Official Report: Tuesday 26 November 2024

Mr Speaker: The usual rules apply.

Mrs Dillon: I am concerned about ovarian cancer. I am particularly concerned about the misunderstanding of the symptoms of ovarian cancer and the failure, by many, to acknowledge the fact that women's health has been ignored over many years. We do not promote it in the way that it should be promoted, and we urgently need a women's health strategy from the Department of Health.

In case there are women who do not know that they may have the symptoms of ovarian cancer, I will highlight those symptoms. The most common symptoms are having a swollen tummy, feeling full quickly when eating, feeling bloated or having a painful tummy or pelvic area. If you have any of those symptoms, you should contact your GP. You should trust yourself and believe that you know your body better than anybody else. The medical professional who you speak to should believe that you know your body better than anybody else and listen to you.

I heard a piece on women's health by Marie-Louise Connolly on 'Good Morning Ulster' this morning. It was about women's health and the women's health hubs that are being developed in England under its women's health strategy. It is worth acknowledging that we have been well ahead of the game here: not because of our health service but because of women in the North. The first well woman centre was set up by a group of friends in Derry: a group of women who said that services and information for women were not good enough. There were a number of well woman clinics across the North. When I was a young woman and growing up, there was one in my nearest major town. I am talking about there being a well woman clinic in Newry town over 30 years ago. I was able to access that well woman clinic, which had all the services that a young woman might need, whether around their menstrual cycle, access to contraception or access to advice. Whatever you needed, you could get it in those well woman clinics. They also helped women dealing with the prenatal and postnatal stages of pregnancy and women going through the menopause. They offered many services, and the well woman clinic in Derry continues to do that to this day.

I am glad that the Health Minister is working with the well woman clinic to do a survey and get information on what we need in relation to women's health. We all know, however, that women have been underserved, undervalued and neglected over many years when it comes to our health. It is long past time that a proper women's health strategy was in place to protect us from all the health issues that face us.

Those issues are not only in gynae health but in heart health and many other areas where we do not have the services that we should have.

Ms Forsythe: I rise to mark the 16 Days of Activism, an international movement against gender-based violence that began yesterday on International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I also mark the UNiTE campaign, which highlights that a woman is killed every 10 minutes. In 2024, that is a horrific and unacceptable fact. I call on every Member to support that campaign and focus on the perpetrators, the evil amongst us and their violent actions. Women do not feel safe in society and we take decisions for our safety every day.

In recent weeks, I have been deeply affected by the trial in America of the man who was accused of Laken Riley's murder. Laken was a 22-year-old young woman. She was a nursing student with her whole life ahead of her, and, on 22 February this year, she went for a run, which was her regular exercise. Like so many of us women, she looked around, assessed the risks and took steps for her safety. Those were steps that she should not have needed to take but did take. She waited until it was broad daylight to go for her run, wore her smartwatch and carried her phone. She set her location on those devices so that it was shared with her friends, told her friends where she was going and texted her mum to say that she was going for her run. She planned her daylight run for a busy public park near her university campus, where lots of people would be walking around. We see that on the CCTV footage. She took every precaution and set off. Minutes into her run, an evil predator, who was hiding in the bushes, attacked her. He pulled her off the trail, viciously assaulted her and attempted to rape her. Laken managed to phone 911 through the SOS app on her mobile phone. Whilst the 911 staff could not make her out, the recording caught her crying for help. He hung up the call and continued to attack her. The records on Laken's smartwatch show that, when she was attacked, she fought at that spot for 17 minutes. She fought for her life and dignity whilst 911 tried to phone her back and her family were calling her, but he killed her through asphyxiation and blunt force trauma to her head with a rock. That is a devastating loss: a life taken too soon. My heart breaks for Laken's family.

Laken Riley, like so many women, took every step and every precaution for her own safety, yet she was attacked and murdered in broad daylight in a public park. That is shocking, yet it is the truth. That could be any of us: our daughters, our sisters, our mums or our friends. I will always speak up for innocent victims as they go about their business in society, but the truth is that we should not be focused on advising women to take steps to look after their own safety. The focus needs to be on the perpetrators and the violence and problems in our society. We need a change, and we need to end violence against women and girls.

Mr McReynolds: National Tree Week is an opportunity for us all to reflect on the essential role that trees play in fighting climate change, preserving wildlife and biodiversity and improving our physical and mental health.

Sadly, Northern Ireland is in a pretty poor state, with the worst woodland cover in the UK and Ireland and the lowest urban tree cover in the UK. We were also ranked twelfth worst for biodiversity loss out of 240 countries around the world in 2020. That is why I have been working with key stakeholders and partners on how to address those major issues since I was elected to the Assembly in May 2022. I am pleased to announce that there will be a public consultation on a Member's Bill to improve protections for trees across Northern Ireland.

My proposals seek to strengthen the current legal protections for single trees, groups of trees and ancient and long-established woodland to protect them against the unnecessary loss of mature trees and woodlands in Northern Ireland. That is essential because the most important tree to plant today is the one that we planted yesterday, recognising the fact that not all trees are equal and established trees do so much more for our environment. I propose three enhancements: a strengthening of existing protections through the enhancement of tree preservation orders; the creation of a new "heritage tree" designation, acknowledging that trees are not just nice to look at but play a key role in society; and the safeguarding of ancient and long-established woodland and trees, with legal protection from permitted development. I am doing that because we have listed building status for important and prominent buildings, but we have no such protections for trees. Trees are irreplaceable and, once they are gone, they are, sadly, gone forever. The proposals on which I am consulting will help protect trees in the short term and long after I am gone. I look forward to reading the public's responses to the consultation, and I encourage everyone to respond to it. Hopefully, I will be able to take forward my ambitious, reasonable and clear proposals through the Assembly and, alongside colleagues, play my part in improving Northern Ireland's environment and biodiversity.

Mr Allen: As chairperson of the all-party group on fuel poverty, I bring to the House's attention National Energy Action's Fuel Poverty Awareness Day, which is tomorrow, Wednesday 27 November. The cold, hard facts of fuel poverty and its wide-ranging impacts are undeniable. LucidTalk polling in September 2024 for National Energy Action Northern Ireland found that 40% of households are spending at least 10% of their income on energy and therefore meet the definition of "fuel poverty". The continued pressure on household budgets has led to detrimental coping mechanisms. One in 10 households admitted to cutting back on food or skipping meals in the past 24 months because of energy costs. That means that the choice between heating and eating is a reality for around 80,000 households. More than one in four households — 27% — has gone without heating or electricity on at least one occasion as a result of not being able to afford the cost of energy.

As we know, there are significant impacts on health and well-being from fuel poverty, with 31% of households reporting health impacts as a result of rising energy prices and the cost of living, including 14% that have experienced a deterioration in existing health conditions, and 5% that have required more visits to a GP or to hospital. Fuel poverty, as I said, is wide-ranging, and its impacts are undeniable. The 2024 Carers NI state of caring survey highlighted the fact that 28% of carers are cutting back on essentials such as food and heating. A recent report by Barnardo's titled 'Empty Plates and Cold Homes' further highlighted the strain that fuel poverty places on families and the impacts from growing up in a cold and damp home. Indeed, cold homes and poor living conditions are linked to housing insecurity. For too many, living in leaky homes with poor insulation only adds to the strain.

The situation is bleak, but there are solutions. I welcome the draft Programme for Government's commitment to introducing a new fuel poverty strategy by 2025. I look forward to the consultation's launch. The strategy must be backed up by short-, medium- and long-term measures. Various Ministers have announced short-term measures in the House on numerous occasions. Although those measures are welcome and important, and their impact undeniable, they are short-term measures. They do not look at the medium-term to longer-term impacts of fuel poverty, at lifting households out of fuel poverty or at the other impacts and consequences that I have mentioned. That is why it is important that the fuel poverty strategy be underpinned by the required funding. It needs to have an action plan that is tangible and robust and that measures the outcomes.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McCrossan: In 2018, Davin Corrigan was admitted to Grangewood mental health unit in Derry. He was 25 years of age. He struggled with his mental health and needed help and support. Unfortunately, while in the care of that facility, Davin took his own life. The inquest found that there were major failings on the part of the Western Health and Social Care Trust around the care and support that Davin, and, indeed, many others, should have received. His death was entirely preventable.

The sense of loss in our community and in Davin's family, particularly for his mum, Aisling, and his father, Dessie, is acutely felt daily. Following the shock of losing their son in an environment that should have been safe and that should have protected him, they battled for many years to seek the truth about what had happened. In 2023, an inquest found that there had been major failings at every level in the trust around the care that Davin Corrigan should have received but did not.

His family have fought for changes so that no other young person's family suffers the loss of a loved one in an environment where they should be safe. Over the past few years, whilst feeling hurt and let down, they have worked with the trust to create the Davin Corrigan Legacy Award. It has been set up to recognise the efforts of families and organisations that work to improve the care experience and safety of people in the trust. They have achieved considerable changes. The trust has learned many difficult lessons. Each year, the Davin Corrigan Legacy Award is given to various groups in recognition of the changes that they have made to improve the care experience of those in the trust. Tomorrow, that award will be presented again. This is its fifth year, and the presentation will take place in the Fir Trees Hotel in Strabane.

This morning, on my way to the Assembly, I spoke to Davin's father. Even after the past few years, the family still feel the hurt and pain. They feel let down. I encourage everybody to attend that event tomorrow to remember Davin and to support his family.

Mr Kearney: An 29 Samhain, déanann na Náisiúin Aontaithe an Lá Idirnáisiúnta um Dhlúthpháirtíocht le Muintir na Palaistíne a chomóradh.

I mbliana, beidh muid ag díriú ar na huafáis laethúla atá muintir na Palaistíne a fhulaingt: cinedhíothú, glanadh eitneach, forghabháil neamhdhleathach, cinedheighilt, agus léigear. Fuair os cionn 45,000 Palaistíneach bás le bliain anuas – is scannalach gur mná agus páistí 70% dóibh sin a fuair bás, de dheasca chinedhíothú sádach Iosrael.

Tháinig Netanyahu agus a réimeas salach ar gach bunphrionsabal. Tá a gcuid gníomhartha go dubh in éadan chearta an duine agus an dlí idirnáisiúnta. Nuair a smaoiníonn muid ar Iosrael, smaoiníonn muid ar na hainghníomhartha doshamhlaithe in aghaidh an chine dhaonna. Is náire shaolta é an bhuamáil gan idirdhealú atá fórsaí Iosrael a dhéanamh ar ospidéil, bailte, sráidbhailte agus campaí seiftithe a bhfuil teifigh ina gcónaí iontu ar fud na Palaistíne agus na Liobáine. Creideann siad gur féidir leo gníomhú gan aon bhaol pionóis.

Caithfidh na Náisiúin Aontaithe agus an pobal idirnáisiúnta pionós a ghearradh ar Iosrael as a gcoireanna in aghaidh na daonnachta. Rinne Iosrael neamhshuim den dlí idirnáisiúnta; caithfidh cuntas a bhaint as dá dhroim sin.

Labhair an Chúirt Choiriúil Idirnáisiúnta go neamhbhalbh Déardaoin seo caite. Is céim thábhachtach é gur chinn an Chúirt barántais ghabhála a chur amach ar Netanyahu agus Yoav Gallant lena thaispeáint go gcuirfear an dlí go tréan ar an bheirt choirpeach cogaidh úd. Caithfidh na Stáit Aontaithe, an Bhreatain, an Ghearmáin, an Fhrainc agus cumhachtaí eile an Iarthair freagracht a ghlacadh orthu féin as an rialú sin a chur i bhfeidhm. Ná téitear ar chúl scéithe sa scéal. Caithfear an dlí idirnáisiúnta a chur i bhfeidhm go cothrom ar gach duine atá á shárú. Ag an am céanna, caithfear smachtbhannaí cuimsitheacha eacnamaíochta agus polaitíochta a chur ar Iosrael chomh maith le trádbhac arm.

Ní fhanfaidh muintir na hÉireann ina dtost agus daoine eile faoi choilíneachas, faoi fhorghabháil agus faoi chinedheighilt. Seasfaimid go dlúth diongbháilte le muintir na Palaistíne agus iad tiomanta a saoirse a bhaint amach. Ar lá seo na Náisiún Aontaithe um dhlúthpháirtíocht le Muintir na Palaistíne, ní mór do gach duine —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Kearney: — a bhfuil ciall agus coinsias aige a rá arís go gcaithfidh Iosrael sos cogaidh a fhógairt láithreach ar fud na Palaistíne.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. I call Phillip Brett.

Mr Brett: Last week, it was mission accomplished for our Northern Ireland national football team, as, for the first time in our history, we won our Nations League group. Mr Speaker, you will be aware that Michael O'Neill returned to the helm to manage the green and white army, and what a return it has been for him. Last weekend was the culmination of the campaign, with a double-header in Belfast and Luxembourg. I was delighted to see our sports Minister in attendance at the game on Friday evening, despite the protestations of the BBC, to support our national team.

As always, I try to make my contributions relevant to North Belfast. I am absolutely delighted that Ethan Galbraith, who is one of my constituents from Glengormley, got his first international start for Northern Ireland on Monday night in Luxembourg. Ethan is a great talent with a very bright future. The average age of the team that started in Luxembourg on Monday was 22. I have been following Northern Ireland across the world for many years, but this is one of the most exciting eras in our history. We look forward to the World Cup qualification draw in December with excitement and anticipation. I pay tribute to Gary McAllister and all involved with the Amalgamation of Official Northern Ireland Supporters' Clubs, who, during the campaign, put a huge effort into ensuring the return of the Windsor roar.

In recent days, we have seen interest in the flag of Northern Ireland and in our sporting bodies from quarters that, for many years, have not wanted and continue not to want this country to exist. I politely point out to them that they may wish to attend a Northern Ireland football match. They will see young men from every corner of the country proudly working together to make its team the best that it can be. Those who proudly play under the Ulster flag are of all religions and none. I look forward to welcoming to Windsor Park those who have seemed so interested in recent days, as we cheer on our World Cup qualification team in December.

Miss McAllister: I rise to mark World AIDS Day, which is on 1 December. I hope that all Members received their red ribbon in their pigeonhole, and I look forward to seeing them wear it throughout the week. Since 1988, people around the world have come together on World AIDS Day to show strength, solidarity and determination in the fight against HIV stigma and to remember those whom we have lost.

Globally, 38 million people live with HIV. Over the past 40 years, more than 35 million lives have been lost to HIV and AIDS-related illnesses, making it one of the most destructive pandemics in history. Today, however, thanks to medical advances, people with HIV in the UK can live long, healthy lives. We also now have the tools to stop HIV transmission entirely, yet stigma remains and discrimination persists. That is one of the many reasons why Alliance is so passionate about high-quality relationships and sexuality education.

Positive Life has been leading the way in promoting the Fast-Track Cities initiative, which aims for zero new HIV transmissions by 2030. Recently, Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council joined Belfast City Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council in committing to the initiative, and it is encouraging other councils across Northern Ireland to follow suit. To mark World AIDS Day, many councils across Northern Ireland will light up public buildings on Friday 29 November as a show of support. That is a powerful reminder of the importance of breaking stigma and knowing your status.

HIV and AIDS are no longer the devastating diseases that they once were. Advances in medicine and technology mean that HIV can be effectively treated and managed, and we are closer than ever to ending new transmissions. On 1 December, we will shine a light on the real experiences of people living with HIV. Let us take the opportunity to celebrate their strength and resilience and reaffirm our commitment to a future where HIV does not stand in the way of anyone's life.

Miss McIlveen: We all love to see the pictures on social media of the older folk in our communities visiting schools and sharing tech experience or gardening tips with the younger generation. There are mutual social benefits from that work, but it does not happen without facilitation. Since 2009, Linking Generations Northern Ireland (LGNI) is the only catalyst organisation leading the way in developing quality and sustainable intergenerational practice across Northern Ireland. Its work takes a capacity-building approach and connects, inspires and supports practitioners in organisations and settings to develop an intergenerational approach that benefits local people and achieves multiple outcomes. LGNI coordinates a Northern Ireland-wide intergenerational network with nearly 1,000 members; provides a range of training, advice and support; develops intergenerational projects; disseminates resources; runs small grants programmes; acts as a strategic voice for intergenerational practice; and is the Northern Ireland lead for the annual Global Intergenerational Week campaign.

Intergenerational approaches are a key component of the Public Health Agency's age-friendly strategy to encourage communities to be places that are good for people to grow up and to grow old. LGNI works with 11 age-friendly council officers, who coordinate local action plans supported by community and statutory partners. Those plans recognise and include intergenerational activity, with LGNI providing data to demonstrate impact and the achievement of multiple outcomes. The new Programme for Government requires intergenerational working to ensure that Northern Ireland is a place that supports today's generations and future generations, cutting across numerous Departments, such as Communities, Health, TEO and Justice. Truly age-friendly communities are healthier communities and places where all ages are connected, respected, valued and engaged together. LGNI uses the opportunity that intergenerational practice presents to support quality and sustainable practice and connections between generations that promote improved mental health and well-being, social inclusion, educational outcomes for children and young people, community safety and skill sharing.

LGNI operates with a team of just four part-time staff, but it is in a funding crisis. It receives a small amount of infrastructure funding from the Public Health Agency, but that does not sustain its daily operations. Reliance on project funds means that LGNI's future is insecure. It is at risk of closure. I want to make Members aware of LGNI and its need for core funding to protect its infrastructure and the requirement of a cross-departmental approach. As it is a global leader in the intergenerational field, the potential closure of LGNI risks the loss of expertise, the strong infrastructure that it has built and the support that it has garnered. Its Scottish partner, Generations Working Together, benefits from government funding, and we look to that example as a model of best practice.

Mr Martin: Last week, I attended an event on heart failure and heart disease organised by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) and Heart Failure Warriors and was made aware of some startling statistics. In the United Kingdom alone, there are 200,000 new diagnoses of heart failure every year, and Northern Ireland accounts for about 22,000 in that figure. People living with heart failure will know that it is a debilitating chronic condition that can severely restrict the lives of those affected. Survival rates for those with heart failure are, in some cases, worse than those for common cancers; in fact, half of people with the condition can die within five years of diagnosis. It is also deeply concerning that there are a presumed 20,000 people with undetected and undiagnosed heart failure, and those people are missing out on crucial early intervention.

It is an area that is certainly very personal to me, because my grandfather passed away with heart-related illness in his 60s. However, evidence suggests that early intervention can have a positive effect, and that is precisely why it ought to be one of our primary objectives to develop preventative services for heart disease in this country. Patients should get access to specialist treatment and care and should not have to endure a postcode lottery. We must have appropriately commissioned and staffed multi-professional heart failure services across Northern Ireland. That will help ensure speedy diagnosis; access to specialist input from cardiologists, nurses and pharmacists; and referral routes to cardiac rehabilitation and clinical psychology.

There are amazing charities working in this area. I have mentioned two, the BHF and Heart Failure Warriors, and I would also like to highlight the work of Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke, Bravehearts NI and the Children's Heartbeat Trust. The work, however, should not be left up to those charities.

The reality is that, in Northern Ireland, 340 people will die this month from a heart or circulatory disease. Around 90 of them will be younger than 75, and around 13 babies will be diagnosed with a heart defect. I certainly welcome the Education Minister's positive news yesterday that he will deliver a defibrillator for every school in Northern Ireland. That is a big step forward in this area. However, on the wider issue, I ask the Minister of Health to reflect on Northern Ireland's preparedness to address heart failure and circulatory diseases going forward and to provide a road map for improvements in this area.

Mr Gaston: On 21 November 1974, two pubs in Birmingham, the Mulberry Bush and the Tavern in the Town, were bombed by the IRA. The first bomb exploded a mere six minutes after a telephone warning. With the second pub situated below ground level and crowded with more than 100 young people, the slaughter was entirely predictable. Reports from that day are chilling: people blinded by molten metal and human skin burned like meat shoved under a grill. Yet, Birmingham came together as a city and rose to the challenge of Provo evil. Taxi drivers took on the role of ambulance drivers. Medical staff, who worked into the early hours of the morning, came in again after just a few hours off.

Among the 21 lives lost that day there are many moving and tragic stories. The Reilly family had moved from Donegal to Birmingham 27 years previously. One of the couple's sons, Eugene, was out in the pub that night, and his father went to identify his body. When he was at the makeshift mortuary, he found not only Eugene's body but that of his other son, Desmond Reilly. Desmond had returned to the city unexpectedly and had gone for a drink with his brother. Desmond's wife gave birth to their child the following March.

Fifty years on, no one has been held accountable for the slaughter on that day; in fact, the IRA has never even officially admitted its shameful responsibility. I publicly support the call of victims for justice and for a public inquiry. I commend the tenacity of the campaign group Justice 4 the 21, particularly Julie Hambleton, who lost her sister Maxine that day, one of six women and girls murdered. The First Minister tells us that she wants to combat violence against women and girls yet maintains that there was no alternative to the murder of women and girls in Birmingham. Her party leader does not think that it is fair to ask her about the IRA, yet what was she doing on the night of the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham bombs? She was sharing a stage with the Wolfe Tones, who famously wrote the words: "Ooh Ah Up the Ra". Perhaps if our young people were educated about Birmingham, they would sing and chant those words with a little less gusto. It is time for justice. It is time for a public inquiry for the Birmingham families.

Mr Speaker: That concludes Members' statements

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time on the debate.

Mr Muir: I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion. The UK emissions trading scheme (UK ETS) was established in 2020 under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme to encourage cost-effective emissions reductions.

It helps to contribute to the achievement of greenhouse gas reduction targets set in the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 along with wider UK emissions reduction targets and net zero goals. The scheme replaced the UK's participation in the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS) and came into force on 1 January 2021.

It may be helpful, at this point, to provide a brief summary of the operation of the UK ETS. It is based on a cap and trade principle and requires participants to purchase and surrender a carbon allowance for each ton of carbon dioxide that they emit. The more carbon dioxide emitted, the more allowance is required. There are penalties for failure to obtain and surrender the requisite number of allowances. Participants face a choice between paying to emit or investing in decarbonisation. A cap is set on the total number of allowances available under the scheme and is gradually reduced over time. The aim is to encourage reductions in emissions. Scheme participants, with the exception of electricity generators, receive free allowances, which cover a proportion of their emissions. That is known as "free allocation", and its purpose is to prevent carbon leakage: industry relocating to other parts of the world that either do not have costs for carbon emissions or have costs that are lower.

It is important to note that, in the Northern Ireland context, there is an exclusion from the scope of UK ETS for Northern Ireland's six electricity generators, which remain in EU ETS to preserve the functioning of the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. If generators, North and South, were to participate in different emissions trading schemes, there could be a carbon price divergence, which could distort the operation of the single electricity market. To give some context of the scale, there are around 900 UK participants in the scheme and 17 in Northern Ireland, along with two registered aviation operations. Those installations, along with the six electricity generators that I have already mentioned, account for approximately one fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions in Northern Ireland. To note, only around 17% of that figure is attributable to emissions from UK ETS participants. The majority — around 83% — arises from electricity generators.

I return to the legislation. Since the previous Assembly approved the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, which I will refer to as the 2020 Order, the scheme that was established has been amended and supplemented, through further instruments, to ensure that it continues to function effectively. The amending Order before us today includes Northern Ireland within the scope of the legislation made on a GB-only basis during the recent Assembly suspension, in addition to implementing net zero-aligned emissions.

The proposals contained in the Order were subject to a joint UK-wide consultation between March and June 2022. The response to the consultation was published in July 2023 and included a commitment to implement a net zero-aligned cap on emissions with effect from 1 January 2024. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024 was laid in draft before the Northern Ireland Assembly on 22 October 2024, under the Climate Change Act 2008, which requires that the Order be laid in draft and debated in each legislature in which it will have effect. So far, the Order has been debated and approved by the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd Cymru, and it was debated yesterday in the House of Commons.

The Order, if approved, will make the following changes to UK ETS: it will implement a reduction of the UK ETS cap to align with a net zero trajectory consistent with UK and NI net zero objectives. To deliver on commitments given in the Government's response to developing the UK ETS consultation, the number of allowances auctioned from 1 January 2024 onwards has already been reduced. That has been facilitated through amendments made under the Finance Act to the UK ETS auctioning regulations to support a smooth transition for scheme participants whilst sending a strong signal to decarbonise.

That course of action was taken as it was not possible to bring forward an amendment to the 2020 Order, which I am bringing to you today, on a UK-wide basis whilst the Assembly was not sitting. To delay the implementation of the cap reduction would have resulted in a steeper reduction in availability of allowances from the previous cap to the net zero trajectory, which would have been unfair to participants. The Order creates a flexible reserve of allowances that will be stocked from allowances such as those that remain unallocated and have been available to participants for free. That share could be used for, for example, future market stability purposes to mitigate unexpected price shocks.

The Order will also extend to Northern Ireland UK ETS amendments that were previously implemented in Great Britain only to reinstate policy consistency across the UK jurisdictions. They include technical changes such as capping the maximum free allocation that aircraft operators are eligible to receive — no aircraft operators registered in Northern Ireland are in receipt of free allocation; clarifying the treatment of carbon capture and storage plants; and extending the scope of the UK ETS to include flights from Northern Ireland to Switzerland in order to ensure uniformity of approach across the UK. The Order will introduce a civil penalty for failure to submit information to regulators and a deficit notice for use in the instance of an operator's failing to surrender sufficient allowances for its emissions by the surrender deadline. It will also introduce amendments to ensure a more consistent approach by regulators to the application of such penalties. Those are the main elements of the Order.

As I stated, the amendments in the draft Order are mainly of a technical and operational nature, and they implement a net zero-aligned emissions cap. The emissions cap is consistent with the UK and devolved Administrations' decarbonisation trajectories for the sectors within the scope of the scheme. The Order does not extend the scope to additional industrial sectors. Along with the other UK Administrations, my Department is considering further development and expansion of the scheme as part of ongoing and planned UK-wide consultation exercises. The changes in the Order are the result of agreed policy.

A UK-wide impact assessment, published alongside the main Government response to the 2022 consultation, reflects the position of all Administrations across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. It reflects the different pace at which individual nations can decarbonise, while recognising that the UK ETS is, by design, a UK-wide scheme that delivers a common carbon price across all four jurisdictions.

The UK ETS Authority has recognised the potential impact of the reduction in availability of allowances on participants and has taken action to smooth the transition to the net zero cap. That has been facilitated by bringing £53·5 million in unallocated allowances from previous years to market between 2024 and 2027 to ensure, without affecting the climate ambition of the scheme, that there is no sudden drop in allowance supply as a result of the transition to the new cap. That ensured that there has been no sudden increase in carbon prices as a result of the cap reduction, which has been in place under the Finance Act since 1 January this year. I will work with colleagues across the UK ETS Authority and as part of the net zero inter-ministerial group to further consider market stability policy.

The Order will embed a UK-wide net zero emissions cap in the 2020 Order and will help to improve the effective operation of the UK ETS. That will help to ensure that the scheme continues to play its part in incentivising greenhouse gas emissions reduction in Northern Ireland and across the UK. I accordingly commend the draft Order to the House.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has taken a considerable interest in understanding the UK ETS to ensure proper scrutiny of the related statutory instrument.

On 18 April, Members received a detailed oral briefing on the UK ETS from officials in DAERA's climate change and green growth policy division. The Committee considered the cap and trade principle for carbon emissions produced by installations within the scope of the scheme and heard that some installations receive a proportion of their carbon allowance for free — known as "free allocation" — to address carbon leakage. The Committee looked at the governance of the scheme by the UK ETS Authority and considered aspects specific to Northern Ireland, such as the six electricity generating installations that continue to participate in the EU ETS under the terms of the Windsor framework.

At our meeting on 26 September, we considered a letter from the Minister that gave us advance notice of the laying before the Assembly of the statutory instrument to amend the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, which provides the legislative basis for the UK ETS. The Committee heard that Minister Muir had given consent for the draft SI to be laid under the draft affirmative resolution procedure and that it would be laid simultaneously as an Order in Council before the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Houses of Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd.

On 7 November, the Committee took an oral briefing on the SI to further understand the proposed amendments. Officials highlighted the fact that the UK ETS, established in January 2021, is designed to be more ambitious than the EU scheme and that it is an effective decarbonisation scheme, with the aim of promoting carbon emissions reduction and incentivising participants to invest in clean, low-carbon technologies.

Officials then summarised the aims of the amendments for the Committee. They said that the amendments aim to reduce the UK ETS cap to align it with a net zero trajectory. They also said that the amendments aim to create a flexible reserve of allowances that will be stocked from allowances such as those that remain unallocated and may have been available to participants for free. That pot could, for example, be used for future market stability purposes. We were also told that the amendments aim to extend to Northern Ireland the UK ETS technical amendments that were implemented in GB when the Assembly was not sitting; extend the scope of the scheme to include flights from Northern Ireland to Switzerland; expand the scope of the scheme to include CO2 venting process emissions from the upstream oil and gas sector, although that does not affect any Northern Ireland installations at present; and introduce a civil penalty for a failure to submit information to regulators and a deficit notice for instances in which participants fail to surrender sufficient allowances by the deadline. The Minister has already outlined some of that.

The Committee queried the impact of the amendments on Northern Ireland. It noted that flights from Northern Ireland to Switzerland are now within the scope of the scheme and that there is an allowance for installations that carry out a registered activity but also store to be eligible for free allocation for those emissions that are not captured. There are no such installations here at present. The Committee further queried whether there were any military flight exemptions, because aviation operators, as well as stationary installations, have to continually monitor their emissions. We also queried whether the current situation, in which no aviation operators that are registered in Northern Ireland are in receipt of free allocation, was likely to change.

The Committee received a response to those queries in the past few days, and I would like to make the House aware of its content. Officials confirmed that paragraph 2(1)(b) of schedule 1 to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 specifies that military flights are excluded from the scheme. Officials also confirmed that there will be no change to the position with respect to free allocations for Northern Ireland-registered aircraft operators, as the deadline for airline operators to submit applications for free allocations for the 2021 to 2025 period was 31 March 2021, and both airline operators that are currently registered here — Aer Lingus UK Limited and Emerald Airlines UK Limited — registered after that date.

Overall, the Committee was content that the amendments are mainly of a technical and operational nature and that the Order does not extend the scope of the scheme to additional industrial sectors. Therefore, in conclusion, the Committee agreed to recommend that the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024 be approved by the Assembly.

Miss Brogan: An emissions trading scheme, if properly designed and operated, is an efficient and practical means of helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All too often, the burden of carbon reduction schemes falls on the consumer, not the producer. A well-designed ETS could help restore that balance. Indeed, until Brexit was inflicted upon us, we were part of the European ETS, which, while far from perfect, has been shown to render results, with a record 16·5% drop in emissions last year alone.

As stated by other Members, the amendments deal with largely technical changes, as well as some corrections and the extension of a number of measures that could not be applied here while the Assembly was not sitting. Many of the measures that are to be extended to here will have no effect, because the issues that they target do not currently exist here.

Furthermore, there are concerns about other aspects of the amendments. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Auctioning Regulations 2021 and the development of a flexible reserve, for example, risk allowing emissions to be moved around rather than reduced. For the emissions trading scheme to be effective, it should seek to align as closely as possible with the European emissions trading scheme. I understand that the amendments are largely technical, so, alongside the Committee, I am happy to support the motion.

Miss McIlveen: The intention of the UK emissions trading scheme is to incentivise the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions while recognising the importance of maintaining competitiveness in our economy. The draft Order flows from amendments being made to the scheme across the UK and, perhaps most significantly, reduces the base cap of allowances and the number of free allowances that can be issued to participants in the period up to 2030.

As a party, the DUP supports the United Kingdom's long-term net zero ambitions, and we will advocate for policies and initiatives that are environmentally responsible and support decarbonisation.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. In my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Encirc, which is a glassmaking company, has done significant work on decarbonising its production. It is a global company, and it is important that we see such pioneering initiatives. Does the Member agree with me that it is important that there is a fair and just transition for companies towards decarbonisation?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for her intervention, and I agree with her. I have had the pleasure of visiting the Encirc site to see the incredible work that the company does. Like so many companies in Northern Ireland, it is leading the way on the circular economy.

Although we appreciate that there is a role for ambitious and flexible emissions targets and that schemes such as the ETS are driving forward progress, the DUP also wants to see a fairer, not faster, approach to achieving net zero. In this place during the previous mandate, climate legislation was rushed and poorly drafted, and it conflicted with independent scientific advice from the Climate Change Committee (CCC). On this occasion, we note that the changes being introduced in the Order choose to align the cap on allowances with the UK's net zero strategy goals rather than with the CCC's advice, which would have permitted more emissions in the traded sector. That, again, gives us food for thought.

Finally, and probably most importantly, we must ensure that what we ask of energy-intensive sectors is fair and deliverable and does not simply result in higher costs for the end consumer.

Mr Blair: I intend to speak briefly. I will try to avoid absolute repetition of what has been said, but I will also speak to the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme. I stress that the UK-wide strategies for environmental protection, such as this scheme, are essential in order to address the challenges of climate change. I express my gratitude to the Minister and his officials for their work on the issue. I appreciate their efforts to keep me and my Committee colleagues updated and thank them for coming to the Committee and answering questions at various stages of the process.

As other Members have emphasised, the scheme establishes a framework for trading greenhouse gas emissions. That innovative approach not only encourages major industries to prioritise their environmental impact but aligns with our national and international commitments to combat climate change. By promoting a reduction in carbon emissions, the scheme plays a crucial role in facilitating meaningful action towards a more sustainable future. It is crucial for us to actively support such initiatives, as they play an essential role in enhancing the protection of our environment. By doing so, we not only help preserve our natural resources and ecosystems but strengthen our economy, thus encouraging growth and innovation in order to align with other leading economies. I am therefore content that the Order proceed.

Mr Muir: I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. Before I sum up, I will say that I look forward to going to Fermanagh and South Tyrone tomorrow to visit Encirc. I think that we all agree that it is a good example of the circular economy and decarbonisation in action, so I look forward to going there. It is just one business that I will be visiting tomorrow while I am down in beautiful Fermanagh.

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024 will implement a net zero-aligned emissions cap and make various technical and operational amendments to the UK emissions trading scheme. The amendments will not impact on Northern Ireland's electricity-generating installations, which continue to participate in the EU scheme under the terms of the Windsor framework. The Order will increase the climate ambition of the UK ETS, as it aligns the emissions cap of Northern Ireland with that of Scotland and Wales and with UK-wide net zero objectives.

The UK ETS has, however, already effectively implemented a net zero cap from January 2024, as I referred to in my opening remarks, as amendments to the UK ETS auctioning regulations have ensured that the number of allowances available for auction have been in line with the net zero-consistent trajectory from the beginning of this year. That provides businesses and participants with certainty to be able to plan their decarbonisation strategies. In addition, the UK ETS Authority has taken action to smooth the transition for participants to the new net zero-aligned cap. The tightening of the cap will not result in any additional administrative burdens for participants.

The ETS is one of the most effective emissions reduction interventions: it has reduced Northern Ireland greenhouse gas emissions in sectors within its scope by 52% since the inception of EU ETS in 2005. Further amendments to expand the scope of UK ETS to other industrial sectors, such as waste incineration and domestic maritime, to increase the effectiveness of the scheme and further contribute to UK and devolved Administrations' net zero climate objectives are subject to ongoing and planned UK-wide consultation exercises.

In order that we in Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the UK, can continue our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the effective implementation of UK ETS, we need to pass the Order. Accordingly, I commend the Order to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our security team and members of the PSNI, who have just been forced to remove anti-Israeli protesters from the Great Hall. People in this place are entitled to express their views in a democracy. They are not entitled to access parts of this Building, interrupting staff who are trying to work. I am proud to represent North Belfast, the home of the synagogue and the Jewish community in Northern Ireland. This place will not be used or abused by those who wish to express their anti-Israel views.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr Brett. Your point of order is on the record, and I will take up that issue with the Speaker.

Ms K Armstrong (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures): 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 in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. I call Kellie Armstrong to open the debate on the motion.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I am pleased to introduce a new Standing Order, which recognises the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee as a Standing Committee of the Assembly and provides for substitute members of that Committee to assist it in fulfilling its statutory functions within the strict time frames within which it must operate.

In March 2024, the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee wrote to the Committee on Procedures highlighting the issue that, whilst it had been established as a Standing Committee under the Windsor Framework (Democratic Scrutiny) Regulations 2024, it was not provided for in Standing Orders, unlike other Assembly Standing Committees, and asked that work be undertaken to draft a Standing Order to address that. The Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee also outlined the point that, given its statutory functions and time scales, as set out in schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, it was likely that the Committee would be required to meet during periods of recess and, potentially, more than once a week.

It, therefore, asked the Committee on Procedures to undertake, as a priority, exploratory work to identify options that would provide in Standing Orders for substitute members, including rules on substitution and proxy voting for that Committee.

The Committee on Procedures subsequently agreed to consider provision, including substitute members and/or proxy voting, in Standing Orders for the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee as one of a number of key areas of work to be progressed this year. Over the past few months, the Committee has given detailed consideration to those issues and liaised with the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee by way of correspondence and a very helpful meeting with the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of that Committee on the development of the Standing Order before the Assembly today. While keen to move forward quickly on the matter to assist the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, we have also been mindful of the need to explore carefully the implications of the various issues and have sought legal advice where appropriate.

I turn now to the detail of the Standing Order. Paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) provide for the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee and recognise its purpose and functions:

as set out in schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That approach is similar to that adopted for other Standing Committees in Standing Orders, while also recognising that the establishment of the Committee and its functions are already provided for in schedule 6B.

Paragraph (4) of the Standing Order highlights the Committee's section 44 powers. It is not essential for the Standing Order to cover the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee's section 44 powers, given that they are provided for in paragraphs 5(1) and 5(2) of schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, to ensure consistency with the existing Standing Orders for the other Standing Committees, the Committee on Procedures is of the view that it is important to reference those powers in the Standing Order.

Paragraph (5) outlines that membership of the Committee:

Standing Order 52 sets out the procedures for membership of Standing Committees and applies to the establishment of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee in this mandate.

Paragraph (6) enables each member of the Committee to appoint a substitute member and sets out a number of requirements for the substitute. Those requirements include that they must be a Member of the Assembly, must be of the same political party as the appointing member and must not already be a member of the Committee or nominated as a substitute for any other member of the Committee. The one-member-to-one-substitute approach recognises the quorum required by the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee to make decisions, which is five members.

Paragraphs (7) and (8) provide for a substitute member to attend a meeting of the Committee when the nominating member is absent and to undertake the full functions of the nominating member, including voting during the proceedings of the Committee meeting. The process to be followed for nominating a substitute member, including timescales and other practical administrative arrangements, will be set out in guidance to be agreed by the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Such operational details do not need to be included in the Standing Order. Setting them out in guidance provides greater flexibility to amend them if necessary.

Paragraphs (9) and (10) set out the arrangements for chairing a meeting in the absence of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson. If the Chairperson is absent, the Standing Order confirms that the Deputy Chairperson will chair the meeting rather than any substitute member appointed by the Chair. If both the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are absent, the oldest member present who is not a substitute member will chair the meeting. The provisions provide the necessary clarity on the chairing arrangements when substitute members are appointed.

Finally, paragraph (11) is an interpretation provision.

Before I finish my remarks as Committee Chairperson, I will briefly comment on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee's request for the provision of proxy voting in addition to substitute members. Legal advice provided to the Committee set out the need for the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee to diligently discharge its functions and outlined potential risks associated with the provision of proxy voting for that Committee. Having considered the advice, the Committee on Procedures agreed not to include it in the Standing Order, noting that the provision of substitute members would provide flexibility for the Committee without incurring the potential risks identified in relation to proxy voting.

Assuming that the Standing Order is agreed by the Assembly today, we will undertake a review in autumn 2025 in conjunction with the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee of the provision of substitute Members and whether the provisions, together with the availability of remote attendance facilities for Committee meetings, are sufficient to enable that Committee to effectively discharge its statutory functions.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Whilst she is talking about the review, one of the issues that come to my mind is the provision for the Chair, in the event that the Chair and Deputy Chair are not present, to be the oldest serving Member. Would it not make more sense for it to be the longest-serving Member of that Committee? The oldest Member of the Committee, in certain circumstances, may just have been appointed to the Committee, given that time would change its membership. Would it not probably be more productive to appoint the longest-serving Member, as opposed to the oldest?

Ms K Armstrong: It was discussed at Committee at some length in one of our meetings. To be honest, it was the Member's DUP colleague who proposed that it be the oldest Member. We considered how it would go forward, but, as this is part of the rules of the House — for instance, when the Speaker, in between times, was the oldest Member — it was felt then by Members unanimously at the Committee that "the oldest Member" would be put into Standing Orders.

Assuming that the Standing Order is agreed by the Assembly today, we will undertake a review in autumn 2025 with the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee to ensure that the facilities provided for substitute Members and remote access are sufficient to enable that Committee to effectively discharge its statutory functions.

I am pleased that we have been able to progress this work and bring forward the new Standing Order, which recognises the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee as a Standing Committee of the Assembly and assists it to fulfil its statutory functions through the provision of substitute Members.

I will speak briefly in my capacity as an individual MLA and say that I recognise just how busy the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee is. It is one of the busiest Standing Committees, given how often it meets. It is right that the Committee on Procedures does not review the internal operational workings of that Committee. However, I believe that it would be useful to have and that there should be a review of the Committee structures by the Assembly Commission and the independent body to recognise the fact that this is a Standing Committee that sits during recess. It sits many times. There are a lot of legal requirements and statutory duties on that Committee to vote for legal matters. It is time to recognise that there are some Committees of the House that are recognised as Standing Committees, not Statutory Committees, but carry just as much of a burden.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee): At its meeting on 21 November 2024, the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee considered the draft Standing Order that is before the Assembly today. The Standing Order follows a request from the Democratic Scrutiny Committee (DSC) to the Committee on Procedures to bring forward the provisions. On behalf of the Democratic Scrutiny Committee, I thank the Chair and members of the Committee on Procedures for the work that they have done and for bringing the Standing Order to the Assembly today.

As the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures has outlined, the Standing Order provides for the Committee itself and makes provision for substitute Members. The Chair has outlined the rationale for providing for the Committee in Standing Orders, so I will concentrate on the provisions for substitute Members.

The Democratic Scrutiny Committee has a number of statutory duties that are unique to it. Its work is also subject to very tight time frames: for example, it must decide whether to hold an inquiry into a replacement EU act that is the subject of a notification from the British Government and must do so within five working days. The Committee's work programme, to all intents and purposes, is not under its control; it is largely dictated by notifications from the British Government on foot of acts being published in the Official Journal of the European Union. That means that the Committee cannot be certain when notifications will be made. It also means that notifications can continue throughout the Assembly's recess periods. Consequently, there is a risk that a notification may be made during a recess period, when members of the Committee are unavailable to reach a decision. Should several members be unavailable, it may be impossible for the Democratic Scrutiny Committee to reach a decision because a quorum cannot be reached. The Standing Order before us today will allow for a substitute member to consider the relevant issues and take part in reaching a decision. The substitute member would receive all the advice that would have been provided to the absent member and would attend the Committee meeting to exercise all the functions of the absent member.

The Democratic Scrutiny Committee had also asked the Committee on Procedures to consider proxy voting to provide for even greater flexibility, but, having considered legal advice on the matter, the Committee is content that provision for substitute members only is progressed at this stage. Nevertheless, we welcome the fact that the Committee on Procedures intends to undertake a review of the Standing Order in approximately 12 months' time to assess how it is operating in practice. Any issues can be addressed then.

In conclusion, I thank the Committee on Procedures for its work on bringing forward the Standing Order, which will, hopefully, provide the Democratic Scrutiny Committee with the flexibility that it needs to discharge its functions effectively during recess periods.

Mr Brooks: The Democratic Unionist Party acknowledges that it is appropriate to provide in Standing Orders for the underpinning of the Committees established in this place. On that basis, I align myself with the Chair's comments, particularly on substitute members and the provision thereof. I thank the Chair and members of the Committee on Procedures for their work with us on that and for their commitment to a review in a year's time.

From a party political position, however, let us be clear from the outset that the Committee does not scratch the surface with regard to resolving the fundamental problem that led to its creation, namely the democratic deficit created by the Northern Ireland protocol. As a result of those flawed arrangements and the failure of consecutive Governments to address the surrendering of over 300 areas of law to the EU, no Member of the House has any say or power in formulating, developing, amending or initiating legislation in those areas, even where it is directly contrary to the interests of businesses and communities in Northern Ireland.

The draft Standing Order acknowledges and embeds that inequality. Paragraph (2) presents the DSC as a Standing Committee. Why is that significant? It means that the Committee lacks the powers and mandate of a Statutory Committee. Statutory Committees are clearly defined in section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and link directly to paragraph 9 of strand one of the Belfast Agreement. Those provisions dictate that Statutory Committees are to advise and assist each Executive Minister in the formulation of policy and to

Those are vital functions that local elected representatives in the Chamber should have over the laws that govern our economy, yet the Democratic Scrutiny Committee has been left bereft of those functions as a direct result of Governments ceding power to Brussels. In that context, we recognise that the Democratic Scrutiny Committee can serve only to mitigate rather than resolve the undemocratic nature of the current arrangements.

That said, neither the DSC nor the separate process of the Stormont brake were part of the original protocol. The fact that we have those mechanisms, however imperfect, is solely because of the actions taken by my party. We will continue to use the Democratic Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise legislation that is either under consideration by the EU or is published, whilst being cognisant that that still does not give Assembly Members a substantive role in how laws are developed or imposed.

The Stormont brake mechanism is distinct from the Democratic Scrutiny Committee, and the DUP will use it to full effect in the pursuit of our overall objectives of removing barriers within the United Kingdom and ensuring the primacy of its internal market. We have also successfully tested the Government's duty not to adopt EU laws that are not currently covered by the Windsor framework without cross-community consent in the Assembly. However, both of those processes provide Assembly Members with a say after the fact, when legislation has already completed its passage. That, in itself, demonstrates the gulf in democratic accountability that is still to be bridged.

Regrettably, even when taking account of the Committee's limited functions, the parties on the opposite Benches have demonstrated a willingness to constrain the scrutiny of proposed or published EU acts beyond an initial desktop exercise. Frequently, unionist calls for a Committee inquiry into a piece of legislation, especially where its impacts on Northern Ireland remain unclear, have been shut down and voted down.

Having previously called for the rigorous implementation of the original protocol, which ceded control of our laws without any mitigation or role for the Assembly, it now appears that Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance are committed to frustrating even the peripheral influence that has been handed to our institutions.

For those reasons, we welcome the creation of a House of Lords Select Committee, the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee. We suspect that that Committee will take a more open and transparent approach to examining the multitude of EU rules, regulations and laws coming forward that directly affect Northern Ireland. That multitude was the case in the previous parliamentary mandate, and that work will increase in importance in the coming months and years.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Brooks, I ask that you address the content of the motion in the Order Paper rather than structures at Westminster that are not mentioned in the motion.

Mr Brooks: I was drawing my remarks to a close. All that I will say is that we look forward to engaging with the structures at Westminster that I have mentioned. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. I call Kellie Armstrong to make a winding-up speech.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, I welcome the opportunity to conclude today's debate on the motion to amend Standing Orders to provide for the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee to substitute members. I thank all those who have taken part in today's debate for their contributions, including the Chairperson of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, Philip McGuigan, and the Deputy Chairperson, David Brooks. I also thank the Clerks of the Committee on Procedures and those who provided legal advice for their diligent work in developing this new addition to Standing Orders.

There was unanimous support in the Committee for bringing forward the Standing Order, and Members' comments have been positive and supportive today. I will pick up, briefly, on some of the points that have been brought up today. In answer to the Chair of the Committee: yes, the Committee on Procedures will review the provision in 12 months to ensure that what we have put in place is good enough to allow your Committee to do its work.

To be honest, I was expecting there to be a lot more challenges to the motion, but I am glad not to have received those.

Legal advice was taken on proxy voting, and we cannot bring that forward. Let us test the substitute member provision first and see whether it works well. If it does, that is great; we will see how that flies. No one from any other Committee has asked for that type of replacement process, but that is not a call for the rest of you to jump on the bandwagon and to look for provision to have substitute members.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. That was a big point of discussion in the Committee. Does the Member envisage there being a point in the future, if the provision for substitute members does not work, when proxy voting could be explored further by the Committee?

Ms K Armstrong: We are certainly open to doing that in 12 months' time, once we have had time to look at how the substitute members provision has worked. I cannot go into the issue of proxy voting that was covered by the legal advice, but I can say that it reflects how the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee works, given that it has such legal determinations and votes to take. We will certainly look at the issue of proxy voting in 12 months: it is not to say that it will never be introduced; just to say that we will try the first option first.

It is important to support the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee in carrying out its functions and meeting its deadlines. The new Standing Order will assist it in doing that, particularly in periods of recess. At times when the rest of us may be enjoying a holiday or in our constituency offices, the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee will be here in Parliament Buildings going through its business.

I am pleased that, overall, Members have welcomed the new provision, which I commend to the House.

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

Mrs Dodds: I beg to move

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

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The motion is wide-ranging and covers a number of elements of the problems that we face in the health service. However, I will concentrate my remarks on the maternity and children's hospital project. We are all supportive of the ambition to have a new children's and maternity hospital that is fit for purpose. Such projects are essential to have a health service in Northern Ireland that is ready to deliver for new parents and babies and the very sick children from across the Province who are cared for on site.

I am, however, worried by a number of issues in relation to the new-build project, and I hope, Minister, that you will be able to provide answers and clarity. The increases in the costs of the project have been astronomical. They are estimated to extend to more than £400 million extra. The cost of the maternity element has practically doubled, with, as of earlier this year, £97 million having been spent, and that was prior to the most recent difficulties with the discovery of pseudomonas in the water system. Overall, for both facilities, more than £184 million has been paid out, yet work will not commence on the site for the children's hospital before next year, and it is not expected to be operational before 2030 at the earliest — a decade late. The estimated cost of the children's hospital component has already doubled to more than £590 million. You said yourself, Minister, that that is an "eye-watering" sum, and I know that you understand that it puts intolerable pressure on your Department's capital budget.

We need to fully understand what is going on. There needs to be a rigorous in-depth examination of the actions of the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust since the emergence of pseudomonas infection in the new maternity hospital two years ago and of the process of its handover from the contractor in March. Shortly after the trust took charge of the building, pseudomonas was confirmed at a significant number of water outlets, rendering the hospital unsafe and requiring significant reparative work. Indeed, an answer to a question for written answer that I received today indicates that, in fact, 459 different water outlets are affected, which is 36% of the total number of water outlets in the building.

On 26 September, the Health Committee took evidence from senior Belfast Trust officials. The session is available to view on the Committee page of the Assembly website. In response to queries about the expertise of those signing off the handover, the Committee was advised:

On the contrary, the Health Minister confirmed, in responses to questions for written answer that I subsequently tabled, that the water safety group was not involved in the handover, and, indeed, did not support it. Will the Minister explain how Health Committee members came to be advised that the water safety group had been involved?

The water safety and usage group had actually suggested a period of steady state running, with sampling of all water outlets to test for pseudomonas. The group also previously agreed that the assurance sought from the contractor ought to be that the building's water system was free from waterborne pathogens. I am interested in the governance processes of the Belfast Trust and how the concerns of an assurance group, such as the water safety group, are communicated through trust structures to senior management and the trust board. Does the Minister have a clear understanding of the concerns that it articulated and of whether they were reported appropriately, through the relevant structures? When doing the publicity for the handover of the building, were the trust's chair and the rest of his board fully informed of the concerns that had been raised ? Again, perhaps the Minister will clarify that in his response.

Interestingly, the same firm of legionella specialists that acted as independent consultants for the handover of the building has been asked to co-lead a trust-instigated review to examine that. It is difficult to argue — I trust, Minister, that you agree — that that is best, or even normal, practice. A full independent inquiry should take place, outwith the Belfast Trust and those who participated or acted in a professional advisory capacity in the decision-making. I am also keen to know about the extent of the risk assessment that was carried out by the trust prior to the handover of the building. If the Minister is willing, it may be instructive to share that with Members and, perhaps, place it in the Assembly Library. Similarly, Members might benefit from the Minister sharing the minutes of water safety and usage group meetings over the past number of years.

I am also interested in the role of the Department. What advice was offered by the health estates team? What oversight was there from the Minister, his predecessors and senior officials? Did they raise concerns at any point? Does the Department believe that there is an acceptable level of pseudomonas? I will also ask colleagues on the Health Committee to support recalling to the Committee those officials who appeared before us on 26 September. There may be merit, too, in inviting representatives of the water safety group to give evidence.

The trust seems to be clinging to its contract with the company as a defence for not taking any further action, but there is always scope to act in such circumstances. The emergence of pseudomonas changed the landscape, and the trust should have acted immediately. Previously, the handover of the critical care building on the Royal Victoria Hospital site was delayed after the contractor found microbial-induced corrosion in its water systems.

The Northern Ireland Audit Office's major capital projects follow-up report, which was published in February, found that the Northern Ireland public sector's current portfolio of major capital projects will cost £2·45 billion more to complete than originally estimated. It also reported that, for the seven flagship projects that were announced back in 2015, the total cost overruns are now close to £1·94 billion. Only one of those projects has been delivered. Key decisions on large-scale projects can have very significant consequences. Northern Ireland cannot afford for them to be mishandled. Estimated costs for the maternity and children's hospital have already jumped by more than £400 million, with a significant distance yet to travel. With the new regional children's hospital being embarked on, it is imperative that the trust ensures that the design of the water system in that facility is absolutely right. It must reflect the most up-to-date standards available. No further contracts should be entered into without every i being dotted and every t being crossed.

We cannot contemplate any further remedial work to already expensive facilities. There is no room for any more mistakes and no appetite for wasting significant further sums on avoidable repairs.

Minister, Northern Ireland cannot afford losses on such a scale. I know that you are vexed by the significance and extent of the problem. Those who made the decisions about the handover of the contract and decided to proceed need to be held accountable. It is long past time for things to change. You have the opportunity to bring about that change through a full, robust inquiry into what happened so that we do not continuously repeat the mistakes of the past.

Ms Kimmins: I support the motion. I will focus on the essential need for the hospital and on the transformative impact that it will have on the people of the North.

At its core, the hospital represents more than just bricks and mortar: it is a lifeline for families and a place where children can receive the care that they need and where mothers can give birth in a state-of-the-art environment. The people of the North deserve a health service that prioritises them, and the facility is a cornerstone of that commitment. Every day, countless families navigate the challenges of accessing specialist maternity and paediatric care, often facing long waits or travelling outside their community for treatment. The new hospital has the potential to change that by offering centralised, world-class facilities that are equipped to handle complex cases and emergencies under one roof, which will provide not only better outcomes for patients but peace of mind for parents and caregivers.

Furthermore, investing in a modern maternity and children's hospital will enable our healthcare professionals to work in an environment that supports innovation and best practice. Those staff members, who are the backbone of our health service, will benefit from the tools, technology and infrastructure required to deliver the highest standards of care. It is an investment not just in facilities but in people, patients and providers alike. We should not lose sight of the fact that the hospital is about giving children the best start in life and ensuring that mothers can access safe, timely care throughout pregnancy and childbirth. It is about equity in healthcare by ensuring that all families, regardless of their circumstances, have access to the support that they need when they need it most.

While delays and setbacks are deeply disappointing, our focus must remain on the goal of delivering a world-class maternity and children's hospital that will serve generations to come. It is a project of hope, of vision and of immense importance to the people of the North that will enhance the huge talent and expertise that we have across all maternity services in the North. I urge us all to maintain the momentum and ensure the delivery of that vital facility. Let us keep our eyes on the bigger picture: the children and families who need the services.

On the broader transformation piece, the recent Bengoa conference has hopefully refocused minds and reinvigorated the importance of the implementation of the transformation that our health service so desperately needs. The Health and Social Care (HSC) workforce across the board are frustrated with the lack of progress. Patients and their families need and deserve access to a more effective and efficient health service. He has been in post only a couple of months, but I acknowledge the Minister's commitment to delivering transformation. The Health Committee is keen to see that transformation happen at pace.

There is no doubt that it is not a simple task. We cannot, however, continue to haemorrhage funds in managing the symptoms of the problems created by a lack of transformation. Spending huge sums of money on locums and agency staff, as well as the need to outsource services from the private and independent sector, is not the best use of public money. While that is unavoidable in many circumstances, we need a fundamental plan for stabilising and securing our workforce, a plan that values our extremely talented staff and ensures that they choose to stay in the North for the long term.

Finally, I acknowledge that some of the transformation work has begun, but we have so much more to do. I look forward to continuing that work with the Minister and the Health Committee in the time ahead.

Miss McAllister: I support the motion that my DUP colleague on the Health Committee has proposed. I will speak to a number of aspects of it. I will give most of my attention to the maternity and children's hospital, as the proposer did.

First, I will highlight a few points. I do not want to politicise the motion. I am often critical of the Minister and decisions that he may or may not take in the Chamber or outside it, but, to be fair to him, I am a little frustrated by the wording of the motion, particularly because, when the children's hospital was announced, the DUP held the Health and Finance Ministries. We have had a lack of progress on a number of projects because of the merry-go-round of collapse and return of the Assembly and Stormont overall. It is important to take that issue into account, because, regardless of who holds the health portfolio, if we have stop-start government, we will not have true transformation of our health service.

As my party's spokesperson on the Health Committee, I am willing to work with the Health Minister on transformation. I recognise that the reconfiguration framework is being consulted on, and we will respond to that. I understand the Minister's desire to avoid over-politicisation by not including a lot of detail on the reconfiguration. Unfortunately, however, when you do not include the detail, it is harder to bring people along with you, because they do not know what is happening. I recommend and ask that the Minister engage with those on the ground and in the hospitals, with allied health professionals (AHPs) and with representative bodies to put a bit more meat on the bones.

I turn to the maternity hospital. I looked at the response to my Health Committee colleague's question for written answer on the water safety group. I was shocked and surprised to hear that conflicting evidence was given at the Health Committee. My party colleague and I support recalling the group to the Committee to hear the true facts of the matter.

I share the concern reflected in the remarks about the review and who co-leads it, but I am not surprised, to be honest. Too often, when we have reviews in the health service, inevitably, the groups or even the individuals who were responsible for some element along the line sit on those reviews. We keep coming back to that issue, and there needs to be accountability, especially around structures and working with the boards of the individual trusts. We support calling those witnesses back to the Committee.

I move to the maternity hospital. I have engaged with midwives, who have been excited about the hospital being handed over and are very much looking forward to the new building. Having the new building will boost staff morale. They are also disappointed, and, hopefully, we can see movement on that. We absolutely cannot, however, support the handover of any building where there is still pseudomonas. We support the Department in everything that it is doing to tackle that in the first instance.

My colleague and I visited the children's hospital, primarily the emergency department team. We noted some aspects that struck us. It relies on charitable funds, which get consumed by the Belfast Trust. One charitable fund relates to the use of a facility that includes a room into which parents can be brought to receive the most devastating news that their child did not make it. Having to rely on charitable funds for that is a disgrace. Also, I have stayed in hospital with my child a number of times over the past few years, and it is often pot luck whether relatives are able to stay with their loved ones. We expect children who stay in hospital for quite some time to live there, but the facilities are just not up to scratch. They are young people, and we need to ensure that there are smiles on their faces while they undergo some of the most intensive treatment in their hospital experiences.

Yesterday, I attended the NI HealthTech Leaders' Forum event. One thing that came out of it that is relevant to the motion was investment in health. We need to invest in health and look at it not as a cost but as an investment. The more we invest in health, the more we can transform the lives of everyone who does not need to reach that hospital stage. When, however, patients reach that hospital stage, we need to have the service —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Miss McAllister: — and the staff to facilitate them.

Mr Beattie: As Members, we are all too aware through our constituency offices and, for some of us, through personal experience of the huge challenges that face our health service. In many ways, the motion is similar to the many others that make their way into the weekly Order Paper, highlighting something that is wrong, followed by a plea for a Minister or Department to do something about it. As we see the eye-watering sums of money involved with the maternity and children's hospital, it is right that the issue demands our attention in a coherent manner. Regrettably, however, on the whole, the motion adds absolutely no value in addressing the issues that we face, It has been put forward with prejudice, I believe, and in a party political manner and does not take into account what went before to put us where we are.

If, like those who tabled the motion, I wanted to politicise today's debate, I could easily remind the Chamber that many of the problems that are weighing down on our health service can be directly traced to a disastrous decision taken by the previous DUP Health Minister a decade ago. When Northern Ireland should have been taking decisions to plan and proactively prepare for growing demand, we found former DUP Ministers cutting critical training places and supports, pulling money out of long-established waiting list initiatives and, perhaps most damagingly, deciding to decouple local pay rates from those across the rest of the United Kingdom, believing that it was sensible and reasonable to break pay parity for our health workers. The only reaction from the DUP Minister was a comment of "guilty as charged" that was made in jest. That is truly galling, as it set the conditions for where we find ourselves today.

While the supporters of the motion wish us to join their condemnation of a supposed lack of progress, they also ask Members to ignore the direct action and stubbornness of their party, which served as the sole reason why previous —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to address his attention to the motion in hand, please.

Mr Beattie: Absolutely, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I believe that I am doing that in the context of understanding how we got to where we are. We need to understand that, because we did not just appear where we are today; we got here because —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry. I do not mean to put you off your stride. I think that we understand what is happening. All that I am asking you to do is direct your attention to the motion, please. Thank you.

Mr Beattie: When looking at where we find ourselves with the lack of progress on the children's hospital, the maternity system and waiting lists, we just need to cast our minds back to early 2022. The Executive were edging towards a much sought-after multi-year Budget, which we needed in order to make progress, and proven plans were being enacted across the health service to respond to the growing volumes and changing acuity of the patients who were coming forward. However, those opportunities were literally robbed from every patient and every health worker a few weeks later, when Stormont was collapsed, shamefully, for the second time in two years.

We drifted without a Government into an increasingly perilous health situation that, once again, culminated in massive industrial action. The massive industrial action in 2022 is affecting things today as we talk about the motion. Damage was undoubtedly inflicted, and it has become clear that we have huge problems. True leadership demands integrity, not selfish obstruction, but the motion is riddled with contradictions.

We have been put into the worst situation that we have found ourselves in for 100 years. Once again, we face industrial action because promises that were made at the start of the mandate — this reduced mandate — have not been held to. We said that there would be optimism in that we would not make health a party political issue, but the motion does exactly that. Promises were made, but those promises were broken when our health service budget was given to us at a level below what it was in the last mandate.

There are huge challenges across our health service, but, with the right will and motivation, things can be improved. Things are being improved, and the Minister has brought forward many policies that can change things over the years. We do not need bizarre, self-serving, party political nonsense like today's motion distracting from what really matters. Our health and social care system is far too important.

Mr McGrath: I will make the sole contribution on behalf of the Opposition, although, so far, you would not think it by the way that our Executive parties are lifting lumps out of each other when it comes to yet another disaster and yet another discussion about how huge sums of money have been spent in a way that raises eyebrows and, ultimately, drains our public services and public sector of money that could be spent on other matters.

When first proposed, the children's hospital was sold as being state of the art, providing, as other representatives have said, services that would include: 155 inpatient beds; a 25-bed programme treatment unit; 10 operating theatres; a day procedure unit; and a paediatric emergency unit with 10 beds. Those are all things that are absolutely critically required. We now know that nothing will commence on the site until next year and that it will not be operational before 2030, which is 10 years later than it should have been. That is nothing short of an embarrassment. The maternity unit, meanwhile, was also meant to be state of the art and provide 16 delivery rooms, 68 beds and an early pregnancy unit. The maternity unit cannot yet open, following the discovery by the contractor of pseudomonas aeruginosa (PsA) in the unit's pipes, and further repairs are required. Nobody really knows when that unit will open either. Yet again, what another utter embarrassment.

Are those the only issues? Are there other problems in those buildings that we are not yet aware of? I ask the Minister to commit that the issues that Members raise today, such as PsA, are the only problems that there are with those projects and that there are no problems that we do not yet know about. Are there other issues that the Minister might need to give some oxygen to? Issues that might relate to some other problems that there are. I agree that there should be an independent inquiry into what has happened with those projects. We need to know all the issues and we need to know the causes, the expected cost to remedy them and when they will be resolved.

It is worth acknowledging that the Ulster Unionists have the Ministry at the minute, the DUP had the Ministry previously and Sinn Féin has had the Ministry during the lifetime of what we are discussing as the contributions to these problems. The independent inquiry needs to be chaired by somebody outside the Department and outside the Executive to be able to give us the absolute answers that we need. As a snapshot of where we are at present, it is a monumental government gaffe that is costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds. That seems to be the one consistent thing that we do here: when there is a mess-up, it is hundreds of millions of pounds that we overspend and do not account for and that has to be cut from budgets, meaning that other services are deprived.

It is disingenuous to lay this entirely at the feet of the Health Minister, making him the sacrificial lamb for the Executive's collective failure. We should also be conscious that the delays and spiralling costs of the maternity project are not an isolated incident. In 2019, the Northern Ireland Audit Office told us about 11 flagship projects that were not completed and that were massively out of control. It told us that the children's hospital had a £130 million overspend and had overrun by five years. It told us that the maternity hospital was six years overdue and £17 million over budget at that stage, but that was not enough for there to be a collapse of these institutions twice during that period of time and not enough to be able to bring us back. I do hope that it brings home the message that, if you collapse these institutions, it causes problems with major projects and major developments on the ground that, undoubtedly, will end up costing money. Maybe this will bring it back. The children's hospital was due to cost £57 million, and it is now £97 million. The maternity hospital was due to cost £223 million, and it is now £590 million. That is what the delays have cost. We need to find out exactly what it was that has caused the problems and how much it is going to cost us to fix them.

Ms Flynn: I support the motion. Like many others in the Chamber, I share the frustration and the genuine concerns about the delays that have held back this vital project. Of course, accountability of public money and the massive overspend is very important and something that we need to follow up on. I agree with the suggestions made earlier, by the proposer of the motion and the Alliance Party, about getting some of the witnesses back to the Health Committee to follow up on the details of what has gone wrong and when the maternity hospital can open.

While we must address those challenges, I want to take a moment to reflect on what this hospital represents and the incredible potential that it holds. It is not just about constructing new buildings for the maternity and children's hospitals or catching up on missed deadlines for the opening date, although that is very important. The longer-term vision and strategy for those buildings is for the hospital to have the power to transform how we care for families, mothers and children across the North in a place that truly embodies care, community and compassion.

When the maternity and the children's hospitals are completed, it will not just be new facilities; it will be a lifeline for so many new mothers, new babies, very sick young children and their families. Just imagine a young child, who is feeling scared and anxious about their treatment, walking into a new space that feels welcoming and not clinical. Bright play areas, colourful designs and thoughtful touches will transform what can be a very intimidating experience into something much less daunting. For the parents and families, spaces where they can have a rest, have some time out and feel supported will make all the difference during some of the most challenging times in their lives.

It also made me think about the Health Committee's recent joint visit to Dublin. Again, we have the example of the disaster around the new children's hospital in Dublin. The overspend is going into billions of euros. When we went to visit the hospital, which is nearing completion and should be opening in June, you could see how they have transformed the hospital for the wee sick kids and their families. You can just see the difference that that space will make to those kids when they are getting their treatments and operations. Hopefully, we will be in that position when our new children's hospital opens. I know that the focus of today's motion is on the overspend and the delays, which are very important, but we need to focus on the fact that, when both hospitals are open and operational, we will be able to share the specialities and the clinical expertise so that very sick children across the country can be treated in the children's hospitals, North and South.

The maternity and children's hospitals will offer more than just physical care for the mothers, babies and kids: it is also about emotional care and the mental health of our children and their families, which will be as much of a priority as their physical health. The design of the hospital, with its, hopefully, inviting atmosphere and play areas, will help our children feel at ease and allow them to focus on healing and being kids, even in the very tough times that they are going through.

What better place to host such a facility than in the constituency of West Belfast that I represent. It is a community built on strength and solidarity. The people of West Belfast take immense pride in their ability to support and care for others, and hosting this hospital is no exception. Families coming from across the North will not only find world-class care but a community ready to make them feel at home. We need to move forward with urgency — following up, of course, on the accountability and delays — and with determination to make the vision of the hospitals a reality and see the completion and the doors opened to our families and children.

Mr Brett: First, I disassociate myself and my party from the remarks in some elements of the media this morning when they covered this topic, stating that the debate was about "turning guns" on or "firing shots" at the Health Minister. That language is completely unhelpful and untrue. My party and, I think, the Chamber want to support the Minister in holding to account those who have wasted public funding — that does not fall at the door of the current Health Minister — and, together, we can find a solution to that.

I take exception to the remarks of the Member for Upper Bann who described the motion as "bizarre", "self-serving" and a deflection. I invite him to read his remarks in Hansard this evening, as they may be a better example of "bizarre" and "self-serving" and, indeed, of deflection.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. I invite you to address the motion.

Mr Brett: Of course I will follow your ruling, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, but, at a time of shortage of public funds, it is important that we cover this issue. As was articulated by other Members, both projects are due to run 10 years over their projected dates. They are projected to run tens of millions of pounds over budget, and the Assembly has a right to come together to demand answers. The original estimate for the maternity hospital, as other Members have articulated, was £57·2 million. The current estimate is £97·1 million, with tens of millions still projected to be spent.

A decade over budget and £50 million overspent: to put that in perspective, we could have employed an additional 140 nurses for the past 10 years with the same funding that has been wasted on the project. Imagine the difference that 140 additional nurses could make in tackling our waiting lists. Imagine the impact that 140 additional nurses working for the past 10 years could have had on tackling the health inequalities that are prevalent in our society. Instead, the Belfast Trust has presided over a series of delays and the squandering of public funds. The public are concerned and angry about this, as they have the right to be.

Each and every day, like Members across the Chamber, I am contacted by parents who are unable to get the assessments that their children need. Each and every day, I am contacted by an older person in my constituency who is unable to get the hip replacement that they need. Each and every day, I am contacted by constituents who are unable to secure a place at an NHS dentist or a face-to-face GP appointment. That is why it is right that the House comes together to call on the Belfast Trust to give answers as to how this situation has arisen. The Minister has committed to doing all that he can to find the answers, and he will have our support in doing that. Our public finances cannot be used, however, as the plaything of public bodies that are unaccountable or unanswerable to the House. Members of the Health Committee have said, rightly, that they raised concerns on this issue at the Committee and were given contradictory information. That is why a strong message from the House saying that we want an inquiry in order to get answers is an important step.

Day and daily, our front-line healthcare workers do an extraordinary job. Day and daily, they work their fingers to the bone to deliver a service that we can all be proud of. They watch on and gasp, however, as £50 million is squandered on a delayed project. That is why the Minister of Health will have the full support of my party and, I hope, the House in holding to account the Belfast Trust on how we got into this situation. Who will take responsibility for this, and what disciplinary action will they face?

Mr Donnelly: I support the motion, and I thank my DUP colleagues for tabling it. I am sure that all Members will agree with the key points that the motion raises, particularly the concern that we have seen little progress on reducing waiting lists, which remain the longest in Europe. On 30 June 2024, the median waiting time for an inpatient or day case admission was 47·6 weeks, with over 52,000 people awaiting admission. Those numbers may be lower than the peak levels that we saw during the pandemic, but they are still unacceptably high. That cannot be solved simply through additional funding: fundamental transformation of our hospital network is required. To an extent, I welcome the Minister of Health's recently published framework, 'Hospitals: creating a network for better outcomes' as an early step towards that necessary transformation.

However, I share the concerns expressed in the motion that the framework lacks detail. Given the years that we have already lost in this and the previous mandate, we cannot afford further delay. We all know the pressures that our health service is under, and we know that people in our families, in our communities and across Northern Ireland are suffering.

It is extremely concerning that the opening of the new maternity building at the Royal Victoria site has been delayed over water contamination issues and that the construction of the new children's hospital on the same site will not begin until next year at the earliest, meaning that it will likely not be open until after 2030 — more than a decade later than anticipated. It is essential that the Department works with the Belfast Trust to urgently resolve the contamination of the water system, which, if not addressed, would represent a significant public health risk. It is right that the hospital is not opened until it is clinically safe to do so. We must learn from the mistakes to ensure that those failings are not repeated and, in particular, that we do not see such lengthy delays in future hospital projects. It is for that reason that we support the call for an inquiry into the handling of the maternity and children's hospital project to date. Those facilities, when finally opened, will be state of the art and will bring huge benefits to families across Northern Ireland.

However, it is important to address one issue with the motion. The first line of the motion states:

I would prefer it to read:

While we would obviously like the Health Minister to do more on those issues, he is limited by the loss of 40% of this mandate and nearly 60% of the previous one. I ask the Members who tabled the motion to consider the damage done by their party's previous boycott of the Assembly and the Executive and to commit to reforming these institutions to ensure that one party cannot walk away again and leave our health service without any leadership.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny, I ask that you address the substance of the motion, please.

Mr Donnelly: Yes, certainly.

As has been mentioned, the costs have spiralled out of control. Clearly, there are serious questions about the process by which the water infrastructure was checked and cleared prior to handover to the trust. We need to understand how the process works. It is right that the Health Committee gets the opportunity to re-examine that and question those involved.

We, in Alliance, are happy to support the motion. We encourage the Health Minister to prioritise the completion of the maternity and children's hospital project and to do what he can to resolve the water problems at the site in order to ensure its completion.

Mr Chambers: Not only is the motion dripping in hypocrisy in most parts but it demonstrates a certain lack of self-awareness by the Members who tabled it. The phrase "hurler on the ditch" springs to mind. Some in the Chamber will know what that phrase means. If the signatories to the motion do not know its meaning, they could Google it and reflect on whether parts of the motion qualify them for the title. I cannot see one positive suggestion in the motion that offers alternative solutions. It is not a helpful motion. I read it as being, for the most part, an example of a piece of political point-scoring that does a major disservice to those who are trying to move our health service forward. I can understand why our dedicated health service staff, who work hard to deliver better services every day, would view parts of the motion as a slap across the face. Transformation will not happen at pace if the morale of health service staff, particularly around pay settlements, results in disastrous industrial action this winter. The motion will do nothing to prevent industrial action during the winter pressures.

I will conclude by saying that, with respect, anyone who supports the motion in its totality is simply swelling the ranks of the hurlers on the ditch, when what we need is the collective approach that was referenced by the deputy First Minister at Question Time yesterday. This type of motion will not encourage those of us who genuinely care about the health of our population to come together to work in common cause.

Mr Carroll: It is worth reminding people that the Executive have overseen the outsourcing of healthcare to the private sector and the spending of millions on expensive agency and locum services. The Executive handed back £92 million of unspent money to the Treasury, a sum that is almost identical to the projected final cost of the maternity hospital.

Professor Renfrew's report on midwifery services talks about the need for "radical" system-wide change. Radical system-wide change is needed not only for maternity services but for our whole health and social care system. It is needed not to serve the project of counting pennies and cutting budgets but to bring a change that must start with our workers — those who deliver and support transformative, life-saving care in hospitals and the community — at its heart. They deliver high-quality care despite the cards being stacked against them in a crumbling health and social care system that has been damaged by decades of underinvestment.

Ultimately, we will not be able to tackle waiting lists or make our health and social care services truly sustainable until we start treating our workers fairly. It is not fair that healthcare workers are once again being forced to beg for basic pay parity, despite politicians in this Building promising them that they would sort that out. It is not fair that healthcare workers clock on to shifts when there are dangerously unsafe staffing levels day after day. They cannot deliver high-quality care until we make our health and social care system a rewarding and safe environment in which to work.

The solution to our workforce recruitment and retention crisis is not to reconfigure our hospitals in the name of transformation. That usually means shutting down services and units, which leaves patients unable to access basic healthcare in their local community. Executive parties frequently talk about the need to make difficult decisions when it comes to the reconfiguration of primary care, without considering the wider socio-economic context or the impact on patients. Members of the Health Committee recently heard that patients in the Western Trust are missing scheduled appointments for surgery because they cannot afford the cost of travel or to take unpaid time off work. I remind Members who advocate for closure under the guise of transformation or reconfiguration to heed that point and to maybe think twice about their proposals for our health service.

Executive parties also talk about the need for investment in early intervention, prevention and community care, when, instead, trusts are being encouraged to make efficiency savings. That is complete doublespeak from Departments and Ministers. People are told that reform and transformation are not about saving money, but that is what they look like to many patients, to workers and, certainly, to me.

The solution to our recruitment and retention crisis lies in recognising the value of our workforce, paying workers properly, giving them fair terms and conditions and stopping the tide of privatisation by ending the reliance on agencies. It is time to get on with the job at hand and finish the maternity and children's hospital.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call on the Minister of Health to respond to the debate. Minister, you will have 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I have much more than 15 minutes' worth of comments, so it is unlikely that I will take any interventions.

As ever, I am happy to come to the Chamber to debate healthcare, even when the motion is as self-serving and, frankly, in part, offensive as this one. The irony klaxon is sounding loud and clear, as it does every time Members denounce the consequences of their decisions. The motion encourages the Assembly to "deplore" the supposed lack of progress and action towards transformation, yet it fails to even acknowledge the enormous harm done to our health service through the extensive, self-inflicted political stalemate that immediately preceded it.

I acknowledge that we have many deep-rooted and serious problems to address in health and, indeed, in public services, but it seems to me that there are two contrasting ways to approach them. We can tackle them collectively, as an Executive, united in our determination to achieve better outcomes; or we can stay in our silos and let individual Ministers sink or swim, all the while finger-pointing from the Benches. It seems that some in the House prefer a third way: maintain a pretence of joined-up government, with occasional photocalls and warm-sounding words, while, as the spokesman for the Opposition made clear, we see the reality on the Floor and in news releases and other statements.

I can point out Members who are happy to vote for wholly inadequate Health budgets while, in almost the same breath, demanding more Health spending in key areas or in their constituencies. For example, almost daily, I respond to Members' letters asking whether I intend to reintroduce the Republic of Ireland reimbursement scheme. Oh, the irony. The bids for funds for that were rejected.

The motion is not just shameless but, in part, factually wrong, so let us deconstruct the text. First, it:

transformation of healthcare delivery. That ignores the impact of multidisciplinary teams on primary care. It turns a blind eye to what is happening in secondary care with day procedure centres, elective overnight stay centres, rapid diagnostic centres and, indeed, mega-clinics, to name just some of the major reforms. It is simply not correct to state that there has been a lack of progress and action.

There is then the old chestnut that the Department of Health budget absorbs so much of the block grant. It is as if the signatories to the motion expect that the health and social care system should handle demographic change, growing demand for care, increased acuity, and chronic and persistent underinvestment without recourse to additional funds. On the question of underfunding, I have heard Mrs Dodds use the word "obscene" to describe aspects of the health service. The first time that I heard "obscene" used in connection with healthcare was when her former party leader and First Minister Peter Robinson used the word in February 2011, when he said that it was obscene of the then Health Minister, Michael McGimpsey, to call out the gap in the health budget. Of course, Michael was right, and I would not be the only one to argue that underfunding at that time was the start of the problems that we have today.

Here is where the motion lacks a little logic. In the negotiations with the UK Government that led to the restoration of devolution, the DUP repeatedly made much of the fact that it had successfully argued that the block grant should be based on assessed need rather than on a simplistic headcount, and it singled out Gavin Robinson MP as the person who led on that argument. When it comes to delivering healthcare, however, assessed need goes out the window, and the DUP reverts to a simplistic cry that the Department of Health gets over half the money.

We then come to the truly offensive phrase, which is the claim that all the funding has the outcome that the people of Northern Ireland:

In five simple words, the motion trashes the excellent work delivered day in, day out by health and social care workers right across Northern Ireland: 70,000 people rubbished in a single, short phrase. Every day, the vast majority of patients and service users enjoy excellent care from HSC staff.

On the question of reform, my Department has published progress reports on 'Health and Wellbeing 2026: Delivering Together'. The most recent was published in July of this year. The progress reports set out examples of progress made across a wide range of areas: population health; primary and community care; social care; mental health; and secondary care. The scale and pace of reform is, of course, dependent on the amount of funding available, and we need to be realistic about what is attainable in the immediate future, considering the 2024-25 Health budget.

Although the allocations in the June and October monitoring rounds were welcome, they failed to address fully the joint pressures of balancing the books in this financial year and delivering the national pay-parity awards that staff deserve. I have likened it to trying to be physically in two places at once, but now the signatories to the motion want me to add accelerated reform to those budgetary pressures: in other words, in three places at once. Given the Health budget, and the long-standing MO for how it is allocated, there is simply no choice but to make stabilisation and optimisation of existing services a dominant theme in our planning for this year.

We are all aware that elective care waiting times in Northern Ireland have significantly increased in recent years. I have been clear that that is entirely unacceptable. I have, however, also been clear that many factors are contributing to the situation, not least the overall financially constrained environment and the scale of the gap between funded health service capacity and patient demand.

Prior to the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive earlier this year, all parties spoke openly about their desire to put healthcare first, yet, although tackling waiting lists is one of its priorities, the draft Programme for Government makes clear that lists will get worse before they get better. All the earlier promises of genuinely prioritising health and the many thousands of people stuck on waiting lists fell away at the first opportunity.

Not a single penny was allocated to tackling waiting lists this year. I, however, have approved investment of £76 million. The focus will be on supporting those red-flag and time-critical waiting lists: in other words, cancer and life, limb and sight issues. That £76 million is not sufficient to deliver work on patients who are waiting for a long time; it is just what is needed to stand still. My Department has continued to seek the provision of additional funding to assist with addressing those waiting lists. A £10 million bid was submitted as part of October monitoring, but, again, the decision, supported by Members, was that the bid should be unsuccessful. My Department estimates that, in addition to that £76 million, a further £80 million a year is required to support elective care and reduce the demand/capacity gap, and £135 million a year for up to five years is required to remove the waiting list backlog.

In May of this year, my Department published an updated elective care framework plan. It sets out a clear plan to address waiting times, with a focus on areas where the impact will be greatest. I have referenced elective care centres and rapid diagnostic centres as examples. I should add post-anaesthetic care units to reduce reliance on intensive care units, high dependency units and elective care. In addition, my Department is working continuously with trusts to increase productivity and efficiency through the use of a wide range of best practice service improvements. I am in the foothills of a debate on a new funding model for health, particularly for the geographic trusts.

In my first remarks to the Chamber, I said that I would not criticise any former Health Minister because I did not think that doing so would improve the health outcome of a single patient or service user. I stick with that promise, but I equally believe that more radical reform is required and should have come before now. However, such realities do not sit easily with the political motivations of the motion, so I am not surprised to see that they are not reflected in it.

The Department has also launched its public consultation, 'Hospitals — Creating A Network for Better Outcomes'. The document aims to describe our hospital system and provide a strategic context for future hospital reconfiguration. At its heart, that work is about how we can improve the sustainability of hospital services and, ultimately, provide an assurance that none of our acute hospitals will close. The framework is underpinned by a number of existing service reviews and strategies. Those were clinician-led and developed in partnership with those who use the services.

I recall Mrs Dodds describing the document as "underwhelming". I could return the sentiment in respect of her discharge of her statutory duty as defined in section 29(1)(a)(ii) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which requires any member of the Statutory Committee to, "advise and assist" me. I am not sure whether deploring me is advice or assistance.

I turn now to the part of the motion that touches on the maternity and children's hospital project to date. Let me be very clear: I am deeply, deeply, deeply uncomfortable with what has happened. The public purse deserves much better. Speaking frankly, I have called a number of very challenging discussions about what has happened and about the best way forward. Those discussions will continue; in fact, there was a very tense meeting in the Department early this morning. I want to know how all this happened; what went wrong; what was done; what was not done; and whether alternative actions were available, discussed and actioned. Importantly, the Belfast Trust needs to determine what needs to happen next to put all this right.

Of course, there are wider issues. Taking a view as an Executive Minister rather than just a Health Minister, I point out that these delays and the overspend are far from unique across the public sector. The Audit Office's follow-up report on major capital projects, which was published in February and which the Member mentioned, did not make easy reading. It set out significant cost and time overruns on projects across different parts of the public sector, including transport, health, education and sport. In short, government here has a very poor record when it comes to delivering major capital projects. I want the Executive to address that collectively and to look again at previous recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee. That includes examining, again, the case for a single Northern Ireland oversight body with responsibility for the central monitoring of major capital projects. I have written to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister encouraging them to give fresh consideration to that proposal.

A recent report that the Strategic Investment Board produced, 'The Root Causes of Delay and Cost Overruns in Major Capital Projects', states:

It also states:

Nevertheless, referring to the specific issue at hand, projects that are located on acute hospital sites are inherently complex, each being unique and bespoke, with complex building services, installations and systems having to be coordinated and commissioned. In addition, the projects making up the overall flagship maternity and children's hospital project are interdependent, with a delay in one enabling project having a consequent impact on subsequent projects.

To date, the flagship maternity and children's hospital project has delivered the completed new maternity building, phase B1, and the associated enabling works; the office and logistics building, which is known as non-clinical support; the Bostock House demolition; and a series of demolitions and site clearance-enabling contracts, ducts and complex services on which the overall flagship project is dependent.

Pseudomonas in the maternity hospital is a further and serious cause of delay on the project, and it is being investigated by independent experts. The new maternity hospital was handed over to the Belfast Trust in March this year. After a steady-state period post-handover, the trust sampled all outlets in the building and detected pseudomonas. As a result, the trust commissioned an independent expert to provide a report into the water systems in the building.

As my time is running short, I will switch to the last part of the motion, in which the signatories ask that I commission:

I have to say that, when I went to bed last night, I was not in favour of that, not least because the cost and time that are associated with a further independent inquiry could be in the order of £3 million per annum, with a significant time impact and no guarantee of improvement. It could also stymie progress. However, as of 8.00 am today, I have become aware of another issue. I know that Mrs Dodds is very well informed on those issues, so I will set her this challenge: I give her 24 hours to discover what the latest problem is with the maternity hospital. It is another totally shocking revelation.

I will just say in conclusion that £1 that is wasted in delivering healthcare is a pound that could go towards tackling the social determinants of ill health in education, communities, rural affairs and the rest.

Mrs Dodds: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that the Minister is maybe upset by the motion, but if he indicates that there is another problem, in the context of the debate, he should share that information with the House.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will refer your point of order to the Speaker. I also encourage the Minister, if he has any information, to bring it forward for scrutiny by the Health Committee. That is the proper channel.

I will suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first person to be called will be Alan Robinson. He will have 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech on the motion, and we do not have 10 minutes left. I suspect that the motion will go to a vote, which would continue into the suspension, so I think that we should suspend.

Mr Speaker: Questions 1 and 15 have been withdrawn.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): The maintenance of Housing Executive properties is an operational matter for the Housing Executive to address. The Housing Executive response contracts have quality-level standards and are subject to regular post-work inspections that also assess the quality of the work. Where quality issues are found, either through those inspections or through other means, they are raised with the contractor or the Housing Executive’s direct labour organisation to remedy. That is monitored through the monthly contract performance meetings. Where quality issues have been raised, the Housing Executive holds the payment until the works have been completed to the satisfactory standard. If issues with quality persist, the Housing Executive will hold escalation meetings with the contractor and improvement plans will be put in place and monitored until standards have been met.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister. I appreciate that it is an operational matter, but I hear about it regularly in my constituency office. The issue is that residents feel not only that there is substandard work but that their complaints are not dealt with properly. What conversations is the Minister having with the Housing Executive about better support for residents who feel that the work is substandard?

Mr Lyons: I meet the Housing Executive regularly, and I am certainly happy to raise the issue. Members throughout the House will have dealt with such issues for those who are unhappy with work that has been done or the time that it has taken. If she has some specific examples, I will be more than happy to raise them.

Ms Forsythe: Does the Minister agree that borrowing powers for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are a key element, if it is to deliver?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely, that is an issue. We now know that the backlog is over £10 billion of investment required to deal with the maintenance backlog, routine investment and a retrofit programme. That is why it is so important that we get that confirmation that the Housing Executive is able to borrow on the same basis as other housing providers and Governments elsewhere in the United Kingdom: for example, councils. I believe that I now have Executive support for this, if recent conversations are anything to go by. I have engaged with the Finance Minister on this; obviously, the Department of Finance is responsible for progressing the negotiations with Treasury. I am hopeful, however, that we can get a resolution to the issue and that we can get the confirmation that we have been looking for for a long time so that we can borrow against our assets not just to build more homes but, importantly, to do the retrofitting, maintenance and repair work that is so badly required.

Mr Allen: I appreciate that the Minister has already mentioned that most of this is an operational matter for the Housing Executive. However, is he able to advise whether he has had any engagement with the Housing Executive on providing funding for its cavity wall insulation plans?

If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, I encourage Members, if they have time between now and 3.00 pm, to engage with National Energy Action, who are taking photos in the Great Hall to mark Fuel Poverty Awareness Day, which is tomorrow.

Mr Lyons: That is an important issue, and it was something that I raised in a debate in the House in early 2017. It is hugely important, because we want to make sure that people can live in warm and comfortable homes, and insulation plays a really important role in that. That will be part of my conversations with the Housing Executive, and it is part of the wider retrofit plan to make sure that we have more energy-efficient homes. That again speaks to the fact that we need to see that change in borrowing powers for the Housing Executive.

Mr Lyons: Libraries NI, in line with its long-term estates development strategy, has proposed refreshing and modernising library facilities in Banbridge. As an initial step, with the support of £115,000 of capital funding from my Department, Libraries NI has recently acquired a potential development site from Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council. The site is situated adjacent to the existing library facility. Libraries NI will shortly begin the process of drafting a supporting business case for the replacement library project that will, in due course, be submitted to my Department for consideration. In the meantime, library services will continue to be delivered from the current location in the town.

Notwithstanding the budgetary constraints in 2024-25, my Department has provided Libraries NI with just over £4·7 million in capital funding to progress committed projects. I am mindful of the importance and value of our public library network, which provides safe, welcoming and inclusive spaces in which people can read, work, study and access information and services.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you for your response, Minister. You know the importance of the library in my town. It is good to hear that work is progressing and that the site has been acquired. Can you narrow in on a timescale for the progression of the project?

Perhaps the Minister would like to come and see the library in Banbridge and the very good work that it does for some in the community, including young students and those who are isolated or elderly.

Mr Lyons: I would be more than happy to come to Banbridge to see what the library provides and, importantly, what it cannot provide because of the lack of additional facilities. I assure the Member that I want to see the new build progressed as quickly as possible. I know that that is of concern to the Member — she has raised it with me previously — and I will do everything that I can to progress it as quickly as possible.

The Member's colleague, Deborah Erskine, raised with me the importance of a library in her constituency. I am glad that we are progressing with that and with the business case, and I hope to be in the same position with Banbridge library and libraries across Northern Ireland.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for the assurance that he is committed to developing libraries across Northern Ireland. On that basis, will the Minister provide an update on the redevelopment of the library in Newtownards and specifically on any engagement with Ards and North Down Borough Council, which remains a key partner, to ensure that the project can be delivered?

Mr Lyons: The redevelopment of Newtownards library is a key priority for Libraries NI. I am grateful to Michelle McIlveen for taking me to see it. For a town the size of Newtownards, the library facilities are poor in terms of the available space. I am pleased to confirm that an updated business case has been submitted to the Department in support of the proposed redevelopment. Of course, the library is working closely with the council because of the shared facilities and the shared space. I look forward to working with Libraries NI and Ards and North Down Borough Council to make sure that that is progressed, because, frankly, Newtownards deserves better than the space that it currently has.

Mr Lyons: Depending on individual circumstances, carers may have access to a range of support through the social security system. Carer’s allowance is the main benefit for unpaid carers and provides a measure of financial support to those unable to work full-time because of caring responsibilities. My Department will shortly bring forward legislation to reform the earnings limit for carer’s allowance from April 2025. That will enable carers to earn more money from paid work while retaining entitlement to the benefit.

Carers on a low income may be able to access additional financial support through income-related benefits, such as universal credit, that include extra premiums and elements for caring. In addition, my Department’s Make the Call service can carry out an entitlement check to ensure that a carer is accessing all the benefits, supports and services available to them. Recommendations relating to additional support for carers were made in the independent advisory panel’s report on the future of welfare mitigations that was published in October 2022.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister and welcome what he has said. He will know about the approaching cliff edge in the caring sector and how difficult it is for people who are trying to care while working or trying to gain employment. Minister, will you detail what the Department will do to ensure that that message is communicated to every carer or potential carer to ensure that they receive the support to which they are entitled?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely, and I thank the Member for raising the question, because it gives me an opportunity to thank all the carers across Northern Ireland who do fantastic work in caring for others. It is work that would otherwise fall on the public purse to pay for. It takes huge pressure off public resources. I want to make sure that I do everything that I can, within the resources that are available to me, to make sure that we properly acknowledge and support carers in Northern Ireland.

Mr Gildernew: Will the Minister confirm when he will legislate to extend the vital benefit cap mitigations, post March 2025?

Mr Lyons: I hope to be able to do that in a matter of weeks. The information will be with the Executive, I hope, in the coming hours. It will then be for the Executive to decide what comes next, but I believe that there will be a consensus on that. It will be with Executive colleagues very soon with recommendations that, I hope, they will take on board.

Mr McGlone: A carer's allowance recognition payment was recommended by the independent review of welfare mitigations: does the Minister intend to introduce it?

Mr Lyons: The annual cost of a carer's recognition payment, as set out in the independent review of welfare mitigations, would be in the region of £25 million. My officials have been working to update that estimate. I will be in a position soon to share those updated costs with Executive colleagues. Any future mitigation package for carers and others will need to be agreed by the Executive and assessed in the current financial climate to make sure that it is sustainable over the coming years as well.

Mr Lyons: The sample size for the Renters’ Voice survey was low, and it may not be representative of all private rented sector tenants. Having said that, I entirely understand the negative impacts that both the fear of eviction and being evicted can have on individuals and families living in the private rented sector. That is one reason why I am committed to striking a balance through progressing a programme of private rented sector reform to strike that balance between the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords. That reform programme will address issues around quality, affordability and security of tenure. I will take forward actions that explicitly address some of the particular concerns raised by respondents to the Renters’ Voice survey. Those include improving fire and electrical safety, restricting the frequency of rent increases and introducing much longer notice-to-quit periods.

The key to meeting our housing challenges, however, as reflected in the number-one ask of Renters’ Voice, is increasing the supply of social and affordable housing. As I have said many times in the Assembly, increasing housing supply is my top priority, but it cannot be achieved by my Department alone. That is why a housing supply strategy, subject to Executive endorsement, will represent a significant step towards gaining the commitment and prioritisation needed from government to meet our supply challenges.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for his answer. In the survey, 62% of respondents said that they delayed reporting necessary repairs to the landlord or letting agent due to fear of being evicted, and 52% ultimately did not report at all. I am sure that each Member here has experience of that with constituents. Is the Minister therefore willing to legislate urgently to end no-fault evictions, prevent homelessness and provide renters with much-needed security within their current tenure?

Mr Lyons: I understand the concerns that the Member raises, and that is why I am taking forward work with the reforms that were voted on in the Assembly in the Private Tenancies Act 2022. There is a duty on me to bring those into place in the first instance, and they will greatly increase security of tenure for individuals and their families in the private rented sector. We are in the process of progressing with that, and, if the House decides that further action is needed, that will, of course, be considered.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his visit to Park Avenue in Dundonald earlier today.

As a private renter, I understand the anxiety that it causes renters. Will the Minister give his assessment of the no-fault eviction ban that has been in place in Scotland?

Mr Lyons: The Member is right to raise the situation in Scotland. Scotland tried to put in place what is, in theory, a no-fault eviction ban, but, in practice, it has been something very different. There are 18 exemptions and grounds on which a landlord can apply for an eviction order. The notice period for an eviction depends on the application ground and the length of a tenancy. Exemptions include circumstances in which the landlord intends to sell the property; he wants to refurbish it; he wants to live in it himself; a family member wants to live in it; he intends to let the property for a non-residential purpose; he wants to let the property to a religious worker; the tenant has a criminal conviction; the tenant is no longer occupying the property; there is a breach of agreement; or there is engagement in antisocial behaviour. There are many more. We need to be careful, because, if we introduce stringent restrictions, they sometimes require additional exemptions, which can open it all up again. I am trying to make sure that we get the balance right between the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords and, in doing so, ensure that there is a supply of housing.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, congratulations on keeping your voice so far. We can tell that you have a sore throat. I hope that you get better soon.

I was delighted to hear your response about no-fault evictions. The Scottish model leaves a lot to be desired. In order to bring forward no-fault evictions, we need Part 2 of the Private Tenancies Act 2022 to come forward. Do you have any timescales for when you will bring that forward?

Mr Lyons: I do not have timescales at this time. I hope that she recognises that I have limited resources. The staff in the Department are fully focused on this piece of work. It will be a challenge to complete what has already been agreed by the Assembly. However, we are determined to keep going and make sure that we have those changes in place by the end of the mandate.

Mr Durkan: The Minister has been asked about Renters' Voice. We have also heard an assessment of the Minister's voice; mine is that he has perhaps been shouting a bit too much in here.

Will the Minister give more specific details on the measures that he will bring forward to increase security of tenure for private renters? Two years ago, when the Assembly voted for the Private Tenancies Bill, the Minister at the time promised that further legislation would come soon. Is there any other legislation in gestation to aid private renters?

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware of the regulations that I am progressing through this place. I think that it was just last week that I took through some of the additional regulations that came about as a result of the 2022 Act. We will introduce longer notice-to-quit periods, as set out in section 11 of the Act, which was mandated by the Assembly. The longest notice period that a landlord must give a tenant is eight weeks if the tenancy has not been in existence for more than 12 months, four months if the tenancy has been in existence for more than 12 months but not for more than three years, six months if the tenancy has been in existence for more than three years but not more than eight years, and seven months if the tenancy has been in existence for more than eight years.

Mr Lyons: The most recent meeting of the United States/Northern Ireland cultural working group was hosted by Historic Royal Palaces at Hillsborough Castle yesterday, Monday 25 November. National Museums Northern Ireland was invited to that meeting to update the group on its exhibitions and programming plans for 2025-26 to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the United States. The meeting built on the relationships that I established with key institutions during my recent visit to the United States. I have since written to those organisations, including the America250 commission, the National Archives, the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Institution and the White House Historical Association, to welcome the opportunity to explore collaborative projects that will promote the unique historical links that exist between Northern Ireland and the United States. To that end, I have asked my officials to extend an invite to the interim executive director of the US Semiquincentennial Commission and executive vice president of America250 to attend a future meeting of the group. The working group continues to develop a programme with US partners to promote events in Northern Ireland and North America in the lead-up to the 250th anniversary commemorations.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the significant history between the US and my constituency of North Antrim, how will my constituency benefit from that link?

Mr Lyons: There are a number of ways in which the Member's constituency will benefit. First, we have been highlighting the people who left these shores to go to the United States and whose descendants ascended to the highest office in the land. In his constituency, he will be aware of Chester A Arthur, whose father was born in Cullybackey. The homestead remains there to this day. I hope that we will be able to highlight the presidents who have come from here, including Andrew Jackson, whose parents came from my constituency. Of course, there are many others — 17 others — who have Northern Ireland connections.

What that also does is help put Northern Ireland firmly on the radar and increase Northern Ireland's exposure in the United States. That is important. For North Antrim, a number of benefits can come from that, one of which is tourism. North Antrim is already a great draw for tourists, with such fantastic attractions as the Giant's Causeway and the Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge, both of which I used to work at many years ago. I want to see more visitors and want more people to know about North Antrim and other constituencies. There is also work to be done on genealogy. That can have a pull and bring more people over.

All that work is about raising Northern Ireland's profile and telling people our story of what we have done and what we still have to do.

Mrs Guy: Fair play to you, Minister, for fronting up today when you are not feeling so well.

The Minister has mentioned some of the groups that are involved in the cultural working group. Will he give us an idea of all the groups that will be involved in that working group and how they were selected?

Mr Lyons: In the group, from the Department for Communities, we have officials from culture division and the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI); the Executive Office; the Northern Ireland Bureau; the Ulster-Scots Agency; the North/South Ministerial Council; Invest NI; Tourism NI; Tourism Ireland; the US Consulate; and Historic Royal Palaces. Those were all selected because of the role that each of them has to play in telling the story of Northern Ireland and some of the existing connections that they have with the United States.

Mr O'Toole: I am all in favour of that agenda. It is an important one, even if the good Ulster-Scots quality of parsimony was not on display when it came to the cost of your visit to the United States.

Some of the divisions that we think about, such as Ulster Scots versus Irish, were utterly irrelevant in the 18th century and are historically obsolete. Indeed, all that took place before Ireland's partition. Of course, many of the Ulster-Scots migrants would have been Irish speakers. Now, we think of some of those identities as opposing one another, but those oppositions did not exist in the 18th century. Will the Minister use the US/NI working group to press for reform and an end to the ridiculous electronic travel authorisation (ETA) scheme that the UK Government are imposing, not just on Northern Ireland but on the island of Ireland, which will limit the ability of US tourists —

Mr Speaker: You are getting into a speech, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: — who are interested in their Ulster-Scots lineage to arrive in Dublin and then travel to Antrim, Omagh and all those places?

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member because, knowing that I am struggling with my voice, he decided to talk and talk and talk to give me a break. I am very grateful. [Laughter.]

Let me say this: I did not mention divisions or difference. Those are words that the Member used. This is not about opposition or one side against another. What I am trying to do, and what I will always proudly do, is stand up for and promote Northern Ireland. By the way, whether you identify as British or Irish and whether you are from the unionist community or the nationalist community, if you are from Northern Ireland, I am standing up for you and promoting this place. I am promoting all six counties. That is what I am about, and that is what I am doing. It is not about pitting one side against the other or the Irish language against Ulster Scots.

Mr O'Toole: I know that.

Mr Lyons: The Member says that he knows that, but he spent the opening monologue to his question saying all of that. There has been a bit of a mixed message from him today. I am about promoting Northern Ireland. I want to tell people in the United States who we are, what we have done and what we are about. That is what I will continue to do.

The Member makes an important point, however. I want to make it as easy as possible for people to arrive in Northern Ireland and be able to travel. That needs to be taken into consideration. The Member can rest assured that I will do everything that I can to use the relationships that are being built for the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: On 21 September 2023, owing to budgetary constraints, my Department announced the closure of the boiler replacement scheme. Prior to that decision, the scheme had seen a significant decrease in the number of enquiries and application forms received in the previous two financial years. It was therefore decided to consolidate resources in the affordable warmth scheme. That scheme is open for applications, and the business case covers it to run until March 2026. The scheme includes providing grants for boilers and central heating systems.

I have allocated an opening budget of £7·175 million for the scheme to cover £5·2 million of approvals carried forward and £1·975 million for new approvals in this financial year. My Department is undertaking an equality impact assessment on its budget, and the Department of Finance has confirmed the outcome of the October monitoring round. My officials are working through the process to determine allocations.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for his answer. He correctly referred to the success of the previous boiler replacement scheme and the importance of getting a new scheme in place, which he has done. The Minister will know that many people are unable to avail themselves of that scheme because of its criteria. Does he agree that we need to help those on low incomes, who are in danger of falling into fuel poverty? What more can he do to extend the application criteria?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right, and that is why any new scheme will be considered in the light of what came before and also the success of the scheme that is in place. Let me make this very clear: I want to do everything that I can to make it as easy as possible to live in a warm and safe home. That is why, in the next number of weeks, I will launch a consultation on a new fuel poverty strategy that will outline options for the way forward. It is vital that we do more and invest earlier. As much as I want to be in a position to give out support to people to help them heat their home, it is more important that homes be well insulated in the first place. That is a much better use of resource, and I will do everything that I can to make sure that we are helping those who are most in need.

Mr Kingston: I hope that the Minister's throat recovery has not been set back by answering questions. The fire in his belly has certainly not been reduced, however. As we heard earlier, tomorrow is Fuel Poverty Awareness Day across the UK, which is organised by National Energy Action. Will the Minister update us on the progress that has been made on the Northern Ireland fuel poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: In the next number of days, I will launch a public consultation on the draft fuel poverty strategy to provide a long-term framework to reduce fuel poverty, recognising that it will have positive impacts on mental and physical health, especially for the most vulnerable in our society. The fuel poverty strategy proposes an ambitious vision of a warm, healthy home for everyone, underpinned by the guiding principles of long-term, sustainable solutions, a needs-based approach and collective and participative working. It will focus on making homes more energy-efficient in order to address the root causes of fuel poverty and reduce the poor health outcomes associated with cold homes. It will also address how to support those living in or at risk of fuel poverty, improve consumer protection and include proposals for a new fuel poverty energy efficiency scheme.

Mr Speaker: You have about half a minute, Minister.

Mr Lyons: My Department's review of the Executive's People and Place strategy has broadly concluded with the development of a draft strategic framework. That has been informed by the views expressed by stakeholders through a wide-ranging sectoral engagement exercise. The draft strategic framework, which will align with the anti-poverty strategy, is undergoing a quality review exercise and will be provided for my consideration by the end of December 2024.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: I will tell you what I am doing about it: I am doing things that no Minister has done before. I am bringing in intermediate rent using financial transactions capital, bringing in loans for move-on accommodation and working with housing associations to make sure that we deal with void properties. I have pushed more than anybody has ever pushed on Housing Executive revitalisation so that we can improve the homes that we have and build more. I am bringing in more legislation to deal with antisocial behaviour. I am looking at how we award points in Northern Ireland to make sure that those who need homes most get them. I am bringing forward a housing supply strategy that will be with the Executive shortly and will set up a cross-departmental route to deal with the problem, and I have secured a commitment and a stand-alone housing outcome in the Programme for Government. That is a significant record, in a short period, of taking the steps needed to address the issue.

Oh, I have also got an additional £24 million for more social housing this year. I am quite pleased with the work that we have been able to achieve in the past few months.

Mr McCrossan: I apologise for rattling the Minister. It would be terrible if he were to lose his voice in the midst of the answer to that question.

Minister, over £18 million was spent on temporary accommodation in 2023-24 — again, on your watch — including £6·5 million in the Derry and Strabane District Council area and £6 million in the Belfast City Council area. Does your Department have a strategy to deal with this, or are those just expensive, temporary sticking plasters?

Mr Lyons: Utter rubbish from the Member. Utter rubbish. He asked me what I have done, and I outlined the list of the things that I have done during my time in office. He is shaking his head: well, it is factual. That is absolutely what I have done.

I assure the Member that he is not rattling me. He is making me excited because I have the opportunity to highlight the work that we are doing in this area. It is a serious matter and has been my top priority since coming into office, and I am really pleased that we have been able to start to make a difference. We will continue to do that.

The Member mentioned temporary accommodation. A huge amount of money has had to be spent on that. I want to spend more of that money on prevention, but we have a Minister in this Department who is looking at new and novel ways of tackling the issue. Yes, my voice may be a little weak, but the action that I have taken has been strong.

Mr Lyons: My Department invests considerable resources in delivering a wide range of services to the public throughout Northern Ireland in rural and urban settings. It is delivered through our arm's-length bodies and includes ensuring the availability of good, affordable housing; the delivery of social security, child maintenance and pensions; supporting the voluntary and community sector; and a range of investments in the public realm, heritage, sport, arts, language, culture and many more. My priority is to deliver real and lasting change for people across Northern Ireland, whether that is in urban or rural settings, and I will continue to do that in the time ahead.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, on village renewal and regeneration, is your Department minded to work with counterparts in DAERA to look potentially at a future small settlements scheme?

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware of what we were able to do with regard to small settlements during COVID-19 in collaboration with DAERA. I am keen to explore that to see what more we can do. If the Member has specific suggestions about the type of issues that we should work on, I will, of course, be happy to hear from him.

Mr Lyons: I am pleased to inform the Member that good progress has been made. This is another example of where no action has been taken for far too long. It has been a requirement on my Department and predecessor Departments since 1998 to deliver this, and I am pleased to inform the House that it is still my intention to make sure that we have the anti-poverty strategy before Executive colleagues in January. What is more, I want to make sure that that is a strategy that has buy-in and that other Departments are signed up to. Currently, the interdepartmental working group is meeting to make sure that the Departments sign up to something that is sustainable and, importantly, actually makes a difference.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Minister. Can you outline any broad themes that the House might expect to see in the anti-poverty strategy?

Mr Lyons: The anti-poverty strategy will have three pillars. First, there will be the supports needed to prevent people getting into poverty. Secondly, for those who find themselves in poverty, it is about making sure that they have the support that they need. Thirdly, we need to make sure that we help people to exit poverty. That is why it has to be a cross-departmental strategy. It is not something that the Department for Communities can do alone.

One of the best ways to prevent poverty and help people to get out of poverty is to make sure that people can get into work and stay in work. Yes, we need to have a safety net for those who are unable to work, but I want to see far more of us breaking down the barriers to people gaining employment and staying in employment. That is the sure way that we can help people to escape from poverty, and that is the approach that I am taking to the strategy.

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely, I have had engagement on the Commonwealth Games. It is great that they are coming back to the UK. It is a fantastic opportunity for us to showcase our amazing athletes, who have always made us so proud. We will continue to work closely with Commonwealth Games NI and wider sporting bodies in the lead-up to that event.

I was delighted that the Member could join us at the Olympics celebration at the SSE Arena. That was a fantastic event for all involved, and the focus was rightly on our athletes, where the focus should always be. I hope that we will have similar success in 2026.

Ms Forsythe: I really enjoyed that event in the SSE Arena, and I thank the Minister for hosting it. Following on from that Olympic success, as Minister for sport, does he agree that the Ulster banner includes everyone in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: It will not surprise the Member to hear that I agree with what she has said. The campaign that we are currently hearing about is ill advised at best. I was concerned to learn about the discussion and consideration of changing the flag. As we have seen at the Olympics, our athletes have always kept their focus on sport and were able to represent Northern Ireland, and politics was not made anything of. Unfortunately, politics is being dragged into this now.

I have not been consulted on this. If I had been, I would have made it clear that we should not upset the status quo. We have had athletes who have been happy to represent Northern Ireland at the Commonwealth Games, and they should continue to be allowed to do so. It would be best for everyone involved for this to be put to bed.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising that. I want to see that included as soon as possible, and he will be aware of the concerns that I have expressed about that. The issue has not come up directly in the conversations that I have had so far, but I am keen to hear the Member's views on it. We will take the views of others as well before we come to a final decision.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister. The all-party group on gambling harm will certainly respond to that.

Further to my first question, Minister, the initial code of practice refers to the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements Order 1985. However, it seems that no one has taken responsibility for the monitoring, compliance and enforcement of this legislation. Will the Minister confirm who is responsible for the monitoring, compliance and enforcement of that legislation?

Mr Lyons: I want to give the Member information that is as accurate as possible, so I will come back to him on that. He is right to raise the issue, because we absolutely need to make sure that the appropriate monitoring is in place.

Mr Lyons: We do not have an exact figure because it will change depending on the programmes that are taken forward. The current estimate is that the number of new builds will be approximately 1,350. It is important to remember that my capital allocation meant that we started the year at 400. Significant progress has been made, but there is more to do.

Mr Kingston: That is welcome progress, and I commend the Minister for it. Will he also update us on the progress and timescale for the housing supply strategy?

Mr Lyons: I hope to get Executive approval for the housing supply strategy very soon, and I look forward to discussions with Executive colleagues about that. The housing supply strategy will not build houses, but it will ensure that we have a whole-of-government approach to housebuilding, meaning that we tackle issues in planning, infrastructure and all of the things that are holding up our ability to build more homes.

I welcome the engagement I have had with other Ministers to date. I hope that recent events will have pushed this up the political agenda and that people understand the need to do something about this and take real and meaningful action. The Department has been able to do lots of things and there is lots more that we have to do, but we need all of government working together, quite simply, to make it as easy and as straightforward as possible to get building.

Mr Butler: I will stay away from flags. You have answered that one.

Mr Lyons: I hope that our participation will mean more medals for Northern Ireland, and I have faith and confidence in our athletes to deliver just that. With regard to engagement with the other devolved Administrations and with Scotland, I look forward to doing that through the normal channels but also to highlighting what we can do to put the spotlight on Northern Ireland. I look forward to continuing the conversations that have already happened at an official level.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. I want to give the Minister, maybe, a part of the solution. Some of the sports have been removed because it is now a compacted arrangement. Hockey is, unfortunately, missing out. Northern Ireland has some fantastic hockey pitches and facilities, particularly in my constituency of Lagan Valley with Lisnagarvey, South Antrim and Banbridge hockey clubs, to name just a few. Will the Minister give a commitment to offer that to the Commonwealth Games group and maybe bring hockey as part of the Commonwealth Games in 2026 to Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I am well aware of the pedigree that Lagan Valley has in hockey. Obviously, it will be a matter for the Commonwealth Games to decide which sports will be played. If there is any role that Northern Ireland can play, I am happy to explore all of the options.

Mr Lyons: Yes, I can confirm that I met her, and a number of issues were raised during the meeting about the work of my Department and the wider political situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr Carroll: I hope that the Minister will publish the minutes of that meeting. Does he agree that the £40,000 spent on the trip to the US and Canada was public money well spent?

Mr Lyons: The cost was not within my control; it is about how visits are booked. As I have said, I recognise the concern about the figures, and I want to make sure that processes are in place for the Executive to continue to do their work at much better value for money to the taxpayer.

It is important, I believe, that we engage. We have been poor at that in the past. There are a number of opportunities for Northern Ireland's economy in the cultural connections that we can build and in everything that I have outlined on the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I am pleased to report that there have already been a number of further conversations about investment in Northern Ireland through philanthropy and private-sector involvement in sport and the arts. There will be tangibles and deliverables from that. That does not mean that we should not keep an eye on the costs of these things and ensure that we get the best value for money. I am about promoting Northern Ireland; I am about selling Northern Ireland; and I am about making sure that we get more investment and more people coming to visit Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister for Communities. I commend you, Minister, for persevering in difficult circumstances to make your voice heard. Thank you for doing that today to fulfil your duties.

Mrs Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the break, the Health Minister alluded to another serious problem with the maternity hospital. Would it be in order for you to allow the Health Minister to brief the Chamber on the issue? Given the tone, nature and subject of the debate, that would, I think, be appropriate.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure that there is a function for me to do that, but, if Mr Robinson wished, he could ask that question during his winding-up speech and give way to the Minister. He would have to give up some of his winding-up time in order to do so. I call Mr Robinson to make his winding-up speech, and, if he wants to take up that suggestion, that is up to him.

Mr Robinson: I give you notice, Mr Speaker, that I intend to do so.

I thank everyone who contributed to today's debate. There was a good range of views across the Chamber, and I particularly thank the members of the Health Committee. We have many differences, but there is a lot that unites us, and the passion that was on display in the debate shows that this is an important matter for all of us. Before I wind up on Members' contributions, and before anyone jumps to their feet in rage, these are the facts: our health service remains stagnant, leaving hundreds of thousands of our constituents stranded on waiting lists, with some facing years of waiting to receive care that is essential to their life. We can boast about many things in our Province, but holding the record for the longest waiting lists in the UK and, possibly, Western Europe is not a bragging point, nor is the fact that over a quarter of our population is on a waiting list anything to trumpet.

Even in the context of the history of the institutions, it is troubling that, in a system of government in which the Department of Health commands over half of day-to-day public spending and receives the lion's share in spending rounds, we have seen so little change in waiting lists and accessibility of care. I do not say that to attack the Minister. That is not what I am about, and I do not believe that anybody in my party is about that, but my party is on record as saying that we want to see more elective care sites, mega-clinics and seven-days-a-week theatres working beyond the 5.00 pm shutdowns. We also want to see partnership arrangements with large healthcare providers to add to the firepower of our skilled staff. We support waiting lists being organised on a Province-wide basis to allow equal access for people rather than the postcode lotteries that we have seen thus far in some trusts.

Our motion refers to the lack of detail and decisive action in the recent draft framework for hospital reconfiguration. Some have said that it is a list of abstract ideas rather than a plan for improvement. I will use the motion to say something to the Minister on behalf of the people whom I represent, who are deeply concerned about the future of Causeway Hospital. They want to see the fine detail beyond the words of a vision for Causeway Hospital and so-called landmark publications; they want to see concrete plans for Causeway Hospital beyond a new MRI scanner; and they want to see services come back north of the A26, rather than the one-way traffic that has been southbound thus far. Causeway Hospital stands ready to lend its weight to the overall fight to improve our health service.

The flagship maternity and children's hospital project, which will replace some buildings that were built in the 1930s, was, when it was first envisaged, supposed to be a beacon of hope and a symbol of progress in providing a 21st-century maternity service, yet, today, it has become a symbol of staggering cost overrun. The hospital was meant to improve childbirth, with single-room accommodation for babies and parents. However, it has faced scandalous delays, with the timeline of the children's hospital component now pushed back to 2030 — a full 10 years behind schedule. Regardless of what has gone on in the past, that is simply unacceptable.

I thank my colleague Diane Dodds for shining a bright light on the topic and asking uncomfortable questions, both in written form and on the Floor. We were told that the primary driver of the delay is the contamination of the water system at the Royal Victoria site, which campaigners say should have been identified and addressed long ago. We were told that contamination of the water supply was found during construction and required pipe replacement and chemical treatment. However, after a four-week water-sampling exercise, pseudomonas aeruginosa (PsA) was found, yet again, on a large number of occasions. While we can focus on the PsA, we can also look to the cost overruns that were the result of contaminated waste, redesigns of floor space and tender collapses.

Belfast Trust representatives told us that they have begun an independent review of the water system, which is being undertaken by two leading industry experts. We were also told that the trust is risk assessing the options available to fix the water system, but that the works thereafter could significantly impact on the timescales for occupying the building. The Belfast Trust, when it returns to the Health Committee, needs to tells us whether the existing buildings continue to be safe. We need to know what the latest figures are, who will foot the bill, who is responsible for PsA getting into the water system, when we will see the results of the independent review and when the maternity building will open. Public money needs public transparency.

According to the NI Audit Office report in February 2024, the maternity building, including the top three floors of the critical care centre, was estimated to cost £57·2 million. The latest estimate given to the Health Committee was over £97 million. Given that this is public money, we need to know the latest estimate. The same can be said for the regional children's hospital, which was originally planned to open in July 2020 at a cost of £223 million. It is now expected to be completed in 2030 at a cost of £590 million.

I am happy to give way to the Minister. He alluded earlier in the debate to a shocking announcement — he took us all by surprise — that he will make at some point. I give him the opportunity to do that now.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way. The new issue is with the medical gas pipework. I am told that the scale is limited. However, I am entirely dissatisfied that a new issue has emerged, and I am particularly dissatisfied that I only learnt about it today. Let me assure the House that I will seek further analysis of the issue with the medical gas pipework and further assurances on the fix.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I anticipate that the Minister will bring additional information to the House via the proper channel, be it an oral or a written ministerial statement. I would appreciate that anyway. Alan, go ahead.

Mr Robinson: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his update to the House. We will certainly explore that further.

I will conclude with reference to some of the comments made today. Diane Dodds asked for an update on the risk assessment prior to handover. She quite rightly referred to oversight in the Department and asked for officials to return to the Committee. I am sure that all of us on the Health Committee support that call. Liz Kimmins said that the hospital is a lifeline for children. That certainly is true. It is an investment not just in facilities but in people. Nuala McAllister referred to the lack of progress on a number of capital projects, and she is right. The NI Audit Office report that was provided to us detailed the huge cost overruns and the money that has been lost therein. Doug Beattie referred to the huge challenge in health and the eye-watering sums involved, but he spent a lot of time looking back at DUP former Ministers and called the motion "self-serving". Colin McGrath asked whether there are any other problems in the building. He called on the Minister to detail all the issues involved and how much it will cost to fix them. Órlaithí Flynn agreed that we need to bring the officials back to discuss the matter further at the Health Committee. She talked about emotional care and the mental health benefits that will come from having the hospital when the doors open. That is certainly true. Phillip Brett, eloquent as he is, rightly gave support to the Minister and clarified the fact that the motion is not an attack on him or his party. He said that 140 nurses could have been employed over the past 10 years and highlighted the need for the Belfast Trust's officials to provide answers. Danny Donnelly shared his concern at how little detail there was in the framework document on hospitals. He urgently called on the Belfast Trust to resolve the issue and said that he wants the Health Committee to re-examine it. Alan Chambers said that the motion was not helpful and was designed to point-score. That is not the case. The health service is too important to engage in that game, and I have never played it. Gerry Carroll referred to the crumbling health service and talked of the importance of the workforce and the pressure that it is under. That is absolutely true.

The Minister called the motion "offensive" and referred again to the "irony klaxon" that often rings over departmental headquarters. He talked about the funding gaps that date back to 2011, and I welcome that he told the House of the uncomfortable conversations that he has had on this and other important topics. He was combative today; I applaud him for that and hope that he will be as combative with his officials on this topic.

I join my party colleagues and some Members across the Floor in calling for the Minister to commission a full and independent inquiry into the handling of the maternity and children's hospital project. Diane Dodds and I commend the motion to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That was perfect timing.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members can take their ease until we change the top Table for the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Cathy Mason to raise the matter of pressures in the fishing industry in Ardglass. The Member has up to 15 minutes.

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

I welcome the opportunity to propose this Adjournment topic to highlight the need to protect our fishing industry in Ardglass, which is a vital lifeline for our communities, our economy and, of course, for our heritage.

The picturesque harbours of Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie are not just hubs of activity: they are the beating heart of those coastal towns. They have supported livelihoods and sustained families for generations. I welcome to the Public Gallery a number of our fishermen who have travelled to watch the debate, such is their concern, their worry and their sheer dedication to their cause. I also welcome the fact that the Minister has taken the time to come along this afternoon to listen, and hopefully respond, to the debate. A number of months ago, along with colleagues, I was with the Minister in Ardglass, and I know that he is very well aware of the issues that the industry is facing, as well as the dedication of our fishermen to their industry. The industry is facing many challenges, and, to be quite honest, the fishermen are feeling completely neglected.

For many years now, our local fishing fleet has relied on workers from Asia and Africa, with workers accessing transit visas or seasonal worker visas that give them the opportunity to secure employment with vessels in County Down and across the North. When I met the NI Fish Producers' Organisation (NIFPO), along with a representative group of fishermen, they made me aware that visas, in particular the seasonal worker visa allocations for 2025, are the key issue that is facing the sector. If that issue is not rectified, it will force the majority of our local fleet to tie up their vessels as, understandably, they cannot afford the punitive penalties if they are found to be in breach of regulations, and they cannot find other staffing arrangements in order to ensure that their boats are safely staffed. That will be catastrophic for our local industry, with severe human and financial consequences for workers, families and the wider economy.

The fishing industry should be granted the same flexibility that has been shown to the horticulture, poultry, salmon and offshore energy industries. Staff shortages in the sector mean that 30% of quotas could be left uncaught. That reduction in yield, paired with the low cost per kilo of catch, means that the average boat owner cannot see the financial viability of the sector. With astronomical prices in the supermarkets, the fishing industry has been bled dry and is struggling to survive as it is.

Our fishing communities are now at a crossroads. Either the British Government continue to ignore the appeals of the fishing industry and push it further down the path of neglect and socio-economic deprivation, or they recognise, as we do, that with considered, sensible and, let us face it, minor policy tweaks, the future of the industry will be bright enough to support its communities for generations to come.

The NI Fish Producers' Organisation was due to publish a report today on the fishing industry's potential for sustainable growth. It highlights that were stability in the labour market to be achieved, growth potential could mean an extra £16·1 million of revenue generated in our local fishing ports. Economic growth seems to be the British Government's new mantra. The message to the British Treasury is that there is clear growth potential, and it is there, but it is going to require the Home Office to meet the North's fishing communities halfway and offer them support. The Government have two choices: either they continue to turn their back on our fishing communities and the 48·7% growth that they can deliver, according to that report, or they offer the fishermen the same flexibility that they have already offered to people who are working in fruit picking, vegetable picking, poultry processing and many other industries. Will the Minister confirm that the opportunity for economic growth in the fishing industry, should those labour issues be resolved, is an argument that he is fully outlining to his Westminster counterparts?

This debate is not just about policy intervention. It is about the ordinary people who rely on the sector. It is about the fishermen who get up at the crack of dawn, braving the elements, to bring in their yield. It is about the workers in our processing plants who ensure that fish from the Irish Sea reaches plates across Ireland, Europe and beyond. It is about the communities that rally round those industries in which every job loss ripples through local economies.

I thank all my South Down colleagues and those across the Chamber from neighbouring constituencies for staying to take part in the debate this afternoon. The issue is cross-cutting, and we must unite and work together on it. I sincerely hope that the message that comes out of the debate is that we must invest in our fishing industry; modernise infrastructure; improve access to funding; enhance facilities for storage and processing; and address the issues that we will raise today that put the sector under extreme pressure. I look forward to hearing Members' contributions and the Minister's response.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I call the next Member to speak, I inform all Members who wish to speak that they have up to seven minutes in which to do so.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for bringing the topic of fishing to the Assembly. As a fellow South Down MLA, I can say that fishing is a critical industry for our constituency. Northern Ireland's fishing fleet is predominantly based in the three harbours that are managed and maintained by the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority (NIFHA): Kilkeel and Ardglass in South Down and Portavogie in neighbouring Strangford, which is the constituency represented by my colleagues Michelle McIlveen and Harry Harvey, who are in the Chamber this afternoon. Three quarters of seafood and associated businesses are found in those three harbours. Those harbours are the heartbeat of our coastal communities. It is crucial that we support those who work and live in those areas to become more prosperous, improving the marine environment and building on their reputation as suppliers of high-quality fish produce.

The most pressing challenge that faces our fishing industry is with workforce. The industry is struggling to attract local workers, and those who come from overseas to work in the fishing industry have had serious restrictions imposed on their visas. That has been a huge struggle for the industry to overcome, as skilled people who want to work in our fishing industry face serious barriers. The cost of the visas has risen significantly — by tens of thousands of pounds — and looks set to rise further next year. Those costs are disproportionate and unaffordable for the fishing industry.

As we know, fishing and immigration issues are governed by our UK Government at Westminster. Unfortunately for us in South Down, we have an MP who does not take his seat at Westminster. I am, however, extremely proud of our DUP MP team, which includes our MP from neighbouring Strangford, Jim Shannon, for standing up at the heart of government for many years and fighting for the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, standing side by side with all of us in the Assembly as it does that. Our representatives will continue to do that. What will the AERA Minister do to represent the Northern Ireland fishing industry on those issues? Is he speaking to the heart of our UK Government on its behalf? As Cathy Mason outlined, seasonal worker visas are being granted for different aspects of farming across the country. I ask the Minister this: why can that not be applied to fishing, too? Can he advise us today of his position on that?

Our fishing industry needs its workforce. I put on record that, contrary to some commentary, the Anglo Ireland Fish Producers Organisation (ANIFPO) and NIFPO have taken the lead on proving that crew welfare is a high priority. Such is the seriousness that they place upon the issue, they engaged Human Rights at Sea International (HRASI) to review crew welfare conditions in the fleet.

In recent years, concern has been building that the state of the facilities in our harbour estates constrains capacity and leaves Northern Ireland lagging behind other regions when it comes to harnessing new and exciting economic opportunities for the industry. Challenges include the water depth and length of quays preventing access and preventing new vessels from landing; a lack of ownership of several properties in the harbour estate; overcrowding due to limited port capacity; and weather and tidal patterns restricting access. Although Kilkeel has some of the greatest operational constraints, barriers to growth and innovation exist across the board and are compounded by a comparatively old fishing fleet.

Despite clear challenges, the local fishing industry has been incredibly resilient and should be commended. Previous estimates have shown that fishing vessels and seafood processing create an annual turnover of some £135 million and support over 1,500 jobs. There is, however, huge development potential to grow and expand the sector, to make fishing operations more efficient and to make our harbours more accessible and conducive to exploiting new opportunities such as those that flow from green growth and the blue economy.

The fishing and seafood development programme, first commissioned in 2019, provided a clear direction for new and significant public investment in the harbour infrastructure, including landmark plans to allocate £73 million for a new harbour or Irish Sea marine hub at Kilkeel; £20 million to deepen the approach channel at Ardglass; and £5 million to develop the existing harbour and abandoned buildings at Portavogie. Those costs would be significantly greater now, but the issues are clear. I pass by Kilkeel harbour every day and see the collapsing bridge over the river and the slipway. The lack of investment in recent years is apparent. It is really shows and it is affecting our fishing industry. We are all well aware of the budgetary pressures, but I ask the Minister to, please, outline his plans for investment in the fishing industry.

The DUP wants Northern Ireland's fishing industry to be prosperous and sustainable. We have fought hard on many issues and delivered for our fishing industry, and we will continue to work hard for it. We want to see resolution of visa issues for fishing crews, and call on the Minister to support that. We ask him to examine opportunities to provide practical and financial support for fishermen impacted on by rising input costs; to provide funding to redevelop the harbour infrastructure across Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie; and to invest in modern fishing vessels and gear to reduce costs and maximise fishing effort at sea. We want to see food security, not just for food production and the local fishing industry but for the coastal communities that depend on it.

Mr McMurray: I thank Mrs Mason for bringing the debate to the House and the representatives of the fishing industry in the Gallery for attending.

The fishing industry is key to the culture and identity of our rural and coastal communities. It is also an important sector of our coastal economy. In 2021, there were 341 fishing and seafood-processing enterprises in Northern Ireland. They had a turnover of £135 million and provided the equivalent of 1,550 full-time jobs. Their activities added a gross value of £55·5 million to the economy. Three quarters of that came from businesses located in and around Ardglass, Kilkeel and, just outside my constituency, Portavogie.

Fishing also supports a range of ancillary sectors in the blue economy. Boatbuilding, boat repair and fish markets are obvious such sectors, but there are others that may be less well known. Skippers already use their skills and seafaring knowledge to provide support services to offshore wind farms, for example. That will only become more important. There is also potential for other blue economy sectors to be developed in and around our fishing ports, and those, too, will depend on having a skilled local workforce. In 2021, Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie supported 240 such ancillary businesses with a turnover of £129 million and provided the equivalent of over 1,400 full-time jobs. Those ancillary businesses' economic impact is nearly as significant as the impact of fishing and seafood processing.

The Ardglass fishing industry is proud of the contribution that it makes to the food industry in the UK. As one representative of the industry put it to me, it is the last bastion of UK fish, caught in UK waters and sold in UK supermarkets. That shows clearly how important the sector is to the coastal areas of South Down and Strangford and how much poorer, financially and culturally, we would be without it.

From conversing with many involved in the industry, it is clear that there are many challenges in the sector. First, there is the price point at which supermarkets place the seafood. The produce is sold at a price point that the supermarkets feel the consumer is willing to spend, but that is not a point that allows the boats to make enough profit to remain viable. It is a Hobson's choice, if you will, where, either way, the industry loses: too high and the produce will not sell; too low and it will simply be an unprofitable business in a declining industry. Secondly, the physical infrastructure of the harbour at Ardglass needs updated in order to address health and safety concerns as well as to protect the structural integrity of boats. We need to upgrade the harbours so that they are fit for purpose and able to support a modern and agile fleet. Thirdly and perhaps most significantly — this is the emphasis of the Adjournment debate — is the reliance of the industry on the employment of non-EU workers and the current impact, and potential further impacts, of the skilled worker visa policy on the Northern Ireland fish-catching and fish-processing industries. I know that the AERA Minister, Minister Muir, is alive to those concerns, which the fishing industry has raised with him. Given the fact that it is a reserved matter, the Minister has written to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Secretary of State to reiterate the immigration policy issues faced across the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland. Although the EFRA Secretary of State, Mr Reed, has rejected the suggested policy changes that were put forward for consideration, I have been assured that the Minister continues to press the UK Government for flexibility on, and alternative options to, the existing policy on immigration. I am also heartened that the Minister has agreed to collaborate with Department for the Economy officials to develop an immigration policy position to be considered by the Executive.

While it is important to press the UK Government for changes, we should also explore solutions within our devolved powers and support the fishing industry to develop alternative sustainable workforce solutions. The industry is also making technological innovations to future-proof the sector. When preparing for this discussion, I was informed of the sea trials of a new prawn tailing and shelling vessel. Likewise, the processing plant in Ardglass is developing innovative processes to help with its productivity. That is not being done to remove the reliance on physical labour; it is to reduce the reliance on the skilled worker visa. We need to support a sustainable fishing industry and develop a diverse marine sector that is able to take advantage of new opportunities. That requires an industry-led vision for the future that can safeguard and sustainably grow that vital sector, ensuring that it supports jobs and thriving coastal communities now and in the future.

Mr McGrath: I thank my constituency colleague for securing the Adjournment debate. I am going to focus on people, place and product, and I will highlight how the Executive, some local representatives and the London Government are letting down our fishing industry, those who work in it and the people of Ardglass. It is about people, place and product.

I will start with people. Everyone knows that the fishing industry is a tough trade, with long hours and time away from home. I am full of admiration for those who work in it, because it is hard graft. Getting staff can be a challenge. It can be, for parts of the year, not the most permanent of roles, and it is heavily weather dependent. Securing local people to work in it has always been a challenge. That is why the industry has had to look overseas, some parts of it to Europe and other parts of it further afield, for workers. Visas for seasonal workers has been a real note of concern for those in Ardglass. As with many issues, Brexit and its architects are culpable for creating havoc where, previously, there was some stability. Following Brexit, the UK recognised exemptions for non-EEA seasonal staff who were involved in the edible horticultural sector. However, it did not recognise fish processing as being part of that industry. Everyone involved in the sector, particularly those in Ardglass, knows that fishing and, by extension, fish processing are seasonal. The industry in Ardglass depends upon having seasonal staff. They are a lifeline that it depends upon.

Just last week, there was a debate in Westminster on that very matter, which was secured by my colleague Claire Hanna MP. Where was the MP for South Down? Where was Sinn Féin to fight for the industry last week in the place where it was needed? I know that Sinn Féin says that it will work with people in Belfast, Dublin and Brussels so that those in fisheries and farming can get the best possible deal. Given that Sinn Féin has secured this Adjournment debate, what has been the result of those efforts?

As a member of the Opposition, I was proud to secure an Adjournment debate at the beginning of October. That was to hold the Agriculture Minister to account, and I continue to do that. Since then, however, South Down's Alliance MLA has secured an Adjournment debate that was directed at a Sinn Féin Minister, and we now have one of South Down's Sinn Féin MLAs securing an Adjournment debate that is directed at an Alliance Minister. Unless I am mistaken, next week, we will have an Adjournment debate, secured by the DUP Member for South Down, that is directed at a Sinn Féin Minister. Yet, all of you guys are in the Executive together. You could work together to effect change, instead of coming in here for Adjournment debates.

The fishing industry in South Down is under serious pressure, but there is a pathway for relieving it and we must all work together to do so. What we do not have is the political buy-in from those parties that could make a difference to fishermen's lives. The Executive and some local parties are letting down the people of Ardglass.

What about place? What about the infrastructure changes that could make the industry more sustainable, help make the work of loading and unloading easier and ensure that the harbour can deal with bigger boats? In the previous mandate, then Minister Poots's announcement that he was establishing the fisheries and seafood development programme was welcomed by everyone across the political spectrum. The programme then stalled because of the collapse of the institutions. Upon restoration in February of this year, there was real hope in the sector that our new Agriculture Minister would commit to progressing the programme once more. I appreciated the fact that, in March, the Minister met representatives from the sector in Ardglass and heard about their concerns, but there was little by way of concrete action taken, as he had to await the budget allocation from the Sinn Féin Finance Minister. When, following that budget allocation, it became clear that the fisheries and seafood development programme had not got its funding and would therefore have to drift a little and progress merely to the next stage, I wrote to the Minister to ask for an update on the funding position. His response stated that the £1·2 million needed could not be found to progress the works and that he would have to seek the funding through in-year monitoring. I look forward to hearing in his speech whether we will have that £1·2 million to make progress with the programme. On people and place, the Executive are not delivering and are therefore letting down the people of Ardglass.

Finally, I will deal with product. We have known for years that quotas are hard to come by. Restrictions are placed on what can be caught and where, and a catch often has to be tipped back into the sea. Somehow, the industry has always managed to get by. It has survived through fishermen's grit. The situation has changed, however. We know that there are difficulties on the horizon with herring quotas, for example. Moreover, there are fishermen who cannot get access to trawl Strangford lough. The level of disconnect between what the fishing industry can catch and process and what it is permitted to is massive. If that is not fixed, it could spell the end of the industry. On product, the Executive are also letting down the people of Ardglass.

On people, place and product, the Government and some parties continue to let down the people of Ardglass. The time for all who are responsible for our fishing industry to step up and do something for it is now.

Miss McIlveen: The pressures that the fishing industry in Ardglass is facing are exactly the same as those that the industry in Portavogie faces. I welcome the skippers from Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel to the Public Gallery this afternoon. Given the importance of Portavogie harbour to my constituency, I ensured that the issue was one of the first to be debated in the House on the Assembly's return. On 27 February, I proposed a motion on the issues that face the fishing industry in all three of Northern Ireland's commercial harbours. Like many sectors, the fishing industry faces rising input costs. There is a real need for practical and financial support. I have seen the devastating impact that a lack of support and increased bureaucracy has had on the Portavogie fleet and the consequences of that for the community involved. The Department has an important role to play in ensuring that the local fishing industry is in a position to take advantage of new fishing opportunities and to contribute to green growth. That includes investment in modernising its vessels and gear.

Fishermen who operate out of all of Northern Ireland's ports face a real and existential threat, however, and that is access to skilled labour. As other Members have said — I do not wish to rehearse the detail — that problem has the industry on its knees. The Minister will know that I have raised the issue in debates and through questions to him, to the Minister for the Economy and to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. To be frank, as other Members in the Chamber have said, if no action is taken in that regard, there will not be a fishing fleet.

During the debate in February, I pointed out that the catching sector is already struggling to address labour shortages, particularly among UK residents, and that the processing sector is also facing difficulties. As a result, the seafood sector is massively reliant on non-UK labour in the catching and processing sectors, with 82% of the nephrops fleet relying on non-UK labour compared with 70% of the static-gear fleet and 52% of the demersal beam trawl fleet.

I am in frequent contact with fishing industry representatives. One fisherman told me recently that he had not fished since Christmas because he could not find a crew. He is selling his vessel. Another fisherman had not been out to sea in over six weeks, yet, despite not being able to sail, he was still paying the crew. He has nothing coming in, but his outlays are still there.

Analysis by Seafish, a DEFRA non-departmental public body (NDPB), shows that, if the crew issue is not resolved, Northern Ireland prawn trawlers can expect to make operating losses of between £41,500 and £83,500 per vessel. Those figures are probably conservative. I am pleased that, following my request, the matter is being seen as an Executive issue, with the Agriculture Minister, the Economy Minister and the First Minister and deputy First Minister now involved. It is vital that the issue be addressed.

Members may already be aware that, this month, Northern Ireland fishermen are conducting sea trials of automated stunning and de-heading machines. While a skilled crewman can tail one stone of tails per hour, the machines are designed to tail 15 stones of tails per hour. That could be revolutionary for the industry. It would allow fishermen to catch their quota in fewer trips, resulting in less fuel being burned. The machines would also improve crew welfare. Such machines, however, are not cheap, costing in the region of £180,000 each, but, given the worker issue, they could be a potential lifeline. The industry is keen to explore whether the Minister would agree to the purchase of the machines being supported by the Maritime and Fisheries Fund (MFF) and green growth strategy funding.

The other key issue is the closure of the Isle of Man fishing grounds. The Minister will be aware of the questions for written answer that I submitted and of the Member's statement that I made in the Chamber on 23 April. Access to historical fishing grounds was cut off by the Manx Government on 1 April this year under the auspices of protecting blue-carbon habitats, but, really, it was a protectionist measure to grow their own fishing industry. Despite that, the UK gifts the Manx Government fishing quotas. The reward for that generosity is having our traditional fishing grounds snatched away from us. At that time, I asked for some means of compensation to be offered to our fishermen for that loss and to support diversification, perhaps in the form of an additional herring quota. I still want to see that happen, and I hope that the Minister is advocating for it.

I am also disappointed to note that a request by the Northern Ireland Fishermen’s Federation to meet the Minister again about access to labour issues was turned down. Instead, the meeting was delegated to officials. Given the range of challenges that the industry faces, will the Minister commit to accompanying me to meet Northern Ireland Fishermen’s Federation representatives to discuss concerns about the viability of the fishing industry as they requested? Without an urgent intervention, there will be no industry left to support.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for South Down for securing this important Adjournment debate. I will start with some slightly different words. I am sure that Members can think of childhood memories. I will recall one of mine, because it provides important context as to why I want to speak on this issue. In 1982, I was in P7. My school trip was one of the only holidays that I got. That year, the school trip happened to be to Ardglass. A class of P7s stayed in a school somewhere there. We bunked down. I have very little memory of it, apart from it being a lovely, quaint little village. One other thing stood out: a visit to Angus Cochrane's fishery. It was incredible. What an experience for a child to go into a fish hall bustling with workers shifting crates of fish, ice and all sorts of things. A theme that ran throughout the factory floor was the generosity of everybody who worked there, and Mr Cochrane in particular. That busload of young children left the fish hall with a bit of an education, bags of fish and memories that would last a lifetime.

When I looked through what had happened in the intervening period, I was sad to see that Angus Cochrane's factory had to close in the 2000s. The challenges that our fisheries sector faces are not new.

It is an industry like no other, and I am sure that, like me, you probably watched the programmes about the job that they do when they go out in their boats into the treacherous deep waters, sometimes at night and often overnight. It is a really dangerous job, but it is a job that many people take for granted, because we see our fish in the shop and sometimes do not even know where it has come from. Those people, who genuinely risk life and limb to provide really good food on our tables, deserve not just our words but our actions.

There are quite a few pressures facing our industry at the moment. They have been named, but I will go over them just to reinforce my position, as Chair of the AERA Committee, that we are here, we are listening and we will ensure that this is tabled back through the Committee. The first issue is the skilled worker visas. I thank Members from that Committee — some of them are here today — who have reinforced that issue. It is a significant issue, and we have the same issue with mushroom pickers. Particularly with seasonal workers in fisheries, it is a damning indictment that we cannot, because it is a reserved matter, action that. I will also point to political failure, because that is another example of how, when this place is not working properly, we do not have the vires to even lobby effectively at Westminster. We have non-sitting MPs, and, when we are not sitting here, it is as good as non-sitting MLAs, because there is no voice for the sector.

I hope that the Minister will speak to this, because it is right and proper. We have talked about food security in the last number of weeks, particularly in and around the agricultural space. We will be talking about horticulture in the Committee shortly and fisheries; they are intrinsically linked. There is a food security circle, and fisheries are absolutely part of that, even more so because, let us face it, fish is good for you. There is more that we can do to encourage people to eat fish, and we should. However, to do that, we will have to ensure that that food security is part of what we are talking about here today and in the Committee and is part of the Minister's ambition.

Part of that will be fleet modernisation. Many Members have pointed to the fact that it is a dangerous job. One of the ways that we can ensure that we equip and keep our fishermen — fisher people — safe is to ensure that the fleet that they have is not just modern but equipped to the levels that it should be. As Miss McIlveen pointed out, it is about the modern technologies and sourcing to ensure that they are as efficient as possible in their actions when fishing and to ensure that they are competitive in the global market. This is not just about catching for local purposes but about ensuring that they are globally competitive. We also have to have an eye on the environment, and, as has rightly been pointed out, those things are not mutually exclusive. At times, a lot of the innovation that we can see will bring benefits to what we are doing. We were in Loughry college last week, and one of the innovative practices that people there are looking at is how to harvest prawn meat better from shells that would be binned and probably cast aside. We will hopefully hear from the Minister about that circular economy.

We can do this only if there is a sustainable and resilient workforce in our harbours, whether that is in Ardglass, Kilkeel or Portavogie, and it is absolutely incumbent on us to be loud and clear today that we are speaking for an industry that faces unprecedented challenge. It has been here before, but it cannot last. We hope that, today, the Minister can shed some light on what the Department's ambitions will be to help us achieve that.

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

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Member for South Down Mrs Mason for bringing the matter to the Floor of the House this afternoon by way of an Adjournment debate. I also thank the fishermen in the Gallery for making the journey to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I appreciate their making that journey and giving their time to hear us discuss what are critical issues in South Down and more broadly in our fishing industry in Northern Ireland. I will attempt to address as many of the issues that Members have raised during the debate as I can, and I will respond to those to the best of my ability.

Members will be aware that, in the early days of the mandate, the Member for Strangford Miss McIlveen brought a motion to the Assembly on the fishing industry and, in particular, capital investment. During that debate, I gave a commitment to work with the sea fishing sector. Further to that, I visited the harbours in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel.

On the harbour development programme, when I visited Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie earlier this year, I recognised the need for further investment in ports, despite the extremely challenging budget position. Unfortunately, the budget allocated to my Department for this financial year was significantly less than the bids, and priority had to be given to meeting statutory obligations. Consequently, there was, unfortunately, no additional budget to take forward new work such as the harbour development programme, where, due to recent inflationary pressures, the projected cost of delivery has increased from £98 million to £143 million. I have asked my officials to consider alternative options that provide investment on a scale that is affordable and enables the harbours to be modernised. That would include installing the infrastructure that will be needed to support the decarbonisation of the fishing sector and ensure that harbours are resilient to the impacts of climate change.

Further to that point and the point that Michelle McIlveen raised about future funding through different streams around the areas that she outlined, I will consider that and take it back after this debate because it is a useful contribution towards the challenges that we face. I will actively take that forward with officials.

On labour shortages, I recognise that Northern Ireland's catching and processing sectors have faced several challenges in recent years, one of which has been securing labour. Industry representatives have indicated that they rely heavily on the employment of non-EU workers and the skilled worker visa. I have been contacted by Northern Ireland fishing sector representatives on several occasions about the current impact and potential further impacts of the skilled worker visa policy on the Northern Ireland fish catching and processing industries.

I am aware of the Seafish economic impact assessment report on the impact that the proposed increase to the skilled worker visa salary threshold could have on the UK seafood sector and on Northern Ireland in particular. It is particularly concerning that nephrops fishing is the most adversely affected, as it is the most economically important fishing sector in Northern Ireland, worth around £20 million in landings. It could have a major economic impact on coastal communities dependent on the fishing industry, including job losses and reduced income. Some of those communities rely heavily on the fishing industry for employment; indeed, the fishing industry is part of the community.

I have written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to reiterate the issues being faced across the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland in relation to immigration policy. A response was received from the Secretary of State on 29 October this year in which Mr Reed rejected the policy changes put forward for consideration. I will continue to press the Home Secretary and other relevant Ministers to review the current policy, and my officials will continue to liaise with Home Office and Border Force officials to discuss flexibility and alternatives to current migration policy.

Access-to-labour challenges are being faced by sectors across the economy in Northern Ireland, and so it has been agreed that my officials will work in collaboration with Department for the Economy officials to develop an immigration policy position for the Executive to consider. I have corresponded with the Economy Minister on that, and it is an important step forward. It is important to emphasise that the challenges are the result of policies of the UK Government and that we must explore alternative solutions that are within our devolved powers. I am committed to working with the fishing industry to develop alternative workforce solutions for the fisheries sector that are aligned with the draft Programme for Government and provide opportunities to grow a globally competitive and sustainable economy. I talked earlier about the suggestions that were helpfully raised by Michelle McIlveen.

I will now address coastal state negotiations and Irish Sea herring. The annual coastal state fisheries negotiations are currently taking place. For Irish Sea herring in 2025, I have been informed that International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) advice provides two options for headline advice. One is a precautionary approach of zero catch advice, and the other is using the maximum sustainable yield approach. My officials have reviewed the herring advice with the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) and are engaging with the Northern Ireland fishing sector and DEFRA. The Irish Sea herring fishery has a good reputation for sustainability. It is a very important fishery for the local economy. I am seeking a position in the current EU-UK coastal negotiations to ensure that the stock is fished at a sustainable level, whilst minimising the economic impact on Northern Ireland fishers and local seafood processors based in Ardglass and other fishery harbours.

The Isle of Man was talked about during the Adjournment debate. I note that the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture in the Isle of Man has recently introduced spatial management measures in some of its waters to deliver co-benefits in sustainable fisheries, blue carbon research and marine conservation. I am aware of the closure of bottom-towed fishing methods in Isle of Man territorial waters and the potential impact that it is having on our nephrops fleet, many of which fish out of Ardglass. In that regard, I have met the Minister responsible for fisheries in the Isle of Man to highlight the issues for our fleet and to encourage collaboration in managing areas of mutual interest in the Irish Sea. Officials from my Department and industry representatives have lobbied the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture in the Isle of Man. The outcome of the consultation was to reduce the size of the Isle of Man closed areas and reduce the impact on the Northern Ireland fleet. The impact of the closures is still being monitored.

To conclude, I thank Members for their contributions and Mrs Mason for securing the Adjournment debate. When I took up my ministerial post in February this year, I said that I would not shy away from my responsibilities to assist the industry in tackling key issues that may prevent a more economically and environmentally resilient industry from developing over time and being one that we should be proud of.

Some of the issues raised today are the responsibility of the UK Government, and I will continue to take every opportunity to ensure that consideration is given to our fishing industry. For the issues that I have responsibility for, I am committed to working with the industry to develop solutions that will make our fishing industry globally competitive and sustainable. I recognise that it will take significant time, investment and commitment and will mean working in partnership to make the adjustments that are needed. I wish to see delivery for the industry in Ardglass and, indeed, across all our fishing ports and harbours in Northern Ireland.

Two issues were raised in the debate. The first was about the circular economy, which Robbie Butler raised, and I got that presentation when I was in Kilkeel. There are real opportunities around that, and I was really encouraged to see that. I think that the Committee has also been briefed on that.

The other issue was about the desire to move forward from the Adjournment debate and how we do that. We need to move forward together; that is critical. I am happy to agree to the request from Miss McIlveen to have a meeting with fishers in the new year, if that is OK. We can turn the focus to be entirely on solutions, because we need to be solutions-focused to give people hope for the future.

I thank everyone for their contributions today. Hopefully, collectively, we can work together to create a better outcome for the people of Northern Ireland, because that, I think, is why we are all here.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, everybody, for the debate, and thank you to the audience in the Public Gallery for coming all the way from Ardglass today.