: May we have a question, please, Mr Frew?

Mr Frew: UKCV Family has reached out to contact the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Will the deputy First Minister give a commitment to the House that she and the First Minister will reach out to the UKCV Family charity?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The Health Minister takes the lead on those issues, but, of course, it is important to speak directly. We will certainly look into that. I do not believe that we have received a request, but, if we have, we will certainly look at it. It has been incredibly powerful to hear first-hand stories from those who have been impacted on. There is a compensation scheme, but I know from speaking to many of those people that it is a very frustrating process. The UK Government need to do more to take another look at that scheme, to make it much easier to apply to, to lower the thresholds and to look at the criteria in order to make sure that those who need that support, through no fault of their own, are able to access it in a more timely way.

Ms Kimmins: Will the deputy First Minister detail what further support she and the First Minister may be able to provide?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. The support that we can give will be, largely, through the Health Department. However, as I mentioned, we wrote to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health to pick up a number of the issues and, quite frankly, the frustrations about not getting answers that were expressed by many people around that table. The lack of a care pathway and many others are medical issues that require medical interventions. We urge the Health Department, through the trusts, to give clear medical pathways to support people. It is fundamental that GPs and others who first engage with people who have injuries are aware of what those injuries could be and treat those people with the absolute dignity and respect that they deserve. Many people have felt that that has not happened in the past; we need it to happen as we move forward.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The investment strategy proposes a positive vision for the next 30 years, including detailed plans for investment and enabling actions over the next decade. It encompasses all areas of public infrastructure and includes a framework for planning and prioritising infrastructure investment. It also sets out the outcomes that are required of that investment and the mechanisms that are needed to ensure its efficient and effective delivery. We are considering the draft investment strategy, after which we hope to be in a position to bring the strategy to the Executive. We expect that to happen in parallel with the final Programme for Government. Approval of the final investment strategy will, then, be a matter for the Executive.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an leas-Chéad Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo.

She will, no doubt, agree that investing in infrastructure is key to growing our economy. Can the deputy First Minister, therefore, outline how she will ensure the successful delivery of the investment strategy?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. Investment in good infrastructure of the right type is an absolutely critical foundation of growing our economy and the delivery of public services in Northern Ireland.

Day in, day out, we see the challenges that public infrastructure can bring to service delivery and the impact that it can have on people's everyday lives.

We are determined that, through the investment strategy, we will tackle some of the big issues that have been barriers to delivery. That includes a very particular set of pieces of work, carried out by the Strategic Investment Board, to look at improvements to the business case process, the procurement process and, importantly, the planning process. We know that those three key issues can significantly slow down capital projects and investment.

I have said previously in the House that it is clear that if a project takes longer, it will cost more. When capital projects cost more than originally projected, we cannot do as much with the capital money that is left, which means that we will never reach our potential or achieve our aspirations. Improving the process is a huge part of our ability to deliver, and we are really focused on that.

Mrs Erskine: On 'The View', the Infrastructure Minister did not recognise the Northern Ireland Water figure that 19,000 developments cannot be connected due to capacity issues. We know that the connection problem is an issue for housing associations that are trying to get houses onto the system. The draft housing strategy will be coming forward. How can we ensure that money is ring-fenced for Northern Ireland Water capital infrastructure projects, which will be vital to delivering our Programme for Government commitments.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. That will be key to delivering against the nine priorities, which have been set out in the Programme for Government. In the public consultation, there was a very positive response to all nine priorities, but the Member is absolutely right that, if we are to achieve those priorities, we need to invest in infrastructure. The lack of such investment is a barrier.

Frankly, we know what the challenges are. It is important that we work together and get into problem-solving mode on all those issues, drive forward transformation of the process, ensure better implementation and delivery and — the Member was absolutely right to say this — get the right investment in the right place to ensure that we unlock the potential. A key priority is to build more social and affordable housing. We will only be able to do that if we fix the challenges that we have with water and sewerage. We want to work with Northern Ireland Water. We want solutions, not a computer-says-no approach. That will require investment, it will require us working with NI Water, and it will require NI Water to step up to look at those solutions and implement that change.

Ms Bradshaw: I was at the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry president's banquet dinner last week, as was the deputy First Minister, Sinéad and others. That was a wonderful occasion, and you spoke, deputy First Minister, about the investment strategy. There was such a can-do attitude in the room. To what degree will the private sector be able to drive prioritisation of the investment strategy?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question and commend the NI Chamber of Commerce and Industry for a very successful event. When I said, "Computer says no", it was the event on Thursday night that jumped into my mind.

The Member is absolutely right about there being a can-do attitude. There is optimism throughout the business community in Northern Ireland. The Budget was very challenging for the business community, and I am sure that, like me, the Member picked that up from many of the businesses at the banquet. They have concerns about issues such as the increased National Insurance contributions for employers. My key message on Thursday night, which we need to work on, was about our determination and my determination to work hand in hand with the business community, because economic growth unlocks the potential of this place and helps with our public service delivery and our core public services. Of course, with economic growth comes better jobs, good jobs and the investment that we want to see in every part of Northern Ireland. We should be working very closely with the private sector and the business community to find solutions to the challenges that we face, push through that vision of optimism and see the tangible application and implementation of the changes that the business community wants to see.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, when you were at the dinner on Thursday night — I do not begrudge you a night out — the Infrastructure Minister was on TV explaining that he does not think that there are fundamental challenges with how NI Water is funded. Clearly, there are, in that houses are not being built and major infrastructure developments in this region are being completely slowed down. You just said to your colleague that there needs to be practical action, and you just said to Paula Bradshaw —

Mr Speaker: Have you a question, Mr O'Toole?

Mr O'Toole: — that we need to move from optimism to delivery. What does that look like? When will we actually see plans from the Executive —

Mr Speaker: Deputy First Minister.

Mr O'Toole: — on how they will meaningfully increase the funding for Northern Ireland Water? At the minute, it is just words.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. When I spoke at the NI Chamber dinner, I was representing the Northern Ireland Executive and showing our support for the vital work that our business community does. Over 1,000 people gathered at that dinner on Thursday night. It was a good opportunity for us, and for me on behalf of the Executive, to emphasise how important it is for us to work in partnership and in collaboration. In fact, our doing so is absolutely essential if we are to have that economic growth.

As was indicated earlier in response to another question, we are specifically looking at taking a number of key actions, which include making improvements to planning, procurement and business case processes. Those are all process aspects, but they really slow down the delivery and implementation of our capital programme.

In addition, we have extended the period of the investment strategy. Rather than have just a 10-year period, we are looking to extend the strategy to 2050. For the first time, we will therefore have an investment strategy that looks to the longer term — 30 years — and allows for such planning.

We have seen the Budget reset by the UK Government. The Budget largely focused on revenue. We anticipate that there will be an announcement about the Government's capital plans, and not just their plans for the next year but plans that set out their vision for the future. We are therefore hopeful that additional capital will be available, but we need to utilise it in a way that makes a meaningful difference. That means tackling the issues with water and sewage. It means having the right plan and making sure that the capacity is there to deliver it and that the implementation process is fit for purpose.

Mr Speaker: Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 6 and 13 together.

As Members will be aware, the Together: Building a United Community strategy reflects the Executive's commitment to improving community relations here between people of different political, ethnic and religious backgrounds. Since its launch in 2013, we can all recognise that considerable progress has been made, with a number of headline action targets having been fully achieved. Progress continues to be made towards meeting other targets in often complex areas of work.

We know that work remains to be done, however, and we want to ensure that our approach to good relations meets the needs of everyone in our society. We acknowledge that, since the first T:BUC strategy was launched, our society has become increasingly diverse. There is therefore a need to ensure that our approach to good relations effectively engages all those who live here and, in turn, creates a truly united society.

The final draft of the Together: Building a United Community review's report is under development by officials. We expect recommendations to be submitted to us shortly. Those recommendations will help shape the starting point for designing a refreshed approach to good relations and inform the timeline for its development.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. What will be the impact of the inclusion of the cross-cutting commitment to "Peace" in the draft Programme for Government?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. Sadly, we see instability globally. We see a lack of peace and how that has such a detrimental impact on any place. Indeed, it remains the case for here. We absolutely need there to be that underlying peace agenda in everything that we do. That is why we made the decision that, for Northern Ireland, there would be a cross-cutting, underlying mission to ensure the stability that allows us to deliver. Moreover, that is why, since I came into post, we have been working incredibly hard to create that stability to allow the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver. If we are to deliver against our Programme for Government commitments and meaningfully change people's lives for the better, we need that stability and a united approach to driving positive change.

Mr Mathison: Is there an acceptance in the Executive Office that sectarianism and racism are two sides of the same coin and that, on that basis, there is a need for a fundamental review of good relations policy?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. There are similarities, no doubt. Very often, such sentiments are based on prejudice, bias and a lack of understanding. There are many similarities, but there are also a number of differences. It is important that any approach taken on the way forward be sufficiently nuanced to take into account and understand the impact on people and to provide support and help. We can tackle the underlying issues through prevention, education and the projects that I mentioned. What it is that we need to do is to make sure that we include everyone across society so that everyone feels that they can play a positive role as part of our united community moving forward.

While I agree with him to some extent, there are aspects that require a distinct and particular approach while we gather all of that together under our overarching aim of building a united community.

Mr Middleton: I agree with the deputy First Minister: a lot of good work has been done through T:BUC . Does she agree that any review needs to ensure that programmes reach those who are often harder to reach, including Protestant/unionist/loyalist (PUL) communities in my constituency of Foyle?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. It is incredibly important that people in every part of our society feel that they can play a positive role moving forward, no matter where they are from, what they believe, what their background is or what their identity is. That absolutely includes those from the loyalist community, who often have been and are vilified without good reason. Many in the loyalist community play an incredibly important role in communities and organisations, and they will play a positive role in the future of this place. The Member is absolutely right.

One of the characteristics of the recent challenges that we had on the streets was that many of the people who were engaged in that activity were not involved in those projects and organisations. Therefore, it was difficult to speak with those young people in particular to encourage them to come off the streets and get involved in more positive projects. That is the coalface of that type of work, and we need to engage with those young people, no matter how difficult it is. We are determined to support the fantastic organisations and agencies that work at the coalface to really support and bring about peace.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The consultation on the draft Programme for Government closed on Monday 4 November. In total, 1,375 responses were received. Work is ongoing to analyse all the responses received and produce a consultation report for consideration by the Executive. Once that has been considered, we will finalise the Programme for Government and bring it to the Assembly for cross-community approval.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an leasChéad Aire as ucht a freagra.

Minister, will you confirm that measurable targets will be contained in the final version of the PFG?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely, there will be measurable targets in the Programme for Government. It is important to say that we know that the Budget at the moment is challenging. We are working hard with, for example, the Health Minister, the Minister of Education and others to ensure that there is a satisfactory outcome on public-sector pay settlements. We know that there is huge pressure on the Budget in doing so, and it is likely to be the same next year. The key thing is that we set targets that are realistic but have some aspiration about them. The targets also need to be scalable so that, when additional money is available, we will be able to grow our ambition by resetting those targets and increasing what we need to achieve. We are actively looking at that, and targets will be set out.

Ms McLaughlin: Deputy First Minister, recently, at the Executive Office Committee, your lead departmental official was unable to outline what type of targets will be measured. Are you able to give us any specifics on the measurements that you will look at? The official was also unable to talk about the type of measurements that will ensure that there is balance throughout Departments when it comes to commitments in the Programme for Government.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I did not watch that evidence session, but the targets will be measured in two ways. First, they will be measured against the set of well-being indicators. That will involve measurement against a set baseline, and improvements against that indicator will then be monitored and reported continually. All of that will be available online. It is currently live online, but, of course, some of those indicators will evolve and change, depending on the final Programme for Government. That will show real and meaningful progress against a wide range of targets and indicators set down in the well-being framework.

The second way in which they will be measured is through the specific targets against each of the priorities. The official may not have been able to give you the specifics because those will, of course, be led by the Ministers who lead on each priority. For example, for health waiting lists, that will depend on the budget that is received and then on what comes back from the Health Minister on specific targets. It will be similar for social and affordable housing, which the Minister for Communities will bring forward and lead.

The key thing for us will be to ensure that there is consistency in the types of target that are set down and that they are realistic, can have an associated budget within the difficult budget envelope that we have and are deliverable.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for the question. Enhancing our reputation and relationships internationally has been and will continue to be of vital importance. That is at the core of our international work. However, we must stress that foreign policy is a reserved matter for the United Kingdom Government. Therefore, we have had no engagement on the matter.

Mr Speaker: That draws to a conclusion the opportunity for listed questions. We now move to topical questions.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. We will look at that when the panel reports back.

Mr O'Toole: That is admirable concision from the deputy First Minister — I heard a lot of words during the previous part of the questions session — but it is clear that we are failing on climate and the environment. There is precious little ambition in the Programme for Government or more broadly from the Executive. We have seen the impact of climate change in the flooding of recent days. This is not a theoretical, lefty obsession; it is real and is affecting homes and businesses across the region.

Deputy First Minister, are you committed to dealing with climate change? Will you commit that, if there are substantive proposals to bring forward an independent environmental protection agency, meaningful carbon budgets and a climate action plan, you will do your job and make sure that they are supported and implemented and can get through the Executive?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The House passed legislation that sets down targets. Those targets are a legal requirement. Of course, everything that we say is said in that context. It is important to say that any of the proposals, including an independent environmental agency or body, will not be the silver bullet on the issues. Those agencies exist elsewhere, and there are still significant environmental issues. It would be entirely wrong of me to prejudge the outcome of that report. As I said, I will look at that report when it is produced and make decisions on it, depending on what it says.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. In trying to ensure that everyone in Northern Ireland can live a healthy and thriving life, the health of people throughout Northern Ireland is such a critical issue not just because of the pain that people suffer when they are on a health waiting list but because of the impact on the economy of people having to come out of employment or being unable to go back into employment because they are on a waiting list. I absolutely assure the Member that we need a transformation of the health service. I want to see that transformation of the health service. I want to see the NHS here work for everyone. We have put that firm commitment at the heart of the Programme for Government, and, indeed, by working hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder with the Health Minister, we will try to ensure that there is transformation and change to bring down the waiting lists and improve outcomes for people.

Mr Chambers: I take it from that answer, Minister, that health is still your first priority. I am sure that the Minister will agree that avoiding industrial action this winter is essential. What conversations has she had with the Health Minister to find a solution to the budget shortfall that is denying health staff the pay awards that they have been promised?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. It is incredibly important that we do everything that we can to ensure that our public-sector workers receive fair pay. When the Budget settlement was announced, I set it out clearly that we knew that it would be very difficult for all Ministers but particularly for Departments that have a significant public-sector pay pressure. That included the Department of Education and the Department of Health. I assure the Member that, along with the First Minister and the Finance Minister, I have met the Health Minister on a number of occasions to assure him of our support in what he is trying to do. Doing everything in our power to get to the right outcome is a key piece of work for us. We wanted to emphasise to the Health Minister that he is not alone in that fight and that we will work hard with him and do everything that we can. That remains my commitment.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question, particularly on this day. Today marks White Ribbon Day, known as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and the start of a period known as 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence.

From the outset, the First Minister and I made tackling violence against women and girls a key priority. The rates of violence against and murders of women and girls in Northern Ireland are far too high. We recognise that it will require us to work collaboratively with agencies, the PSNI, schools, families and communities. The best way to do so will be through prevention. That will not be a short-term issue. It will not be done tomorrow or next week, as, I know, the Member is well aware. I was pleased that we were able to produce not just our strategy on ending violence against women and girls but the associated action plan. We have £3 million over the course of the remainder of this year and next year from the challenge fund and the change fund. That is not the totality of our aspirations, and it will not solve all issues, but we believe that it is a valuable start to working together to tackle the scourge of violence against women and girls.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you. Are you confident that other Ministers, such as our Education Minister, Health Minister, Communities Minister and AERA Minister, have all bought in to the strategy and are investing where they can to ensure that the scourge of violence against women and girls is not only ended but prevented at the other end?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. There are a number of elements, not least from the Minister of Justice's perspective, when it comes to speeding up justice, and the Education Minister's perspective on the really important preventative work that can happen in schools and the youth club sector. Of course, every Minister has a role to play. That is why I was particularly pleased that our strategy and the associated action plan were endorsed by the entire Executive and that it is an Executive programme. Of course, the Executive agreed to ring-fence that initial £3 million. I was also particularly pleased that our launch of that strategy coincided with the Department of Justice and the Department of Health's joint domestic and sexual abuse strategy. We know that domestic violence is not just a female issue. There are particular issues on that, and it is right that we have that dedicated strategy, but tackling domestic violence is an issue that goes right across.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member was present last week — I think it was last week — when I responded to the debate on that very important issue. I outlined a number of strands of work that were taking place, led not just by the Executive Office but by a number of Departments and agencies. After the debate, we had a discussion in the Department about pulling many of those strands together into a comprehensive review with the aim of identifying the very things that were talked about in the debate. We hope to give an update on that in due course, but the work has commenced.

Mr Dickson: Deputy First Minister, on 12 November, the Assembly called for a short, sharp review. Will the review be completed by the end of the calendar year?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I indicated in my response to that debate that a significant amount of the work had already commenced. The PSNI, for example, was also looking at what it could do. We have been working with community organisations on the ground. Some of the areas were within our Urban Villages areas under Together: Building a United Community. We are looking to see what more we can do to reach out. We are conscious that many of the young people who were caught up in those events are what we describe as "hard to reach". Those young people are not participants in many of the projects on the ground, but that does not mean that we cannot and should not try our best to ensure that we can engage with them. That probably requires a different approach, but we are very much looking at that to try to take it on and change the outcomes for the better in those areas.

Mr Speaker: Mr Delargy is not in his place.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We play a key role, because, as outlined during the consultation process, we made clear that the draft Programme for Government priorities were not the totality of what government would do. In each Department and, indeed, with cross-departmental work, a huge range of additional activities will take place. What is in the nine priorities in the draft Programme for Government represents a smaller number of key things that will be driven by the Executive in collaboration with the Ministers. Indeed, we are creating an internal delivery unit approach, which is an approach that has been proven to work elsewhere. The unit will give particular and focused attention to change and to achieving the targets that we hope to achieve under each of those priorities. It will be a new approach, but we believe that it is required, because, frankly, if we keep doing what we have always done, we will keep getting the results that we have always got. We want to genuinely make a real difference to delivery.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the deputy First Minister for that answer. How will the public and, indeed, Members be reported to? Will there be regular reports to the Assembly, or will reports be released?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As outlined earlier, a key part of that will be our well-being framework and our well-being indicators. A significant number of indicators will be updated live in real time to show progress against the priorities. Some of those will report quarterly. It depends on how the baseline is measured, but there will be a range of indicators. Those will be open to the public, and people can pop on at any time, look at what is happening and see the direction of travel and whether we are turning the curve against some of the key ones.

I believe that the Committees will have a key role in looking at the targets against the particular priorities led by a Department. However, it is important to say that we do not want this to fracture into silos. They are Executive priorities and therefore will require an all-Executive approach. Of course, key to that will be the Executive prioritising any additional flexibility in the Budget towards meeting the targets on those nine key priorities.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Work is under way. A number of our equality areas of work, such as equality strategies for older people and people with disabilities and strategies on gender, have moved to the Department for Communities. That Department takes a lead on bringing forward most of our social inclusion strategies now, but, of course, at the heart of the Programme for Government will be the principle that we want everyone in Northern Ireland to be able to succeed regardless of their characteristics, where they live or where they come from. It will be key that the implementation of that is entirely mainstreamed. The way that we roll the projects out, in terms of both the revenue and, importantly, the capital investment, must be done in a way that benefits all communities and must be designed in a way that takes into account a number of those key characteristics.

Mr Crawford: Thank you, deputy First Minister. Can you update us on any new initiatives aimed specifically at enhancing support for marginalised groups?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Yes. There has been a commitment to bringing forward those social inclusion strategies. They will be tailored to those particular groups and are loosely based on each of the section 75 groups. The Department for Communities takes the lead on that, and I know that a significant amount of work is already under way. From our point of view in the Executive Office, we deal with a number of groups that have been and continue to be marginalised, not least victims and survivors, for example, and, in that area, we have dedicated funding through our Victims and Survivors Service.

We also approach that work through a number of different commissioner-type roles, such as the Older People's Commissioner, which promotes issues associated with older people. We will move to make better reference to that in the Programme for Government, but, of course, we will work with our colleagues, particularly in the Department for Communities, to ensure that all our communities can benefit.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: That work is continuing against our action plan, and good progress is being made. We hope to be in a position to update the Committee on progress against all the action plan points very shortly.

Mr Speaker: That draws to an end questions to the deputy First Minister. We move to questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): It is widely recognised that Northern Ireland’s natural environment and its habitats and species are under considerable pressure, having suffered continuous biodiversity loss in recent decades. Indeed, the recent evidence report from the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) highlights the precarious state of biodiversity here and the key pressures that need to be tackled to, first, halt biodiversity loss and, then, restore the diversity of Northern Ireland’s habitats and species.

Recognising the importance of a more nature-positive future for all and nature’s role in tackling climate change, DAERA’s strategic objectives reflect the need for specific measures to restore our natural ecosystems, such as those set out in Northern Ireland’s first environmental improvement plan. The forthcoming nature recovery strategy, peatland strategy, climate action plan and climate change adaptation plan will also include ambitious measures to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change together, supporting green growth and nature recovery.

My Department has also been driving forward programmes to enhance our terrestrial, freshwater and marine biodiversity, including through the environmental farming scheme, where over 58,000 hectares of protected and priority habitats and their associated species are being actively managed to support their maintenance and recovery over time. There are 36 projects, totalling more than £7·5 million, supported by the environment fund, supporting habitat and species recovery. Our review of the nutrients action programme (NAP) and forthcoming ammonia strategy will aim to address our excess nutrient pollution problem, a key issue in biodiversity loss. Public consultations on a number of marine conservation-based strategies and action plans for habitats and species are also under way.

I am fully committed to restoring our natural habitats, species and ecosystems and taking the necessary steps to deliver a nature-positive and climate-resilient future for all.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer, in which he referred to the recent OEP report and, indeed, the nutrients action programme. Given that the OEP report identified one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss as an unsustainable nutrients surplus, will the Minister advise us when the nutrients action programme will be published?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. I am very well aware of what the OEP report said about the drivers of biodiversity loss. It was very stark reading, and I encourage everyone in the House and beyond to read the report. The NAP, as the Member outlined, is a key intervention in dealing with that nutrient overload in our rivers, lakes and loughs, and it is my intention and hope that we will move to consultation on that in January.

Miss Brogan: Has the Minister given any consideration to specific biodiversity legislation or does he feel that existing strategies are enough to reverse the decline in biodiversity here?

Mr Muir: As I outlined in my response to Mark, we are taking forward a number of strategies in this area. In the shortened mandate that we have and within my Department's resource pressures, the ability to take forward legislation in a specific area is challenging for me. I am aware, however, that Mark H Durkan, who asked the question for oral answer, is introducing a Member's Bill. I have already met the Member about that, and, hopefully, we can work cooperatively on this. I think that all of us in the House have a commitment to improving our environment, and if we can work together on these things, we can achieve so much more.

Mr McMurray: Minister, how can the protection of peatlands improve biodiversity?

Mr Muir: Peatlands are absolutely key in this, and we are already doing work on that. We have funding from the Shared Island Fund, which is proving really useful to the actions that we can take towards peatland restoration. I have seen some of that work across Northern Ireland in action in recent months, but we want to take that further and introduce our peatland strategy, because we can use our peatlands as a way forward in tackling the challenges that we have not only but specifically in relation to greenhouse emissions.

Mr Muir: I remain committed to introducing legislation to regulate third-party sales of pups and kittens in Northern Ireland. I expect to be in a position to announce policy proposals by the end of this year along with a number of other key proposals, which I am confident will deliver improvements to the lives of companion animals. It is my desire that any legislation will be a significant step change for Northern Ireland and deliver for citizens and stakeholders.

I have invited the Northern Ireland Companion Animal Welfare Group to meet me on 4 December so that we can discuss priority reforms for animal welfare. At that meeting, I will outline my Department’s vision for a version of Lucy’s law that will meet our local contexts and needs. One such option is measures that go beyond a prohibition on third-party sellers. It is my desire that any legislation introduced in this space will generate greater transparency and accountability in the marketplace by enabling purchasers to identify where a pet has come from. I am minded to bring forward further measures to improve animal welfare in Northern Ireland. Any proposals that I bring forward will, of course, be subject to public consultation.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for his reply and the news that there has been real progress in bringing forward Lucy's law, which will be widely welcomed across the animal welfare sector. In addition to that, what measures will the Minister take to improve animal welfare more generally in the remainder of this mandate?

Mr Muir: I am passionate about improving animal welfare standards in Northern Ireland. We have lost pace on that due to the collapse of the Assembly. I am determined to do what work I can, with the resources in my Department, to catch up on it. I will be engaging with stakeholders, because I want to do it in a process of co-design and working together. As part of that engagement, we will discuss measures that we can take forward together to improve animal welfare. I am already clearly of the mind that we should bring forward a ban on the use of shock collars, introduce compulsory microchipping of cats and strengthen legal requirements. It is important that we work together. There are many more things that we can do to protect animals against cruelty in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Erskine: The Minister will know that I have raised the issue of puppy farming in my constituency in the Chamber before. I am interested to know what level of council engagement has taken place on Lucy's law. Councils seem to be a turning a blind eye to it slightly. Lucy's law gives an opportunity to limit premises to one breeding licence.

Mr Speaker: Come to your question, please.

Mrs Erskine: What level of council engagement is happening?

Mr Muir: There are two aspects to your question. If you are aware of any concerns about council engagement, you can bring them to me and I will engage constructively with the councils on them. Stakeholder engagement on the reform of animal welfare legislation will include the councils, because they are key partners in it. I will wish to discuss dog-breeding establishments at our forthcoming meeting.

Ms Á Murphy: As the Minister is aware, a recent investigation by Victoria Johnston of 'The Impartial Reporter' highlighted a number of loopholes in the current dog-breeding establishment legislation. Will the Minister consider undertaking a fundamental review of existing legislation on dog-breeding establishments?

Mr Muir: I read 'The Impartial Reporter' investigation and am aware of the reports and concerns. The issue is on my mind and is of great concern to me. When we get together with those stakeholders soon, that issue will be on the agenda. I get the public concern, because I share it. I want to look at what more we can do in that area.

Mr Muir: As the Member will be aware from my answer to his previous question, I have no role to play in that matter.

Mr Gaston: Special advisers who are taking up new jobs have to comply with the Northern Ireland Civil Service standard of conduct in order to maintain public trust and avoid the risk that a firm or organisation might gain an improper advantage. That has not happened with Dr Carson. Minister, you claim that there is nothing to see here. Will you ask the head of the Civil Service to investigate the matter?

Mr Muir: The head of the Civil Service has no remit on that matter.

Mr Martin: Minister, your special adviser told you on Sunday 4 August that she was resigning, and you agreed a highly unusual — some would say unprecedented — period of notice of some nine days. Will the Minister provide a reason for such a short period of notice?

Mr Muir: It was not highly unusual.

Mr Muir: Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is one of the most challenging issues that cattle farmers and my Department face. The cost of delivering the Northern Ireland bovine TB eradication programme was almost £56 million last year, and current estimates indicate that there will be a rise in programme costs to approximately £60 million for this financial year.

Since becoming Minister, I have heard directly from farmers on the impact of bovine TB, from a financial perspective and, importantly, on their mental and physical health. I am particularly conscious of the current increase in animal incidence, which now stands at over 1%, as that points towards larger breakdowns and more cattle being slaughtered for disease control. Over 20,000 cattle have been removed from farms in Northern Ireland in the past 12 months. Coupled with an increase in the market value of cattle, that saw compensation payments rise to just under £36 million in the previous financial year. That was a significant increase on the cost in the preceding five years, during which the average compensation bill was just over £21 million. Removal of cattle from farms also results in consequential losses for industry, particularly in the dairy sector. That is not sustainable.

My Chief Veterinary Officer, Brian Dooher, is undertaking a thorough review of matters that relate to our bovine TB eradication programme and policy, including the actions that are contained in the bovine TB eradication strategy. I will brief the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee on the review this Thursday. It is a key priority for me to work closely with industry and key stakeholders on ways to reduce disease levels and programme costs, setting Northern Ireland on a path to reduce and, ultimately, eradicate this costly disease.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his response. Given that 13 months have passed since the previous Minister of Agriculture's proposal for a non-selective cull of badgers was overturned in a judicial review, when will your Department confirm its position on the matter?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the outcome of the judicial review, because I have read the judgement twice. We are seeking a holistic way forward so that we can manage the issues associated with bTB. That goes beyond the issue of wildlife. We need to work together collaboratively to deal with all the causation factors, because that is the only way for us to drive down levels of bTB. To be honest, the mental health impact on farmers and the anguish that bTB is causing are of real concern to me. I will go to the Committee on Thursday with Brian, the Chief Veterinary Officer, to outline his report. I hope that everyone will give Brian's report a fair hearing because we need to work together on the issue.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, will you outline the collaboration that you have been involved in with your counterpart in the Twenty-six Counties, given that there is quite a gap between the rates of bTB there and the rates here? Is there best practice in the South that we can learn from? I am glad to hear you say that you are worried about the mental health of farmers, because there is a devastating impact on affected farm families.

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her question, which is a really important one. After the previous North/South Ministerial Council meeting, I had a lengthy meeting with the South's Minister for Agriculture, Charlie McConalogue, on that specific issue, what the South is doing, what we are doing and how we can work together. In animal health terms, we are an all-Ireland unit, and we need to share our experience and work together a bit more closely. That is helping to inform some of my decision-making, but I am also looking at what is happening in England, Scotland and Wales and beyond. Be assured that we are working together on the issues, and I am keen to accelerate that.

Mr Irwin: Does the Minister accept that other regions of the UK and, indeed, the Republic of Ireland have been much more proactive in their fight against bTB and have much lower levels as a result?

Mr Muir: Levels of bTB across the UK and Ireland vary. We know, for example, that Scotland's level is so low that it is considered to be free of bTB, whereas the levels of bTB in Northern Ireland are unsustainable. I know that deeply, not just because of the financial implications for my Department but because the matter is regularly raised with me wherever I go.

We therefore have to take learnings from not just across the UK and Ireland but beyond to see how we can collectively drive down levels of bTB. I urge everyone to work with us so that we can take learnings from the Chief Veterinary Officer's report and chart a better path to reducing bTB incidence levels.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, will there be a consultation on future wildlife interventions?

Mr Muir: I can confirm, and Members will be aware, that there will be a consultation on any future wildlife interventions.

Mr McNulty: For reasons of financial sustainability, farmers who are dealing with bTB appreciate and respect the compensation for beasts that have been destroyed. There is an issue, however, because herds are being closed down for 12 weeks, resulting in the halting of cash flow. Has the Minister thought about how farmers can get cash flow in order to ease the burden, frustration, concern and mental health challenges that they face as a consequence of the arrival of bTB on their farm?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Justin, for your question. The Chief Veterinary Officer's report will be published on Thursday. I urge you and others to read it and consider what it says.

When I assumed office in February, the Secretary of State had already instructed that there would be a consultation on reducing the level of compensation from 100% to 90%, and then to 75%. I have worked with the Finance Minister to ensure that the funding is in place so that we do not need to do that. We do, however, need to get assurances for the next financial year in order to continue with that position, because it is key that my Department be properly funded to fulfil all its statutory functions, including issuing bTB compensation.

Mr Muir: Sheep scab is one of the most severe skin conditions for sheep. It is highly contagious, responsible for large economic losses and a significant welfare concern. Sheep scab remains a notifiable disease in Northern Ireland. The Sheep Scab Order (Northern Ireland) 1970 places a legal obligation on any person who has reason to believe that sheep in their possession or care have sheep scab to notify their local divisional veterinary office.

My Department welcomes and continues to support the efforts of industry stakeholders such as the Northern Ireland Sheep Scab Control and Eradication Group to tackle sheep scab and commends the group on the success of its pilot project, Stamp out Scab. DAERA continues to use its social media channels to raise awareness of sheep scab and to remind flock owners to remain vigilant for signs of it in their flock.

The DAERA website provides details on the disease, including information on clinical signs and on how the disease spreads, as well as key advice to the industry on preventing its spread. The Department also provides a range of practical support and advice to the industry and to individually affected flock keepers in order to minimise spread. DAERA staff continue to report cases of sheep scab that they encounter as part of their official duties. The staff are also involved in market and abattoir inspections and have been reminded to remain vigilant for the signs of sheep scab.

My Department will continue to support industry efforts to tackle the disease. Although we will assist where we can, that assistance must be set in the context of the current climate of departmental budgetary and resource pressures.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for his answer. He referred to the pilot project that ran between August 2022 and August 2023, which coincided with a significant spike in the number of flocks in which the disease was confirmed and in the number placed under restriction in that year. Will the Minister confirm what plans, if any, he has to build on the pilot project? Is he pursuing a policy of eradication?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. It is a useful question, because the Northern Ireland sheep scab pilot project, Stamp out Scab, ran from August 2022 until October 2023. The project was co-funded by DAERA and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). Levels of disease reporting from before, during and after the project appear to show that the project was successful in highlighting awareness of the disease. Reported disease levels have fallen since the project concluded but remain higher than pre-project levels.

I value Question Time, because it is about accountability but also about how we work together to address issues. The question that the Member tabled to highlight the issue prompted me to meet the Chief Veterinary Officer today to discuss how much more we can do, including perhaps running the pilot again to raise industry awareness.

Miss McIlveen: Is the Minister aware of the number of occasions on which I have raised the issue of the Department's stopping testing for maedi-visna (MV) from January 2026? Although he has stated that a decision has not yet been made, the sheep industry is quite clear from discussions that it has had with officials that that is the case and that 2025 will be a year of transition. I appeal to the Minister not to stop the testing.

When will he give clarification to the industry on the future of MV testing?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her question. I know that the issue was raised in today's debate about support for the sheep sector, and I will respond to the concerns as part of that. I confirm that I have not made a final decision. Any decision that I take on the matter will be communicated, in the first instance, to the Committee. It is important that I do that. I would like to give clarity as soon as I can. However, to do that, I need to work with my officials, who are also dealing with other issues, such as TB. I will look to provide clarification as speedily as possible. I cannot give you a defined timescale, but I get the concerns. Clarity on the situation going forward needs to be communicated.

Mr Muir: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to answer questions 6, 10 and 12 together.

I recognise that the changes announced in the Budget regarding agricultural property relief and business property relief in relation to inheritance tax have generated real concern and anger in the local farming community and further afield. I expressed those concerns when I met the Secretary of State on 4 November and urged him to reconsider the policies. I have also raised the issue with the DEFRA Minister of State, Daniel Zeichner, and will continue to do so in meetings with other UK Government Ministers. I have encouraged the UK Government to engage further with the farming community so that they have a better understanding of the concerns being raised and to look again at the issue. I will meet the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) tomorrow to consider next steps.

Analysis carried out by my Department and placed in the Assembly Library shows that around one third of farms in Northern Ireland have a land value of more than £1 million. However, those farms account for 60% of owned land and the majority of agricultural production. A large proportion of farms of significant size will be affected, including 75% of those in the dairy sector. Looking solely at the number of farms does not measure the impact on the sector.

Another issue arising from the Budget is the change to ring-fenced funding. Although existing funding for agriculture, the agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development will continue to be earmarked by Treasury until 31 March next year, it is important to provide certainty on the funding after that. While it is positive that funding levels have been maintained at £332·5 million, it is disappointing that they have not been increased in line with inflation. I have therefore formally asked the Finance Minister that the resource DEL that has been baselined in the block grant be treated as Executive-earmarked funding for agriculture, the agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development purposes and uplifted it in line with inflation, as part of the Executive’s Budget exercise for the next financial year.

Mr Buckley: The Chancellor says that Labour's tax raid on family farms will bring in £520 million a year. We are told that that is needed to overturn some of the deep, dark holes in our public finances, yet, not even a month later, the same Labour Government have committed £536 million to be spent overseas on 10 programmes to promote low-carbon agriculture projects, including in Rwanda and in the eleventh largest economy in the world, Brazil. Minister, do you agree with that wasteful spend of public money — yes or no — or do you believe that the money should be spent on family farms in the United Kingdom to ensure that they have a viable future?

Mr Muir: I have clearly outlined my position on the issue and on the fact that I am fighting the corner of agriculture in Northern Ireland on the issue of the Budget and the budgetary settlement arising from that. It is key that we come together on inheritance tax and on funding for agriculture, the agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development. We need to be unified in our approach in order to get the funds ring-fenced in Northern Ireland. We must be clear in our message to the UK Government that they should overturn their decision on inheritance tax. That is absolutely key.

When we were in the European Union, our funding under the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy was guaranteed to us in seven-year tranches. Then we left the EU. That funding is earmarked until the end of March next year.

Mr Buckley: Answer the question, Minister.

Mr Muir: I am answering —.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Muir: The uncertainty about earmarked funding from the next financial year onwards is largely due to the departure from the European Union. People would do well to remember that.

Mr McCrossan: Given the widespread concerns about the introduction of the inheritance tax measure, what steps will the Minister take to mitigate its impact on family farms across Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: Inheritance tax is a reserved matter, because the UK Government take forward taxation policy. I received a letter back from Treasury today that says that they are clearly of the opinion that they are not for turning on the matter, but I will continue to engage with them and urge them to rethink it. I am mindful of the fact that, if the tax change proceeds, we will need to have a much bigger focus on succession planning for farming in Northern Ireland. The Department is bringing forward the Farming for the Generations scheme, which is a pilot initiative. More details about it are available on our website. Over the time ahead, we will need to scale that scheme up so that we can assist farmers with succession planning. It is absolutely key that we do so.

Mr Mathison: Bearing in mind the difficult context that you set out, Minister, will you provide more detail of the work that is being undertaken in conjunction with the Finance Minister to secure the earmarked funding for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development?

Mr Muir: I have written to the Finance Minister. I have also discussed the issue with Executive colleagues. I had planned to meet the Finance Minister later this afternoon, but, due to Assembly business, the timing of the meeting has moved. It will not be possible to have that meeting today, but I will seek to reschedule it and make clear my continued call for the funds to be earmarked in Northern Ireland so that we can give certainty not just to the farming community but to our fishing communities across Northern Ireland and provide support for agrienvironment and rural development. I am keen to ensure that we get clarity on that as soon as possible. One of the key issues is that we in the Executive agree a draft Budget for the next financial year as soon as possible.

Mr McAleer: The Minister will be aware that, in England last year, over 50% of land sales were by private equity companies and that the super-wealthy have no interest in farming. Is the Minister aware of any steps being taken to prevent that and ensure that farmland remains in food production and accessible to farm families?

Mr Muir: The Member highlights one of the reasons for the Treasury's decision to make the change. I believe that it will be in the Treasury's gift to tackle that issue without it having the disproportionate impact that it is having in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a patchwork quilt of family farms. They are the bedrock of our rural community. The inheritance tax change is causing real concern to those family farms. I will engage with the Ulster Farmers' Union tomorrow about constructive suggestions that we can make to the UK Government on how to alleviate those concerns and avoid the damage that the change could cause in Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: The Department for Infrastructure, as the policy lead Department for rural transport, provides grant aid from its rural transport fund budget to 11 rural community transport providers across Northern Ireland to deliver its dial-a-lift scheme. Through the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) framework — I am sorry to mention another acronym, but my Department is made up of them — DAERA has worked with the Department for Infrastructure to develop the assisted rural travel scheme (ARTS), which permits rural dwellers entitled to a SmartPass to use it on rural community transport vehicles. That intervention brought equivalency to services that urban dwellers were able to avail themselves of and provided free or half-fare travel on trips provided through the Department for Infrastructure's dial-a-lift scheme. Since it was introduced in 2011-12, my Department has provided funding of just over £8 million to the Department for Infrastructure to support the delivery of the assisted rural travel scheme. In recent years, my Department has provided £560,000 annually to the Department for Infrastructure. It is intended that that will be transferred to the Department for Infrastructure as part of the opening Budget 2025-26 outcome and will be included in that Department's baseline for future years.

My officials will continue to meet their counterparts in the Department for Infrastructure to ensure that rural dwellers' needs are adequately considered. A working group has been established that includes officials from the Department for Infrastructure, the Department of Health and my Department. I have attended meetings of that alongside my two counterpart Ministers. The working group will consider whether transport in the community can provide a more cost-effective, value-for-money service delivery model to meet the needs of rural users. It will also investigate the potential for community transport providers to be part of a collaborative group of transport options and pathways that can be accessed by the population.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that he will agree that community transport is absolutely critical, particularly in our rural communities.

I know that a cross-departmental working group meeting took place on 9 September. Minister, will you provide more detail on the agreed outcomes and way forward that the working group will work collaboratively on to deliver for all in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: It was good to be at that meeting. I covered infrastructure before becoming a Minister, and I am passionate about it. Kellie Armstrong, who is part of our team, keeps me right on the issues. Community transport is key, particularly in rural communities.

I was glad to be able to attend that meeting with the Infrastructure and Health Ministers. Following that, departmental officials have attended two Department for Infrastructure community transport cross-departmental working group meetings. Whilst the budget associated with the assisted rural travel scheme is due to be baselined in the Department for Infrastructure's budget from 2025-26, my officials will continue meet DFI to ensure that the needs of rural dwellers are given due regard. That is something that I am quite keen on.

Mr Speaker: Let us move on to topical questions.

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. The Rural Needs Act is a key piece of legislation. A review of it was undertaken, and 25 recommendations came back. I am aware that the Committee considered those at its last meeting. I listened to the audio recording of that over the weekend, and I am keen to see what more we can do. What we can do about those recommendations has been outlined. However, I want to go further and see what more we can do about funding support for rural communities.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister. I am not singling out his Department, because those of us who live in and represent rural areas are saying that many of our services are being stripped, whether it is health with GP services and, particularly, domiciliary care; infrastructure investment in housing or roads; or, indeed, the overall issue of sewage disposal. Therefore, it is cross-departmental. What can the Minister do, through legislative change, to drive those Departments to be much more effective in tailoring support to rural areas that are being deprived of services?

Mr Muir: One of the key issues — you have raised it — is how we work together as a Government to ensure that the needs of rural communities are heard and acted upon. In conjunction with officials, we will be moving very soon to consultation on future rural affairs policy. It is not just my Department that has a role to play. All Departments have a role in that, and it is about bringing that together so that we can take a much more unified approach. You outlined issues that are being faced in rural communities. There is another particular issue: childcare. Childcare is not just an urban issue, it is particularly an issue in rural communities. There is also mental health and how much more we can support rural communities on those issues. I am looking forward to going out to consultation on that rural affairs policy. That will be key, and I am really valuing the input from the Committee on these issues.

Mr Muir: The setting of the carbon budgets is, as the Member outlined, a requirement of the Climate Change Act, and the regulations were considered and agreed by the Executive on 21 November. Work is now progressing to move the regulations to set the carbon budgets for 2023-27, and the 2040 emissions target, through the Assembly process. My Department will lay the draft legislation for debate in the Assembly and approval as soon as possible. I will bring the draft climate action plan to Executive colleagues as soon as possible, seeking their approval to publish the plan for a 16-week consultation, as required by the legislation.

Mrs Guy: What opportunities does the Minister envisage as a result of decarbonisation?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her question. Whilst there are legal obligations in setting the carbon budgets and then moving forward to set the climate action plan, there are also great opportunities for Northern Ireland. One reason why I am doing this job is because I believe in Northern Ireland and have hope for the future. I believe that by driving forward implementation of the climate change legislation, and also, very soon, the green growth strategy that I will bring to the Executive for approval, we can create a future that is about good green jobs. This is about prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland and ensuring that it is a just and fair transition, so that no one is left behind and we include everyone on the road to net zero. That is absolutely key.

I am seeing calls from businesses on our taking forward action to drive decarbonisation and their support for net zero. What I want us to do, in this place and beyond, is to travel that course together. Yes, it is about livelihoods but it is also about lives. It is not lost on me that, in recent times, we have seen many examples of lives being lost as a result of the impact of climate change. That weighs heavily upon me, and it is something that we need to tackle in Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her question. I have not taken any decision in relation to that, and no submissions have arrived for my approval in that regard. If they do, I will give the issue due consideration. I will engage with the Committee on any further steps beyond that, because it is important that we do that. MV is a challenge not just for my Department but for the farming community in Northern Ireland. It is something that I am conscious of. I get the concerns, and I hear them: I hear them in the Chamber, and I hear them when I am out and about. I can guarantee that if we are taking any steps, we will ensure that there is proper communication and engagement with the Committee.

Ms D Armstrong: Does the Minister accept that the figures attributed to the TB programmes are way out of proportion to those for sheep farmers, given that the MV surveillance programme cost little more than £200,000 last year compared with £50 million for the TB programmes? Is that fair and equitable?

Mr Muir: The Member highlights a number of the cost pressures within my Department around animal health. Those pressures need to be met in the budget for the next financial year. The challenges in my Department are not only around supporting the farming community by way of financial support but extend to what we can do around animal health. We talked earlier about animal welfare, and that is why I have been engaging with the Finance Minister about the budget settlement for the year ahead, to see what more we can do for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: I was delighted to be in Carrickfergus recently and at the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) Loughry campus in Cookstown to launch the food strategy framework. It is a positive move forward, with a whole-of-government approach and, to be honest, a whole-of-society approach to food. It sets in place four key priorities and a number of key principles, going forward. Priority one is enabling improved dietary-related health outcomes through education and increased accessibility to healthy, nutritious food; priority two is about building an environmentally sustainable and resilient agri-food supply chain; priority three is about delivering a prosperous food economy; and priority four is about building a food culture and a food-conscious society.

Coming out of those priorities are a number of key decision-making principles. The top principle is about the right to food and ensuring that everyone has the right to adequate, available, accessible, safe and nutritious food. Now that we have it agreed by the Executive, and I have been able to launch it, I am determined that we will work together so that we can launch an action plan early next year and drive forward its delivery, because it is key that we view food in a much better way.

Ms Egan: How will the food strategy framework prioritise food poverty?

Mr Muir: As I have outlined, the first principle is about the right to food. That is where the whole-of-government approach comes in. We can work across government to deal with the issue. The Member will be aware, from visiting local food banks in north Down and beyond, as I have done, that the real indictment on our society is the fact that we have people struggling to feed their families. That is why I have the issue as my top principle in the food strategy framework. We want to take that forward in an action plan and work collaboratively on the issues.

When I was in Carrickfergus, I was inspired to see what happens there with its community greengrocer. Loads of people came together to set up that community greengrocer. It is thriving. It is selling produce from the local area. That is great. We want to encourage more of those community and social farms, going forward. That is something that I am looking at as Minister.

Mr Muir: I welcome the Office for Environmental Protection report. It is a constructive contribution to the issue of bathing water quality in Northern Ireland. The Member rightly outlines that people are using our bathing waters not only for swimming but for other things, such as surfing and paddleboarding. I have to confess that I have not yet taken the plunge in open-water swimming but I might be persuaded to do it if the Member is prepared to join me.

We will consider the report's recommendations in the time ahead, because a number of them are policy recommendations that also require not just resources but working in partnership with councils. I met those partners last week at Crawfordsburn Country Park. We had a useful engagement on those issues and talked about the Office for Environmental Protection report. It is key for me, in an area where bathing waters are very popular, that we seek to strengthen what we can do in that area.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. We are indeed very fortunate to have so many areas along our coastline. On the back of that, will the Minister commit to looking at introducing year-round testing at many of those spots?

Mr Muir: I am aware of report's finding on that, and we will consider it. There is a resource challenge associated with doing the testing and an issue to do with people being able to understand that, if the tests are being reported as good for bathing water quality but then there is a heavy rainfall, it has to be interpreted in that context to be able to use bathing waters responsibly. It is something that we will consider. The Office for Environmental Protection has provided that report. We will give consideration to it and write back and ensure that the Member gets a copy.

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. The food strategy was agreed by the Executive just recently. As I outlined previously, we were able to launch that, and it was good that we were able to do that. The next step is to launch the action plan. It is my desire that we launch that at the Balmoral show.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for his answer. On consultation and engagement with various stakeholders, can the Minister confirm that dieticians have been engaged up to this point, given their expertise in that field and the fact that they have a vital role to play?

Mr Muir: There was significant engagement in the run-up to getting it agreed. There will be engagement going forward with the programme board. I will check out the specifics on dieticians and how they are involved. The Member makes a useful point, and it is something that we should consider.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Muir: I am very aware of the recent flooding incidents across Northern Ireland, and I know that my colleague in the Executive Gordon Lyons has activated the flood support grants associated with that and is working in conjunction with councils.

The Member raises a particularly valuable point, because the farming community does step up, not just during flooding incidents but during periods of heavy snowfall. It is something that I am happy to engage with the Member on if he has any constructive suggestions on how we can further strengthen those relationships.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, are there any particular initiatives that you can bring forward from your Department that can give recognition to those farmers who do step up, as you have said, and sometimes feel undervalued by your Department?

Mr Muir: I would have to examine my Department's vires and what the particular ask is, but if the Member is about today or tomorrow, I am happy to have an informal chat with him, so that we can have further discussions on the matter.

Mr Muir: Rural communities have featured quite heavily in Question Time today, and rightly so, because rural communities are absolutely key to the future of Northern Ireland. We are a largely rural society, and that is why it is right that it is debated today.

I am taking forward a number of actions, one of which relates to future rural affairs policy. We will go out to consultation on that in the short time ahead, and I will be grateful to get people's feedback. There are also issues to do with how we support the networks across Northern Ireland. As Minister, I have stepped up in that regard, and I have been chairing quarterly engagement sessions with them, because it is important that that process of co-design is led from the front by the Minister.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. I know that, in my constituency, there are so many groups that are doing amazing work. They are really struggling for financial support. What consideration is the Minister giving to further financial support for rural areas, and will he agree to meet some of those groups with me?

Mr Muir: I am acutely aware that, as a result of EU exit, the funding support previously provided under the rural development programme has wound down. The money that we receive, around £330 million, which is currently earmarked by Treasury, comes as a result of calculations from pillar 1 and pillar 2 payments. Those include payments previously made under the rural development programme.

I am working with colleagues to explore what more funding we can provide for rural development for our rural communities. I want to engage with the Finance Minister on that, because there are specific issues in rural communities that are not being adequately addressed. I outlined some of those in the Chamber earlier today: childcare, mental health and housing. There are so many issues on which we want to work together to provide support.

On Saturday, I was delighted to be in Glynn, just outside Larne, to visit Jubilee Farm, which is another example of a community farm that is doing really well. We need to consider how we can support those as part of our rural communities.

I am doing a lot of work and a lot of positive things. I am keen to work with my Executive colleagues so that we can deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: Dr Aiken, very quickly.

Mr Speaker: Minister, quickly.

Mr Muir: The Member will be aware that I outlined the associated issues in a written ministerial statement dated 9 July 2024. That statement outlines clearly that the appeal is being made purely on constitutional grounds.

Dr Aiken: Come on, Minister.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Aiken: Sorry.

Mr Muir: Sorry: I did not expect that from a Deputy Speaker.

I outlined clearly the reason for the appeal. The written ministerial statement is on the Assembly website.

Ms Sheerin: It will come as no surprise to anybody listening to the debate that I am definitely in support of upland sheep farmers, being, as I am, the daughter of one. I was reared on a sheep farm in the Sperrins, so I have a particular interest in the motion and the topic, and I feel that supporting our sheep producers is the right thing to do.

It is about equality and addressing needs. It is about identifying the particular challenges that different sectors face and trying to support those people through those challenges. The challenges faced by our sheep producers in upland areas are many and varied. The most obvious one at the minute is the loss of the single farm payment following our removal from the EU. When we talk about the lack of ring-fencing for agriculture subsidies — there is an expectation that the Executive will secure those moneys for farmers next year, and I believe that all Executive parties are committed to trying to do that — we have to acknowledge the fact that we used to have that money coming directly from the EU. We had that security of funding, but that has gone. There is pressure on all Ministers to work together to support farmers by providing the subsidies that we have lost as a result of the decision to leave the EU. I know that the Minister has committed to trying to ring-fence that budget, but it is a massive pressure and it will be a massive pressure.

There is a particular worry and concern among our sheep producers, who face a 17% reduction in what we still refer to as the "single farm payment". We know that the agri-food industry in the North is worth about £5 billion. That money does not just support farmers; that money goes into our rural communities to support people like me who were reared in farming families but also our machinery dealers, vets, mechanics and engineering firms. It supports people who work in farm-related businesses, such as dealers of agri-medicine and feed, all of whom are vital to rural economies. We have to consider that.

Farming on the uplands and in the hills is more expensive and tougher. Those farmers face tougher climates, and they work with lower-quality soil. Producing silage and hay is incredibly difficult in any year, but, for many farmers, in a year like this one it was impossible. For somebody who has reared sheep for years, it is not simple to start a beef herd, because it costs an awful lot to do that. The Minister has already said that he is not minded to reintroduce the areas of natural constraint (ANC) payment, which was brought about by my party colleague, Michelle O'Neill when she was the AERA Minister. The ANC payment was a lifeline for many of our upland farmers. Those people cannot easily diversify. Cattle numbers on the hills are reducing year on year, but those that are on the hills are inside from September, going through meal and silage at an alarming rate. That is costly and impacts on our environment. We know that sheep on the hills better the environment: they feed into biodiversity and carbon sequestration and are not as damaging to the environment as more intensive farming practices.

We have to think about what we want. We want to support the farmers; we want to support a type of food production that is healthy; and we want to support affordable, high-quality food. We heard our former butcher talk about the standard of Irish lamb. That is something with which I, as the daughter of a sheep farmer, concur.

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

Ms Sheerin: I will, thank you.

Mr Muir: I entirely agree on the quality of locally produced lamb: it is great. Does the Member also acknowledge that one of the consequences of EU exit was the trade policies pursued by the previous UK Government to incentivise the import of lamb from outside the UK and Ireland?

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for his intervention. He is 100% right. That is another pressure point for our local sheep farmers, who now face imports of New Zealand lamb, which, I would argue, is of a lesser standard than locally produced lamb. As well as that, we rely on our export market. The ramifications of Brexit are that we will be in bother with veterinary agreements and other challenges that are coming our way due to the standards that the UK will pursue. That is another challenge that our local farmers have to consider.

We also see the imposition of bluetongue and the risk that that poses for sheep farmers in the hills. Lung disease is much less talked about but causes massive fear for local farmers as it can wipe out a flock in one go and at an alarming rate. Those are all problems that our local sheep producers have to face, and there is an onus on us all to protect local sheep farming and support the people who make our rural economy tick.

Mr Irwin: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of sheep farmers wherever they farm in Northern Ireland, be that in upland or lowland areas. As our amendment highlights, we want to ensure that efforts to improve the outlook for sheep farming assist all sheep farmers, regardless of their location. Sheep farming is a vital sector in Northern Ireland's wider agri-food economy and deserves to be focused on and assisted with the same interest, intent and effort as other sectors.

Our amendment refers to the report of the Northern Ireland sheep industry task force. That is a useful document that accurately refers to and reflects the issues faced by sheep farming in Northern Ireland, as, like all sectors, it strives for profitability while battling issues such as pricing, disease, weather and the new threat posed by the Labour Government's changes to inheritance tax law. There are certainly challenges ahead for sheep farming and, indeed, all sectors, given what the inheritance tax changes will mean for farming. I use this platform to urge again a reversal of the rule change. Efforts by all parties to reverse that scandalous policy must continue at pace. The challenges that come with sheep farming, coupled with an ageing workforce, mean that succession is extremely important. That is why it is all the more vital that new entrants are not deterred from carrying on the family business. Inheritance tax changes are a worrying factor in these circumstances.

It is important that there is recognition in the future agricultural policy of the value of the sheep industry in Northern Ireland not only in monetary terms but in environmental terms, given the fact that sheep grazing in upland areas provides a vital service in maintaining landscapes. With a 17% reduction in basic payments forecast, it is easy to understand why the sector has real concerns about its future viability. With the value of the industry rated at £103 million last year, it is an important cog in the wheel of Northern Ireland agriculture.

Sheep farming is challenging, and, as I have stated, farmers seek profitability while responding to a whole host of variables. It is not an easy industry in which to work, and I salute sheep farmers, given the real and varying challenges that they face.

The task force report clearly took some time and effort to produce, and its authors have taken on board a lot of feedback and research from key participants in the sector. It is therefore all the more important that the Minister take forward and focus on the report's recommendations, such as those on improving sheep genetics to, in turn, improve quality. I understand that the Minister has met the task force to discuss the report. I encourage him to treat the issue with urgency and determination so that sheep farming is not only sustained but improved through the various measures ably illustrated in the report.

Mrs Mason: I will highlight the urgent need to support sheep farmers, not only in areas such as the Mournes and Slieve Croob in South Down but right across the North and, indeed, across Ireland. Sheep farming is a vital industry that sustains livelihoods, maintains our rural communities and preserves the unique landscapes that we share, yet the sector faces growing challenges that demand action from all of us.

On this island, farming has always been at the heart of our economy and culture. In the North alone, there are two million sheep, contributing to an agri-food sector that is worth approximately £5 billion. In the South of Ireland, sheep farming is similarly significant, with farmers benefiting from a dedicated sheep scheme that provides targeted support. That scheme has created a competitive imbalance that has left the North's farmers at a disadvantage in what is an already difficult economic climate.

Brexit has clearly compounded the challenges. The loss of EU agriculture funding has left a gap that policies here have struggled to fill. Farmers in the South continue to benefit from CAP funding and from schemes that support diversification and innovation while, in the North, our sheep farmers face the stark reality of reduced payments and limited targeted support. That imbalance must be addressed urgently.

Data from DAERA shows that the total income from farming in the North fell by 44% in 2023. That reflects the significant challenges for the sector amid rising costs and economic pressures. From 2025, our sheep farmers face losing 17% of their basic payment unless they adapt their practices to include protein crops or to integrate cattle. For many farmers in upland areas such as the Mourne Mountains and Slieve Croob, that is not a viable option, owing to the unsuitability of their land. Those farmers are effectively being punished for circumstances that are beyond their control. It is both unfair and unsustainable.

Sheep farming in the Mournes also plays a critical role in maintaining our shared environment. Grazing sheep help manage upland vegetation. They support biodiversity and sustain the landscape that is the cornerstone of much of our tourism industry. Far from being at odds with environmental protection, sustainable sheep farming can complement our climate goals and contribute to a balanced ecosystem.

Beyond its economic and environmental contributions, however, sheep farming is a social lifeline. Livestock marts in Hilltown and Saintfield, for example, are not just places of trade but hubs where farmers gather, connect and support one another. For many in isolated rural areas, those interactions are crucial for mental health and well-being. We must work together to ensure that farmers on both sides of the border have the tools that they need in order to thrive. The Minister must act to establish a sheep scheme that provides direct support for farmers and levels the playing field with the South.

Sheep farming is so much more than just an economic activity. It is a way of life that sustains our communities, landscapes and heritage. We must ensure a future in which sheep farming continues to thrive and to contribute to the economy, environment and identity of the entire island of Ireland.

Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the motion and the amendment. The importance of the sheep sector cannot be overstated. It is a cornerstone of our rural community and rural economy, particularly in less-favoured areas, where alternative agricultural activities are limited. Sheep farming has played and will continue to play a significant role in our agri-food sector, what with there being over two million sheep across Northern Ireland. Its contribution is immense, with over £95 million in agri output. It also has an important role to play in the context of the Climate Change Act, with environmental benefits, such as managed grazing, which enhances biodiversity, soil health and carbon sequestration, as has been mentioned.

I recently had the opportunity to call into a packed Dungannon Rugby Football Club as supporters of the Northern Ireland sheep sector met to discuss the potential challenges to the health status of and support packages for the Northern Ireland sheep sector. The event was attended by representatives from the pedigree and commercial sectors, veterinary surgeons from various practices and individuals from other sheep-related industries. It was clear that the message from that meeting was unanimous: it fully supported the National Sheep Association's call for current levels of funding associated with the sheep sector to be, at a minimum, maintained, or developed further. The sector is already facing severe financial challenges, as the mover of the motion referenced, such as 17% funding from farm payments being directed to beef or suckler production systems, and ongoing health concerns, especially with funding for the surveillance programme of maedi-visna (MV) due to be ceased by DAERA.

It is important that the Minister and the Department take forward the work of the Northern Ireland sheep industry task force and set out a forward work plan to implement a strategic overview of the sector. The key themes should be resilience, productivity and sustainability, but capital investment is required to promote productivity and skills development for best practice land management. DAERA is in a prime position to ensure that the Northern Ireland sheep sector plays a positive role in achieving the targets identified in the Climate Change Act. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on how that can be achieved.

It is an area of much uncertainty, and action from DAERA and the Minister is much needed. I want to work with farmers and stakeholders to ensure that a sheep support package is delivered and that the sector continues to generate high-quality produce.

Mr Gaston: I support the amendment in the names of Miss McIlveen, Mr Irwin and Mr Buchanan, and I thank them for tabling it.

Although sheep farming is a significant part of our agriculture industry, it is very much the poor relation, as the incomes of sheep farmers are among the lowest in the sector. That underscores the need for a sheep support scheme. We already have a beef support scheme, the beef carbon reduction scheme and a separate cow scheme. Those contribute to environmental enhancements to the direct payment. There is, however, no scheme for sheep farmers. That is a failure on the part of the Department. It has had a task force recommendation since early last year. What has it done on the matter? Perhaps the Minister, in his response, will tell us.

In the Republic, a sheep support scheme pays up to €20 a head. That is not available in Northern Ireland. However, courtesy of the Windsor framework and the protocol, we have a situation in which Northern Ireland farmers are subject to the same rules and regulations but none of the benefits. Members should not forget that, when it comes to agri-food, most debates that happen in this place will amount to nothing more than hot air. Why? It is because the laws concerning farming in Northern Ireland are not made in this place; they are made in a foreign Parliament to which we elect no one. We have a situation in which, in more than 300 areas of law, the laws are foreign-imposed, colony-like, on Northern Ireland. The laws concerning the whole agri-food industry are made not here but in Brussels. We have a looming crisis because we are subject to the European veterinary regime. From 2025, veterinary medicines produced in Great Britain will not be permitted to enter Northern Ireland. Up to 50% of our medicines will be excluded from Northern Ireland. Movements of livestock from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are subject to every EU law. That results in quarantine periods of six months for those wanting to bring in livestock and 30 days for the host farm from which it comes. That is particularly an issue when it comes to sheep farming, which requires farmers to constantly improve the genetic line. They need to bring in new rams, but bringing in one from Scotland or Wales, which are our traditional sources, is now nearly impossible because of those quarantine rules.

MLAs from all parties should recognise that, when their constituents come to them about farming issues, they should be honest with them and tell them that, in many instances, we cannot make the changes that are necessary here because those powers have been surrendered to Brussels, where none of us has any say. That is a constitutional obscenity. It also has profound practical ramifications that need to be faced up to when we discuss matters like those that are in the motion.

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

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will address some of the issues that were raised in the debate towards the end of my speech, if people are happy with that, particularly on MV. I thank Members for bringing the issue to the Assembly for discussion. At the outset, I would like to make one confession, which is that my favourite farmed animals are sheep. I am very fond of them, so I am very happy to speak on the issue. That is not to say that I do not love other farmed animals; I love all farmed animals equally, but I have particular fondness for sheep. On taking up ministerial office, one of the first farms that I visited was Clement Lynch's farm up near Park in County Derry/Londonderry. He gave me a real first-hand understanding of the issues that are associated with sheep farming in Northern Ireland. I really appreciated the warm welcome that he gave me and my officials.

I would like to provide an overview of the sheep industry in Northern Ireland and outline what I do to recognise the valuable role of sheep in the agri-food industry. In June 2023, the Northern Ireland agricultural census indicated that there were approximately two million sheep on almost 10,00 farm businesses across Northern Ireland. Many of those farm businesses have mixed enterprises, with sheep forming an integral part of the business. I have seen many examples of that. Typically, flock sizes in Northern Ireland tend to be small, with 67% of farm businesses having flocks of fewer than 100 ewes, representing just 10% of the total sheep population. Conversely, less than 2% of farm businesses, which is around 180 farms, have flocks of more than 500 ewes. Those farms account for 41% of the total sheep flock. I have seen one example of that in County Antrim. I am very conscious that there is real diversity in the industry. I was at Campbell Tweed's farm, and I really appreciated the welcome that Campbell also gave me.

The sheep industry accounted for 3·8% of the total gross output of Northern Ireland agriculture in 2023. While relatively small in comparison with other sectors, such as dairy or beef, sheep farming contributes to the livelihood of 37% of Northern Ireland farm businesses. It also contributes to the wider rural economy through the demand for specialist contractors and auxiliary services. That has already been discussed in the debate.

I am aware that sheep prices have improved in recent months, although production costs are high and overall sheep production remains less profitable than other enterprises on a gross margin basis. Less-favoured areas (LFAs) account for a large proportion of our agricultural area in Northern Ireland and are home to the majority of breeding sheep and suckler cows, as well as many of our most valuable habitats and visually appealing landscapes. In 2023, 79% of sheep and 75% of suckler cows were farmed in LFAs. Sheep in LFAs play an important role in the protection of the environment. They help with the control of scrub encroachment and managing heather growth, delivering benefits for the environment. I have seen that on many farms across Northern Ireland.

I am, however, also aware of the challenges that impact on the sheep sector. As I mentioned, the majority of sheep flocks in Northern Ireland are small. The sector is reliant on export markets — that was touched on in the debate — with 52% of sheep and lamb that is produced in Northern Ireland being exported for slaughter or breeding in 2023. In recent years, the market value of sheep wool has also been low. There is limited use of performance recording, which is a key driver in genetic improvement, compared with other regions in the UK. Furthermore, from a health and welfare perspective, in some flocks, there may be limited disease investigation and screening. Disease control in those flocks tends to rely on blanket flock treatment rather than on targeted interventions.

Like all farmers, sheep farmers work in difficult conditions and must adapt to and deal with changing weather patterns and fluctuating input costs and product prices. The obligations of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 must be met, and the House is aware that we have many environmental challenges. I know those all too well. The greenhouse gas emission data for 2022, as published by the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, indicate that sheep directly account for 327 kilotons of carbon dioxide equivalents or 7·2% of livestock-sourced emissions. Of the total sheep emissions, 97% is attributable to methane that is produced during the digestion process. Sheep also account for a proportion of greenhouse gas emissions that are generated by fuel use in agricultural vehicles and emissions from nitrogen fertilisers and lime that is applied to agricultural land.

On the impact of sheep farming on severely disadvantaged areas (SDAs), I acknowledge that the carbon footprint of ewes in SDAs is 8% lower than those on lowland farms, as demonstrated by analysis of the Northern Ireland data in the greenhouse gas emission inventory. That lower footprint is mainly due to the smaller size of ewes farmed in SDAs. However, it should be noted that ewes in SDAs also rear 0·5 fewer lambs per ewe and have higher replacement rates than ewes kept in disadvantaged areas (DAs) or on lowland farms. That results in higher greenhouse gas emissions for lambs in SDAs compared with those in DAs or on lowland farms. It is interesting to note that, according to a recently published Institute of Grocery Distribution report, sheep meat has the highest carbon intensity per unit of protein, some 4% higher than suckler beef, 55% higher than dairy beef and 75% to 80% higher than pig and chicken meat. We need to ensure that the work we carry out to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reach net zero is fair and that it supports people on that journey.

I recognise that great work has already been done in the agriculture sector, including the sheep sector, and that has to be built upon. That is why we need to provide incentives and support. My Department's new transformational farm support and development programme is being co-designed with the Northern Ireland agriculture industry and other key food and environment stakeholders. The overall aim is a transition to a more sustainable farming sector by seeking to implement policies and strategies that benefit our climate and environment while supporting our economically and socially significant agriculture sector. Through striving to achieve its four outcomes of increased productivity, better environmental sustainability, improved long-term resilience and effective and functioning supply chains, the programme will have a transformational role in the delivery of my key priorities. The programme will be introduced in a phased manner over the coming months and years, with a firm focus on a genuine just transition.

Members raised the lack of support for sheep farming under the future agriculture policy. Whilst I recognise that, at this point, there is no dedicated scheme for sheep farming, the programme will provide options for all farm businesses in Northern Ireland, including sheep-only businesses, to maximise the sustainable returns that they can achieve from the assets at their disposal by providing opportunities to secure and improve the viability and sustainability of individual businesses. Members have also highlighted the 17% reduction in the basic payment for sheep farmers. I am conscious that we must keep to our obligations under the Windsor framework, in that 83% of our gross domestic support in the agri-sector must be WTO green box-compliant. The 17% redirection that is referred to is, therefore, the ceiling limit that can be used in compliance with the WTO green-box requirements to redirect funding to, for example, the beef carbon reduction scheme, the protein crop scheme and the planned suckler cow scheme.

Of the almost 10,000 farms that keep sheep, 62% have cattle, and the majority of those farm businesses will be able to avail themselves of the new beef schemes. Based on 2023 figures, there are around 2,800 farms with approximately 220,000 breeding ewes, representing 11% of the total sheep population, which will be unable to avail themselves of support under the beef schemes. Of those 2,800 sheep businesses, over two thirds are classified as part-time businesses, supplemented with some form of off-farm employment, and approximately 80% are located in less-favoured areas. The sheep-only farm businesses will be able to avail themselves of other schemes in the farm support and development programme in addition to the new farm sustainability payment. Those schemes are the farming with nature package, the carbon footprinting, knowledge transfer, capital investment measures and so on.

I recognise that the industry needs to advance genetic improvement in the sheep sector. However, the best approach to deliver that still has to be agreed. I have been asked to outline my plans to support and safeguard the future viability of sheep farming today, and I am happy to do that. I am always keen to learn from others about interventions that can support farmers, and DAERA engages regularly at both ministerial and official level with our counterparts in other UK Administrations and in the South to discuss agricultural policy and to share best practice.

I am aware of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in the South's sheep improvement scheme and national sheep welfare scheme. They currently provide financial support of up to €200 — sorry, not €200, but, with the way the general election is going down South, it could be. Those schemes provide financial support of up to €20 per breeding ewe to farmers to improve the quality and welfare of their flock. That is funded under Ireland's common agricultural policy strategic plan. I note Mr Gaston's praise of the situation in the South. [Laughter.]

Given the different fiscal landscapes in which the two Departments operate, it is not possible to draw comparisons or for me to provide similar levels of support, because the South has different fiscal arrangements and is part of the EU, and that is where the benefits arise.

The sheep industry task force has provided a comprehensive report to identify the needs of the sheep sector in Northern Ireland and proposed a package to encourage its development. That will help inform future policy decisions for the sheep sector. My officials met the task force in September to discuss its report and agreed to work in partnership with the task force to explore opportunities for future sheep support. As part of that process, it is planned that sheep-focused co-design will take place via the established agricultural policy stakeholder group forum, subject to resource and competing priorities. I also met the task force and representatives of the National Sheep Association to hear first-hand their concerns and ambitions. I welcome that as the start of constructive engagement on the issue.

As I have outlined, under WTO requirements, there is limited additional scope for the introduction of a payment per animal or ewe. In addition, how a future scheme can be delivered and controlled needs to be carefully considered. It is too early in the policy development process to indicate what might be included in any sheep scheme moving forward, but I have asked officials to explore opportunities for a sheep scheme on a per-farm basis rather than a per-animal or per-ewe basis. We are trying our best to look forward to see what we can provide.

I must make it clear that any decision to introduce new policies or programmes for the sheep sector will be made in the context of budget availability. The existing funding for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development continues to be earmarked by Treasury until 31 March next year. It is important to provide certainty on that funding after that in light of the change announced by the Chancellor on 30 October this year. Therefore, I have formally asked the Minister of Finance for resource DEL to be baselined, treated as Executive earmarked funding for these purposes and uplifted in line with inflation as part of the Budget for next year. I assure Members that I will do all I can to support the farming industry in Northern Ireland with the resources that I have.

There are two other issues that I want to talk about, one of which is wool. That was discussed a wee bit in the Chamber. There is an issue with how much more we value wool and how much we can use it as a resource, and I have been engaging with Ulster Wool on that. I have also written to the Economy Minister about how we can collaborate on the issue. I am very conscious of the issue, and I think that it is a real shame that wool is not valued as much in our society and in our economy. I want to look more at that issue.

I have also engaged quite a lot with my colleagues in the South on their sheep support scheme. They have a different fiscal environment around this, but I and my officials are working to see what we can do in Northern Ireland in the context of the resource challenges that we have, because we have to roll out our future farm support development programme and be conscious of making sure that we have a business case that can stack up.

The other issue is MV, which came up during Question Time and during this debate. I gave an assurance during Question Time that any decisions around that will come to the Committee first for engagement. Hopefully, people will understand the authenticity in my desire to engage with the Committee on that. MV, as people know, is a notifiable disease under our domestic legislation. It is not a notifiable disease under European or WTO animal health rules. The disease is widespread among sheep in other countries and jurisdictions, including in GB. Neither GB nor the Republic of Ireland is considered to be MV-free. Northern Ireland has, however, been considered by the Department to be MV-free. For my Department to maintain its current MV-free status, officials test any sheep and goats moved into Northern Ireland for the presence of the disease. In addition, post-import MV testing from the Republic of Ireland commenced in July 2022. Furthermore, DAERA tests a limited proportion of the national flock for MV as part of the annual sheep and goat surveillance survey. Our approach to MV surveillance in Northern Ireland is under review, and my officials are engaging with industry stakeholders. No decision has been made by me, and, as I said, again, we will engage with the Committee if any decisions are taken on this.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Tom Buchanan to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Tom, you have up to five minutes.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As many across the Chamber have said today, the sheep sector in Northern Ireland plays a significant role in the regional economy, with output surpassing £100 million in 2023 and the sector making up 38% of our farm businesses. We must, therefore, be committed to protecting those livelihoods, realising the potential to make sheep farms in all areas and land types efficient, resilient and profitable. Sheep farming, like most other agriculture sectors, is faced with the challenge of an ageing workforce, and, again, that has been mentioned by a number of Members today. For it to be resilient, the sector must not only be profitable enough to make sheep farming an attractive career option but have a pathway for new entrants and farm succession. Delivering such a pathway will be down to fair taxation and investment in food security and a strategic national assessment.

Agriculture support measures should not be in the business of taking money off farmers whose incomes are already going down in order to supplement other farm businesses. Farmers in ANCs got significant uplifts in funding through the way in which the single farm payment is now distributed, and, rather than regressive further area-based payments, we need programmes focused on efficiency and resilience in order to support productive, profitable and sustainable farms. Any new sheep scheme or restoration of ANC payments in the absence of an additional funding injection for the overall farm support budget would inevitably lead to money being taken off other sectors that are already struggling, and that would be of greater disadvantage to the entire agriculture industry. We need to bear that in mind when we are looking at the issue.

I will deal with some of the issues that Members have raised. The proposer of the motion talked about sheep farming being about more than farming and it being about food security and sustainability. I think that we all agree with that. He talked about the flock performance and the importance of that for future development of the sheep industry, and he talked about the Ulster Farmers’ Union's sheep scheme. He also said that sheep farming complements our rural farmland but must be adequately supported. That message has come right around the Chamber today. He said that the Minister has a key role to play in all of this, and I think that we will all agree that the Minister has a key role. We hope that the Minister will take it forward positively.

My colleague Michelle McIlveen, in proposing the amendment, spoke of the important role that sheep farmers play in the Northern Ireland economy. She talked about the 38% of farms and about the sheep industry's value of £106 million, contributing to over 9,800 businesses. By 2025, sheep farms, she said, would lose 17% of the basic payment scheme, and she said that there was no inclusion of sheep-specific support in DAERA's future agricultural policy. She urged the Minister to maintain regular engagement with the task force, which has five key asks of the Minister. Of course, she spoke about the importance of a genetic improvement scheme that would increase the value of the lambs produced and about how sheep farms need to be profitable and attractive to younger people for them to come into the sector.

John Blair spoke about the carbon footprint of sheep farming in the uplands being 8% lower than that of the lowlands, and he mentioned the task force report. We encourage the Minister to keep in regular contact and engage with the task force on the importance of the sheep industry.

Robbie Butler spoke about the important role of the sheep industry in the economy, the economic benefits of sheep farming in the uplands and the many sheep farmers who are grappling with financial pressures. He also called on the Minister to outline robust plans for the protection of the industry.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Tom, bring your remarks to a close, please.

Mr T Buchanan: The Minister said in his opening remarks that sheep are his favourite animal. Sheep are prone to going astray, so I hope that you do not go astray, sir, and will stay focused on the issue.

Ms Á Murphy: I thank everyone who contributed to the debate on what is a critical issue for our rural communities and the wider agri-food industry: the future of sheep farming in the North. That sector is not just an economic cornerstone for our rural communities but a lifeline for farmers in less-favoured areas. It sustains livelihoods, preserves traditions and manages our landscapes. Sheep farming faces immense challenges. Under the future agricultural policy, farmers will be confronted by a 17% reduction in their basic payment scheme with no alternative scheme to offset the losses. Those cuts come as input costs soar, markets remain volatile and economic pressures mount. Many sheep farmers, particularly those on severely disadvantaged land, cannot benefit from existing schemes like the beef carbon reduction scheme or the suckler cow scheme, which leaves them vulnerable.

The environmental contributions of upland sheep farmers must be acknowledged. As we have heard, ewes in upland areas have an 8% lower carbon footprint than those on lowland farms, demonstrating the sector's potential to be environmentally efficient. Farmers are ready to adopt efficient and sustainable practices, but they need targeted support to do so.

In the South of Ireland, the sheep improvement scheme and the sheep welfare scheme provide vital support to sheep farmers, focusing on animal health, welfare and sustainability. Those schemes incentivise best practice and offer financial assistance for measures such as parasite control, flock management and nutritional improvements. Building on that model, the sheep sector in the North could benefit from similar schemes that incentivise farmers to provide performance data. That data could play a crucial role in shaping future support measures by identifying productivity trends as well as sustainability gaps. Furthermore, engaging farmers in a ruminant genetics programme would enhance flock performance, resilience and environmental efficiency, ensuring the sector's long-term viability whilst aligning with broader agriculture and climate goals.

Economic data further underscores the urgency, as some Members touched on in their contributions. From 2022 to 2023, total income from farming in the North fell by 44%. Sheep farming alone contributed £109 million to the economy and involved nearly 40% of farm businesses. Without dedicated support, many sheep farmers could collapse, which would have devastating economic, environmental and community consequences.

The Member opposite summarised in his winding-up speech a lot of the points made by Members.

I call on the Minister to act urgently, listen to the concerns of the sheep industry task force and introduce targeted support in future agricultural policy. Let us ensure that sheep farming remains viable, balancing sustainability with economic stability, for the good of our farmers and rural communities.

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

Mr Donnelly: I beg to move

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

Mr Donnelly: I rise to propose the motion, which calls for the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities into Northern Ireland law as an important step towards a more equitable legislative framework for people with disabilities.

I am aware of the huge amount of work that has been done over many years by disability rights activists and deaf and disabled people's organisations (DDPOs) in Northern Ireland. The principle of "Nothing about us without us" was at the heart of the UNCRPD when it was forged in 2006 by deaf and disabled people from around the world. I have had the privilege of meeting and discussing disability rights with many of those passionate and driven activists and groups. The UNCRPD is regularly raised as the gold standard of disability-based rights, and its incorporation would have a profoundly positive impact on deaf and disabled people in Northern Ireland. Local disability activist Joanne Sansome stated:

In the 2021 census, 463,000 people in Northern Ireland stated that they had a long-term health problem or a disability that limited their day-to-day activities. That is 24·3% of the population of Northern Ireland, and it represents a 25% increase from the 2011 census. To date, the Assembly and the Executive have failed to legislate adequately to improve the lives of people with disabilities, while previous Assemblies did not address the growing gap in equality legislation between Northern Ireland and the rest of these islands.

Equality legislation in Northern Ireland is covered by several pieces of legislation, most of which precede the creation of the Assembly. They cover equal pay, sex discrimination, race relations and fair employment, but the most significant of them is the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA). The Northern Ireland Act 1998 introduced a wider range of protections for specified groups under section 75, which was rightly recognised at the time for its innovative approach to equality policy. We also have the continuation of EU non-discrimination law as a consequence of the Windsor framework, article 2 of which commits that equality laws must not be diminished as a result of the UK's leaving the EU. We have the European Convention on Human Rights, which, despite what some Conservative MPs in Westminster have said, is a fundamental part of our peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. All of those attempts to legislate for disability rights have come from elsewhere, mainly Westminster, Brussels or Strasbourg. The Assembly has failed to maintain parity with the rest of the UK on equality legislation. In Great Britain, the Equality Act 2010 —.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Donnelly: Certainly.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Danny, for outlining the key elements of the motion. You referred to the range of legislation that applies in Northern Ireland. Do you agree that the best way in which to move forward, in addition to adopting what is included in your motion today, is to have a single equalities Bill for the whole of Northern Ireland?

Mr Donnelly: Thank you for that. I absolutely agree with the Member. That it what we are directing the Assembly towards.

In Great Britain, the Equality Act 2010 consolidated the previously mentioned Acts in a single framework. That is important, as it allows individuals in GB to bring cases of dual discrimination, whereas cases here can be brought only on individual protected characteristics. The 2010 Act also provides a greater range of protections for individuals, whereas the 1995 Act, which continues to apply in Northern Ireland, is more closely linked to employment rights and reasonable adjustments and is narrower in scope than the 2010 Act. While the new Labour Government have committed to strengthening equality legislation and enacting certain parts of the 2010 Act, including the duty to reduce socio-economic disadvantage, there was no reference to the UNCRPD in Labour's manifesto. That was disappointing.

We cannot ask Westminster to consolidate our equality legislation. We in the Assembly should take responsibility for doing that. One way of achieving that would be to incorporate the UNCRPD into domestic law, which Mr Dickson referred to. The UNCRPD is an international agreement that was introduced by the UN in 2006, signed in 2007 and ratified by the UK in 2009. Countries that have signed the convention are required to promote, protect and ensure that people with disabilities enjoy full equality in all aspects of life and full enjoyment of human rights. It is intended to shift the conversation on disability rights to viewing people with disabilities as full and equal members of society. It notably includes a social model of disability that does not seek to define specifically what a disability is, which is appropriate, given that there is a wide range of disabilities, not all of which are physical or visible. The UNCRPD also includes a wide range of civil and political rights, such as the right to independent living, equality before the law and access to justice, and economic and social rights, such as the right to education, the right to health and the right to work and employment on an equal basis with others.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) conducts reviews of signatory countries and assesses the extent to which they are following their obligations under the UNCRPD. The most recent review of the UK, which was published in March this year, found that it had failed to make any significant progress on delivering its recommendations. Those were outlined in a previous review in 2017. The review specifically found that Northern Ireland faces huge pressures from the loss of EU funds and the austerity policies pursued by the then Conservative Government. It highlighted how disabled people here are 50% more likely to live in poverty, yet the existing disability benefits often fail to cover the costs of the consequences of disability.

In some cases, that can lead to disabled people being targets for financial exploitation and illegal lending, as happened during the recent economic crisis. That reiterates the urgent need for legislative action to protect people with disabilities in Northern Ireland.

Dermot Devlin from My Way Access told me:

With the Executive now restored, bringing forward, in conjunction with DDPOs, a disability strategy that addresses the UNCRPD recommendations must be an absolute priority. Without the Equality Act 2010, disabled people in Northern Ireland have no legal protections. As Dermot highlighted, the inquiry report highlights the point that political instability, especially the absence of decision-making when the Assembly was not functioning for five out of the past eight years, has a disproportionate impact on people with disabilities. That is a strong reminder that institutional reform is needed to prevent the Assembly from collapsing ever again because of one party's withdrawal.

In 2022, the Equality Commission and Disability Action published a report titled 'Progress Towards the Implementation of the UNCRPD in Northern Ireland'. The authors were Nuala Toman, Tony O'Reilly, Michael McConway, Andrew Hamilton and Emma O'Neill. The report is remarkably detailed and provides strong examples of how Northern Ireland policy and legislation are out of touch with the UNCRPD and each of its substantive articles. I do not have time to discuss every section, but I will highlight a few examples and encourage all Members to read the report.

Concerns raised by people with disabilities in response to the report included the regression of rights, including the continued impact of welfare reform; reductions in social care funding; the closure of the independent living fund to new applicants; the continued lack of accessible transport and public services; the impact of Brexit; the impact of COVID-19, including the collapse of services, inappropriate use of do not resuscitate notices and withdrawal of medical treatment; the reduction of public finance budgets and impact of austerity on public service delivery; and the under-resourcing of disabled people's organisations. Some of those could and should be addressed without direct reference to the UNCRPD. However, as we have seen in the rest of the UK, it is more appropriate to address the inequalities faced by people with disabilities in a single equality Bill. A Bill seeking to incorporate the UNCRPD into our domestic law would be a positive step in that respect.

I welcome the progress that we have seen to date on the development of a disability strategy, and I look forward to the hearing the comments of the Minister for Communities. I am hopeful that the strategy and its next steps are a key priority for him and the Department. In particular, I hope that, as part of that work, consideration is given to the benefits of incorporating the UNCRPD into legislation here in Northern Ireland. Just recently, we saw the Scottish Parliament take the lead on another important human rights treaty, the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and incorporate it into its domestic law. It is possible for devolved legislatures to seek to legally incorporate treaties to which the UK is party.

Christine McClements, who has been campaigning for years for the provision of changing places and bathrooms in public spaces across Northern Ireland, stated:

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

Mr Donnelly: Sorry?

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

Mr Donnelly: I am sorry, Deputy Speaker. I did not see the clock.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I apologise to the Member that there is no clock on this occasion. It has not been set, but we have been timing you here.

Mr Donnelly: OK.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Brian Kingston to move amendment No 1.

Mr Kingston: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate, Mr Kingston.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DUP is committed to ensuring that people with disabilities can live full and active lives. We have continually advocated for better access to services that can help to ensure that people with disabilities can play a stronger role in their local communities and in the workplace. We are committed to ensuring that those living with a disability in our society are not disadvantaged in accessing public services and can lead independent and fulfilling lives.

Northern Ireland has the highest level of disability in the United Kingdom, with one in five people affected. Achieving a fair society requires a sustained and tailored response that meets the specific needs of people with disabilities, irrespective of whether the disability is physical, learning, sensory, hidden or mental health-related. It is clear that a cross-cutting approach is needed from all Ministers. It is imperative that the needs of people with disabilities inform how the Government make policy and plan for the future. The Democratic Unionist Party wants disabled people to have more involvement in that process and at an earlier stage. Our party will continue to champion the development of a disability strategy.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was ratified and came into force in the UK in 2009. The Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, has advised that he is considering the next stages in the development of an Executive disability strategy and the opportunity that that would provide to incorporate UNCRPD. The Alliance Party motion calls for that to happen. Article 10 of the convention states:

My party, the Democratic Unionist Party, has always defended the most basic human right: the right to life. It is deeply upsetting that the current abortion laws in Northern Ireland send a message that people with a disability are less valuable than those without a disability. Northern Ireland is not a safe place for those who have been diagnosed with a disability before birth.

In its 2017 report, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities raised concerns about:

That committee recommended that selective abortion on the grounds of fetal deficiency should not be legalised. Our amendment takes nothing away from the original wording of the motion but adds that recognition of the inherent right to life of every human being and:

We note with concern the position that the Alliance Party took in 2021 when it opposed a Bill that would have ended disability discrimination in abortion on the basis of fetal impairment. Sinn Féin, on the other hand, yo-yoed on the issue, first saying that such grounds for abortion were inappropriate but then moving to oppose the Bill at a later stage. Therefore, the other parties need to clarify their position on disability protections. For our part, the DUP wants to see a society in which all people with a disability are treated with value, respect and dignity. No one with a disability should feel as though they are not valued by society or by our Government. Society must not stigmatise people with disabilities or treat them with any less value.

I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. I call Matthew O'Toole to move amendment No 2.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you. Can I check this, Mr Deputy Speaker: do I have five minutes?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Move the amendment first.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. The Assembly should note that the amendments are not mutually exclusive, so the Question will be put on both amendments. Mr O'Toole, you will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to debate the motion. However, as with all the other motions that we are debating and that we have debated since we returned in February, I would rather be debating substantive legislation. Indeed, I would rather be debating legislation that, as Danny Donnelly said, incorporates the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into our law. I would rather be debating practical updates to our statutory framework that at least start to bring us up to speed with other parts of these islands. Nevertheless, I agree with the substance of the motion, and I welcome the fact that the Alliance Party has brought it to the Assembly to debate.

I will go on to discuss the specific substance of our amendment. It is clear that we have failed people with disabilities in Northern Ireland by not keeping up to date with equality legislation, and it is clear that we have not done right by them by ensuring that our statute book, statutory agencies and all others who are obliged to follow the law on equality provisions and protections have to meet the same standards as those in other jurisdictions. That is, I am afraid, shaming. It connects to our broad and consistent inability to keep up with equality rights provisions in this place, to deliver on a bill of rights, for example, and, frankly, to put the rights of people — be that people with disabilities or people with other protected characteristics — at the forefront of a rights-based agenda in this jurisdiction. We welcome the motion. I hope that in what is left of the mandate, which hopefully survives and does not collapse, we will see practical legislative action from the Executive through the incorporation of the UN convention into legislation here.

Our amendment is designed to add to the original motion by drawing attention to the context around hate crime. For the past number of years, we have seen an increased and elevated level of hate crime against persons with disabilities. We are aware of and have talked regularly in recent months about the spike in race-related hate crime in Northern Ireland and the fact that the incidence of race-related hate crime is now greater than sectarian hate crime in Northern Ireland. Even though it is on a smaller scale, the impact of hate crime against persons with a disability is extraordinary, acute and very serious. It was looked at by Judge Marrinan when he did his review a number of years ago. Both 2022 and 2023 saw record numbers of hate crimes for this jurisdiction. Leonard Cheshire, a charity with which we will all be familiar, described the rate of disability-based hate crime in Northern Ireland as an epidemic. What do we do about it? We think that we need a stand-alone piece of hate crime legislation. We have been calling for that consistently. I note that the Justice Minister previously said that she and her party, as stated in its manifesto, were committed to a stand-alone hate crime Bill. That position has moved to having some provisions of some kind in a sentencing Bill. While it is clear that sentencing provisions are going to be a major part of hate crime legislation, by way of strengthening the guidance for the judiciary in what constitutes an aggravation in relation to hate crime, that is not the totality of hate crime legislation. A range of other things would be in a stand-alone hate crime Bill and, of course, the purpose of having a stand-alone Bill is to allow us to debate the full gamut — the context — of hate crime facing persons with disabilities and, indeed, other protected characteristics. We would be able to scrutinise in detail the statistics and the definitions of hate crime, which is often one of the most vexed and challenging questions that people have when it comes to hate crime, and we would be able to unpack and interrogate those questions and hear from stakeholders.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate the comments that he is making around the necessity for hate crime legislation in Northern Ireland, but, unfortunately, we have to live in the real world of the Assembly, which has failed to be in place for so many years — five out of the past eight, I believe, is the current count, and running. In dealing with this amendment, it is important that we note that the Justice Minister is strengthening the legislation when it comes to sentencing, and that it is clearly her intention, and this party's intention, to deliver on hate crime legislation going forward, but that will not happen in this mandate.

Mr O'Toole: That was a fulsome defence of his party colleague. I was not attacking his party colleague the Justice Minister. I think that she wants to take action in this area. I will say a couple of things. Number one: it is important that we are all held to account for what we have promised and what we deliver. That includes the Justice Minister. I am candid about that. Number two: it is also true to say that, while I agree with him that we have been shamefully collapsed for about half of the past decade — his party and my party will not disagree on that — it is also the case that we have been back now for getting on for 10 months. Most of the Order Paper today and, indeed, most of the Order Papers in most of the time since we have been back, have not been about legislation, so it is, I am afraid, hard to say that we do not have time to do legislation when we have acres of space in the Order Paper that is taken up by motions. Important though those issues are, they are not practical legislative action. That is an important point to make. However, I look forward to seeing the legislative programme delivered upon. For the legislative programme of 2024, we are far behind schedule already, so perhaps, in the next fortnight, we will see a whole surge of Bills being introduced in the Assembly. That would be great.

Let me get back to the central point about why a stand-alone hate crime Bill, which had a particular focus on dealing with what Leonard Cheshire calls:

is so important. It happens, as I said, in a context in which we have failed people with disabilities. We have failed to protect them, not just by their lights but in comparison with neighbouring jurisdictions. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what he intends to do about that and also where we are with the social inclusion strategies. I know that work has slowed down on all of those. In fact, it appears as though work has stopped entirely on some of those. Perhaps he could correct me where I am wrong on that.

It is also important to say that a disability strategy was commissioned by the Minister's predecessor, Deirdre Hargey, not long before we broke up for an election and then had a subsequent collapse. It would be helpful to understand where that strategy and study are, because, like so many of the strategies and reviews that go on in this place, it appears to have disappeared into the ether. In the broader context of services and provisions for disabled people, it would be helpful to understand where that is.

I will touch very briefly on the DUP amendment. I speak in a personal capacity, not on behalf of others. While it is important to acknowledge that people have sincere views on those issues, the substance of the motion is about the rights of disabled people. I totally acknowledge people's putting down amendments, but I am focused on the question about the rights of disabled people. It is important to say that, if we are serious about delivering on the rights of disabled people, we should be able to pass legislation. I look forward, given what the DUP put down in an amendment today, to hearing what the Communities Minister has in store in legislation to protect and enhance the rights of disabled people, because we have not had any of those promises delivered.

Our amendment is about adding to the motion by being clear that we need stand-alone hate crime legislation to protect and defend people in a whole range of protected categories but, in particular, today, to protect disabled people, who face an epidemic of hate crime. I commend our amendment.

Mr Gildernew: I thank Members for bringing this important motion to the Assembly. Next Tuesday, 3 December, we will celebrate the UN International Day of Persons with Disabilities. On that day, we recognise the valuable contribution that people with disabilities make to our society and support them in raising awareness of the challenges that they face every day. People with disabilities often experience extreme difficulties in accessing services, gaining employment and availing themselves of the opportunities that most of us here take for granted. People with disabilities also struggle to have their voices heard and to have their concerns addressed.

According to the 2021 census, almost a quarter of our population is living with some form of disability. Each of us will know people in our communities who live with disabilities, and many of us will, at some stage in our lives, experience some form of disability. In recent weeks, the Communities Committee received a briefing from Geraldine McGahey from the Equality Commission about future disability law reform. One of the statistics that we learned from that briefing was that 55% of all calls to the Equality Commission in 2023-24 were due to discrimination on the grounds of disability, which is, indeed, a damning statistic.

We also heard how our current laws on protecting those with a disability are outdated, limited and inconsistent. Those gaps do not provide the level of protection that exists in neighbouring jurisdictions, nor does the legislation keep pace with developing international standards.

The ongoing failure to simplify, harmonise and modernise a single equality approach is negatively impacting on individuals, employers and services, including by providing no protection against indirect discrimination. Deaf and disabled people are vulnerable to discrimination due to our ineffective and piecemeal disability equality legislation, as was outlined in the August 2024 RaISe paper, which provides a comparative study of equality legislation.

It is fundamentally unfair that different equality groups have different protections without any justifiable reason. Next week, I will join Disability Action and Belfast City Council at a conference that has been organised to celebrate and to consider ways to further improve access to employment and educational opportunities, alongside public and political life. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is the basis on which disabled persons' rights should be enshrined in our laws going forward. We must have laws that are based on the principles of inclusion, equality of opportunity and respect for difference.

The previous Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, began the work of creating a new disability strategy. A key component of that work was the input of the co-design group, which gave people with disabilities a direct role in producing that important strategy. The disability co-design group must continue to have a direct input to the disability strategy, and the Minister should re-engage with the group at the earliest opportunity.

Four years have passed since the work on the disability strategy commenced, and it has long since passed the time when the strategy should be published. In closing, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, agus a chairde

I say that the Minister needs to urgently publish the disability strategy with a time-bound implementation plan and take whatever legislative steps are required to ensure that our laws are fit for purpose when it comes to protecting the rights of all disabled people here.

Mr Butler: I support the motion and the amendments, and I welcome the chance to debate this really important motion, albeit that, in a way, our motions are toothless. I agree with the leader of the Opposition in that regard: we need to move at pace and see these things materialise.

As has been pointed out, 25% of our population lives with a disability or a long-term health condition. Behind that statistic, however, we are talking about individuals — children, parents, colleagues and neighbours — who daily face inequalities and barriers that many of us cannot fully comprehend. From physical inaccessibility to digital exclusion, from discrimination in the workplace to gaps in public service provision, the challenges that those people face are profound.

Any of you who have been following my colleague Andy Allen's Twitter feed will know that he is indestructible — he will face any wall and just keep going — but we see that, even on a regular trip across the water, the big airlines are not making their journeys accessible. That can be humiliating, and it is not acceptable. What I will say about our disabled community is that they have incredible resilience and their contribution to society is immeasurable. However, we need to do better and ensure that their rightful demand for equality and inclusion is absolutely met.

As chair of the all-party group on disability, I have had the privilege of working alongside some tireless advocates, one or two of whom have already been mentioned. I will read their names into Hansard, if that is OK. They are Joanne Sansome, young Andrew Hamilton, Seán Fitzsimons and Patrick Malone. I am sure that Members will have come across some of those guys. I know that there are more, but their dedication has been relentless, their advocacy persuasive and their impact invaluable. Together, we have made strides, but together we are reminded that we must go much further.

As has been mentioned, the Assembly was in stalemate for five years, and, during that time, meaningful progress on disability rights was frozen. Even when the institutions have been operational, successive Ministers have failed to tackle the deep-rooted inequalities that face people with disabilities. The Disability Discrimination Act, which was once seen as groundbreaking legislation, is glaringly outdated and antiquated. Beyond that, Northern Ireland continues to lag behind on equality legislation. For decades, campaigners have called for reform, but the action that is needed to align our laws with modern, inclusive standards have not been forthcoming. The CRPD provides a road map for addressing those failings. By incorporating its principles into local legislation, we would enshrine a framework for equality, dignity and opportunity for people with disabilities. It is not just about having rights on paper, however; it is about making sure that those rights are put into practice. They include the right to live independently and be included in the community; the right to access education, employment and healthcare without barriers; and the right to be protected from all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse. Let us be clear that this is not about charity; it is about justice.

I will address the amendment proposed by my colleagues in the DUP. There can be no debate about the fact that, at the heart of the CRPD, is the principle that every life, regardless of ability or circumstance, is valuable and worthy of protection. That includes the lives of our unborn children with disabilities, who are among the most vulnerable in our society. True equality means protecting and uplifting all individuals at every stage of life. It means creating a society in which every person with a disability is welcomed, supported and valued not just after birth but from the very beginning of existence. The CRPD is a framework for ensuring that that is the case, and it must guide us towards a culture that celebrates life and actively dismantles barriers that devalue the disabled community from the very start. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities needs to be much clearer and more explicit in its stance on protecting the rights of unborn children with disabilities, because the ambiguity surrounding that issue has led to debate, confusion and doubt about the convention's core principles.

Incorporating the UNCRPD into our laws would not be just a symbolic gesture; it would be the foundation of a fairer and more inclusive society for everyone and a commitment to listening, learning and acting decisively. We have an opportunity to right historical wrongs and to ensure that the rights of people with disabilities are no longer an afterthought but a priority. I say to all Ministers — not just the Communities Minister but all Ministers, including the First Minister and deputy First Minister — that the time for rhetoric and toothless motions is over and the time for action is now. Let us have no more delays; let us wake up and act.

Ms Sheerin: I support the motion and commend the proposer for bringing it to the House to have this valuable debate. Incorporating the UNCRPD is a practical step that we can take to support those across society who live with a disability. That came up a lot during the bill of rights process in the last mandate, during which we took presentations from a number of vulnerable groups across society. Other members of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights are in the Chamber. They will concur that we heard time and again that people with a disability have negative experiences because of their lack of access to rights; our punitive benefits system and how it punishes people who cannot complete the daily tasks that a lot of us take for granted; and the humiliating and demoralising process for applying for the personal independence payment (PIP) and, in the case of children, the disability living allowance (DLA). That is a benefits system that we inherited from 14 years of the Tories being in power and that we want to change.

Incorporating the UNCRPD means that we should legislate to consider the needs of people who live with a disability and encourage participation, ensuring that people have a seat at the table, looking at their needs and bringing equality. In doing so, we need to realise that actual equality means meeting people where they are and ensuring that they have the framework and ability to access whatever standard of living they would like to access. That is a right for us all, and it should be legislated for.

We need to encourage people across society to speak up. We need to be their voice and to advocate for them. As constituency MLAs, we could all think of examples of people who have approached us for help, whether that be families of children with additional needs who cannot access one-to-one support in their classroom and are therefore left out of getting the education that they need; families of those same SEN children as they approach adulthood and no longer have any support services; families struggling without the respite services that they need; or people in older age who, through an accident or a disability that they have had since birth, are unable to manage their daily living needs at home and cannot access the domiciliary care that they need. In my constituency, that is a particular problem that is exacerbated by the rurality of the area. You see families really struggle at the coalface. We need support for the unpaid carers who live with that daily and are left to do so without any financial or practical help, which puts real pressure on families. It puts a particular pressure on women, as the unpaid care role falls to the females in most families.

I commend the motion to the House. On the DUP amendment, which has been referred to, we do not agree with termination in cases of non-fatal fetal abnormality. However, the DUP amendment is clearly a deliberately divisive and cynical intervention in what should be a clear and unequivocal call on a DUP Minister to bring forward the necessary legislation to incorporate the UNCRPD into law. For that reason, we will not support the DUP amendment. Instead, I would like to see the House united in support of people living with disability.

Mrs Dodds: I am glad to support the amendment. I take issue with the Member who spoke previously: this is not a cynical intervention. If we are serious about protecting people with disabilities, we will be serious about protecting them from when they are preborn through to their final breath. A society will always be judged on how it protects its most vulnerable. I am glad that the DUP is a pro-life party and that we take a view on issues regarding life and the sanctity of life. We support the right to life from the womb right to the final breath. Therefore, the conversation in the Chamber today is important. Our amendment, in that context, is equally important, clearly outlining our view that all life, including that of those who have a disability, is important.

Our amendment focuses on the issue of

It vexes me greatly that Northern Ireland, once the safest place for the preborn, is now one of the most dangerous for the preborn in Europe. That vexes me greatly. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has stated that the abortion of children because of a disability violates the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Committee declared:

The Committee further explained that such abortion is often based on an inaccurate diagnosis and that:

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: Yes, I will.

Mr Donnelly: Is the Member aware of the 2008 joint statement by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? That stated:

Mrs Dodds: I understand that the Member is pro-choice. That is your right and your choice. I am firmly on the side of the children who are in the womb: those who are preborn and have the right to life. In all of these issues, we must consider the right to life of the mother and the child.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. I really do not want to see this useful debate descending. Obviously, I am pro-life, like you. Does the Member recognise that, as recently as the past couple of months, the committee has reported on deficiencies in the protections for unborn children with disabilities? The read-across is that it devalues the life of a disabled person, if their life is less valuable in the womb.

Mrs Dodds: I absolutely agree. I also do not want to see this descend into any kind of angry debate. It is a really important issue for us to consider. I am, however, firmly of the belief that both lives matter. That is hugely important to me.

I am also interested in this debate in the context of the debate that will take place later this week in our national Parliament. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has taken a stand against the so-called right to euthanasia, which, according to it:

I know that supporters of the Bill in London will point out that it is about people with a terminal diagnosis and that very tight timelines are involved, but I point out that, in every jurisdiction in which such legislation has been introduced, it has been gradually widened and widened so that it includes for consideration a very wide variety of conditions. The legislation in Canada is a — I was going to say "good example" — terrible example of such legislation. Clearly, protections in the Bill that will be discussed on Friday are not adequate. Some are already seeking to widen the Bill so that it includes the notion of intolerable suffering. To me, that is simply intolerable. I also reinforce the view of disability rights campaigner Tanni Grey-Thompson. She clearly said about the debate in Parliament this week that there is a real fear for people with disabilities. She expressed fears about the lack of protections and raised issues to do with coercion of the most vulnerable at a most vulnerable time in their life.

I conclude my short contribution —

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

Mrs Dodds: — by saying that I think —.

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

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Ms K Armstrong: Before I get into the main detail of what I will speak about, it is important that I place on record clarification of something that was incorrectly stated in the House earlier in the debate. The Alliance Party position on start-of-life and end-of-life issues is that they are conscience matters. They are matters that each of us takes quite seriously as individuals, but we do not vote on them as a party. If the proposer of the amendment, who has just left the Chamber, had looked back at the voting record, he would have seen that Alliance Party Members were split on the abortion vote. That is worth noting.

Returning to the motion, I will quote from the 2022 report titled 'Progress Towards the Implementation of the UNCRPD in Northern Ireland'. A contributor summed up the feelings of people with disabilities when she said:

Why has the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities not been progressed in Northern Ireland? The UNCRPD is an international human rights treaty that sets out the human rights of deaf and disabled people. It has been agreed by the UK. Since I came to the House, I have noted that every party and independent MLA has supported the introduction of the convention's recommendations, so why has that not happened? The House has failed to progress the UNCRPD because there is not the political will to bring about equity in Northern Ireland. As was said earlier by, I think, Mr Kingston, we are living a life of less value.

Parties can prove me wrong by prioritising the rights of people with disabilities in the Programme for Government and by ensuring that funding is invested in positive and targeted actions. As a member of the Committee for Communities, I asked the Minister, who, kindly, came to the Committee, about the reporting mechanisms for something such as the disability strategy. I was aghast when I heard that the Department for Communities would not be reporting on how the other Departments were complying with the disability strategy. If a strategy does not have teeth, with someone to monitor, measure and report back, what is the point of it? When a disability strategy is introduced, I hope that it will have teeth and be a cross-departmental document. As a person with hearing impairments, I am very frustrated by the snail-like pace from the Department for Communities on introducing a disability strategy. What is the hold-up? As a person with disabilities, I am affronted by the fact that it still has not been brought forward.

The transparent lack of awareness from the Executive of the necessity for improvements to reduce discriminations for persons with disabilities across Northern Ireland is a disgrace. It is as though the Executive have chosen to ignore the rights of citizens. Every Department must do better to ensure that deaf and disabled people have the same rights as non-disabled people. That includes access to healthcare. For example, why is finding a sign language interpreter so difficult for a patient who is deaf? Some of you may have received communications about a deaf lady who had to go through giving birth without a sign language interpreter to help her. How isolating was that? Why were do not resuscitate orders issued for people with disabilities, especially people with learning disabilities, during COVID? I ask the pro-life Members this: when did you cry out against that? I am disgusted that the lives of people with learning difficulties were to be ended purely because they had learning difficulties, had COVID and were in hospital. Honestly.

The Health and Social Care hospital passport scheme has been developed, but why do no front-line staff know anything about it? It could help people with learning disabilities who are non-verbal. Why do people with disabilities and their families have to fight for appropriate access to healthcare all the time? I can go on. It is about access to transport. Why do people with mobility issues or wheelchair users have to book transport 24 hours in advance when nobody else has to? When it comes to education, why are so many pupils with special educational needs left without a school place? Why, almost every year, do we have a child left abandoned on a school bus?

When adopted, the UNCRPD actions would enable access to an appropriate home, yet the design and provision of accessible accommodation has some of social housing's longest waiting lists. When it comes to access to employment, why is it always part-time and short-term contracts? Why can we not have support for permanent employment? By adopting UNCRPD recommendations into legislation, Northern Ireland can move from being one of the least inclusive places for people with disabilities to one of the most progressive. I want Northern Ireland to be more equitable. To be equitable, positive action needs to be taken —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Will she conclude her remarks?

Ms K Armstrong: — to enable every citizen to have equal inclusion and access.

Ms Bradshaw: I was not going to speak in the debate, but I felt that some of Mr Kingston's comments really needed to be challenged. I am pleased that my party colleague Kellie Armstrong has addressed the majority of them. I very much agree with Diane Dodds in her assertion that she did not want the debate to descend into one about abortion. However, I took great exception to the commentary around my party's position on the severe fetal impairment Bill at the time. I worked diligently with the other members of the Health Committee. I do not think that we had ever scrutinised a Bill so rigorously or engaged with so many people. We all arrived at our position as a matter of conscience, and it was one that we felt best supported women, families and individuals.

At the time, my criticism of the DUP, which introduced the Bill, was that there was nothing in the Bill at its introduction or at any further stage to actually support or enhance services for people who live with disability. Again, my party colleague Kellie Armstrong has very much articulated the ways in which they could have been supported over the years. As Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, I have been leading an inquiry into gaps in equality legislation. The DUP took over the position of First Minister in 2007. For 17 years, it has been at the helm of the Department that is responsible for equality legislation, yet we have seen none in that time. I will take no lectures from the DUP or others about support for people with disability. My Alliance Party colleagues have been at the forefront of all-party groups, tabling motions, bringing forward Committee inquiries and, hopefully, introducing a Member's Bill. We will take no lessons from the DUP on supporting those people.

Ms McLaughlin: I welcome the opportunity to speak to how vital it is that we incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into law. As other Members have outlined, across society, people with disabilities still face far too many barriers to equal participation. Across far too many measures, full realisation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of people with disabilities has still not been achieved. Nowhere is that clearer than in the economy.

Research by Disability Action in 2021 found that 89% of deaf and disabled people find it difficult to find and keep a job. Research from the UK's Women's Budget Group found that, across the UK, disabled women earn 12% less than disabled men. The disability employment gap, which is the focus of article 27 of the UNCRPD, still stands at over 40%. That is the biggest gap in any UK region. It should be profoundly concerning to us all that deaf and disabled women are twice as likely as non-disabled women to suffer physical abuse from an intimate partner. Families with a disabled child are also less likely to be able to afford formal childcare, from which far too many children are still shut out. Our education system still fails to work for children with disabilities, leaving thousands without access to quality education, with the result that there is a persistent educational attainment gap.

Those are just some of the gaps that the Equality Commission identified. That is not to mention other issues that were cited, such as accessible housing, the impact of social security reforms and health inequalities, which impact on disabled people perhaps more than any other group. That is all to say that there is still a long way to go before we finally reach full equality. The motion represents an opportunity to come together as an Assembly on that issue and call for the urgent implementation of the UNCRPD into our domestic law.

Unfortunately, we already know that the Minister does not believe that he has the time in this shortened mandate to review and reform disability legislation. That represents another casualty of the political dysfunction that his party caused and another missed opportunity for devolution to deliver for disabled people. I hope that all parties can, at the very least, commit to the implementation of the UNCRPD at the earliest possible opportunity.

I will turn to the DUP amendment. The main substance of the debate is about improving the life of people with disabilities and enhancing and supporting their human rights. The debate is not about abortion — absolutely not. It is unfortunate that the DUP amendment chooses to distract and deflect from a very important issue.

I hope that our amendment makes a useful contribution to the debate. We should continue to champion stand-alone hate crime legislation and hold the Department of Justice responsible for its introduction and implementation. The implementation of the UNCRPD into domestic law is just one part of series of measures that must be introduced in order to ensure that disabled people have full equality under the law and the ability to realise their rights. That package includes a legal right to independent living and self-determination, the reform of our education system so that it is truly inclusive and urgent action to ensure that our welfare system is made fit for purpose for disabled people.

I strongly call on the Minister for Communities and the Minister for the Economy to work together to introduce an ambitious and strategic disability employment strategy in order to close the disability employment gap once and for all. That should include measures that provide for the gathering of comprehensive and robust data to monitor progress. I welcome the motion and hope that we can work together as an Assembly to address every serious challenge that faces people with disabilities.

Mr Gaston: I support the DUP amendment, which brings much-needed clarity to the important issues that are being discussed. It is all well and good to claim, as the Alliance motion does, that we acknowledge:

I join those who tabled the motion in saying that we need to recognise:

but the issue is what the motion does not say. There is no acknowledgement of the fact that, in Northern Ireland, we have the most brutal assaults on people with disabilities and that, when legislation came before the House to address that, the Alliance Party, in the main, opposed it.

How loving or compassionate does one have to be to believe that people with a disability or long-term health condition would be better off never being born? How can you, on the one hand, say that we need to recognise the diversity of disabilities in society and, on the other, ignore the fact that fewer people are being born with disabilities expressly because of the abortion laws in our Province?

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes, go ahead.

Ms K Armstrong: I voted with the DUP in the last debate on abortion, because I too believe that disabilities should not be used as a reason for abortion. Does the Member agree that a woman should not be asked to justify her request for an abortion by giving a reason? It is up to her, with the help of whoever her doctor is, to make that decision.

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

Mr Gaston: I welcome the intervention. It gives me the opportunity to say that I am pro-life and always will be. We should not take the decision to end the life of a child. It is not the child's fault, and I am unashamedly pro-life and will remain so. When my predecessor, Jim Allister, asked the Minister of Health what happened to bodies of aborted babies, he did not get a straight answer. Why is there not a concern for them? One thing we know is that, since the change in the law, somewhere in the region of 8,500 children have never got a chance to live in Northern Ireland. Members, that is a disgrace.

I will touch on something else. I will judge the sincerity of how much the Members of the House value the lives of the disabled by how their MPs vote on the assisted suicide Bill when it comes before the Commons. If the law is changed on that issue, it will send a chilling message to those with disabilities. Such legislation has the potential to change the culture of society so that the elderly see themselves as a burden. There is a real risk that what was introduced supposedly to provide people with a choice will become an expectation. Tellingly, even co-sponsors of the Bill are unable to tell us how a judgement can be made on whether someone has been coerced into availing themselves of the provisions of the Bill. In light of the significant financial windfall that death brings to some people, that is a most serious issue.

It is all well and good to table a motion telling us how you value the disabled. Regardless of the result today, nothing will change. However, there is another debate this week on legislation that is a direct threat to those with disabilities: the assisted suicide Bill in Westminster. One has only to look at what happened in Canada, where there is already provision for this. Disabled people recount how they have been offered euthanasia multiple times, how they have been traumatised and how they have felt devalued. One disabled person expressed it this way: "They look at people with disabilities and see us as just better off dead". There is nothing loving or compassionate about such an outlook, whether one is talking about pre- or post-born.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Members. I call the Minister for Communities to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Addressing the factors that can preclude deaf, disabled and neurodiverse people from participating fully in society as valued and respected citizens in their own right remains a key priority for me. Today's debate is opportune, as it allows us to discuss all the facets of the issue, be it building on the success of previous initiatives or highlighting the areas where we still have some way to go to achieve equality and the full participation of everyone in Northern Ireland.

As the motion clearly states, there is a real need for us all to recognise the diversity of disabilities throughout our society and to acknowledge that a one-size-fits-all approach not only is undesirable but simply does not work. What we can agree on is that people with a physical or mental impairment that is substantial and has long-term adverse effects on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities require additional assistance and that assistance can be particularly constrained at times of budgetary pressures such as the ones that we currently face. Our aim, therefore, must be to make sure that funding works for those who need it most when they need it most. Therefore, the initiatives that we deliver need to be effective and, just as importantly, sustainable in order to deliver lasting positive change.

Over a quarter of our population has limiting, long-term problems or disabilities, and that, in turn, impacts on many households. A robust portfolio of targeted strategies is pivotal to addressing the issues and to coordinating the work needing to be done. Hopefully, all Members will be aware that my Department is leading on progressing the Executive's disability strategy as well as a disability-in-work strategy, and I have tasked my officials with progressing that work at pace. In the course of that work, I have listened to many people in the disability sector, and I thank those who have engaged with me so far. I will continue with those helpful meetings moving forward.

Inclusion and accessibility are the preconditions for deaf, disabled and neurodiverse people to live independently and to participate fully in society on an equal basis with others. We know that because they have told us. Therefore, one of my key objectives as Minister is to move beyond a disability strategy that sets out visions for improving the lives of deaf and disabled people to a strategy with a focus on delivering clear, tangible results. I am pleased to say that the ongoing development and co-design of the Executive's Northern Ireland disability strategy has provided an opportunity for the views of many deaf and disabled people in our community to be heard and an opportunity for them to actively participate in that strategy co-design. That will continue through a further stakeholder engagement process.

I pay tribute to the valuable progress made to date and take the opportunity to reiterate the overriding principle of such work: "Nothing about us without us". At times, progress is slower than we would all hope; however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that all of our people deserve to live happy and enriching lives. That should be viewed not as an ambition but as a fundamental human right. My strategic focus, therefore, will be on programmes and policies that are transformative to people's lives and to society as a whole, and I intend for the disability strategy to demonstrate just that.

Further pushing to achieve the equalisation of opportunities and drive forward change is my Department's developing disability-in-work strategy, which will set a long-term ambition of increasing our disability employment rate. Whilst we already deliver a range of provision in close partnership with our voluntary and community sector, there is more that I want to do to enable deaf and disabled people to fully participate in work. Led by my Department, the strategy has been co-developed by a wide range of partners, including deaf and disabled people from the outset, to ensure that our shared knowledge and expertise delivers the change and impact needed to reach our ambitions.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Minister. It warms my heart to hear that, but, as you said at the start of your speech, this is an Executive disability strategy that you are bound to take forward. Will you have clear targets and arrangements for the other Departments in your strategy?

Mr Lyons: The monitoring and effective reporting of the strategy will be developed as a key part of strategy development, but, absolutely, we need to have clear targets so that there is an understanding of what we are trying to get done. When I spoke in the Committee, I was making the point that it is an Executive-wide strategy. Each Department will be responsible for its own actions, and I hope that Members of the House and members of the Committees that scrutinise those Departments will hold them to account for those measures. I want to be clear that that does not mean that there will be no monitoring or that there will be no targets for that.

I hope to bring the strategy for Executive consideration early in 2025, with a view to launching a public consultation and getting the strategy implemented. There has been a call from Members today and from the disability sector for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to be incorporated into local legislation; indeed, the motion today calls for that very thing. I can tell you that that will be fundamental in the context of the ongoing development of the disability strategy, and I commit today to ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to share their views and ideas on how best to move forward. In addition, I am aware that the Committee for the Executive Office is undertaking an inquiry into differences in equality legislation between here and other regions of the UK. It is expected to publish a report on its findings and recommendations in early 2025.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will the Minister confirm something that he said about the disability strategy that he will present in 2025? Will it contain the opportunity for people to support the UNCRPD being implemented in Northern Ireland law?

Mr Lyons: There are two strategies that I hope to bring forward. The disability and work strategy, which is what I am talking about at the minute, and the wider disability strategy, which, of course, will be an opportunity to see how that can work alongside what the Member proposes today.

It remains essential that we learn from what has gone before whilst giving the opportunity for new views and voices to be heard. It is clear from the comments made across the Assembly today that we agree on the importance of this work. We need to ensure that we get it right, because we cannot waste the opportunity that a united Executive provides to move forward as a society. Therefore, I have recently advised my Executive colleagues that I am reconvening the disability strategy cross-departmental working group to revisit work already done on the disability strategy and to ensure that it remains relevant and achievable. I will be happy to keep the House informed of any developments as they happen, with a view to bringing a completed strategy to the House as soon as possible.

I want to take a couple of minutes to respond to some of the comments that have been made today. Needless to say, I agree with most of the comments from other Members, but I want to pick up on a few issues.

First, I recognise the points that Mr O'Toole made about legislation in this place. Legislation is important and is one vehicle by which we can improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland. There is a place for legislation on the work that we have been talking about today. However, it would be wrong to measure the success of the Executive by the passage of legislation alone. In fact, I do not think that we need to look too far into the dim and distant past to understand that legislation has been passed by the House that has not been helpful to the well-being of Northern Ireland. There are other things that we can do that will make a difference. That will be part of the disability strategy and the disability and work strategy, which can make a real difference in the lives of people across Northern Ireland.

I commend Diane Dodds on her speech because, in my view, she hit upon the key issue, which is the value of life. It is under attack at the beginning of life and at the end of life. It goes to the very heart of the issue, which is the value that we place on people and on a human life. Therefore, I will support her amendment today.

I also want to refer to remarks by Kellie Armstrong. First, I commend her for her work on the issue and for the passion that she has shown in the debate today. I agree with much of what she said, in particular about sign language and the lack of interpreters. She will understand that it has been an issue for me for many years. It is something that I want to move forward with quickly. I got Executive permission to get a sign language Bill drafted; we have been waiting for that for many years. During the New Decade, New Approach negotiations, I wanted to make sure that it was incorporated, and I am pleased that significant progress has been made on it. I look forward to making an announcement shortly. I understand the point that she made, and I hope to have a positive response soon from Executive colleagues.

I will pick up on the point that the Member made about the "Do not resuscitate" orders. It is absolutely right that those were mentioned. I can confirm that it was a concern for my party at that time, and the record shows that DUP members raised it both in Committee and through questions for written answer. We have been consistent on the issue and are certainly concerned about some of the things that we have heard.

Finally, I want to address a comment from Sinéad McLaughlin about the need to work together with DFE. That is absolutely something that I am committed to doing and something that she will see in the disability and work strategy.

Quite frankly, it is shameful that so many people who are disabled and who want to work cannot break down the barriers to getting into work. We need to help them to do that. It is shocking and disgraceful that there is such a large gap between disabled people in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK when it comes to work. I want to do something about that. I absolutely will work with the Department for the Economy and all other colleagues to make sure that we break down those barriers as much as we can.

I am encouraged by the mostly positive views that have been shared today. They demonstrate, I believe, that we all have a common purpose here. I look forward to working with my Executive colleagues, Members across the House and our partners in the disability sector and beyond in a coordinated and effective way. I am determined to deliver positive change in all aspects of my Department, but, in this area, we have a united front, a shared goal and a common objective. I agree with Members when they say that it is time to get on with it, and that is absolutely what I am doing.

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

As the business in the Order Paper is not expected to be disposed of by 6.00 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3), I will allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or until the business is completed, whichever is earlier.

I call Daniel McCrossan to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. You have up to five minutes.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is clear that today's debate is a very important one. It is important to each and all of us as legislators that we tackle the serious problems facing people with disabilities across Northern Ireland. We will support the motion, as my colleagues Matthew O'Toole and Sinéad McLaughlin said, and we have added a clear stipulation for the provision of hate crime legislation, which is essential.

You would think that this was a new problem, because, as with most things in the House, we hear around the Assembly, "We need to", "We must", "We will", and, "We plan to". Where is the action? People with disabilities have been waiting for many years and knocking on each of our doors and on the doors of Departments and Ministers. They have been calling for change — calling for equality; calling for necessary legislation and protections — yet here we are, and we hear all these aspirational promises but get no action and no meaningful change. We need to build protections into legislation to ensure that people in Northern Ireland with disabilities and those who are affected by racial abuse and all sorts of other hate crime are protected. That is why we proposed an amendment to the motion. We ask the House to support that amendment because there is a need for robust hate crime legislation and for a clear commitment and action to ensure equality for people with disabilities in Northern Ireland.

We must also be clear, as per the subject of our amendment, that hate crimes are not just offences against individuals but direct assaults on the principles of fairness and inclusion that underpin a just society. The Assembly, as Members have outlined today, has a responsibility to ensure that no one in Northern Ireland feels unsafe, marginalised or left behind because of their identity or disability. The motion, alongside our amendment, provides a comprehensive framework for achieving that goal, addressing systemic inequalities and the urgent need for tailored hate crime legislation. We are all largely on the same page; we just need to see more action that has a direct, meaningful impact on people's lives.

We need to get away from, "We want to see", which is promising one thing and doing something entirely different. I heard a Member refer to the process for PIP. It is abusive and is distressing for people to go through, but the Member failed to point out that the Minister, who was of the Member's party, renewed Capita's contract for PIP. You cannot sit in the House and say that you want things to change when you have your hands on the levers of power but do not implement any change. That is why people are losing patience with this place. We need to see meaningful action. The motion emphasises the need for action by the Assembly and the Executive to reduce those inequalities and create a society that values the diversity of people with disabilities. It also laments the lack of progress on equality legislation in Northern Ireland. That lack of progress is not just a missed opportunity but a failed duty. That belief is, again, shared by Members across the House.

I support the call for bold and meaningful legislative reform to ensure that we protect the rights of people with disabilities. The SDLP's amendment strengthens that, because it addresses a critical gap in our legal framework. It calls for the protection of individuals with disabilities from harm through stand-alone hate crime legislation. Again, many parties clearly committed to and supported that. While the motion recognises systemic inequalities, our amendment goes further to confront the hostility and prejudice that too many people with disabilities face daily. Stand-alone hate crime legislation is essential to protect those who are often targeted, not just because of their identity but because they are perceived to be vulnerable due to their disabilities. Our amendment sends a clear message that we will not tolerate hate or harm being directed at any member of our community. Introducing tailored laws will ensure that those crimes are taken seriously and are met with the appropriate legal consequences. The problem at the minute is that the justice system does not know how to react to some of the unique cases that come before it, because the legislation does not exist or is not clear. Judge Desmond Marrinan's 2019 review outlined some of the many issues and provided clear recommendations that need to be considered and adhered to.

I am glad that the Alliance Party tabled the motion, and we will support it. However, attempts to fold hate crime provisions into broader justice legislation, which is what the Alliance Party is proposing, dilute the focus and undermine the effectiveness. That is a piecemeal approach, and it will not deliver the robust protections —

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

Mr McCrossan: — that our citizens need.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Thank you. I call Maurice Bradley to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Mr Bradley, you, too, have up to five minutes.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank everybody who took part in this informative debate this evening. I value the opportunity for all in society to be the best that they can be in education, sport, employment and all other aspects of life in Northern Ireland. As my party colleagues mentioned, the Democratic Unionist Party is committed to ensuring that people with disabilities can live full and active lives. We are a pro-life party and will always stand up for the right to life, from beginning to end. Our support for people with disabilities is demonstrated by our actions. Members heard the Minister commit to providing a disability strategy and ensuring that members of the deaf community have the same rights and opportunities as those in the hearing community. The Minister also said that he plans to introduce a sign language Bill to the Assembly, which was a commitment in our manifesto.

The Democratic Unionist Party has championed and delivered on more accessible play facilities for children and young people with disabilities across Northern Ireland's councils and supported better changing facilities for all with disabilities. In the other House, our MPs have been a committed voice for people with disabilities. They co-signed the Down Syndrome Act 2022, which was the first legislation in the world to recognise people with Down syndrome as a specific minority group. Our MPs will vote against the assisted dying legislation on Friday.

We want to see a society that fully values those with disabilities. Education Minister, Paul Givan, has made clear his commitment to supporting children with special educational needs, including those with disabilities. In April 2024, the Minister announced investment in the SEN capital programme, and over £51 million of capital funding has been invested through that this year. As a party, we are in the business of delivery, and we will continue to deliver for those who are living with a disability.

I will point out some of the issues that were raised. Danny Donnelly called for parity with the UK and a single equality Bill, which could lead to far-reaching and meaningful outcomes for those with disabilities. Brian Kingston highlighted the fact that one in five people has a disability of some form and called for the Executive to form a disability strategy group to ensure that the UNCRPD requirements are implemented.

Mr O'Toole said that he would prefer to be debating disability legislation. Robbie Butler agreed with that sentiment, as do I. The most important thing that we can do here is debate legislation. The most important work that we have to do here is in the Committees, yet Mondays and Tuesdays are taken up with motions. I am not saying that they are not valuable — they are — but we could find a way to make better use of our efforts.

Colm Gildernew said that people with disabilities struggle with employment opportunities, and he highlighted our out-of-date laws to deal with direct and indirect disability discrimination. Emma Sheerin called for the implementation of the UNCRPD and highlighted a lack of opportunities, including access to benefits and to financial and practical help.

Diane Dodds supported our amendment and argued for support for people with a disability from the womb to their final breath. She argued against abortion on the grounds of physical impairment and cited articles 4, 5 and 8 of the UNCRPD on protecting the rights of the mother and child. She also highlighted the right-to-die legislation that is to be debated in Westminster this week. Kellie Armstrong and Paula Bradshaw said that, for the Alliance Party, the position on such issues is a matter of conscience as opposed to a party stance. They also said that the House has failed to implement the UNCRPD recommendations. Sinéad McLaughlin said that too many barriers still exist at all levels for those with a disability and highlighted the fact that they receive lower wages than able-bodied people in the same form of employment. Timothy Gaston acknowledged the fact that 25% of people in Northern Ireland have a disability and mentioned the diversity of disabilities across society. He referred to the assisted suicide Bill, which will test society in general.

I commend the DUP's amendment to the House and hope that we can all support it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Stewart Dickson to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. The Member has up to 10 minutes.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure you and the House that I will not take 10 minutes to sum up the debate. I place on record our sincere thanks to all the Members who spoke. One clear message is going out from the House today, and that is the urgent need for us to support people with disabilities across Northern Ireland. That having been said, I came to the House nearly 11 years ago with the perhaps idealistic view that we could quickly see in law a single equality Act for Northern Ireland that would draw together all the disparate pieces of equality legislation for people here. Sadly, here today, we still have a Minister talking about strategies. They are important, and I am not diminishing them in any shape or form, but the House clearly has to acknowledge that we would be best served by having a single equality Act for Northern Ireland that takes account of all the issues that have been debated this evening, as well as many other equality issues.

I have already thanked all the Members who contributed to the debate, but I particularly thank my party colleague Danny Donnelly for proposing the motion.

We have discussed a deeply pressing issue that is equally frustrating, because, despite its pressing nature, it has been just another opportunity for a talking shop. The persistent inequalities faced by the 25% of our population who live with a disability or a long-term health condition is clear to us all from the debate. The evidence presented is indeed stark, and the urgent need for legislation is undeniable. The lack of progress made on Northern Ireland's equality legislation has left too many people without the support and protections that they need. Although strategies can help, they are not the answer. While our neighbours in the rest of the United Kingdom have progressed with protecting disability rights, we continue to lag behind.

The motion provides an opportunity to commit to incorporating the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into our local legislation, which is something that I wholeheartedly support. The convention is clear: it calls for equality, inclusion and accessibility. Those are not lofty ideals but basic human rights, yet, as the disability strategy expert advisory panel highlighted in its report, systemic barriers continue to undermine those rights in housing, transport, education, employment and, as we have heard today, healthcare, particularly when it comes to sign language support for people who are deaf. Moreover, the pandemic only widened the gaps, making our inaction even more damaging.

There have been successful initiatives, such as access and inclusion programmes and enhanced council facilities for people with disabilities, but they are all, sadly, just sticking-plaster politics, and it really is not enough. The Assembly needs to adopt a unified, strategic approach, one that centres on the voices of disabled people themselves, as exemplified by the co-design model used by the disability strategy expert advisory panel.

This is not just about legislation, although legislation is what is required to underpin all of it, but about creating a society in which everyone has the opportunity to thrive. Let us be clear: inaction is a choice, and its consequences are borne by those who can least afford them. Let us make the right choice today and commit to building a fairer and better future for everyone.

I commend the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that the amendments are not mutually exclusive. I will put the Question on both.