Official Report: Monday 02 December 2024

Mr Speaker: I wrote to Members on 31 October 2024 to bring to their attention the notification from the Secretary of State of the start of the democratic consent process under the Windsor framework. I explained that the First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly, may table a motion for a consent resolution during November but that, if they did not do so, any Member may table such a motion during the period 1 December to 6 December inclusive. I confirm that the First Minister and deputy First Minister did not table such a motion and that, on 1 December, notice of a motion for a consent resolution was tabled by a number of private Members.

It will be for the Business Committee to determine the arrangements for a debate on that motion. Last Tuesday, the Business Committee provisionally agreed that time be set aside on Tuesday 10 December should the motion be tabled. The Business Committee will confirm arrangements at its meeting tomorrow afternoon. I previously explained that, if a Member of the Assembly were to table such a motion, the Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to provide Members with such explanatory materials as it is reasonable to provide in order to assist them in deciding the Question. I can confirm that the Secretary of State wrote to me this morning and provided me with those materials. The Secretary of State asked whether the materials supplied could be distributed to Members of the Assembly as I see fit. I have therefore forwarded a copy of those materials to all Members.

Mrs Mason: I am deeply concerned about the future of ward 15 in Downpatrick. That facility is not just a ward; it is a lifeline for so many patients locally and across the North. It offers a sanctuary of hope and support for those who are battling addictions and mental health challenges, and it must be protected at all costs. It is so disheartening to learn that its essential services seem to be under threat. Despite assurances from the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust in July, little progress seems to have been made in recruiting a long-term consultant psychiatrist. That lack of action puts people's lives and livelihoods in jeopardy. Let us be clear: that is unacceptable. We are in the midst of a mental health crisis across the island. Countless families are grappling with the devastating impacts of addictions and other mental health issues. The demand for support has never been greater, yet the South Eastern Trust seems to be taking a step back when we should be stepping it up.

I am particularly alarmed by the decision to close ward 15 for two weeks over Christmas. That is an unprecedented step. Christmas, which is already a challenging time for those battling addiction, should be a period when vulnerable individuals and their families can rely on the services that they need the most. What is most concerning is the apparent lack of communication. Staff, constituents, elected reps in the area and the long-standing partner charity, the Friends of Ward 15, all had to hear through the grapevine of the closure. We accept that the trust has had staffing issues over the past six months, but the decision to close the ward over the holiday period seems dangerous. Is the trust prioritising clinical cover in mental health inpatient treatment units, home treatment teams or other mental health teams? It really worries me to have to ask this question: is this the beginning of the end for ward 15?

Ward 15 is more than a service. It is a haven and a shelter for those who need care, dignity and understanding. To allow its services to dwindle or its doors to close, even temporarily, is callous and an ill-conceived move. It is crucial that the South Eastern Trust and the Department of Health do all that they can to retain the vital services on ward 15 and ensure that they continue to be provided in Downpatrick. They must do all that they can to ensure that ward 15 remains operational and that those vital services are secured for Downpatrick and communities right across South Down and, indeed, the North. The recruitment of a replacement consultant must become a top priority, not tomorrow but today.

Mr Brooks: I will raise awareness of a campaign by the rugby player Kevin Sinfield, who was famously a friend of Rob Burrow, who died of MND. Kevin has since campaigned very well to raise money for the cause. Tomorrow sees his campaign — 2024's 7 in 7 in 7 challenge — come to Belfast, as he continues his inspiring efforts to raise funds and awareness to tackle the disease in honour of his late friend and teammate. This year's event, Running Home for Christmas, will see Kevin cover 50 kilometres a day for seven days, stopping in key cities across the UK and Ireland. As I said, he will stop here tomorrow. Kevin will start at the Kingspan Stadium, which is just about in your constituency, Mr Speaker. He will then almost immediately cross into East Belfast, where I, along with others, hope to welcome him. After leaving the home of Ulster Rugby at 7.00 am, he will pass through notable locations, including here at Stormont, Titanic Belfast and the Shore Road, before finishing at Windsor Park, near the George Best statue. Along the way, Kevin will visit St Paul's Gaelic Athletic Club where he will honour former Gaelic footballer Anto Finnegan, who also succumbed to MND. There will also be the Extra Mile event at the Mary Peters Track, at which members of the community can join Kevin. Proceeds from the challenge will benefit six motor neurone disease charities. Having raised nearly £10 million through his previous challenges, Sinfield's efforts continue to be a beacon of hope and solidarity for the MND community, and we wish him well. I encourage others to support him along the way and to help raise funds.

Ms Nicholl: I will speak about the serious matter of road safety, which does not receive the reporting that it deserves. Several years ago, the partner of a constituent of mine was killed while cycling. The driver of the vehicle should not even have been on the road, because they had a serious medical condition that impacted on their ability to drive, a fact that they had not reported to the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA). It is an offence in Northern Ireland not to report any condition or treatment that impacts on a person's ability to drive. It is also an offence to drive after making a false declaration. There seems to be a loophole, however, whereby it is left to the discretion of people who are deemed medically unfit to drive to advise the DVA of their condition. It also seems that medical practitioners are not under any obligation to report such a condition to the DVA unless they believe that the driver will not report it.

My constituent is still living through the pain and trauma of the awful tragedy that happened to them several years ago, and it is compounded by the fact that the person who killed their loved one should not even have been on the road. We need to do something about that. We cannot just leave it. It is human nature to do whatever is easiest. If someone should not be on the road, we need to make sure that that decision is enforced as much as possible.

I make representation to the Infrastructure Minister to investigate the detail and to find alternatives to the current, inadequate system. I will meet people from the BMA and any stakeholders who are impacted on by the situation. What happened to my constituent was devastating. It should not have happened. They are living with the consequences, and their greatest hope is that the same thing does not impact on another family. I urge everyone in the House to consider how we can improve the situation and make sure that, if someone is deemed medically unfit to drive, that fact is passed on to the DVA immediately so that no other family has to go through what my constituent is going through.

Dr Aiken: Over the past few days, a belated light has been shone on the genocide and war crimes that are happening across the Middle East, awakening some to the real and growing horror that is occurring there. However, the genocide, famine and war crimes being perpetrated in the Sudan have been going on since April last year, with the Sudanese army faction being supported by Iran, Hezbollah and Russia on one side and the Rapid Support Forces being supported by the UAE, amongst others, on the other. All sides have been documented as conducting murder and rape, using child soldiers and deliberately using starvation as a weapon. The lack of condemnation of those actions by political parties on this island has been in marked contrast to the near-continuous commentary on Israel's actions post the horrific events on 7 October 2023.

Last weekend also saw the return of attacks by more of Iran's proxies, the Hutus, on shipping in the Red Sea. The attacks are a direct assault on international trade, our economy, our jobs and our energy prices here. Again, the non-condemnation of Iran and its proxies by many political parties in Ireland is most marked. The fact that the United States Navy, our Royal Navy and the French are keeping the sea lanes open should be supported by all political parties across this island, but, again, it is not. If Israel is not involved, such acts of terrorism are completely ignored.

The Syrian civil war has also reignited. The march of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, sweeping away Assad's Syrian army as it heads towards Damascus while Assad, Iran, Hezbollah — what is left of it — and Russia try to stem the uprising, again, garners no commentary.

All violence, wherever it is, is wrong, but what is especially galling to those of us who desire peace across the Middle East and Europe is the hypocrisy of political parties that wilfully ignore the most significant wars, in which actual rather than perceived genocide occurs, actual rather than perceived famine is used as a weapon of war and real rather than perceived or propaganda-described ethnic cleansing is happening. Such things seem to matter to them only if they concern Israel. The activities of Iran, its proxies and Russia are ignored. That smacks of political parties being biased towards the acts of the ayatollah and Putin. Their omissions and concentration on Israel show a blatant and demonstrable antisemitism. Many across the Atlantic and in Brussels realise that Ireland has become a cesspit of antisemitism. It is time that all parties recommit to the principles of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism. Lest we forget, the Assembly agreed to them on 27 April 2021.

Ms Hunter: I draw attention to the continued infrastructure needs in my constituency of East Derry. On Friday, a number of my constituents who live with special needs, have physical disabilities or are older were notified that there had been cuts to the Disability Action transport team, which meant that, today — Monday morning — they could not get to their day centres. I think of one case in particular, of which I was notified this morning: a man who is 55 and has special needs will not be able to get to his day centre today as a result of the cuts. It is absolutely shocking and disgraceful, and it is totally unfair that the situation was relayed to those affected so suddenly. I thank North Coast Community Transport, which does a remarkable job in ensuring that vulnerable people across East Derry have connections and have a life. I firmly believe that any cuts to those vital community transport services are an absolute disgrace.

A key infrastructure issue in my community and constituency is the need for a Ballykelly bypass. I urge the Minister for Infrastructure to commit urgently in the Chamber to bringing forward that vital project. Actually, it has been the better part of 20 years since plans for a Ballykelly bypass were first proposed, yet, to this day, that vital project is still stuck in limbo despite the clear and pressing need to address traffic congestion. I have real concern about the emergency services and ambulances' ability to gain access, particularly when there is a potential restructuring of services at Causeway Hospital, meaning that there will be additional need to get to Altnagelvin Area Hospital.

The continued absence of that bypass creates a significant impact on local residents, commuters and the broader regional economy. I think, in particular, of the public safety issue with roads, and I think today of Joyce Taggart, who tragically lost her life earlier this year, and of my friend Melanie who was in an accident just a few weeks ago. That road is really congested, and I cannot reiterate that enough. My constituents who are in the Ballykelly area are rightfully annoyed. They feel that the area is heavily congested, and, particularly when there are roadworks, they have voiced how they feel stuck in their home. A bike lane was added recently, yet they feel that that addition overlooks the dire and urgent need for a bypass. I take that road almost every day, and the need for it to be upgraded creates delays for thousands of people and commuters between Derry and Coleraine and disrupts critical connections for business. It is, frankly, unacceptable that constituents in the area have had to wait so long for that vital project. It is estimated that it will cost anywhere between £35 million and £40 million. I ask that the Infrastructure Minister recognise it as a matter of fairness and forward-thinking infrastructure planning and that he urgently commit in the House to a Ballykelly bypass.

Ms Reilly: Bhí olltoghchán sna Sé Chontae is Fiche an tseachtain seo caite. Ba mhaith liom buíochas ó chroí a ghabháil le gach duine a sheas mar iarrthóir do Shinn Féin sa toghchán. Tuigimid sa tSeomra seo, mar ionadaithe tofa, na dúshláin a bhaineann le toghcháin: ag gabháil faoi agallaimh, ag canbhasáil, agus ag stocaireacht de lá agus d’oíche. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a gabháil le gníomhaithe ar fud na tíre a thacaigh leis na hiarrthóirí uile go léir. Is é Sinn Féin an t-aon pháirtí polaitíochta a thug deis do gach saoránach ar an oileán seo ionadaíocht aontaithe a fháil. Chaith mé féin seal sa Chabrach, ag canbhasáil agus ag labhairt le toghthóirí faoinár bhfís, faoinár misean agus faoinár gcuid oibre le hÉire nua a bhaint amach.

Gabhaim buíochas le gach duine a chaith vóta ar son Shinn Féin. Ba iad sláinte, cúrsaí tithíochta agus an costas maireachtála príomhábhair an toghcháin seo. Chuir daoine muinín i Sinn Féin le haghaidh a thabhairt ar na saincheisteanna sin atáimid a phlé anseo agus a bhfuilimid ag dul i ngleic leo le fada an lá.

Cé nach bhfuil an Rialtas nua socair go fóill, tá mé ag tnúth le bheith ag obair leo ar thionscadail trasteorann, agus tá mé ag tnúth fosta le fáilte a chur roimh mo chomhghleacaithe nuathofa.

Ms Forsythe: Last week, we celebrated Ulster-Scots Leid Week, when, across Northern Ireland, communities joined in a wide variety of activities, which our Ulster-Scots Agency coordinated, that promoted the Ulster-Scots language. Many events were organised by community groups and councils across Northern Ireland. The last census figures told us that over 190,000 people in the Province now have some ability in the Ulster-Scots language, which is an increase of 8·1% on the 2011 figures. However, Ulster-Scots is far more than just a language. It is our bands, our heritage, our identity and our people. As a proud Ulster Scot who lives in Mourne, which is an Ulster-Scots heartland, the Ulster-Scots language is integral to who I am and to how I interact with my family and community and with all of you.

I was delighted to see the activities and celebration of Ulster-Scots language and culture last week, promoting it and recognising its contribution to the rich and diverse cultural landscape of our wee country. In South Down, a range of events took place to make the week, from the Mountains and Toonlands Mourne exhibition in Newcastle library to an Ulster-Scots language street signage workshop, along with poetry, arts and crafts for the wains in Reivers House, Kilkeel. At my home in Kilkeel, we are privileged to have a strong Ulster-Scots organisation, the Schomberg Society, at the heart of our local Ulster-Scots community. In Reivers House and its newly opened heartland hub, the society provides a base for many Ulster-Scots groups and activities locally.

Last week was a busy week, as Ulster-Scots Leid Week was enjoyed by them all. There was great craic for all ages from the Highland Heathers, the Kirknarra School of Highland Dance, our schools and our bands. On Saturday past, Leid Week finished with the first ever Belfast Tartan Day, which coincided with St Andrew's Day. Hundreds of pipers, drummers, drum majors and highland dancers paraded to Belfast City Hall, headed by our Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons MLA.

Leid Week was a great success, but it was just one highlight of our community, which thrives all year round. Our local Ulster-Scots radio station, fUSe FM Mourne, runs from next week, 9 December, for two weeks. You can listen in on the fUSe FM Mourne app, online or on 106·2 FM in the Mourne area, as I — a proud Mourne Ulster Scot — will, as always, be a presenter. I invite you all to tune in as I say "Fair fa' ye" to everyone.

Mr Gildernew: This morning, I draw attention to some of the issues and difficulties that credit unions across the North face. Within the past week, I have been honoured to attend a meeting with Dungannon Credit Union and the Moy Credit Union and Aghaloo Credit Union AGMs. I declare an interest as a founder member of Aghaloo Credit Union.

Credit unions occupy and play a central role in many of our communities, and, in many cases, they are largely staffed and run by volunteers. They are regulated by the same framework as regulates the huge corporate banks, which are essentially profit-making. The credit union ethos is not for profit; it is a service for local areas. They are under the same regulatory system, but they also have significant constraints around how they are taxed and the investments that they can make.

A number of months ago, an event was held in the Long Gallery that many MLAs attended. Credit unions from across the North are engaging with political leaders in their areas. I encourage everyone here to speak to their local credit union and see what services they offer and what assistance they can provide around the issues that restrict them in providing that service. It is important, as we move towards Christmastime, that people in our communities understand that credit unions are open and available to providing loans to people who may not get them elsewhere. Often, they can prevent people from falling under the influence of criminal loan sharks who seek to exploit people's vulnerabilities.

There is an onus on us. We have a good system of credit unions in place, and we should do all that we can to support them.

Mrs Erskine: Today I remember two brave and valiant men on the anniversary of their murders. I remember Warrant Officer 2 John Arthur Maddocks, Royal Army Ordnance Corps. He was 32 when he was killed by Provisional IRA terrorists who planted a bomb in a milk churn 50 years ago today. His murder took place at Gortmullen, Derrylin. Forty years ago today, Sergeant Alistair Slater from First Battalion, Parachute Regiment and 22 Special Air Service was murdered by Provisional IRA terrorists at Drumrush, Kesh.

Yesterday, I attended the 40th anniversary service to dedicate a memorial plaque for Sergeant Alistair Slater at Tubrid Church of Ireland, Kesh. Whilst I was not alive at the time of the murder, it was a period of deep reflection for my family. My Granny Armstrong, who lives with Alzheimer's, can still recall that night, so deeply ingrained is it in her memory, because the incident happened outside the Armstrong family home. The bomb planted by the IRA could have killed many that night. Police officers on duty were spared being murdered as a four-man terror unit from the IRA callously carried out its act of mayhem and terror. They had been attempting to attack the RUC car with a landmine. Inside a family home, a stone's throw away, my Granny Armstrong was putting to bed my two elderly and unwell great-grandparents. Fifteen minutes later, shots rang out across the area. Yesterday, I spoke to many locals at the service who recalled that moment.

On that cold, foggy, December night, the windows of homes nearby were left open to ensure minimal blast damage.

Alistair was 28 years old, serving with the SAS that night. He was out on patrol, keeping my family and the Kesh community out of harm's way — totally different from the actions of the IRA terrorists that night. One thousand pounds of explosives were recovered, and countless RUC and civilian lives were saved. Such was his bravery that he was awarded posthumously the Military Medal for his role that night. A line from his obituary is as poignant today as it was then:

Those are the untold stories of what happened during our dark days. Too many innocent lives were a price too high to pay. Many young lives, such as the lives of those two young men, were stolen. There was always an alternative to the bomb and the bullet. We will remember them.

Mr O'Toole: We now have the Order Papers for the rest of 2024, thanks to your good office. We know that, before the end of this year, we will debate the motion to extend or not extend the protocol. We also know that the Executive will not deliver on the legislation programme that they put before the Assembly earlier this year. They will not just not deliver on it; they will barely get halfway through the legislation programme that was presented to the Assembly earlier this year.

On 11 June, the First Minister and deputy First Minister tabled a motion in the Assembly, asking us to note the Executive's legislation programme, which, at the time, it has to be said, was modest. It was a modest, slimmed-down legislation programme, and we were told that it was important to be realistic. Often, we, as politicians, hear about the importance of under-promising and over-delivering. Well, it appears that the Executive have under-promised and under-delivered.

The legislative programme was full of limp, technical but important legislation — things like a financial provisions Bill, which is about giving legal authority to various Departments to spend certain types of money. That is important, but it is technical. By the way, it could have been prepared — I assume that there were civil servants preparing it — while this institution was in abeyance. We also expected to see by now a Fiscal Council Bill to put on a statutory footing the independent spending watchdog that has existed for a number of years. There was a range of other pieces of legislation, few of them particularly substantive.

Of the 18 that we were promised earlier this year, by my count, half — barely 50% — will reach the Assembly. By the way, the legislation programme did not promise to get those things on the statute book or even to debate them at Second Stage: it was just about introducing legislation. Let me repeat that: the Executive have delivered barely half of their legislation programme. Let that sink in.

We returned here in February with a promise to deliver. We have come here day after day and debated motion after motion, promising big things. We promised the people who sent us here that the Executive and Assembly would be focused on delivery, but the legislation programme simply is not being delivered.

I am afraid that the job of the Opposition is to call out that kind of nonsense. Where are the Ministers who should be telling us where the legislation is? Let me, at least, pay tribute, which I do not always do, to the Justice Minister, who has introduced probably the most substantive legislation — the Justice Bill — which is being interrogated. At least it is there to be interrogated. The rest of the legislation programme simply has not been introduced. Why not? Where is it?

If we want this place to have some kind of reputation for delivery and not to be seen simply as a dysfunctional, ridiculous place on a hill, we actually have to do what we say we will do. Let us have an explanation for where all of that legislation is.

Mr Brett: The front page of the 'Belfast Telegraph' on Saturday exposed, once again, for the world to see, the sectarian and anti-British sentiment at the heart of the Ulster Boxing Council. It read as follows:

Had that headline read for any other minority community in Northern Ireland, there would have been justifiable outrage.

The media, the chattering classes and political parties of all hues would rightly have lined up to call for resignations and reforms. However, those who shout loudest on equality, fairness and equitable opportunity seem to fall silent when it comes to discrimination against Protestants and those in Northern Ireland who follow a British way of life.

Those words on the front page of the 'Belfast Telegraph' were not mine but those of young Daryl Clarke, the boxing champion, who, in 2022, was denied a place on Northern Ireland's Commonwealth Games team because he was a Protestant. That is not my finding; it is the finding of the Equality Commission and the courts in Northern Ireland. The courts found that the Ulster Boxing Council changed its selection rules because it did not want a Protestant to be picked to represent Northern Ireland.

I pay tribute to Daryl Clarke and Paul Johnston from Monkstown Boxing Club, who, for the past two years, have been forced to go through the courts to seek redress for that young man. That young man had his life's ambition of proudly representing his country on the world stage denied to him because of one simple fact: he is a Protestant. The courts have awarded him a five-figure settlement, which is welcome but will not replace the aim of representing his country.

I will contact the Department for Communities and Belfast City Council today, both of which continue to pour millions of pounds into an organisation that, seemingly, does not want a Protestant about the place. Let me be clear: others may be silent on the issue of discrimination against young boxers who want to represent Northern Ireland, but I and my party will not be.

Mr Speaker: I call Timothy Gaston: you have two minutes, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Civil Service inclusive language guide, which was published by the Finance Minister, amounts to an attack on the basic building blocks of society. In spite of that, the Finance Minister has confirmed to me that there was no call-in at the Executive triggered by other parties; thus, the document could be said to carry the Executive's stamp of approval.

One has only to consider page 16, where civil servants are advised that instead of the words "Mum" or "Dad", they should use "Parent", "Adult" or "Caregiver". Civil servants should not talk about "Husband", "wife", "boyfriend" or "girlfriend", but instead "Partner" or "spouse". On page 23 of the guide, civil servants are told not to refer to "Christian Name" but should instead ask for a person's forename. The guide also seeks to ban the term "Illegal immigrants".

The truth is that there is nothing inclusive about the policy document. It seeks to eradicate any trace of our nation's Christian heritage and assaults the most basic building blocks of society, seeking to eradicate not just husbands and wives but even mothers and fathers from official speech. All of that comes from a Department that has responsibility for the legislation that covers marriage in Northern Ireland.

In '1984', George Orwell described how the state creates "Newspeak", a controlled language of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary that is designed to limit freedom of thought. Why? Because, as a character in '1984' says:

That, frankly, is what the inclusive language guide is all about. It is about control of speech and control of thought to the point at which we do not know what a mother is, what a father is, what a husband is or even what a woman is. There are serious policy issues that flow from that. I am appalled that there is no veto of the guidance by the Executive.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Gaston: your time is up.

Mr Speaker: Andrew McMurray has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Mr McMurray: I am here as an MLA for South Down, representing the Alliance Party, to present this petition to stop the Mourne Mountain gondola project. Currently, the number of signatures on the petition exceeds 6,000. It is an honour to present it to you in the Chamber. I am glad that some of that number who organised the petition are in the Public Gallery today, as well as my Alliance Party colleagues from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, who have consistently stood with those opposed to the project.

The material ask of the petition is to stop the Mourne Mountains gondola project and the associated visitor centre to be located at Thomas's Quarry on the side of Slieve Donard. The project concerns a gondola ride of no more than 1,300 m with a height of under 250 m. It includes the construction of a visitor centre in a special area of conservation and area of special scientific interest.

Mr Speaker, I ask that the petition be passed to the Minister for the Economy, as two major bodies associated with the project fall within his remit, namely Tourism NI and the Department for the Economy. We hope to draw the Minister's attention to the feelings of local people and those who love and care for the upland environment, and their opposition to the proposal. We urge the Minister to exert his influence to prompt a rethink of the problematic elements of the project. Outside the Chamber, the petition is a barometer for Newry, Mourne and Down District Council to take into consideration when it next has to make a decision on the project.

There is no shortage of reasons why we oppose the gondola. We have unfortunately ended up in a situation where there has been a lack of public consultation; where other, more sustainable uses of funding have been disregarded; where financial risk is involved; where there is a lack of economic viability; and where there is a threat to the local environment through the disruption of our area's vast and unique natural beauty. Many will know that Donard Park, up to the Glen river and on to the saddle between Slieve Donard and Slieve Commedagh, is one of the most iconic gateways into the Mournes. Constructing a gondola of industrial scale in such a wonderful natural environment will not augment the area; indeed, the opposite is true.

In my time in elected politics, this has been one of the biggest issues raised with me by my constituents, who are opposed to the project. From the pub to the pew — literally — the general public have consistently let me know their views on the project, and, as the response to the petition suggests, it is not one of endorsement.

Mr Speaker: I will forward the full petition to the Minister for the Economy and a copy to the Committee.

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

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the steps that I am taking to improve access to justice. I do so because I believe that there is an opportunity to reshape how justice is delivered in future in order to ensure a fairer system that is more proportionate and responsive. There has been keen interest in the access to justice programme. I understand and welcome that interest.

How we support access to justice can and does shape lives, yet justice rarely gets the attention and funding it deserves. People encounter the justice system when they face challenges: when they are victims of crime; when they are experiencing trauma; when they are dealing with physical and emotional injury; or when they are managing changes to their financial and personal circumstances and their family life. How access to justice is supported can impact on how people manage and respond to those challenges, helping to determine their life outcomes, the support that they need in the future and how they live and engage with society. How we provide information, support and representation can be critical to ensuring that voices are heard, rights are exercised and protections are secured. It can be critical to ensuring that inequities can be challenged and that decision makers and others are held to account. It can help to determine the longer-term costs of public services such as policing, prisons, benefits and health and support services.

It is with that in mind that I commissioned the reform programme, enabling access to justice. I want to be sure that we meet the needs of citizens appropriately and that the system is effective in helping people navigate life’s challenges. I am also taking action because we need to ensure that the system is cost-effective and sufficiently transparent. The Public Accounts Committee has had concerns over clarity around legal aid spend. I share those concerns. I am also concerned about increasing financial pressures.

In commissioning the programme, I asked a number of questions. Is the justice system meeting the needs of modern society? Is it protecting the vulnerable? Are we providing some services at the expense of other, more valuable, actions? Are we managing our resources well? Is the system proportionate, viable, sustainable and transparent? Are behaviours and procedures engendering delay? Do we have sufficient assurance on quality? Can we measure the added value of the supports that we are providing?

I asked whether justice is being served. To answer those questions, I have taken time to listen and learn from what those using the system tell us about their experience and what those supporting it tell us about the challenges. I am grateful to everyone who shared their experience, particularly those who took the time to respond to the foundational review of civil legal aid, the fundamental review of criminal legal aid and the priority-setting exercise for victims of domestic abuse, which I jointly commissioned with the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime.

I take this opportunity to record my thanks to Geraldine Hanna, His Honour Judge Burgess and the contributing academics, practitioners and voluntary-sector organisations for their commitment to improving access to justice. In particular, I thank the applicants, defendants, victims and witnesses who took the time to share their experience so that we can improve the system for others. I know that, for some, sharing their experience will have been difficult, but it has been invaluable.

What I heard has been, in turn, enlightening, reassuring and disheartening, but it has also been motivating. It is clear that we have a strong foundation on which to build, but it is equally clear that remodelling is required. Evidence has reinforced my long-held view that we have much to laud. We have a strong, independent judiciary, a capable legal profession, hard-working staff in the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) and committed voluntary-sector staff, all of whom are dedicated to ensuring that justice is protected and delivered. Good practice and high-quality services are already in place, but changes are required. Society has evolved. Needs and expectations have changed. Technology is presenting opportunities to deliver services differently, in a way that better meets the needs of users, is more efficient for practitioners and delivers better outcomes at a lower cost. Different approaches can allow disputes to be resolved more quickly and more effectively, and users want more options. They want greater self-efficacy and to be better informed. They want to engage with the system differently.

The nature of the support provided also needs to change. Our understanding of the impact of trauma and adversity is constantly improving, as is our understanding of how such impacts can be mitigated. We now better understand the effects of the adversarial court process. The justice system needs to evolve to reflect that learning in order to ensure that delivery models are tailored to need, that the right supports are available for the right people at the right time and that the system reduces, rather than increases, trauma and stress.

Delivery also needs to align with resources. My Department has been consistently underfunded, and pressure on resources is increasing. As I said previously, £114 million was paid to legal professionals in 2023-24: the highest amount in the history of legal aid. We are already on track to meet that spend again this year, having secured additional funding in the October monitoring round. By way of comparison, however, the opening budget for legal aid when I first took up office in January 2020, which was for the year 2019-2020, was £76·9 million, and we then received in-year funding to raise that to £81·5 million.

Legal aid, like other aspects of the justice system, is demand-led. For example, work to increase the throughput of the courts in order to speed up justice will lead to increasing costs associated with legal aid. It also has to be acknowledged that there is increasing demand right across the justice system, reflecting the fact that, all too often, we are the provider of last resort. I therefore need additional funds to ensure that I can properly protect citizens, ensure that the vulnerable are not at risk and adequately resource police, prisons and justice delivery, not in spite of the pressures facing other Departments but because of them.

Delivery models also need to be refined to reflect our financial reality, however. I am cognisant of the need to examine, first, how we use our resources to ensure that delivery models are proportionate and as inexpensive as possible; secondly, why pressures and spend are increasing; thirdly, the benefits accruing from that spend and whether the intended effects are being achieved; and, fourthly, whether having different delivery models might generate better, quicker outcomes.

Given the foundational nature of those reviews, I have sought to revisit what should be the first principle of access to justice and ask whether we are protecting the most vulnerable and whether advice and representation are being provided to those who cannot navigate the system alone and do not have the means to afford advice and representation.

Changes are also required to ensure the long-term viability of the system. Fair, proportionate remuneration is critical to the continued availability of quality legal advice and high-standard representation and to ensuring that justice is served. Remuneration is only one part of how we nurture and attract talent, but it is an important part, and it is clear that fees need to be reset. I have asked questions about that, and I have been listening to and reflecting on what I have heard. The programme that I am announcing today represents the best opportunity to ensure that we effectively meet the needs of our citizens and that the system is sustainable. It represents an opportunity to reset justice delivery for a generation.

To do that, I propose to progress reform in five key areas, namely improving access to justice; ensuring appropriate quality services; ensuring value; managing public funds; and oversight. I will talk a bit more about my plans in each area, starting with improving access to justice.

Many who have sought to navigate the justice system will have had a positive experience, but others have experienced difficulty. Despite the significant and increasing spend on legal aid, some have, disappointingly, found that financial constraints remain a barrier to justice. Our current eligibility tests do not necessarily ensure protection for the most vulnerable: women, children, victims of abuse and those with a disability. In addition, rules governing eligibility are not easily understood. I want to address that. I want to ensure that legal aid delivers on that first principle of protecting the most vulnerable, so I plan to introduce fairer, simpler eligibility rules that focus resource on the greatest need and the greatest risk of harm. Of course, increasing eligibility comes with a responsibility to ensure that we live within our means. We simply do not have the resources to fund every case, however deserving. Neither can we afford to allow the spend to increase exponentially; the Justice budget certainly will not.

I also want to ensure that access to justice and the quality of service are not dependent on whether you have substantial means or whether you qualify for legal aid. A wider range of funding options is available in other jurisdictions. I will explore the introduction of private financing to support wider access to justice for individuals and other mechanisms that might aid public interest and strategic litigation. That will not only enhance access to justice by increasing the options available but increase choice for the individual. I also want to incentivise early resolution to ensure that process aids efficiency and that form follows function. The Criminal Justice Board is already progressing work to reduce unnecessary delay and enable structured early engagement. Through that programme, I will seek to ensure that remuneration structures support those objectives and that procedures reduce unnecessary delay, encourage early resolution and aid transparency. That includes providing better, clearer information to demystify the courts and building evidence of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms so that citizens have an informed choice.

Remedy does and should extend beyond the formal institutions of the legal system. The needs of those who use the system can often extend beyond advice and representation. Some who encounter the justice system have experienced trauma, have multiple and often complex needs and require a range of supports. There are also areas in which it is difficult to get expert advice. That advice is critical to effective participation and to equal treatment before the law. Therefore, I want to look at opportunities to provide specialist tailored supports at the point of entry and to test different delivery models, including contracting, so that users have cohesive services. I plan to focus initially on specific areas and vulnerable groups where there is an immediate need, such as victims of domestic abuse, young people, people in housing distress and asylum and immigration. However, there is potential to extend into other areas. I want to ensure that there is quality service provision through continuous and accelerating improvement. Quality service is also about confidence. It is about assuring those using the service about the advice and representation that they receive and assuring the wider community that publicly funded services provide value for money. Regulatory measures are already in place, but I want to work with the legal professions and the Minister of Finance to examine whether there are any areas of the framework that might be enhanced to add further confidence.

There is also a need to look at how quality service is rewarded. As I mentioned, fair, proportionate remuneration is essential to an effective justice system. I will initiate a root-and-branch review of remuneration in order to examine what work we are asking practitioners to undertake, the added value and the fees that should attach. We have already made good progress through the work that has been undertaken by Judge Burgess and through evidence from other sources, but I plan to establish a reference group to consider how we can further enhance that evidence base.

I am also persuaded that there is a case for a more immediate increase to fees, and I will take the necessary steps to introduce an uplift at pace. I am further persuaded that that uplift should apply across criminal and civil and family cases. Much has been said recently about the need to increase the fees that are payable for criminal legal aid, but there is also a case for increasing fees for advice and representation in civil and family cases. One of the reasons why I wanted to take that holistic approach was to ensure that issues are not considered in isolation to the detriment of other areas and to ensure fairness across the board.

Any uplift will, of course, be subject to affordability. It must also be acknowledged that a robust and enduring profession is not solely contingent on fees. There must be a proactive approach to succession planning. Diversity must be promoted and supported. There is a significant role for the profession in ensuring that training models build capacity, support inclusivity and nurture talent. I will also consider what steps I can take to increase viability and to ensure that those who provide public legal services are representative of society, initially by progressing extended rights of audience to increase capacity and by considering whether interim payments might aid the financial viability of smaller firms and career progression for women and younger members of the profession.

Ensuring value also bears on our responsibilities as legislators to ensure that resources are used to best effect. Through the reform programme, I will take steps to improve how we manage public funds. I want to look again at the scope of legal aid provision and review merits testing so that I can provide assurances to the House and to those whom we represent that funds are being used to support the most vulnerable. I want to ensure that resources are expended where there is a clear tangible value to the individual and to society. I also want to ensure that the process for making that assessment is simple and clear and allows us to effectively manage public expenditure.

Public funding should not displace private funding, so I want to be able to provide assurances in that regard. I will take steps to ensure that those who can afford to contribute to their legal costs do so. I will also ensure that the assessment system is fair and that mechanisms for appealing funding decisions are accessible and robust. I have always been clear in my view that legal aid is part of our welfare system. Contributions should be sought only from those who can truly afford it. Equally, public funds are not unlimited, nor should they be used to engender delay in the system, particularly where that would be at the expense of supporting others and making better use of public resources more generally. I will examine the certification process in order to ensure that the continued availability of legal aid is not at the expense of fair and judicious management of resources.

I will also take steps to ensure clarity on how we use resources. The Legal Services Agency (LSA) has no role in the assessment of around £30 million of legal aid expenditure per annum. That spend is instead assessed by the taxing master. I have every faith that the taxing master delivers their function independently, but the system in which the master operates means that we are unsighted on the detail of that line of expenditure, which is increasing. Between 2015-16 and 2018-19, taxed expenditure for civil legal services was consistently in the region of £20 million per annum. By 2023-24, costs had risen to £37·7 million. I know that all Members will agree that we need to understand why. We need transparency. I will therefore take steps to ensure that all legal aid expenditure comes within the purview of the departmental accounting officer in line with standard practice for managing public funds. I propose to progress that work on a phased basis, starting with High Court bail.

Finally, I will take steps to improve assurance on access to justice. MLA colleagues will be aware of the fact that there is no universally accepted definition of the term "access to justice". While there is a general sense that the system should facilitate the right to a fair trial, there are no overarching principles governing the operation of the system, how and when different categories of dispute should be resolved or how resources should be focused. The absence of that definition undoubtedly inhibits assessment of effectiveness. I want to measure, challenge and test what we do. I plan to look at the existing statutory framework for review in order to develop a strategy detailing the principles under which the system should operate and to improve management information on those who use and deliver services. I believe that articulating clear overarching principles and enhancing available data will make it easier for us to assess how we are doing, how well we are using resources and how well citizens and justice are being served.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I am conscious that I have covered a lot of ground, and I thank you for your attention and Members for theirs. The programme is ambitious and wide-ranging, but it is right to be ambitious when, as I said at the outset, so much is at stake for the public purse, for society and for individuals and their families. I do not propose changes lightly, and I do not underestimate the work involved. The programme is necessarily multi-year, and the pace of delivery will be contingent on resource and available funding. However, my aim is to make the system more sustainable, and I recognise that achieving that may mean upfront investment.

Of course, we need to make sure that we invest at the right time and examine issues in the right order. I will shortly consult on the programme implementation plan, which the Committee will have an opportunity to consider this week, to ensure that the proposed sequencing is right and that it properly takes account of interconnectivities. Nevertheless, I intend to move at pace. We do not have the luxury of time if we are to deliver the system that our citizens deserve. Each set of proposals will require detailed consultation and supporting legislative and administrative frameworks to be put in place. We cannot delay the realisation of benefits. Delivery will also be contingent on collaboration and cooperation with Executive colleagues, the Justice Committee, the legal profession and community and voluntary sector partners. I trust that you and they are as committed as I am to enhancing access to justice. We have a tangible opportunity to reset the framework for justice delivery and ensure that we have a fairer, more accessible, proportionate, responsive and cost-effective system that places citizens at its heart. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her statement. She will know that I have been advocating at the Justice Committee for enhanced and improved access to justice. I broadly welcome the indication of intent in her statement. Will she provide detail about how she envisages that private financing will interact with the existing legal aid framework? When can we expect to see a detailed timeline for progressing the objectives that she laid out in her statement? Will she detail how much the uplift will be? Will she provide detail on the timelines, though I do not disregard the fact that the programme implementation plan is forthcoming?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, there were several questions there. You should answer whichever questions feel appropriate.

Mrs Long: Thank you. A timeline is set out in the plan, which will be circulated to the Committee. The Member will have the opportunity to discuss that with my officials on Thursday afternoon. The plan lays out the order in which we intend to do things and puts some indicative timings beside those things based on what is realistic for delivery.

Tom Burgess suggested that the uplift to fees for criminal legal aid should be around 16% in order to take account of inflation since the previous uplift. We looked at that suggestion and other evidence that was before us, and we accept that recommendation from Tom Burgess. However, we also believe that, in order to ensure fairness in the profession, that uplift should apply across criminal and civil legal aid.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for her statement. It is important, and it will be good to get the delivery programme and timetable that she mentioned. My question follows on from her comments on Tom Burgess's report and the 16% uplift. It is good for that to be widened so that it applies across the legal aid profession, but the Minister will know the pressure that solicitors and others are under at the moment with fees and the delay of payments. Is there a timetable for the introduction of that interim payment?

Mrs Long: Judge Burgess and I were very clear that the payment is "interim" in the sense that it is on the way to wider reform. It is not "interim" as in a staging post to a further uplift. I want to be clear about that. Tom Burgess is also very clear that that is what the interim payment refers to. It will have to be subject to the normal procurement process. There will have to be a business case that will go through the Department of Finance. Colleagues have already engaged with their Department of Finance colleagues on that. I want to move towards that expeditiously, because I recognise that there is a need to do so.

It is, of course, the Department's intention to pay legal aid as promptly as possible. I do not want to get into issues around delay and timings, because, as the Member realises, that is sub judice, and a case is currently before the courts. However, it is fair to say that a number of things that I have proposed this morning, including interim payments, would be a significant improvement over the current arrangements, under which a final payment is made for work done. That would improve cash flow, particularly for smaller businesses and those starting out in their career, as cash flow is, perhaps, the biggest challenge that they face.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her statement, which is certainly wide-ranging. Minister, you will be aware of the alarming findings of the 2023-24 victims' survey by the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, with only 7% of crime victims having confidence in your justice system and 50% being dissatisfied with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). The victims of crime want actions not just words. How confident are you that we will see real, positive change to improve victims' experiences? Given the lack of clarity in your statement on time frames, can you spell out a clearer time frame for those affirmative actions?

Mrs Long: First, it is not my justice system; it is your justice system. It belongs to us all, and there is a duty on all of us to take all measures possible to enhance confidence in the system. One of the things in the statement is about statutory registration and the regulatory landscape. I will engage with the Department of Finance on regulation to ensure that there is robust and transparent regulation of the legal profession and to ensure that, where someone is contracted to provide a public service, as they are under legal aid, people can rely on the best support possible.

I mentioned in the speech that it is key to ensure that we do nothing in the legal aid system that engenders or rewards delay. We must create incentives in the legal aid system to speed up justice, and the Criminal Justice Board has looked at that over a number of months.

Finally, with respect to the timeline, I said that this was a multi-year programme. It will depend on the resources that we can get for its implementation. However, a timeline is being provided and an order for the progress that we intend to make set out for the Justice Committee. Once I have acknowledged the Committee's role, because I want to give it primacy in the scrutiny, I will launch that for wider consultation. All Members will have an opportunity to feed into it.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Has any analysis been undertaken of the comparison between legal aid assessed by the taxing master and that spent by PPS barristers on the same cases? Does the taxation system operate elsewhere on these islands?

Mrs Long: The taxation system is poorly understood. There is a taxing master in Northern Ireland who sets the fees for the cases and, last year, controlled around £37·7 million of expenditure. In other parts of these islands, there are no taxing masters. For example, in England and Wales, the costs can either be assessed by costs officers and costs judges or submitted to the Legal Aid Agency. Regardless of who conducts the assessment, statutory fees are payable, so there is less discretion. In Scotland, the Auditor of the Court of Session has a role similar to that of the taxing master but effectively performs an appellate role, if there is a dispute between the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish equivalent to our people. In the Republic of Ireland, it is mainly based on standard fees.

The work to analyse, for example, the difference the taxing master can introduce has found that payment to junior counsel in criminal Court of Appeal cases is, on average, nine times greater than what their counterpart in the PPS would receive for the same case. The payment to senior counsel in criminal Court of Appeal cases is six times greater than what PPS counsel would receive. In addition, on average, junior and senior counsel are paid almost twice as much in the criminal Court of Appeal than they would receive for the corresponding Crown Court trial. There are discrepancies in the system that need to be resolved to create a true equality of arms between those acting for the defence and the prosecution.

Mr Beattie: The Minister will know that some of us have questioned legal aid's value for money, as well as the need to eradicate fraud and error and, importantly, to provide transparency, for some time. It was brought into stark contrast when nearly £150,000 was awarded to Gerry Adams through legal aid, but I would not ask the Minister to comment on that case. In the interests of transparency, when will the Minister begin to publish once again the list of top legal aid earners in Northern Ireland?

Mrs Long: I appreciate the question, and I appreciate the Member not asking me to comment on individual awards under legal aid. However, I understand that, in that case, at least one of the awards was made by a judge rather than by the Legal Services Agency.

Publishing a list of barristers is something that we have done in the past to show who the top-ranking barristers are in terms of the receipt of legal aid. It is questionable how much light it shines, because we have to remember that the person who is actually in receipt of the legal aid is their client, not the barrister or the solicitor. That can create a bit of a skewed idea that, if somebody works in the legal aid sector, they may get higher levels of payment; somebody who declines to work on a legal aid basis would then get lower levels of payment but would not then be representing clients who are entitled to legal aid. I think that it is less straightforward than that.

The Member mentioned transparency. I have no issue with transparency, and it would be helpful if we were to get to the point again, when those figures are meaningful, where we can disaggregate the different levels of payment that people receive but also, importantly, how those payments are arrived at. In some ways, that is much more important than how much individual law firms earn. What they earn it for matters much more to me.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for her statement on enabling access to justice. In order to improve access to justice for those who are in greatest need and at greatest risk, which includes our women, our children, victims of abuse and people with a disability, the Minister mentioned that she planned to introduce a simpler, fairer eligibility system. Could she throw some light on what that will entail?

Mrs Long: Today, I have set out a road map to where we want to get to in the broad direction of travel. Each of the individual elements of this will be designed and brought forward for consultation, so there is work to be done on each element. However, to use a funnel analogy, we are conscious that the entrance to the funnel in Northern Ireland is small, so the number of people who are eligible for legal aid is small. However, once you are eligible, the merit test of what you use legal aid for is quite broad. In England and Wales, more people would be entitled to legal aid, so the funnel neck is much wider, but the number of cases that would reach the merit test, in terms of being of value, would be much smaller.

We recognise that there will be vulnerable people, particularly those fleeing domestic abuse, who would currently be ruled out of legal aid by the means test but may have good grounds for needing legal aid because, due to domestic abuse, they do not have access to the means that they ought to have. It is exactly those sorts of things that have driven us in the direction of looking at alternative provision. It is also why I mentioned not just the Bar and the Law Society but community and voluntary sector partners. For example, services such as Housing Rights, the Children's Law Centre and Women's Aid will often provide legal advice from fully qualified legal advisers, but they do that at the point of need and do it effectively. We want to make sure that, when we talk about access to justice, we include that within the confines of what we are trying to address.

Mr Bradley: Minister, thank you very much for your statement to the House. The proposed reforms are well intentioned and address critical issues in the justice system. However, their success depends on clearly defined goals, realistic financial planning, effective stakeholder engagement and phased implementation. Addressing these flaws may enhance the programme's credibility and its likelihood of achieving meaningful improvements.

Acknowledging the financial constraints across Departments, will the necessary finance be available for the strategy, and could private financing options create inequalities whereby wealthier individuals have better access to justice? With that in mind, does the Minister think that there will be pushback from the legal profession?

Mrs Long: There are a number of questions in that. First, we have had regular ongoing contact with the legal profession. There will be parts of this that some parts of the profession like, and there will be parts of it that some parts of the profession do not like. That is the reality with any proposal for reform. We are trying to come at this not from the position of those who, if you like, earn their living through the legal aid system but from the position of those for whom legal aid is designed, namely those who are in need of legal advice.

We are here to provide a service, which is access to justice, and we need a thriving profession to be able to do that. I want to work with the legal profession to ensure that the reforms are practical and do not provide a barrier to people entering the profession. For example, we know that final payment has led to many women who enter the Bar not being paid for work that they have done: because the court was scheduled during a period of maternity leave they get paid nothing for all the preparatory work that they have done. Interim payments may help in that space. Other parts of what we are trying to do, for example early resolution and alternative dispute resolution, may take more cases away from the court, but we should all welcome that as it may speed things up and allow the courts to spend more time on more serious issues.

On access to funding for the programme, we will have to produce a business case. I believe that we can do so and that we have a robust argument. We will put that to the Department of Finance, as we do with all our business cases. Of course, dependent on the outcome, the project is scalable in that we can do the bits that we can afford whilst working on other pieces in the background until we get the resources for them. Overall, we need to ensure that the system is sustainable. The rapid increase that we have seen over the past five years is not sustainable, and the profession is saying that the profession is not sustainable. This is our opportunity to reset things.

Mr Blair: I note the Minister's comments regarding the increasing spend on legal aid here and her concerns around the sustainability of that trajectory. Can the Minister clarify our spend per head on legal aid in Northern Ireland and how that compares with elsewhere on these islands?

Mrs Long: In 2022-23, the average spend on legal aid per adult in Northern Ireland was £67. By comparison, the average spend per capita in England and Wales was £37; in Scotland, it was £26; and in the Republic of Ireland, it was £20.

Ms Bradshaw: Minister, further to John Blair's question, can you outline what proportion of the Northern Ireland population is currently eligible for legal aid? How does that compare with elsewhere on these islands?

Mrs Long: It is important, as I tried to do earlier, to highlight the scope of legal aid and that how legal assistance is provided to citizens will vary across jurisdictions. On the basis of the available data for 2022-23, about 25% of the adult population in Northern Ireland is eligible for legal aid. The average spend on civil and family legal aid per adult is about £34. By comparison, 23% of the adult population in England and Wales is eligible for legal aid, with an average spend in civil and family legal aid of £19 per adult. Seventy per cent of the adult population in Scotland is eligible for legal aid, with an average spend in civil and family legal aid of £10 per adult. Fifty per cent of the adult population in Ireland is eligible for legal aid, with an average spend of £8 per adult. Therefore, as you can see, the eligibility can be widened considerably and it can still provide better value for money than we do in Northern Ireland.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, although there is much in here that people will understand and sympathise with, there is some stuff to be concerned about too. Let us be transparent about your reform of the way that the taxing master works. I am not aware of any other situation in which the state can be on the other side of assessing the counter party's costs, which is, effectively what you are calling for here. The comparisons are usually not perfectly analogous. Will you, please, confirm that, in legacy cases, for example, we will not have a profound conflict of interests where the state is, effectively, assessing the costs of its counter parties? Why, in the interests of transparency, will you not publish the Burgess report?

Mrs Long: There were two questions. On the first, when it comes to legacy specifically, separate arrangements are being considered by the Northern Ireland Office and Treasury. It is a UK Government policy, not a DOJ policy. Therefore, the legal support that will or will not be offered to people going through, for example, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) cases will not fall within the legal aid framework.

On the taxing master, what we are doing is not unique. We already have standardised fees, and, for example, in the appeal courts, around 80% of people opt to go through the Legal Services Agency because it is quicker to go through that than to go through the taxing master. The issue here is one of managing public money. There is a duty on me to ensure that there is transparency, openness and accountability.

The current rules around the way in which the taxing master works do not allow for that openness, accountability and transparency, and whatever we end up with at the end of the process has to achieve that end. It is an issue that the PAC raised and is therefore something that needs to be followed through on.

My reason for not publishing the Burgess report is that it was one of a number of inputs to the document that we are sending to the Committee, and I did not think that its consideration in isolation was the right process to follow. When my road map goes to the Committee, however, the supporting documentation will also go to it and will then be published in full.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, you will be aware of concerns that have been expressed, particularly by those in the criminal legal professions about the viability of the service that they deliver. Will you outline to the House your Department's responsibility for the service's viability, particularly for the criminal legal professions?

Mrs Long: Responsibility for the viability of the legal professions is a matter for many different people. Proper, proportionate remuneration is critical in order to ensure an enduring profession and effective access to justice, but it has to be acknowledged that a robust and enduring profession is not solely contingent on fees. Legal aid is only one income stream available to practitioners. Professional bodies have to ensure that there is a proactive approach taken to succession planning. They also have to ensure that their training models build capacity, support inclusivity and nurture talent. For example, many people do not want to operate as criminal solicitors, and that is because they find doing so difficult because of the amount of out-of-hours work and inconvenience involved compared with working for, say, a corporate legal body, where they may not have to work outside normal office hours. I will therefore consider what steps I can take to try to increase viability. Initially, I will consider extended rights of audience in the courts to increase capacity and then consider whether interim payments might aid financial viability, particularly, as I said, that of smaller firms, and career progression for women and younger members of the profession. Others also need to take action on those matters. I am aware, for example, that the Law Society is looking at making potential changes to its model for training young solicitors.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for her statement and her answers thus far. Minister, do you consider the current regulatory framework for the legal professions to be adequate? If not, what steps will you take to address that?

Mrs Long: Some other Members pointed to the reviews that have been undertaken, and a further report has been published on how clients viewed the legal services that they received. It has to be said that that report is a mixed bag and not entirely glowing in its output. The regulatory framework for the legal professions is not a matter for me as Justice Minister but a matter for the respective professional bodies, the Finance Minister and the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner. I want, however, to work with Minister Archibald, the Law Society and the Bar Council to see whether there are ways in which we can collectively increase confidence for service users. I am very clear that the standards of legal representation in Northern Ireland are high, and the vast majority of stakeholders reported that the services that they received were helpful, necessary and provided with care. I am concerned, however, that some expressed concerns about the ability to make an effective complaint about their representative when they need to. I am also keen to explore how the governance structures around legal aid can be used in combination with the vital roles of the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Department of Finance and the commissioner to increase confidence in the system.

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

Minister, on Monday 12 May 1997, Seán Brown was abducted and murdered by loyalist paramilitaries. Have you made any representations to the British Government on the legacy legislation, which is denying so many people, including the Brown family, access to justice?

Mrs Long: My statement is about enabling access to justice through the legal aid system and its corollaries. It is not specific to individual cases. I have, however, had the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State about his plans, particularly on the ICRIR. I have been clear that I think that it needs to be replaced, not merely reformed. I have also been clear that, if they decide to do so, the Department of Justice will not stand in the way of any families wishing to avail themselves of its services or try to frustrate their processes. However, it is, I believe, a fundamentally flawed process, and the Secretary of State should go back to the drawing board, with the Stormont House Agreement, to which many Members signed up, as a starting point.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. What previous reviews have been undertaken of criminal legal aid remuneration levels, and what uplifts were agreed as a result?

Mrs Long: Since the devolution of justice, the Department has, in line with legislation, kept the scheme under review. Reviews have led to nine amendments to supporting legal aid legislation, with the latest, in 2019, being to bring forward remuneration for referral hearings in the Crown Court. The proposal to uplift fees here is based on evidence in the various reports that are available and is designed to help to arrest the fall in numbers of solicitors and barristers taking on cases that are supported by legal aid.

The reform programme will, as part of its outworkings, necessitate the setting of new remuneration rates that will reflect the complex operating environment and the specialist skills needed in some cases. The current levels of remuneration for cases in the Crown Court were agreed in 2016, following discussions with stakeholders, including members of the Bar Council and the Law Society. That followed changes in 2015. Those discussions helped to identify where rates needed to be amended to reflect the complexity of cases that were then being brought forward. The Bar Council and the Law Society supported the Burgess review and provided detailed supporting evidence that has helped to shape the reform programme. Their input into delivering it will also be incredibly important, and I look forward to their continued engagement.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for her comprehensive statement. One of the greatest barriers to accessing justice in Northern Ireland can be the use and abuse of the judicial review process, particularly when it comes to major capital schemes being taken forward by government. I can think of a number of schemes in my constituency that have been stalled through the courts as a result of easily accessible but vexatious judicial review claims. Has the Minister given any thought to reviewing the bar to be cleared by a member of the public in order to be granted leave to apply for a judicial review and getting legal aid for that process?

Mrs Long: We are looking at a number of elements that would deal with some of those issues. First and foremost, access to justice allows the ordinary citizen to challenge the decision maker, and it is right and proper that they should be able to do so. In the case of what the Member describes as potentially vexatious applications, however, it is important that, in addition to a means test, there is a merit test: would a person take this case if they were paying for it themselves, or are they taking it solely because someone else — namely, the public purse — is picking up the bill? We intend to look at that carefully because, if we are to protect the most vulnerable, we need to make sure that our legal aid spend is targeted at the most vulnerable. We also need to make sure that we do not fall foul of our commitments under the Aarhus convention, which is environmental legislation that the Government have signed up to to ensure that the public have a right to challenge decision makers on environmental issues.

Mr Carroll: The introduction of private finance in anything is deeply problematic, but, in the concept of justice, it is perplexing. How far do you intend that to go? How will you ensure that people are not encouraged to pick profitable cases and disregard others when it comes to justice?

Mrs Long: I hate to break it to the Member, but private finance is the standard approach in most civil cases. If I want to take a defamation case against somebody, I have to pay for that, unsurprisingly. If I were to win damages, I would cover my costs out of them. It is not unreasonable to expect somebody who wants to take a case and has the means to do so to pay. The purpose of legal aid is not to fund every exercise in the courts. It is to fund access to the courts for those who could not otherwise afford it, so it is not at all unusual that private finance options are available.

One of the principles of 'Managing Public Money' is that public money should not displace private money where private money is available. We need to be careful that that does not happen. For example, some people will automatically be allowed legal aid for their defence. They may be very wealthy people who could have paid for that themselves. If they are convicted, it is right that we should seek redress. When it comes to other options for private financing, we are not talking about bringing in companies that will run the process as a private enterprise. I was clear in saying that I wanted to ensure that people get the same quality of service whether they have means or gain access through legal aid. That has to be the baseline. There are certain mechanisms available to people in other parts of these islands that allow them to take on big corporations, for example. No win, no fee claims, for example, allow people to take on big corporations and win. We do not have that in Northern Ireland, so, unless you have the money to go up against those big corporations, you have no chance of ever seeing justice done.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement.

Ms Ferguson: 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 wish to speak will have five minutes. Ciara, please open the debate on the motion.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. This is Homelessness Awareness Week. It is time for change, time for action and time for a renewed commitment across the Chamber to address, once and for all, the prevalent issue of homelessness throughout each and every one of our communities. As we all know, homelessness is not inevitable. We have a duty to invest in homelessness prevention, including in Housing First, a duty to deliver the reform of our biggest social housing landlord to enable it to build again and a duty to consistently meet our agreed annual targets for social and affordable housing. The Assembly and the Executive have an opportunity to break the cycle of homelessness and to create a better legacy for generations. It is welcome that the issue is finally a stand-alone priority in our Programme for Government.

I welcome the beginning of Homelessness Awareness Week 2024, which is dedicated to delivering social, educational and awareness-raising events around the lived reality of homelessness. It is crucial to say that behind each individual experiencing homelessness is a complex narrative. It can be a story of loss and struggle, and it is often a story of systematic failures throughout a person's life. They are all our neighbours and our family members, and they all, rightly, deserve dignity, respect, compassion and support.

There is a packed programme throughout this week. There will be over 32 sessions across a range of constituencies, the details of which can be found on the Homeless Connect website. I encourage as many representatives as possible to attend those events if they can. They will be run by a range of amazing organisations that a lot of our most vulnerable heavily depend on, including Homeless Connect; Simon Community; Shelter NI; Methodist Mission; Depaul; Extern; Help the Homeless; the Salvation Army; and MindWise. This week provides a great opportunity for each and every Member, if they have not already done so, to go out and visit those organisations in their local communities.

As we all know, we face unprecedented challenges when it comes to homelessness. Based on the most recent statistics from 21 November, there are over 48,366 households on our social housing waiting list, three quarters of which are deemed to be in acute need of a home. Nearly a third of those households have been waiting over five years for a quality, affordable and suitable place to call home. When you take the 58,238 people who are homeless, which is the official statistic as of 30 June 2024, and add the approximately 25,000 people who are deemed to be experiencing hidden homelessness, as suggested by the Simon Community's research, you see that we have over 88,000 people who do not have access to secure housing. That is one in every 33 people across our society today. It is no surprise, therefore, to learn that homelessness impacts on every corner of our society. Over the past year, the number of households with homelessness status has grown in every council area across the North. The largest rise in the number of people was in the Belfast City Council and the Derry City and Strabane District Council areas. The biggest rise in percentage terms, although it has less of a rise in the number of individuals, was in Fermanagh and Omagh.

Comparatively, over the past decade, the number of people with official homelessness status has risen by 8,951 people in Belfast; 4,384 in Derry City and Strabane; and over 3,052 people in Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon, to name but a few areas.

Some of the main reasons for homelessness presentations in recent years have been that accommodation was not reasonable; there was a sharing breakdown; or the person or family experienced a loss of suitable or affordable private rented accommodation. In all such instances, if enough social and affordable housing supply were available, we would not have the same pressure on the system from the level of human need and from the continued over-reliance on temporary accommodation. Spending on temporary accommodation has increased by 495% to £34·5 million over the past five years. Sadly, as of April 2024, the statistics include over 5,106 children. Although we welcome the Housing Executive's continued commitment to ensuring that no child spends prolonged periods housed in temporary accommodation, the reality for many others is that lengthy stays of two or more years have become commonplace.

I will take a moment to acknowledge the dedicated, passionate and steadfast people and organisations working in our homelessness sector. So many charities make an enormous difference on the ground whilst operating under ever-increasing pressure. Our homelessness service budget, which funds 19 core prevention projects and services, including Complex Lives in Belfast, is funded from the same pot as temporary accommodation funding. That continues to put a range of life-saving charities at huge risk. Homeless Connect currently co-chairs the Committee Representing Independent Supporting People Providers (CRISPP). In recent weeks, a survey outlined really deep concerns following the changes to National Insurance contributions. The sector faces rising need while operating on a reduced budget. That affects the recruitment and retention of staff and the quality of services.

Additional funding for homelessness prevention projects and service providers is critical and must be coupled with a wider investment in social and affordable housing supply. The fundamental truth is that you cannot reduce and prevent homelessness without an adequate supply of social and genuinely affordable housing. Ending homelessness is vital to tackling poverty, improving educational and employment opportunities and improving people's health outcomes and life expectancy whilst protecting their mental health and well-being. Ending homelessness is vital. We cannot and must not fail in that regard.

Mr Kingston: I confirm the DUP's support for this cross-party motion highlighting Homelessness Awareness Week.

Homelessness is a complex issue caused by factors relating to a person's personal circumstances and by wider factors beyond their control. The reality of homelessness covers a wide range of circumstances and includes those staying in temporary and emergency statutory and voluntary sector accommodation while they are on the social housing waiting list; those staying in temporary private arrangements with family members and friends, who often sleep on other people's sofas and have to move around and, in some cases, sleep in their cars; those whose private rental tenancy is being ended; and, most starkly, those sleeping rough on our streets, who, in many cases, have many personal challenges around mental health, addiction and previous life experience.

The challenge is clear. The Housing Executive's waiting list for social housing in Northern Ireland stands at over 47,000 households. That is a priority for the Northern Ireland Executive and for the DUP. Housing has been secured as one of the nine priorities in the Executive's draft Programme for Government. We must provide more social, affordable and sustainable housing. However, addressing homelessness is not just about increasing housing supply but about making sure that those who have associated challenges receive the right intervention at the appropriate time.
Addressing homelessness requires work across Departments, certainly for Communities and Infrastructure but also for Health and Justice in recognition of the need for support services for vulnerable people who have associated challenges such as mental health problems, drug and alcohol dependency and institutional experiences in the care or justice systems.

This morning, I was pleased to attend an event at Belfast City Hall highlighting the Complex Lives project, which addresses the needs of rough sleepers and homeless people who face complex issues in Belfast. It is a joined-up, multi-agency approach, funded by the Housing Executive, the Public Health Agency (PHA), Belfast City Council and the policing and community safety partnership (PCSP). Through the project, statutory and voluntary agencies involved in housing, health, criminal justice and employment and skills work closely to support vulnerable individuals and seek to break negative cycles of behaviour. I was struck by the words of a Housing Executive officer who said that, after working with homeless people for 15 years, she had felt burned out. However, the commencement of the Complex Lives project three years ago had rejuvenated her work, and she saw the real difference that the project was making to individuals, with over 150 supported so far. I encourage other councils to study that model.

Of course, we need to increase housing supply across all areas. That includes speeding up the planning system and ensuring that the necessary infrastructure — in particular, waste water infrastructure — is in place. The reality is that the supply of new social and private housing is not keeping up with demand. The Chartered Institute of Housing has advised that the number of new houses built here in 2023-24 was the lowest in a decade. The most recent house price index shows that average house prices in Northern Ireland have increased by 5·7% over the past year. That is impacting on the affordability of mortgages and deposits, particularly for first-time buyers.

The DUP has taken action over recent years to improve housing options. We have been supportive of the co-ownership scheme, and our Minister, Gordon Lyons, has increased the upper value limit for qualifying properties in order to help more people into homeownership through co-ownership. We have helped working families by launching the intermediate rent product, where a long-term, low-interest loan is offered to an operator to develop a supply of affordable homes for rent at a 20% discount to the market value. Among all the competing demands on the departmental budget, Gordon Lyons provided a 6·4% increase in funding for the Supporting People programme in this financial year. That funding supports a range of statutory and voluntary support services for vulnerable and homeless people.

We commend the motion to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Brian. I appreciate that.

Mr McReynolds: I support the motion and thank those who tabled it. I have spoken in support of similar motions in debates over the years, as a councillor in Belfast City Council and now as an MLA, and I find that, at times, they can become a bit academic. We must remember that these are people, families and friends facing the uncertainty, fear and stress of homelessness. That is why I was keen to take part in a sponsored sleep-out in east Belfast last year to get some insight into how it feels to be homeless while raising money for MACS Supporting Children and Young People, a charity that does so much for homeless young people in east Belfast. Just recently, its staff were in my office on the Newtownards Road, helping a young person who was at risk of exploitation by paramilitaries.

The night before the sleep-out, I psyched myself up. I packed up my sleeping bag, put on a few extra layers and wore a hat to keep me warm. I was feeling pretty confident and looking forward to heading to Banana Block on the Newtownards Road, where it was taking place, so much so that I went into a local pub beforehand. That is where my learning about homelessness began. I had not thought about the fact that I looked visibly homeless, with my sleeping bag under my arm and my clothes and hat. I was met with stares and people moving away from me — my first experience of the judgement that comes with homelessness.

In Banana Block we were, thankfully, sheltered from the rain, but it is famously difficult to heat, so we effectively slept outside and on a cold, hard floor. I say "slept", but I did not sleep at all that night because it was so cold — maybe an hour or two of light and broken sleep. The next morning, still looking homeless but now visibly exhausted, I went to get a coffee and again experienced the surprised, lingering looks and whispers. I felt unwelcome and as though I was a troublemaker. I went to my constituency office, as normal, for a day's work, but I could not focus; I barely got through the day. It took me two full days to feel like myself again. Imagine if that was your idea of normal: running on empty every day; being seen as an inconvenience; feeling like an inconvenience for existing; and exhausted just by doing simple, daily tasks.

Having gone through the MACS sleep-out, I felt it necessary to speak with the organisers and volunteers at the recent Simon Community sleep-out in Stormont estate and to hear their stories and experiences. They told me a statistic that makes absolute sense on the basis of my experience with MACS: 70% of those experiencing homelessness have an underlying mental health condition. They are not people who have made poor decisions; they are people who need early intervention, support and to be heard.

I commend today's motion and what it tries to achieve. I thank all those on the ground who are working to help those experiencing homelessness in all of its forms, and I thank MACS Supporting Children and Young People for an invaluable experience last year. I encourage all MLAs to take part in a sponsored sleep-out for an unforgettable learning experience and to better understand what it is that we are working to eliminate.

Mr Allen: As has been mentioned, Homelessness Awareness Week is a week of social and educational events that aim to raise awareness of the reality of homelessness in Northern Ireland. Homeless Connect facilitates Homelessness Awareness Week on behalf of the sector. Held annually, it seeks to challenge the stigma around homelessness and highlight the vital work of the homelessness sector in Northern Ireland. I echo the comments of tribute that have been made to the many thousands who work day and night in the housing and homelessness sector. Their work, often delivered against a backdrop of immense pressure, truly makes a difference.

It is undeniable that Northern Ireland faces unprecedented challenges when it comes to homelessness. Those challenges are exacerbated by the undersupply of housing, an increased need over many years and pressures on temporary accommodation, as mentioned by others, that have pushed the ladder to breaking point. At least 58,241 people are legally homeless: that is one in every 33 people in Northern Ireland. As I have highlighted in other debates in the House, the increased housing need and the pressures on temporary accommodation are resulting in individuals and families being moved many miles from their communities, support networks, work and schools. Many of those people rely on the goodwill of others to provide a roof over their heads where temporary accommodation cannot be found or is impractical, due to its being too far away from school and work, to mention but a few. We have families and individuals living out of suitcases or black bin bags. Friendships and families are being pushed to breaking point.

Do the official figures, as has been highlighted, truly account for the scale of our housing challenges? Do they account for those who are unknown to us — the hidden homeless? According to recent Simon Community research, there are up to an additional 25,000 people outside the system who are not getting the support that they so desperately need. Over the past six months, over 8,000 households presented as homeless to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. That equates to 45 homeless presentations every day. That is 45 individuals and families, from young people to pensioners, who have nowhere to go, and it results in them being put into temporary accommodation. Over the past five years, spend on temporary accommodation in Northern Ireland has increased by 495%, as we have heard from other Members, to £340·5 million. Nearly a third of households on the waiting list — 29% — have been waiting for over five years for quality, affordable housing of their own.

A home is more than a roof over someone's head. Our homes are the foundations for our lives. Having somewhere safe and secure that we can call "home" is essential in supporting our health and well-being. People are getting stuck in a cycle of homelessness, due to fewer and fewer affordable housing options. It is undeniable that there have been positive steps in responding to homelessness since the Executive returned in 2024 — Mr Kingston highlighted some of those steps — but we need resources for the social housing build and a properly funded homelessness strategy if we are to turn the curve. The brutal reality for the many thousands who are looking to us for answers is that those developments, whilst welcomed, as highlighted, do not begin to scratch the surface for those who need to be supported.

Mr Durkan: While many of us excitedly prepare for the Christmas countdown, others face the harsh reality of keeping, or even getting, a roof over their heads. Recently, a mother reached out to my office after losing her private rented accommodation. Amid the chaos of packing up the furniture, searching for a new place to stay and wondering how she would get her children to school if they were relocated across the city or beyond, she remarked that her son's biggest worry was how Santa would find them this year.

We have heard today that there are over 5,000 children in temporary accommodation. In many families, the children will have nowhere to hang a stocking, and there will be no facilities to cook a festive dinner and no table for them to gather around together. Believe it or not, those families are lucky compared to some others. The plight of many more families mirrors a modern-day Christmas parable. Many are fleeing persecution and the consequences of poverty, only to be met with this message: there is no room at the inn, the hotel or the B&B.

How did we get here? That is not a biblical mystery, but the result of systemic and sustained cuts to homelessness prevention services, combined with the largest reduction to the social housing development programme seen in a generation. How can the Executive rationalise such devastating decisions when housing waiting lists have soared to a record high?

The Programme for Government commits to making homelessness "brief, rare and non-recurrent". Currently, the only thing that is brief, rare and non-recurrent is homelessness prevention funding and political will to tackle the slow-motion disintegration of community life as we know it. A whole generation of families is unable to put down roots, make neighbourly connections or form the building blocks of a safe and thriving community. Spend on temporary accommodation has increased tenfold since 2018. That is worth remembering the next time that financial constraints are used as an excuse for the Executive's lack of creativity. I am glad to hear that some more creative measures have emerged in recent times, and I look forward to working with the Executive on the delivery of those.

In July, the Housing Executive highlighted the devastating impact that cuts to homelessness prevention would have on wrap-around services and the vulnerable individuals who depend on them. I, like others, commend the work of those organisations and individuals, but they need so much more support to change lives and, in many instances, to save lives.

In October, the Assembly backed calls from the Opposition to declare a housing emergency. Less than a month later, the Finance Minister made a welcome allocation of £24 million for new social homes. She informed the Assembly that that would allow the Executive to deliver up to 1,400 social homes. I have since learned, through the Communities Minister's responses to questions for written answer, that DFC has neither set that target nor engaged with the Housing Executive on that figure. Sadly, it would seem that Ministers are in the habit of plucking figures out of thin air and presenting numbers without proper analysis, as was the case with the draft housing supply strategy, which promised to deliver 100,000 homes in 15 years. Two years on, it is clear that that strategy is undeliverable.

I understand that housing is not the sole responsibility of one Department and that addressing the crisis requires a whole-system approach. That includes ensuring access to adequate health services, preventing homelessness and resolving water infrastructure challenges to expedite the delivery of homes already in the pipeline. Ultimately, tackling the housing emergency hinges on the political will of the Executive.

It is a sobering reflection that the most sought-after children's gift this Christmas will be a place to call home. For many children, the season will have lost its magic and their parents will have lost hope. I remind Members that housing was core to the fight for civil rights in the North, representing not just shelter but equality, dignity and opportunity. Housing was once the foundation for change. Let us, today, remind ourselves why we became public representatives: to improve the place that we call home and to ensure that people have a place to call home.

Mr Gaston: The spectre of homelessness is currently unlikely to threaten anyone in the Chamber, but, as public representatives and legislators, it should greatly concern us all. I say that because, like all Members, I received a briefing paper from the Simon Community that highlights the fact that 58,241 people are currently legally homeless in Northern Ireland. In the past decade, the number of homeless people here has grown by more than 135%. As shocking as they are, even those figures are believed to be an underestimate.

The ballooning of spend on temporary housing accommodation, which has amounted to some £34·5 million over the past five years, is a false economy. We need to get away from relying on temporary accommodation and instead invest in building more social housing, through either the Housing Executive or the housing associations, to meet the growing demand. There are many people who look at the lack of housing provision and at the problems that are associated with connecting new builds to an at-capacity sewage infrastructure and rightly question this Government's priorities.

One complaint that I hear regularly from those who are listed as being homeless is that many people perceive the gold standard to be the treatment that asylum seekers in Northern Ireland receive. Just last week, I received a response from the Executive Office telling me that there are 301 asylum seekers housed in hotels in Northern Ireland.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Has he ever been to one of those hotels? Does he understand that people have serious restrictions placed on their leaving and that the hotel cannot even cook for them? I therefore would not class those hotels as being hotels in any meaningful sense of the word.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his input. I have not been to one of the hotels, but I have been in many houses that are being used as emergency accommodation for asylum seekers. I cannot see that accommodation being any worse, Gerry, than a lot of the emergency accommodation that is currently being offered to my constituents, and, I am sure, to your constituents as well.

A number of weeks ago, the Executive Office Committee received a briefing on the monitoring round, and we were advised of a pressure of £6·4 million on service delivery to refugees and asylum seekers. That money does not come from our block grant, but it does come from the Home Office, which, of course, is funded by every taxpayer in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, as was clarified in a response to my questions, the figure of £6·4 million is only the money that is going to the Executive Office for pressures related to refugees and asylum seekers and does not include funding for other Departments, such as Health and Education. That is something that I will pursue by way of questions for written answer.

Before we take on the problems of the world, we need to sort out our home-grown ones. Then, of course, we have the very questionable wastage by Departments, such as the Department for Communities, as well as lobby groups and organisations that pursue political agendas rather than doing anything to address the Department's core functions, such as dealing with homelessness. In that regard, I think particularly of the funding that the Department for Communities funnels into the Rainbow Project. It is an organisation that, as a search of the Department's website shows, has been included on a reference group and an expert panel established by the Department in the past, as well as being in receipt of departmental funding.

In his response to the debate, I would like the Minister for Communities to address whether he will review that relationship in light of the content of the Rainbow Project website, which advises people to use Post-it notes to snort powdered drugs. My goodness. The Rainbow Project website goes on to advise readers that people can still consent to sex if they are a bit tipsy or a bit stoned. Indeed, it says that that is fine. Is that the sort of organisation that should be in receipt of public money?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, please return to the subject of the motion, which is homelessness.

Mr Gaston: I was just coming back to it, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I was asking whether that is the sort of organisation that should be in receipt of public money ahead of ones that provide vital core functions to tackle homelessness. I certainly think not.

It is all well and good to say fine words about how we will address the housing situation, but let us not diminish and dismiss those who would question the spend on people who entered the UK illegally when we cannot meet the needs of folk who are already here. Let us address the wastage on questionable lobby groups and instead spend the money where it is really needed. All Ministers need to take a step back and examine what their Departments are currently spending money on. To truly tackle homelessness, we need to eliminate wastage and prioritise everyday essentials, such as sewerage infrastructure, in order to allow us to build new, efficient and fit-for-purpose social homes. We will tackle the problem only by building new homes for those who are already classed as homeless and those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in that position in the weeks and months ahead. Instead of raising awareness of homelessness, the Executive need to tackle homelessness.

Mr Carroll: The root causes of homelessness are often multifaceted. Many who experience homelessness are also affected by addiction, relationship breakdown, poverty, disability and ill health, insecure work or unemployment. In my constituency of West Belfast, 4,100 households are on the social housing waiting list, and over 3,000 of those are homeless. Those figures are unacceptable.

The forces that drive our homelessness crisis are clear. Year after year, we refuse or fail to build enough social homes for the ever-increasing number of people who need them, which was over 88,000 at the last count. Hoping and waiting for in-year budget allocations to meet social housing building needs is not a sustainable or fair way of delivering social homes. The Communities Minister recently announced that an extra £24 million, allocated during the October monitoring round, would enable the construction of up to 800 new social homes, bringing the total to just 1,400 for the year, yet £20 million that was allocated in June was enough to build only 200 social homes. The sums do not add up.

At that rate, it will take decades to clear the backlog in our waiting lists. Instead of providing homes where families can put down permanent roots, the Executive are allowing the problem to grow. Last year alone, £34 million was spent on temporary accommodation, much of which ended up in the pockets of private landlords and companies. That is totally unacceptable. To rely on the private market to solve our homelessness crisis is to pursue a fool's errand. It is a disgrace that people profiteer from the homelessness crisis and that Executive parties facilitate that profiteering. In 1981, two out of every five households here lived in a Housing Executive home; today, shockingly, that number is just one in 10.

During the debate, we should remember that homelessness is the direct result of political choices. The failure to invest in building enough social homes for the people who need them is a political choice. Cuts to the discretionary housing payment budget, resulting in more people falling into arrears and facing homelessness, is a political choice. Historical underinvestment in vital homelessness support services delivered by the community and voluntary sector and the Supporting People programme is a political choice. Those in power tell us that ending homelessness is complicated, but it is definitely not complicated. The solutions are obvious to anyone who walks through the city centre or down the high street past buildings and homes that have been lying empty for years. The solutions are obvious to anyone whose landlord has issued an extortionate rent increase. Relying on the private market to solve our homelessness crisis is a fool's errand. The solutions are obvious to anyone who has been evicted from their home for no good reason and has nowhere else to go. We need to keep people in their homes by introducing a no-fault eviction ban and rent controls that are linked to income. We need to make use of the UK's new definition of debt to allow the Housing Executive to invest in building the new social homes that are so desperately needed and building them where they are needed. We need to act to quickly transform some of the 22,500 vacant homes across the North into social homes. We need to implement a housing first programme to tackle chronic homelessness: a programme that treats housing as a fundamental human right.

Everyone, regardless of their income or where they are from, deserves a decent, affordable and secure place to live. The people of the North know what needs to be done to end homelessness, and it is up to the Executive parties to do it. That is why I am bringing forward a Member's Bill called the people's housing Bill, which will aim to tackle some of the root causes of the housing crisis that has ruined people's lives and torn families apart for too long. I hope that Members will support that Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Claire Sugden. As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that Members take their ease until then.

Mr Speaker: Questions 6 and 12 have been withdrawn.

Mr C Murphy (The Minister for the Economy): Numerous tourism statistics are published on the NISRA, Tourism Ireland and Tourism Northern Ireland websites. They range from trends in performance figures, tourism satellite accounts showing the sector's economic impact and consumer industry sentiment analysis to attraction and accommodation statistics, overseas visitors to Ireland and outlook for the sector. Tourism statistics are compiled from four data sources, two of which are from NISRA and two are from Central Statistics Office (CSO) Ireland. Following previous user consultation, it was agreed that the statistics for the North should be published only when data from all four sources was available. Due to the impact of COVID on face-to-face interviews, the full suite of data was not available between March 2020 and January 2023. During that period, an alternative tourism dataset was published on the NISRA website.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the lack of data published by NISRA through the COVID years and right up to 2023, it is a bit disappointing that we have not got a capture of the day trips, staycationing in Northern Ireland and the travel between Northern Ireland and the Republic that went on. Has the Minister has undertaken any work on a review of tourism during the COVID years in order to maximise that sort of tourism potential in Northern Ireland and across Northern Ireland and the Republic?

Mr C Murphy: I am sure that the Member is as familiar as I am, certainly anecdotally, with the fact that the volume of traffic that came from South to North on the island in the COVID period was probably unprecedented. Recent statistics that NISRA published indicate that that volume increased significantly and has continued to grow, which is good news for our providers here. Even though there was a gap, with an alternative source being used during the time when it was impossible to do face-to-face consultations, tourism information was provided. However, if there is any sense in the tourism working group that the statistics are not up to scratch, I am sure that we can look at that. However, as I say, NISRA published fairly compelling statistics just a number of weeks ago that outlined that significant growth has continued.

Ms Ennis: What is the Department doing to assess and address the risks that the British Government's electronic travel authorisation (ETA) scheme poses to the tourism industry?

Mr C Murphy: I met Seema Malhotra MP, who is the Home Office Minister for Migration and Citizenship, on 13 November regarding the ETA scheme and to press for solutions to protect our tourism industry. Of course, our tourism industry has been voicing very serious concerns about the scheme. It is vital that we have seamless all-island travel, which is a key to building growth, as we have seen in the tourism sector. The sector has expressed strong concerns about the impact that the ETA scheme might have. I reiterated those concerns to Minister Malhotra and outlined the fact that this is an issue for which, I believe, solutions are needed to protect our tourism, travel and hospitality sector in the North, especially as those businesses face a range of challenges, such as rising energy and staff costs, as well as additional challenges from the recent Budget in London. I will provide Minister Malhotra with more information on our concerns and the expected economic impacts, including the issues for tour operators and our visitor attractions.

Mr McNulty: The Minister will know that I have led the charge on the inclusion of counties Armagh and Down in the Ireland's Ancient East tourism brand. Does he agree that the growth of the tourism industry in my constituency could be turbocharged through the extension of the Fáilte Ireland brands into the North, particularly through the inclusion of Armagh and Down in the Ireland's Ancient East tourism brand? What efforts will the Minister pursue with the incoming Irish Government to ensure that that vision becomes a reality?

Mr C Murphy: I am sure that if the Member keeps telling himself that he has led that charge, he at least will believe it, but I am not sure that many others will. The conversation about the benefits of the use of tourism brands on this side of the border predates his involvement in politics by some time. Of course, that conversation has been going on very strongly with the Department in the South since I came into office. For the first time ever, we have a joint working group involving the three tourism agencies and both Departments. I look forward to picking up that work with whomever occupies that office on the other side of the election.

The proposal that is most advanced in possibility is the one that involves Ireland's Hidden Heartlands. There are discussions with Fermanagh and Omagh District Council in that regard. As the Member will know, Shared Island funding is assisting in the development of the Wild Atlantic Way and the Causeway coast. Fáilte Ireland is in the process of finalising a review of the Ireland's Ancient East brand. When the outcome of that review is known, which, hopefully, will be very soon, we will engage with it further about how the east coast and counties Armagh and Down will be involved in the tourism branding as part of Fáilte Ireland's package.

Ms Sugden: Minister, the British Open will return to Royal Portrush next year. Do you have any plans for a showcase event, for example, to maximise the tourism opportunities right across Northern Ireland?

Mr C Murphy: Significant planning is already ongoing. I met the chamber of commerce in Portrush golf club, and we received a presentation from the organisers about some of the things that are going on. We also had an opportunity at the Irish Open in County Down over the course of the summer to discuss improvements to the advertising of tourism opportunities and the tourism benefits of visiting here through slots on TV during the play. I have no doubt that work is continuing in order to learn the lessons from the Irish Open and build on it, as well as building on the experience of the previous Open in Portrush, to make sure that the next one is a much better experience and that we get much more benefit from it. I am very happy to continue to meet people and provide encouragement and support to make sure that we have the best possible competition and that we get the maximum tourism return from it.

Mr C Murphy: Electricity interconnectors are an important tool in delivering the energy strategy and Climate Change Act targets. They act to improve the security of electricity supplies and allow us to export and import electricity when our system requires it. The Kilroot-Scotland project will also require a licence approval from the Utility Regulator for the proportion of the interconnector here. However, my Department has no role in the Utility Regulator or Ofgem's approval process and must remain impartial. The Utility Regulator's decision is expected this year. My Department is carrying out further research on interconnection and energy storage, which will improve our understanding of the overall benefits.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his remarks. He will be aware that a new interconnector has been given approval by Ofgem. That interconnector is important for the whole island's energy market and system. However, real concerns are being expressed about whether it is going to be delivered on time because of the length of time that it is taking for your Department to get out its energy strategy. Is there anything that the Department could do to speed up that process, so that we do not lose this great opportunity to improve the security of the energy supply not just to Northern Ireland but across all our islands?

Mr C Murphy: I assure him that we are moving as fast as we can. We recognise that security of energy supply and our focus on having an energy supply that is not reliant on fossil fuels is critical not just for CO2 targets and carbon reduction targets but for the security of supply for our businesses and homes right across the island. We are working at pace to make sure that all that we need to do in the Department and what needs to be done by other Departments — there is a lot of cross-departmental collaboration on this — is in place as soon as it can be in order to assist that process. If I am made aware of any hold-ups to that in the Department, I will be happy to look into those and address them.

I assure the Member that our intent on all those issues is to move with all the haste that we can, because we know that if we are to meet the targets that we have set ourselves and provide security of supply and security of cost, we need to move at pace right across all those areas.

Mr Donnelly: Recently, I had the opportunity to visit a tidal research facility at Strangford lough to see the benefits of tidal energy here in Northern Ireland. What conversations has the Minister had with his Scottish counterpart concerning potential investment in hydropower and tidal energy?

Mr Speaker: That is not really connected to the question.

Mr C Murphy: I had conversations on all renewable sources, including tidal energy, with Eamon Ryan when he was the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. He will no longer be the Minister. I am happy to pick that up with the incoming Minister.

I have to say that, in the areas that we have been prioritising, tidal energy has not featured strongly. We want to ensure that we push as fast as we can across areas like wind, biomethane, geothermal and hydrogen. Renewables will not come from a single source, so we have to examine all opportunities for them. I am content to go back to officials to see where the assessment is with regard to the tidal programme, but, as I say, we have been putting significant effort into those other sources.

Mr Gaston: Since the Northern Ireland market has become integrated with that of the Republic, many hard-pressed homeowners and businesses in Northern Ireland have seen a divergence from the lower power prices in the rest of the United Kingdom and a trend towards the higher prices in the Republic. Does the Minister believe that that project has the potential to undo some of that damage and deliver future savings for homeowners in Northern Ireland?

Mr C Murphy: Interconnection, wherever it comes from — of course, there is a North/South interconnector and another one in the planning system — gives more security of supply and also gives more opportunity for competitive prices. That can come from any direction. Ultimately, if we want to get to security of supply and security and certainty of prices for businesses and industries as well as for households, that will be achieved through renewables that are provided on the island. That is the fastest way in which we can get to that level of security and certainty of supply. Anything that contributes to that is a good thing.

Ms McLaughlin: North Channel Wind has been developing a significant offshore project. Recently, a pause has been put on it through the consultation. The MOD asked for it to be stopped due to submarine activity. Minister, what are you doing to unleash that major project? We are really struggling to meet our renewable targets.

Mr C Murphy: The MOD consultation response came in very late in the process. There was a period of, perhaps, nine months in which no issue was raised by the MOD. When the project was about to move on, it suddenly came in with objections. I have raised that with British Ministers in Whitehall and asked them to expedite the matter with the MOD to ensure that it does not become a barrier to that very necessary offshore renewables project. As I said, the objection came in late in the day. We have raised the matter in London. We have asked for an explanation and for the matter to be expedited and resolved quickly.

Mr C Murphy: DFC takes the lead on the fuel poverty strategy. However, the actions that will deliver change sit across government. Therefore, we have collective responsibility to support the people who are worst impacted on by fuel poverty.

My Department has several areas of policy responsibility that can positively influence fuel poverty outcomes; most notably, strategic energy policy. My officials engage regularly and are represented at senior level at the DFC fuel poverty strategy board and housing supply strategy board. My officials also co-chair a residential housing coordination group on decarbonisation. At my most recent engagement with Minister Lyons on the housing supply strategy, those areas were referenced due to the many interdependencies that exist.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, some two years ago, your predecessor, who is now the Communities Minister, indicated to me that the regulatory powers of the Utility Regulator would be reviewed under the energy supply strategy. Will you provide an update on that? If the Speaker will indulge me, will you also tell me whether any of your conversations centred on the extension of the warm home discount scheme to Northern Ireland?

Mr C Murphy: I will answer the second question first. Of course, we will look at that. A significant project relating to warm homes is being brought forward by the incoming British Government. I had correspondence on that recently and wrote back to the Minister responsible for it to see whether any synergies could be made there.

I am not aware that that commitment was given on the Utility Regulator, but I am happy to check with the Department. We will respond in writing to the Member.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, you mentioned the decarbonisation of homes. That will go a long way to decarbonising Northern Ireland. What action have you taken with the Minister for Communities to ensure that steps are being taken to move houses away from fossil fuel dependency?

Mr C Murphy: Our senior officials sit on the fuel poverty strategy board as well as the housing supply strategy board. We are encouraging the move away from fossil fuels. Not only does it make good economic sense, but it will be a key part of our targets for reducing carbon emissions. We will continue to engage. I met Minister Lyons about the housing supply strategy, and all those issues were raised. We will continue to provide support, as we have been doing, through officials to make sure that the housing supply strategy reflects the need to move to renewable energies.

Mr McGuigan: The price of energy is one of the contributing factors to fuel poverty. What is DFE doing to reduce energy costs?

Mr C Murphy: My Department continues to work closely alongside the Utility Regulator and the Consumer Council to ensure that energy is affordable for all customers. We meet the price-controlled energy suppliers for natural gas and electricity to review tariffs quarterly. That is part of the Utility Regulator's regulatory processes to ensure that what consumers pay reflects the cost of providing natural gas and electricity.

Mr McGlone: Minister, I will follow on from the theme that we were exploring. How will you work with Minister Lyons and his officials to develop any new energy efficiency scheme, and how should any scheme designed as part of those efforts benefit everyone or as many people as possible, including those in the private rented sector?

Mr C Murphy: As I said, the Department's energy team sits jointly on a number of bodies with DFC. We give advice on the energy strategy, which will also inform the housing supply strategy from DFC. The energy strategy will very much focus on renewables and on ensuring that we have security and stability in our energy prices, as we focus on creating our own energy supply through our renewables. We continue to work together, of course, and it is hugely important that we do that.

We are restricted in what we can do financially for private homes, even though we would like to do much more. We have kept track of a significant intervention on warm homes that has been developed and brought forward in London. As I said in response to a previous question, I have been in correspondence backwards and forwards with the Minister responsible for that. We will keep a close eye on that and the implications that it might have for a much broader home energy strategy rather than one simply for the public housing sector.

Mr C Murphy: Invest NI holds 126 acres of land across four business parks in the East Derry constituency, with two sites located in Coleraine and two in Limavady. A total of 57 acres of that land remains available to support new investment, with the remainder having been sold and developed in support of business investment.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, given your subregional economic plan and the recommendations to send £45 million to be dedicated to kick-starting the economy in that area, what engagement has your Department had with Invest NI to explore the use of the land across East Londonderry and the Causeway coast and glens area?

Mr C Murphy: The energy — sorry, I am back at the previous question. The land strategy that has been developed by Invest NI will be significant in supporting regional balance, because, if we are to encourage development and growth across all areas in the North, we need to ensure that land is available on which to do that. Last week or the week before — certainly, within the past fortnight — I met Invest NI to talk about the strategy and how it will be rolled out across the North.

Invest NI is recruiting people with land agency experience and will put them into regional offices to work with local people, such as those in the Causeway coast and glens area and the East Derry constituency, to identify other land that may be available, useful or needed. That will ensure that there is a presence on the ground and close to people, so that they can get the best local economic advice. The local economic partnerships will turn their attention to that and ensure that, as they promote economic development in each area, the facilities are there to encourage greater growth in that area.

Ms Hunter: Minister, East Derry is crying out for this investment and job creation. Can you detail any targets that the subregional plan will set for the region as a counterweight to Belfast?

Mr C Murphy: We have set an overall target of 65% for growth outside the Belfast area. The local economic partnerships will drill down region by region to see how that economic growth is to be promoted, what the ambitions are and what targets are required. Invest NI is reorientating its regional presence to make sure that it works closely with councils and others in each area to provide support to help people articulate the economic options and opportunities that exist for them but also to ensure that they are supported in the pursuit of those economic opportunities.

Mr Honeyford: The Minister has included a large section of my Lagan Valley constituency in the Belfast area, while his focus remains on subregional balance. However, Lisburn has next to no Invest NI land left to provide job opportunities for my constituents. What are the Minister and his Department doing to address that? Given our strategic location on the Belfast-Dublin economic corridor, surely we are in the ideal location to help attract inward investment.

Mr Speaker: That is not linked to the question.

Mr C Murphy: The Invest NI land strategy plan is not just about looking outside the greater Belfast area. We remain committed to growing the economy inside the greater Belfast area; we just want to do more to address regional imbalance beyond that. The land strategy will look at the location of strategic land. Of course, if we could get the agreement necessary to develop the Maze/Long Kesh project and get it moving, there would be a ready-made land bank in your constituency to support continued economic development. I hope that that can happen sooner rather than later. I am happy to engage with the Member or have Invest's land team engage with him if there are land issues that he wants to raise.

Mr C Murphy: It is vital that every young person in our society is supported to achieve and flourish. Improving support for young people with special educational needs is a priority in my Department's business plan and the Executive's draft Programme for Government. My officials are scoping the existing skills and training provision, including through engagement with further and higher education institutions; experts and organisations such as Mencap, Orchardville and the NOW Group; and young people, their parents and teachers. My Department, along with the Education, Health and Communities Departments, has submitted a bid to the interim transformation fund aimed at strengthening the skills and training provision and support for young people with special educational needs.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you will be aware that Caleb's Cause is calling for post-19 SEN legislation to support those children. What confidence do you have that that legislation might be delivered in this mandate?

Mr C Murphy: It will be challenging, because the legislation is complex and crosses a number of Departments, and we have only two years left in the mandate. I have to be realistic. I have always said that, if it requires legislation, we should legislate to make sure that the provision is protected. It is an injustice that people with special educational needs do not get the same support to progress through the education system as people without those needs.

If it requires legislation, we should commit to legislating. However, in the remainder of the mandate, we should do everything that we can across a number of Departments to make sure that we improve provision. I have committed to that. Thankfully, the Economy, Education, Health and Communities Departments have all committed to work together on that with the transformation funds, if they can be secured, to help with the process. We need to get on with doing the things that we can do immediately. We need to look at where gaps remain and ensure that there are protections for young people. If that requires legislation at some stage, that will need to be done.

Ms Dolan: Minister, how will the employment rights Bill assist people with disabilities in the workplace?

Mr C Murphy: The employment rights Bill consultation sought views on enhancing flexible working rights. Flexible working is an agreed way of meeting the needs of an employer and an employee through alternative approaches to working. It can enable those with caring responsibilities, disabilities or long-term health needs to access and remain in the workforce. The consultation, which closed at the end of September, proposed enhancements to existing rights by making flexible working requests available from the first day of employment, allowing an employee to make two statutory requests in any 12-month period and removing the requirement that an employee must explain, as part of the statutory request, what effect the change would have on the employer and how that might be dealt with. The consultation responses are being analysed, and I expect to be able to introduce a Bill in the Assembly by January 2026 or, if there is scope to do so, earlier.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his work in that regard. If we do not have time to legislate or if legislation is not possible, what substantive measures are available to the Minister, maybe working collaboratively with the Education Minister and the Health Minister, to affect and change the lives of those young people, who are being underserved at the moment?

Mr C Murphy: That is our ambition. I am sure that all of us, through our constituency duties, have represented people who have fallen off the edge of the system and no longer get support post 19. I have committed to trying to address that in my Department, because we have responsibility for further and higher education and skills, but that responsibility overlaps with other Departments' responsibilities. We have jointly bid for transformation funding to assist the four Departments to work collaboratively. If that bid is successful — hopefully it will be — the funding will give us significant impetus, but, even if it is not, we are committed to working to make improvements and to make sure that, in the areas of access to skills, access to careers advice and access to support, we do all in our power to change the approach that has for far too long not been giving young people who have special educational needs the proper support.

Mr Mathison: The Minister said that the situation for those young people was an "injustice". Given the seriousness of that, what reassurance can he give parents of young people with special educational needs that, by the end of the mandate, whether through legislation or by having better systems in place, there will be tangible and identifiable change?

Mr C Murphy: That is my clear intention. As I said, it is an injustice that that particular nettle has not been grasped before in the way in which it is currently being grasped. I am pleased to be able to do that in the position that I am now in and to work with other Departments that share my commitment to addressing the issue. I expect to see tangible changes to the approach that has been taken to date, and I hope that we will see those changes made soon. It is my commitment that we will make them as quickly as we can. Given that there may be complex legislative requirements that we have not yet fully scoped out, such legislation is unlikely in the remainder of this mandate, so there is no point in building up people's hopes by saying that it will be done in this mandate. If, however, we identify a need for legislation in order to secure protections, that should be legislated for in the next mandate.

Mr C Murphy: A Cheann Comhairle

, with your permission, I will take questions 7 and 8 together.

The Budget contained a range of announcements that affect local businesses in a variety of ways, depending on the characteristics of each individual business, including its size, location, which sector it operates in and how it chooses to manage the new arrangements. The rise in wages for our lowest-paid workers is to be welcomed, but it has not been offset by a reduction in other costs. Indeed, it has been introduced in parallel with increasing employer National Insurance contributions, which will put many businesses under more strain, given the rising cost of doing business.

There are measures in the autumn statement that present opportunities for local business, For example, there was the unpausing of the growth deals and support for key sectors such as life and health sciences, creative industries and aerospace and key elements of my economic plan, such as innovation, R&D and decarbonisation. There were, however, also very challenging elements to it, and it will take time to understand and to engage with businesses to see the full impact of the Budget on them.

Mr Buckley: Labour's disastrous Budget had a severe impact not just on farmers but on business owners, and the increase in employer National Insurance contributions has left many of them feeling that they are being taxed to the point of death. Growth rates have slowed down as a result of the Budget, and there have been record numbers of company insolvencies throughout the UK as a result of Labour's half-baked policies. Can the Minister outline how many businesses in Northern Ireland have filed for company insolvency post the Labour Budget?

Mr C Murphy: I do not have that information to hand, but I am very happy to correspond with the Member to provide it, if there is up-to-date information and if that information attributes the causation of somebody's insolvency to how the Budget has left them.

I support the idea of giving poorly paid workers more wages, but the Government should have offset the cost of that by taking action on the cost of living and the cost of energy, both of which are also impacting on businesses. I am happy to see whether there are figures on what the Member mentioned, and, if they are available, I will provide them.

Ms Á Murphy: As the Minister will know, I come from a constituency that relies heavily on the hospitality sector. Can he outline the impact of the British Government's Budget on the hospitality sector?

Mr C Murphy: As I said, the full impact will take time to become clear. I have acknowledged the benefits to workers from increases in the national minimum wage and the national living wage, but there are challenges, particularly with the cost of energy. I am aware of particular concerns raised by the hospitality sector about the Budget and its ongoing work to engage with Departments on relevant issues. My officials and I will continue to engage with local business stakeholders, including those in the hospitality sector, to understand the full detail of the Budget in the context of my economic plans.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr C Murphy: The Utility Regulator and anyone else has to make sure that, whatever position they take on costs, it is done in a way that is sustainable and has an evidence base to support it. I look forward to engaging with the Utility Regulator on a range of those matters. As I said, we want to improve connectivity and the ability for renewables to come on to the system. That will be a key function between our Department and the Utility Regulator, so we will continue to engage across all those issues to make sure that we are satisfied with how things are being done.

Ms McLaughlin: The head of the Construction Employers Federation and the head of the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations have said consistently that we are, unquestionably, in a housing crisis. If that rise is not addressed, we will be putting a handbrake on the building sector, which we so desperately need for our economy. What steps have you taken to ensure that that does not happen? Have you spoken to the Infrastructure Minister about the impact of NI Water's issues on the construction industry?

Mr C Murphy: From the challenges that we have in making sure that projects get moving, the impact of 10 or 12 years of austerity Budgets is very clear, particularly the impact on Northern Ireland Water and the work that it needs to do to ensure that land is fit for development. Of course, the Minister for Infrastructure will continue to bid to get more support to be able to do that work, and Executive colleagues recognise that that rise is a serious handbrake, as you said, when it comes to development. It is incumbent on all of us across the Executive to try to work collectively to make sure that, where good development is possible, sustainable and in the interests of the people who live here, all obstacles to that are removed as quickly as they can be. However, some of that requires resource, and that is the biggest challenge that we have.

Mr C Murphy: We are in dialogue with councils to ensure that those plans are worked through and understood clearly by everybody, that whatever measures are needed to make sure that they can function are there and that we do so at pace, because we want to see the local economic partnerships up and running by the new financial year. We will continue to work with councils. We have a very good engagement with the councils, and, of course, they know that we have proposed that a fund be provided to support the local economic partnerships and assist them in the work that we intend them to do. Of course, we will have support through Invest NI and its officials. Departmental officials will work more closely with councils in those areas to give advice and support to ensure that there is capacity in councils to deliver economic plans. Some councils are much more advanced than others, so capacity needs to be increased in certain councils. We will continue to do that over the coming months in order to make sure that we get the partnerships off to a good start.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Minister. Given the fact that the departmental guidance on memberships of LEPs appears to mirror current labour market partnerships (LMP), does the Minister envisage significant duplication, and will he encourage LMPs to realign their function in order to avoid that?

Mr C Murphy: We have been quite relaxed about how councils and local partners come together for this work. The only thing that we have specified is that there has to be a genuine partnership. You are right that the LMPs have very similar functions to LEPs. If councils wish to have some kind of arrangement between those bodies, to work more closely with them or to look at the membership across both, we would be very happy to allow them the flexibility to work in that way. As I said, our only stipulation is that they have to be genuine partnerships. We recognise that there are many bodies at work in many local areas that have ideas about economic growth as part of their remit, but we want to make sure that people pull together to develop their economic plans, that they get support from Invest NI and the Department for the Economy for that and that we improve the local voice and decision-making for economic development.

Mr C Murphy: I am aware that carers continue to press for that right. I have said that quite a lot of our 'good jobs' employment rights Bill, which we are consulting on, relates to carers and their rights. I would like to see a situation where people are entitled to paid carers' leave. That will be a matter for the Executive; it is not in my gift alone. Obviously, we sincerely hope that, by the time that we get to legislate for that, the financial position will have improved. We will continue, through the Finance Minister, to press the British Government for a financial settlement and an arrangement that supports the provision of public services and supports the rights of carers and others to access paid leave.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Minister. I am glad to hear that consultation on the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill includes consideration for paid carers' leave. Will there be any guidance for employers about who a carer is?

Mr C Murphy: If we find that the definition of a carer is not being fully understood, yes, I am very happy to ensure that it is revisited. I am sure that that will be reflected in the consultation responses, a significant number of which are being analysed over the autumn. We intend to move to drafting the legislation over the next year. There will be an opportunity to look at that, and the legislation will then have its passage through the Assembly, where, again, there will be an opportunity for scrutiny of, amendments to and other arguments and debates on it. There is quite some way to go with it, and if we find that issues are not being addressed, there will be opportunities to revisit them in the time ahead.

Mr C Murphy: We are working on careers advice to make sure that young people have all the advice on the trades that they seek. Careers advice has not been consistent or coherent across the entire school network. We want to ensure that that is the case and that we have more apprenticeship opportunities for young people. However, that all requires resource, and we are struggling to get as much done in that area as we would like. We are working with the Department of Education on a joint programme to make sure that there is consistent careers advice. We are working on creating a careers portal so that parents can also have access to that advice and to ensure that young people have the full range of opportunities that are being offered to them. We also provide for those who are in work and who want to upskill and move on to new opportunities, regardless of what age they might be.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. Does the Minister agree that there is a scarcity of trades personnel and, therefore, a need for young tradespeople to come into the system?

Mr C Murphy: Yes. Some colleges are struggling for people with the teaching capacity for those skills, but we are continuing to work at that and to provide more flexibility for the colleges in how they recruit people in order to try to ensure that we have sufficient trainers for young people. There are huge opportunities for young people who get trades and skills. There are significant opportunities for them to stay here, work here and grow businesses, if that is what they choose to do, and to settle and rear their families here. There are significant opportunities, and we want to encourage as much of that as possible. If there is occasionally a deficit of staff on the provision side, we will work closely with the colleges to correct that.

Mr C Murphy: We are content, as I said, to work: we have set targets for outside the greater Belfast area, but we continue to want to see growth inside that area, and we will continue to support economic development there. If he wishes to discuss with Invest, or, indeed, the Department our approach to specific aspects of his constituency or council area, I am happy to do that. We want to see growth right across the region. We recognise that, to address regional imbalance, we need to put more effort into the area outside greater Belfast, but that does not mean that we will not put effort into the greater Belfast area.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. Figures acquired from his Department show that no new jobs have been created from foreign direct investment in the Ards and North Down Council area since 2020. Does the Minister think that that is acceptable, and will he explain to my constituents why his Department's new subregional economic plan includes a commitment to move investment outside the Belfast metropolitan area, which includes my constituency, despite figures showing that it is not currently receiving the benefit of Invest NI's work?

Mr C Murphy: It does not include a commitment to move investment outside Belfast. It includes a commitment to grow more and at a higher level outside Belfast. It is not about moving anything anywhere but about growing and encouraging more growth. There have been many headlines about foreign direct investment and jobs that have been created. I would also like to see businesses that are indigenous to North Down grow and to give them opportunities to grow their businesses, increase employment and attract more people. If foreign direct investment is available, that will still be an important part of our economic prospectus. We will continue to work with Ards and North Down and within greater Belfast. We will encourage more growth and do more outside that to address regional imbalance issues, as the Executive's Programme for Government has committed us to doing. That does not mean that we will abandon any area or leave it behind.

Mr C Murphy: My understanding is that Intertrade UK will be based in Whitehall. It is a creation of the British Government, and they will have responsibility for it. No responsibility for its creation, its personnel or its staffing costs lies on this side of the Irish Sea. It is entirely a creation of the British Government and it will be located in Whitehall.

Mr Gaston: Minister, you previously told me that the budget for InterTradeIreland had ballooned by more than £1·8 million since the introduction of the protocol and that it had taken on three additional staff. Based on your previous response, when will you become a Minister who is in charge of his whole Department, rather than one who is interested only in his all-Ireland agenda?

Mr C Murphy: I agree that we should be given more powers, and if the Member wishes to take more powers from the British Government, I am happy to have his support; that has been an ambition of ours for some time. In this instance, Intertrade UK is not within my responsibilities. My responsibility involves InterTradeIreland and encouraging all-Ireland economic growth, which has been increasing at a significant rate in past years. Given the protocol arrangements, there is further opportunity for growth on the island, to the benefit of all the people who live in every constituency across the island. I do not have responsibility for Intertrade UK, but I am very much up for discussion of the Assembly's taking powers back from the British Government and exercising them on behalf of our people.

Mr C Murphy: One of the four themes of the consultation is "Voice and representation". That is to ensure that people have the rights to organise and to be represented by trade unions and that those rights become enshrined. The British Government have retreated from those rights in many ways over the past 14 years.

Thankfully, some of that has not happened here, so we are not in as bad a position as they are in Britain. However, we want to be sure that employees have the right to representation and the right to organise themselves. We are working through the consultation responses. Our intention is to draft legislation next year to reflect the outcome of the consultation.

Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire.

Minister, recent research by the Respect at Work campaign and Queen's University suggests that union busting is rampant across the island of Ireland, with 69% of workers surveyed reporting consistent anti-union behaviour from employers. Are you confident that the "good jobs" employment rights legislation will prevent that type of anti-union activity in the North and empower workers by securing their rights?

Mr C Murphy: We are going through the consultation responses at the moment. Those will, in turn, be put into the draft legislation. There will be an opportunity for the Assembly to process, debate and amend the legislation and to put it through the Committee Stage. We will ensure that we continue to hear from those who wish to provide representation for workers during the development of the legislation and its passage through the House in order to make sure that we give the strongest possible voice to workers.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I confirm that the introduction of an early learning framework covering that age group is being considered as part of the work to develop a draft early learning and childcare strategy. Such a framework will take account of relevant existing guidance in programmes such as Sure Start and the preschool education programme (PSEP), the Department of Health’s minimum standards and international best practice.

The developmental programme for two- to three-year-olds in the Sure Start programme already has a framework in place to promote effective learning through ongoing evaluation of the holistic progress of children's physical, personal, social and emotional development, as well as their language, communication and thinking skills.

All preschool settings participating in the preschool education programme are required to adhere to the curricular guidance for preschool education. That sets out six areas of learning that children at that age and stage of development should experience through play and other relevant activities. Staff use the framework to plan, review and develop their provision, which is tailored to meet each child's needs. The preschool guidance also links to the foundation stage curriculum, ensuring that children experience a high-quality, joined-up educational experience.

While it is widely accepted that early years provision in Northern Ireland is of a high standard, members of my Department's stakeholder engagement forum, which was set up to inform the development of the early learning and childcare strategy, have indicated that the introduction of an early years developmental framework has the potential to provide a useful benchmark for all providers and ensure greater consistency. They have confirmed their willingness to be involved in further scoping and to assist in the co-design of such a framework, if required. Their involvement is essential to ensuring that the consideration of options is evidence-informed and that any recommendations are deliverable. I plan to bring forward a draft strategy for Executive consideration and public consultation by autumn 2025.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Minister, for such a positive response. That is really wonderful to hear.

Which body will be responsible for developing the framework? Will it be the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) or a separate body? It is really good news.

Mr Givan: I know that the Member has championed the issues for a period of time, and I thank her for that. It will be my Department that brings forward the work on the strategy. That is the detailed work that we are engaging on. We will pull together the various strands to allow us to take that forward. I will lead on it, but, obviously, it is an Executive priority and a flagship project. The funding for it does not sit in my Department, but I will draw that down, subject to bringing forward all the appropriate plans. That is why it is important that all parties support that important work and make sure that the resource is there for what will be, when I bring it forward, an ambitious, comprehensive strategy.

Mr McNulty: Minister, to break the cycles of poverty, inequality and poor educational outcomes, research and evidence from education, health, justice and economic experts all point to the importance of comprehensive early intervention. Does the Minister therefore accept that it is imperative that his Department initiates within the time frame of this Executive and as a matter of priority the development of a universal 0-3 learning framework that includes an accommodation of and a strategy on month of birth and its impact on associated developmental timelines?

Mr Givan: The Executive have moved at pace to take forward the initial schemes that we have stood up. That is why priority was given to the childcare subsidy scheme, which is delivering £1 million every month, drawing down the tax-free allowance that we get from Westminster as the component part on which we built the scheme. We have also stepped in to provide support for the very early years to which the Member referred through organisations such as Sure Start that do incredible work. We have provided a significant uplift, stabilised the services and expanded into areas that were temporary and made them permanent. That is a demonstration of the Executive making sure that we stand by our young people, but I want to do a lot more than we have been able to do. That is why the comprehensive strategy, including the areas that the Member touched on, will be drawn out as we develop it. We will then need to put in the resource to make a difference in those young people's lives.

Ms Sugden: Minister, do you have any plans to review the criteria for Sure Start provision? Typically, it is now used via postcode. In my constituency, a couple of million-pound houses qualify for Sure Start provision, yet pockets of people who may receive benefits do not.

Mr Givan: I would love to see that scheme developed in more places than it is. The identification of need is based on the multiple index of deprivation, so there is a sound evidence base for where the schemes should operate. Would I like them to be extended into other parts of Northern Ireland? Yes, I would, but, like everything, that is subject to the resources that we have to back it up.

Mr Givan: Maintenance of the external fabric of buildings is generally a landlord maintenance item under the common funding scheme for the local management of schools and, as such, is typically funded from the resource maintenance budget. Larger schemes that upgrade, replace or alter the building or infrastructure are funded from the capital minor works budget.

Against a very challenging budget position, the Department’s priority for maintenance and capital investment is to keep schools open and pupils safe and to provide additional specialist places for rapidly increasing numbers of children with special educational needs (SEN). Unfortunately, that means that many works to the external fabric of a school building or within the curtilage of a school site that are not essential to meeting health and safety obligations, disability access, fire safety requirements or safeguarding purposes are not currently being progressed. The bottom line is that I can do only so much with the budget made available to me.

Children across Northern Ireland have the right to be educated in schools that are comfortable and safe, of good quality and properly designed and resourced to support their learning. That will require a significant step change in the level of capital investment by the Executive and an increase in the resource budget allocated to maintenance. I assure Members that I will continue to make a strong case for increased and sustained development in our education system.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his answer. What measures are in place to ensure that allocated funds for maintenance are used effectively and transparently?

Mr Givan: The Education Authority (EA) is operationally responsible for the use of funds for, for example, minor works schemes. It needs to ensure the efficient use of taxpayers' funding to do that, and its procurement process is supposed to achieve those desired outcomes. When it comes to major capital and school enhancement programmes, the Department will take those forward. Again, we are guided by all the regulations on those.

Value for money is important. How we procure from our suppliers is important. Members have brought to my attention their concern about the bureaucratic process that schools have to go through for very low spend, such as on securing a painter, having a piece of carpet fitted or hiring an electrician to fix a light bulb. Such things require more flexibility when it comes to a very small level of funding. I hope to see the Education Authority moving forward to provide that flexibility.

Mr Mathison: Last week, I had the opportunity to visit Larne High School with my colleague Danny Donnelly, who represents East Antrim. I was shocked by the condition of the buildings in which the children are educated. It has undoubtedly reached a state where it impacts on their ability to access the curriculum in a number of subjects. Will the Minister commit to visiting Larne High School not only to see the condition of the buildings but to meet the principal and the board of governors to discuss their hugely impressive and progressive approach to SEN and post-16 provision?

Mr Givan: I join the Chair of the Committee in commending Larne High School on the work that it undertakes. Like many schools, it delivers excellence in facilities that are not excellent. Teachers and others involved in education very much put the children first in what they are trying to deliver, but they could do so much more with the curriculum in buildings that are fit for purpose.

The Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) highlighted the hundreds of millions of pounds that our education system needs for the schools estate. Over many years, sufficient funding has not gone into the schools estate, and there is not sufficient funding this year. We will be required to address that in future years. When it comes to new builds, school enhancement programmes and ongoing minor works schemes for maintenance, there is a backlog of hundreds of millions of pounds. There is a programme of works between new builds, school enhancements and what we need for special education over the next 10 years that will cost in the region of £3 billion. If we are serious about our schools estate, we need to be serious when it comes to the allocation of funding to the Department of Education.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate the pressures on your budget. The demands across our schools estate highlight the need for more investment in your budget from the Northern Ireland Executive. Will the Minister outline how a school can raise urgent maintenance issues?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. Regrettably, funding is now largely being spent on urgent maintenance issues: it is about just keeping schools open and safe. Indeed, some principals have challenged me on how safe the environments that they have to work in actually are and what it takes to meet the criteria for being an urgent scheme to have work carried out.

Schools should contact the Education Authority's help desk. It is there to provide support, particularly for what are deemed to be unavoidable minor work schemes. Again, it is the Education Authority that needs to take that forward for controlled schools and the Department's estates operation team that takes it forward for all other schools.

We will support and help schools. There is a backlog of cases, but, ultimately, we need to have the resource and to have it in a timely fashion. With Executive spend, funding is sometimes received late in the financial year. You cannot stand up a contractor to move in to carry out a significant refurbishment, extension or school enhancement programme late in the financial year. You can spend on it some capital equipment, but, if we are to have sustained investment in contractual work schemes, funding needs to be provided at the start of the financial year. That is why the ask that I will make at the Executive for the next financial year will be significant.

Mr Givan: I have no such plans. My Department is not responsible for the administration or operation of post-primary transfer tests. The Schools' Entrance Assessment Group (SEAG), a company formally established in February 2022, oversees a single common entrance assessment. Participation in the assessments is entirely a matter of parental choice. Transfer tests have never been compulsory for any school or pupil, but they provide an opportunity for pupils to gain a place at a selective post-primary school of their choosing on the basis of the school's admissions criteria.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, you have talked many times in the Chamber about your ambition to tackle educational underachievement among working-class Protestant boys. Surely you recognise that the presence of a high-stakes, non-resit, unregulated transfer test in our system exacerbates the inequalities faced by working-class young people. Today, you should commit to scrapping it.

Mr Givan: As a working-class Protestant boy who went through the transfer test — I went to Laurelhill Community College, a school that I was incredibly proud to go to — my focus is on ensuring that all schools get the right support to ensure that, whichever school pupils go to, they get the best possible education. That means making sure that the curriculum is fit for purpose, which is why I am carrying out a review. It means supporting teachers in their professional learning and development to make sure that they are empowered to deliver education for all young people. That is my focus. If the Member can come forward with a solution to the issue that will garner consensus not just in here but across society, I will be more than happy to engage with him on it.

Mr Givan: I am sorry to say that the position regarding the major capital project for Dean Maguirc College has not changed since my most recent update in September, so the project remains on hold. As previously advised, I will continue to keep under review all the projects that were announced under the major capital works programme in March 2022 that are currently on hold, but the programme will be very much dependent on its securing significant additional and sustained capital funding.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. He will be aware that 'Operational Plan 2' — OP 2 — for Dean Maguirc College was to be published on Monday 9 September. Does he have any update to provide on why it has not yet been published?

Mr Givan: The Member's question is on the Education Authority's 'Operational Plan 2'. The draft document has been provided to the Department of Education and is being reviewed in its various business areas, but a submission has not yet come to me as Minister for my consideration. It is therefore being worked through. I hope to be able to make progress, but that document is on the general operational plan that was spoken about.

The Member has campaigned on the enrolment issue. The school is very fortunate to have him champion its causes, because he is dogged in his pursuit, but I know from a meeting that we had that the managing authority is to take forward the issue. That will lead to a development proposal (DP). DPs ultimately come to me to make a final decision on. I hope that the work that the managing authority does will come through to the Department to allow me to make a decision on it. We continue to provide temporary variations to meet the school's enrolment needs, but there is clearly a challenge when it comes to what its official enrolment numbers are and what the reality is. I would like to get to a place where we can regularise that issue.

Mr Robinson: Will the Minister confirm which schools announced under the major capital works programme in March 2022, to which he has referred, have seen progress made on planning?

Mr Givan: I very much wish that I had been able to take forward the plans for all the schools on the list, but, earlier, I highlighted the serious amount of capital resources that would be needed in order to do so. It is billions, not millions, of pounds. When I came into office, I did allow seven projects to move forward. My doing that has allowed the various integrated consultant teams to be procured for the projects, and it is anticipated that appointments to the teams will be made in early 2025. The seven from that list are Carrickfergus Academy; Dromore High School; Edmund Rice College; Loreto College, Coleraine; Malone Integrated College; Mercy College Belfast; and Portadown College.

Mr Givan: Since 2012, a total of 103 projects have been announced under the major capital works programme. A further 11 projects, which were initially announced for funding from 'A Fresh Start', were transferred to the programme in 2024. Some 38 are complete; five are currently on-site; 18 are at the technical design and pre-tender stage, seven of which are in the integrated supply team procurement phase and will be on-site in the first quarter of 2025, and one of which will move on-site following site acquisition; nine are at the concept design stage; one is at the preparation and brief stage; 14 are at the strategic definition and pre-business case stage; and 22 are on hold. The 22 that are on hold include the 21 remaining projects from the 2022 announcement.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he accept an invitation to visit the brilliant St Brigid's College in my constituency to see for himself the urgent and desperate need that there is for its scheme to progress? Will he outline the criteria that have been used to determine the sequence in which work at schools has commenced?

Mr Givan: St Brigid's College was one of 28 schools announced under the major capital works programme in March 2022. The schools were scored and ranked using the published major works protocol, which examines the condition and suitability of the buildings, as well as other factors, such as levels of deprivation. All school projects from the 2022 announcement were paused in April 2023 by the then permanent secretary owing to the extremely difficult budget position. No planning had been started for those projects.

When I responded to the previous question, I detailed how, in February this year, I had announced that seven of the highest-scoring schools from 2022's announcement would proceed to the procurement of integrated consultancy teams. That will ensure a flow of projects into the early stages of development and design. Unfortunately, St Brigid's College was not amongst those highest-scoring projects. All 21 remaining projects from that 2022 announcement remain at that paused stage due to the difficult overall capital budget, which, regrettably, does not permit me to progress a further 21 new-build post-primary schools.

For the House's benefit, on average, it is projected that each post-primary school costs in the region of £50 million, so I absolutely understand the frustration. I would love to see funding being made available so that I could take forward all those new schools, but there simply is not the funding there to do that. It would be wrong of me to give false hope that schools will get a new build any time soon when the funding is not available. Currently, there is a pipeline of work that will take decades to deliver. In the interim, how do we support schools to make sure that their facilities are able to meet needs and deliver the curriculum? I am more than happy to engage with the Member on the particular school that he has highlighted to me, as I seek to engage with all Members.

Mr Brooks: In light of that answer, what is the impact on the SEN projects included in his April 2024 announcement?

Mr Givan: That is a very important question. Special educational needs has required significant investment of tens of millions of pounds to meet the need, and that need is expected to continue in the years ahead.

In April, I established the SEN capital programme for the development of school facilities to support children across Northern Ireland with special educational needs. The new SEN capital programme will deliver eight new special schools over the next 10 years; new builds for a number of existing special schools; an extension and refurbishment programme for special schools; accommodation for specialist classes in mainstream school settings; and additional maintenance and equipment funding. The SEN capital programme will require around £1 billion of investment over the next 10 years. That is why we need to provide the Department with the funding required to meet that need.

Mrs Guy: Will the Minister provide an update on the future plans for the Dromore Central Primary School site?

Mr Givan: The Education Authority (EA), which owns the site, is considering that. As part of the work for special educational needs, the EA has been scoping out the full school estate. It has been mapping where the need exists, and that has been part of the issue when it comes to the old Dromore Central Primary School site.

Like the Member, because we share the same constituency, to me, Dromore is a very important town in Lagan Valley. I really want to make sure that buildings are being used properly, and that is an important site for the regeneration of Dromore town centre. It is important that the EA conclude its work to identify whether there is a future for the school when it comes to educational need. We will then be able to move on, depending on its position on that issue.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, what strategies are in place to ensure that, once projects are completed, facilities are maintained properly and funded accordingly to prolong their lifespan?

Mr Givan: Those schools, because they are new, will require limited maintenance. Behind the question that the Member rightly raises is this: when we make that investment of millions and millions of pounds, if we do not maintain the facilities, we will actually cause harm to that level of investment. That is a real challenge when it comes to the financial needs, but, at the moment, there is insufficient funding for basic maintenance. We are doing only urgent repairs and keeping schools open and safe, but there are many more minor work schemes, major capital builds and school enhancement programmes that we need to take forward. However, that is all subject to having the available resource.

Mr Givan: Through the Teachers' Negotiating Committee (TNC), a joint pay group is operational. Meetings have taken place with employers, sectoral support bodies and the recognised teaching trade unions in the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council (NITC) to explain to and update them on the current financial pressures in education and to discuss the current pay claim from the NITC.

The NITC pay claim is substantially higher than what was recommended by the United Kingdom Government and accepted by teachers in England. In line with public-sector pay policy requirements, any proposals for a teachers' pay award must be affordable, and the claim is proving difficult to resolve given the pressures that the Education budget already faces.

The chair of the TNC management side has also written to the NITC to formally request a de-escalation and for the ballots for industrial action to be stood down. I will continue to do all that I can to secure funding for an appropriate pay settlement for teachers.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his answer. I will declare an interest, as my wife is a teacher. Will the Minister make a pay offer in order to deliver pay parity for teachers in Northern Ireland?

Mr Givan: I very much want to continue the excellent work that I was able to take forward when I came into post, which was to deliver a double-digit percentage increase to teachers' pay. We also brought the starting salary for new graduates from £23,000 up to £30,000, bringing it into line with that in England. That has helped to make sure that our young people who graduate from our training colleges stay in Northern Ireland, and I want to maintain that.

I am very committed, in the spirit of cooperation, to trying to get a successful outcome to the negotiations. A number of bodies form the management side, so it is not led entirely by me, but, clearly, my Department has a key role and I have an active position in trying to achieve a resolution. Yes, I want to get a successful outcome, and we are actively engaging with the unions. They had a meeting last week, and that engagement will continue next week. I want to get a positive outcome.

Mr Givan: The project at Forge Integrated Primary School aims to provide a new-build, 14-classroom integrated primary school at the former Knockbreda High School site in Belfast. That was originally to be funded via the Fresh Start Agreement, but, as a result of the withdrawal of funding, it now sits in my Department's Executive-funded major capital works programme. The design of the new building is progressing, and discussions are ongoing with Belfast City Council and the Department for Infrastructure as part of the pre-application process for the submission of a planning application. Once those actions are complete, the scheme will proceed to procurement and a contractor will be appointed, subject to available funding.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his update. As a representative for South Belfast, I share the frustration of the school's leadership, which has been working on the project for 10 years. When does the Minister anticipate that the school will be built?

Mr Givan: I understand the frustration with the processes. It has taken a considerable amount of time for the planning process to work its way through, with the pre-application discussion having been submitted to Belfast City Council in 2020. The project is at what we refer to as RIBA stage 3, and the project's integrated consultant team is preparing for a planning submission early next year. Should planning be approved, it is likely that work on the site could commence in 2026 at the earliest. I will caveat that with the observation that, as is the case with all such capital investments, it is subject to getting the appropriate funding.

Mr O'Toole: I will declare an interest as a parent of a child who attends Forge Integrated Primary School. As Paula Bradshaw says, the situation is deeply frustrating not just for the school's leadership but for the wider school community. Money was taken off Forge Integrated Primary School when it expected to get a new school, and now there are significant planning delays in the Department for Infrastructure. I ask the Minister to speak to his colleague the Minister for Infrastructure to finally resolve what is holding up the situation on the DFI side and progress the project. Parents and the wider school community are at their wits' end because of the delay.

Mr Givan: I understand that frustration. It is often expressed to me by communities and those who are in the profession, particularly when there is a hope that something is being achieved where there is a need. The schools that were let down by the United Kingdom Government because of the withdrawal of the Fresh Start funding felt a sense of loss. I stepped in to provide the assurance that they would still be part of my capital works schemes. I very much want to be able to deliver not just for this school but for all the schools that require new builds and school enhancement programmes.

Mr Givan: As announced on 17 September 2024, I have asked the delivery and implementation group to report to me by the end of December of this year. That remains the target.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for that answer. In your view, Minister, how important is the work that that group does, particularly in relation to controlled schools and the support that they receive in Northern Ireland?

Mr Givan: That work is hugely important, as was evidenced by a recent survey of controlled schools that was carried out by the Education Authority. The findings of that survey are damning. I want the Education Authority to extend the survey to all schools to get feedback and their views on the Education Authority, but the report from the controlled sector causes concern. That validates the recent independent review of education, which highlighted that, when it comes to the EA:

That is why we need to address the issue for the controlled sector, but it also presents opportunities from which all sectors can benefit.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Givan: I am more than happy to engage with the Member on that. Underneath that question is a desire to make sure that all appropriate information is available in order to provide the best possible services at the point where people need them. I share the sentiment expressed and am happy to engage with the Member on how to give effect to that.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister; I welcome that response. On the back of the question, one conversation that we have recently been having on the Education Committee is about how to support children who experience bereavement. Will the Minister commit to meeting the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) to have a conversation about reviewing bereavement policies to best support and serve young people who have experienced heartbreaking grief?

Mr Givan: Sadly, that is something that happens, particularly for young people in our schools. I engaged recently with Marie Curie, which provides excellent work on grief counselling. I commend the work that it does. It carries out a programme in schools, and I support that, because it is important that the people who will see young people at a point at which there is grief in their lives are properly supported to provide the best advice. I absolutely agree with the Member that it is important to provide support in that area. Organisations such as Marie Curie can do that, and, of course, it is also important that CCEA provides the appropriate material to support schools in that.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. I was delighted to host the United Kingdom Education Ministers Council on Thursday 20 November. Yes, it happened at Laurelhill Community College in Lisburn.

Mrs Dodds: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: I hear Mrs Dodds, a former teacher, commending the school. She did not, however, have the opportunity to shape and mould me as a pupil. Diane cannot be blamed for how I have turned out. [Laughter.]

That was a particularly good meeting, because we welcomed to it the Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, Secretary of State for Education in our UK Government. The Cabinet Secretary for Education for Wales, Lynne Neagle MS, also attended, as did officials from the four nations.

That meeting was a great opportunity. The theme was teacher professional learning and teacher recruitment and retention. I was delighted that we were also able to welcome representatives from our four initial teacher education institutions in Northern Ireland. They gave a presentation on the range of available courses and on how they prepare children in those colleges to support young people once they have graduated as teachers.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for outlining that it is not Mrs Dodds's fault how he has turned out. It is important to have that on the record.

The Minister referred to some of the issues discussed. Did the topic of school twinning across the rest of the UK come up, or was it discussed?

Mr Givan: We discussed a number of things. The Secretary of State took the opportunity to update us on UK policy on international students, which is important for our universities in Northern Ireland. She also gave a commitment that she and the Labour Government stood over the Command Paper 'Safeguarding the Union'. In that paper, there are a number of commitments in respect of which she reiterated her support for delivering on. One of them is the establishment of a twinning programme between schools in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, which will be overseen by the United Kingdom's East-West Council.

That is a real opportunity, and I confirm that my officials are working with officials in the Department for Education in England to take it forward. There are a number of potential benefits to the twinning programme between primary schools in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It will enable the diversity of the Union to be experienced by a wider range of young people. It will build on our shared connections and demonstrate the value of Northern Ireland's integral place in the United Kingdom.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. Work on the end-to-end review has been completed. We are moving towards having a transformational delivery plan to determine what actions will be taken forward. I am actively engaging with officials in my Department on that delivery plan because I want to see it published. Work on the end-to-end review has now concluded.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will the action plan end the practice of treating SEN pupils as supernumerary for placements and ensure that children with statements are placed in school on an equal footing with their peers?

Mr Givan: The plan will cover a wide range of issues. It has taken 19 months to carry out the review and pull together the various aspects of special educational needs provision. The Member has highlighted a number of issues that are important, but there is a multiplicity of areas to be addressed. A wide-ranging review has taken place, and the delivery plan needs to encapsulate that.

On the supernumerary issue, I have already taken a view in the Department that is now being reflected that, when it comes to new builds, for example, we cannot build a new school on the basis of an enrolment figure that does not reflect children who have a statement of educational needs and regards them as supernumerary. That would be to build a new school that does not meet the needs or provide the appropriate capacity for what the real world requires. That approach is already being taken forward by way of a change in my Department.

Mr Givan: The Executive and the Finance Minister regularly challenge Ministers to make greater use of the financial transactions scheme. It depends, however, on the type of projects that are being taken forward. It is more suitable for housing associations, for example, to take that forward, because, when it comes to borrowing, it does not sit directly against a Department's capital departmental expenditure limit (DEL) statement for accounting purposes.

I am pleased, though, that my colleague Gordon Lyons will avail himself significantly of the financial transaction allowances that are open to the Executive. It will be the first time in quite a number of years that we will draw down the maximum allowable, and that will primarily be to the benefit of housing. I am open to ways in which we can provide greater finance for the Department of Education, but that is somewhat curtailed by the way in which accounting rules apply for borrowing purposes.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his remarks. He might direct his officials to communicate particularly with Manchester, which is innovative in looking at some of the new funding mechanisms. There may not be a direct equivalence, but will the Minister approach Manchester or consider best practice across the rest of the United Kingdom to see whether there are opportunities, particularly as he spoke earlier about the amount of money that we will have to spend to get the school estate fit for purpose.

Mr Givan: I am more than happy to try to identify ways of extracting as much funding as I can. I will engage with officials about practice that is being deployed in other parts of the United Kingdom so that we maximise the financial resource available to us. We are waiting to see how the Labour Government intend to invest in more significant capital projects. They have talked about — dare I say it — the PFI-type projects of the past, which did not work particularly well when it came to value for money. A number of schools in Northern Ireland were constructed through PFI schemes, the first of which is coming to the end of its life cycle and will move to the Department of Education for ongoing maintenance. The Labour Government have talked about wanting to consider those again. We are keeping a watching brief on that.

Mr Givan: That is a hugely important issue, and Members have raised it before. It cuts across a number of Departments. Nineteen is the compulsory age for education for young people with special educational needs. A transition framework then takes place that engages the Department of Health and the Department for the Economy. Work is being undertaken across the three Departments to make sure that that transition is working effectively, because there are concerns that it has not been. I caution Members that, in wanting to deliver a solution, we need to make sure that it would achieve what some believe it would achieve, through mandating the Department of Education up to the age of 25. If the responsibility does not move from Health and the Department for the Economy, the Department of Education will not be able to meet the needs of young people in a post-19 scenario. It requires careful consideration. It is not as simple as saying, "Make a legal requirement, place it on the Department of Education, and that will fix the issue".

Ms Sugden: Minister, I appreciate that, but, given that your colleague in the Government said that it was unlikely that such legislation would go through in this mandate, will you commit to working with the Minister for the Economy to see whether we can use your Bill as a vehicle in order to, finally, get that through?

Mr Givan: I just want to make sure that the processes work. I know about the campaign that Alma has led. She is a constituent of mine. I have been with her, and we have talked through the issues. Many colleagues have been part of that campaign and rightly so, because Caleb's cause is a just one. However, it is about how we give effect to it. It would be wrong to suggest that the solution lies solely with the Department of Education, and for a legal requirement up to the age of 25 to be placed on DE. How do we make sure that the process works effectively? That is a responsibility for three Departments: Health, Economy and Education. I very much want to work with my colleagues. In my engagement with Minister Murphy and Minister Nesbitt, they have exactly the same desires as I do. We have to show that government collaboration works.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, I am incredibly proud of my time at Laurelhill and of all the pupils who went through that school. It was truly a child-centred school, which is really important for education.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her contribution over the years at Laurelhill. I know that it was very much appreciated by the many pupils whom she had in her care.

In the October monitoring round, the Department submitted bids of £189 million for resource DEL, nearly £89 million for capital DEL and just over £560,000 for ring-fenced DEL. We bid for nearly £190 million and received £170 million of general resource DEL funding, but no allocation was provided when it came to our capital bids of nearly £89 million. We did not receive anything for capital.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. Will you detail for the House the impact that that will have on your negotiations on teachers' pay settlements?

Mr Givan: If we were to apply the 5·5% that the English body recommended, which has been accepted, it would leave the Department with a shortfall of just over £20 million to bridge the gap. However, the teachers' pay claim is not for 5·5%; it is for 13·5%. It is simply impossible. Members may believe that my Department can deliver a 13·5% pay rise this year, but that is not achievable. There are clear challenges even in trying to bridge the gap and reach the 5·5% with the funding shortfall that we have. I am engaging in good faith with the unions to try to resolve the issue successfully, but I have, I think, demonstrated the clear financial challenges that I face in trying to meet that request.

Mr Speaker: I will permit a very brief question from Mr Middleton.

Mr Speaker: Give a very brief answer.

Mr Givan: That was another successfully negotiated resolution that ended industrial action. Rightly, those support staff, who are some of our most underpaid, campaigned, and we achieved the pay and grading review. That has been a two-stage process, improving the terms and conditions in the pay and grading review. The payment will be made before Christmas, and will be backdated to 1 April 2024. At the start of the next financial year, a £2,500 payment will be made, pro rata, to all staff who were part of the business case that brought forward the pay and grading review. That rightly reflects the valuable contribution that those people make in our education system.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Education.

Ms Sugden: I am pleased to join political parties in supporting the motion.

Homelessness remains one of the most urgent and growing issues of our generation. As we mark Homelessness Awareness Week, we must recognise that we are in the midst of a housing crisis. Over 58,000 individuals are officially homeless: that is one in every 33 people. Of that number, one third are children, and families account for more than half at 57%. Those figures demand our immediate attention, because, behind those numbers, families have been torn apart, children's education has been disrupted and individuals' dignity has been eroded. Homelessness is not merely a lack of shelter; it is a profound social failure.

Homelessness and the threat of homelessness remains the most prevalent casework issue in my constituency office, followed by domestic abuse. Indeed, the two issues often go hand in hand, as many victims find themselves alone and homeless, usually with their children — one of the reasons why she does not "just leave". We do not do enough to support victims of domestic abuse. Organisations in the community and voluntary sector, like Women's Aid, do what they can and do an incredible job, but it is really shocking that there is a waiting list for temporary accommodation in a women's shelter. Those who can do so can live in temporary accommodation for months, with too many children being raised there. While intended as a stopgap, temporary accommodation has seen a nearly 500% increase in costs over five years, with over 5,000 children living in precarious arrangements. We have all heard the stories of temporary accommodation's being offered an hour and a half down the road, away from the children's school and away from Health and Social Care services, when to get those services in place was a struggle to begin with. It is not sustainable. It is not good enough. The Government are failing when figures and stories like that exist.

We know that homelessness affects people of all backgrounds. I am particularly concerned about the number of older people who are presenting to my office having been told that, after many years, their private landlord is selling the property. Imagine being in your eighties and being told that your home is being sold and that you will have to find somewhere else to live. That is not easy for an elderly person, particularly one who is alone and does not have family support. Finding somewhere else to live is difficult, particularly on the north coast. For several years now, I have talked at length about the impact of second-home ownership on the north coast. Staggering house prices and high rents are forcing long-term tenants away from the area, which is just not an option for people who need to be near their services and families.

That has an obvious knock-on effect on demand for the provision of social housing and on homelessness. I do not know how we fix that. I remain unconvinced that increasing rates will have much of an impact. Ultimately, we need more social and affordable homes.

I appreciate the challenge of building more homes. Even if the Minister for Communities had the money, the next hurdle would be planning and waste water infrastructure, and there would probably be another hurdle after that. That is why we really need to take a cross-departmental approach and have a commitment that Ministers and Governments will work together to address what is a growing crisis. We need to see such action now. We are 10 months into a shortened mandate. Although we all stand here united in support of addressing homelessness, it is really frustrating that no tangible change will realistically happen any time soon, because we are not building more social and affordable homes, and certainly not enough to maintain the current proposed figures for new builds.

On a positive note in Homelessness Awareness Week, we have to acknowledge the fact that the homelessness sector does great work. I have already spoken about the tireless work of Women's Aid, but we should also recognise other organisations, such as the Simon Community, that provide stability where, sadly, our Government do not. The work that those organisations do is often done under a lot pressure, and it is highly emotional and draining. Everyone in the Chamber will have heard that from their staff who have tried to help people. It is the same old story. We go from month to month saying these things upon hearing the same stories, and, although we need to raise awareness in Homelessness Awareness Week, it is important that we also take action. Otherwise, our words will just be in vain.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister for Communities to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion for debate in the House. I also thank all those who took part in the debate, and I agree with much that was said. The motion is timely, and I look forward to making a number of announcements during my remarks that show my commitment to dealing with the issue.

I thank Homeless Connect and the other organisations across the sector for the work that they do each and every day to support some of the most needy in our society. The events that take place during Homelessness Awareness Week play a vital role in highlighting the reality of homelessness in Northern Ireland. Only through education, outreach and meaningful collaboration across Departments will we be able to recognise properly the challenges and, importantly, to start to address the stigma that is associated with homelessness.

As we are all aware, the theme for this year's Homelessness Awareness Week is "Time for Change". I could not agree more with that sentiment. I have said before that we must be radical in our approach to homelessness. We need to seek innovative solutions to problems, and we need to think of different ways in which to respond to need. I believe that everyone needs to have a secure and safe place to call home and that that is the foundation of everything else. I assure Members of my personal commitment to making real and tangible progress.

As we are all too aware, the reasons for homelessness are varied and complex. Societal issues such as poverty, life experiences, mental or physical health issues and substance misuse can all put people under strain and lead to a breakdown in relationships or to a house no longer being suitable for them. What is clear, however, is that being homeless makes each of those issues harder to solve and that homelessness is often not just a housing issue. The Housing Executive has statutory responsibility to respond to homelessness and for the delivery of the homelessness strategy for 2022-27, 'Ending Homelessness Together'. Addressing the issues that contribute to homelessness is equally as important, however, and, as I said, doing that will take a collective, whole-of-government and joined-up approach.

I have repeatedly stated my ambition that homelessness should be rare, brief and nonrecurring. That will happen only with increased support and engagement from other Departments, particularly the Department of Health and the Department of Justice. The Complex Lives programme is an example of what can be achieved when we work together. Facilitated by Belfast City Council and led by a multidisciplinary team, that model takes a person-centred approach and addresses the main issue first. For example, if an addiction issue is at the root of homelessness, services will work together to address that issue first. Ultimately, homeless people who live with mental health and addiction issues will be supported to maintain tenancies.

While the trauma that homelessness causes an individual is significant, it also ripples across our society. For example, the lack of adequate housing support to prevent homelessness means that we are left with no option but to place people in expensive and, all too often, unsuitable temporary accommodation. The increasing cost associated with providing temporary accommodation is preventing the strategic shift to an investment in prevention activity.

I have seen first-hand the positive impact that good housing has on the lives and well-being of individuals and families. A good home is the foundation for everything else. A secure home improves educational achievement, health and job prospects. That is why I intend to bring the housing supply strategy to the Executive in the coming days. The new strategy will provide a long-term framework for the actions required to increase supply and address the main barriers to progress. It recognises that transforming the housing supply will require not only a collective response from the Executive but a real collaboration that includes local government, community groups, the construction industry and financial bodies, and I will have a major announcement to make alongside that in the coming weeks.

Increasing the range of affordable housing options is key to preventing homelessness, and I have already taken steps towards that goal. In May 2024, I launched a competition to find an operator to provide 300 intermediate rent homes in Northern Ireland, facilitating a new supply of quality, more affordable housing for lower-income households. I look forward to announcing the outcome in the new year, and I will make every effort to get that started as soon as possible.

As I said, households have been trapped in the homelessness system for far too long. It is no secret that the budget that my Department and others received this year fell well short of what is required and placed significant constraints on our services. Despite that, I committed to holding homelessness funding at the 2023-24 final budget position. I also provided an additional £4·8 million — a 6·4% increase in funding above the 2023-24 final equality impact assessment (EQIA) budget position — for the Supporting People programme position to help to ensure the continued viability of the programme and provide a budget of £80·7 million for this year. It should be acknowledged that such a level of investment in the Supporting People programme not only helps vulnerable individuals to maintain their tenancies but helps to prevent additional demands on budgets elsewhere, especially in the Departments of Health and Justice.

I recognise that there is more for us to do. Today, I am delighted to make three significant announcements that will help us to finally make some of those fundamental changes and lay the foundations for that important work. First, following the October monitoring round, I am providing an additional £6·7 million for the Housing Executive to prevent the risk of homelessness service closures and ensure that its statutory obligations can continue to be met. Secondly, many of our homelessness service providers have been operating on a month-to-month funding model, which has created too much uncertainty for that critical work. That changes now. Today, I can announce that the funding will be confirmed until the end of the year.

Finally, I am also pleased to announce that, for the financial year 2025-26 and moving forward, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, for the first time ever, will have its own specific funding allocation for homelessness prevention. The voluntary and community sector deserves that clarity, and I am sure that Members will welcome this positive step in the right direction. We have to make the strategic shift to the prevention of homelessness. I have said that for some time. It remains my ambition, and the proposals that I have outlined today show my commitment to that shift.

Our short-term focus must continue to be on supporting those who are in crisis. I have met many of them, and I know for a fact that our voluntary and community organisations across the homelessness sector make an invaluable and sometimes life-saving contribution to the lives of people across Northern Ireland. I assure them that their work does not go unnoticed, even if it is not always publicly acknowledged. I share their sense of wanting to make things better, and that is what I am determined to do.

I am encouraged by the positive contributions that have been shared today, and I believe that they demonstrate that we all have a common purpose. Therefore, I am pleased to support the motion, and I look forward to working with my Executive colleagues and our sectoral partners in a coordinated and effective way, because this matter affects people. It affects their lives and their futures, and it affects Northern Ireland as a whole. That is why we need coordinated action and why I have made the announcements that I have made today. However, I recognise that that is only the start. There is more to do, and I am determined to get on with it.

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

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. As I rise to conclude the debate, I thank the Minister for his contribution. It contained some very good news that I know others outside the Building will be delighted to hear. I hoped that you were going to say, Minister, that funding for the prevention of homelessness was guaranteed until the end of this mandate and not the end of this year, but we will take that one.

I thank Ciara Ferguson MLA, who is the convener of the all-party group on homelessness, for enabling the debate and ensuring that it had cross-party support before we came to the House. It is good for others outside this place to hear that all of us are in agreement about the fact that homelessness is a stark issue. As a politician, it is very hard to live with, because we all know people who have housing issues, but, when faced with homelessness, it really does have a devastating impact on a person's life. That is why today, at the start of Homelessness Awareness Week, it is so important to have this debate in the Assembly.

I thank Mark Baillie and all the members of Homeless Connect for their work not just this week but all year round. As the motion states, we recognise the hard work of the organisations and individual members of staff who are working so hard to support people who are homeless and to try to prevent homelessness. They have some of the toughest front-line jobs and provide round-the-clock help and assistance to homeless people. I pay tribute to all those front-line workers. Your work has been disappointingly underfunded — we are now hearing that there is a glimmer of hope — and the pay does not reflect your commitment and dedication. Your work is literally saving lives.

Over the past 12 months, 53 citizens from Northern Ireland have died while being homeless. We do not want that to happen again. We do not want to have huge numbers of people dying on our streets. In fact, over the summer, I believe that four or five people died in one week. That is a very difficult thing for us all to live with. In 2023, 188 people died, and 53 people have died in the past 12 months. I hope that, over this winter, we do not see any more deaths, and that will be thanks to the preventative work that the Minister has talked about providing budget for and thanks to the organisations, some of which may well be in the Gallery today. It is up to them. They actually save lives by bringing people in off the streets, especially when the weather can be so bad over the winter.

I thank everyone who spoke during the debate. There is cross-party support, so I am glad that there will not be a Division. Ciara highlighted the fact that people who are homeless are our neighbours and our families. She highlighted the unfortunate amount that we spend on temporary accommodation, which is up to £34·5 million over five years, and she confirmed that ending homelessness is vital in addressing poverty and improving health and educational outcomes.

Brian Kingston confirmed that the DUP supports the motion, and he talked about how important it is to have housing in the Programme for Government. He said that it is a cross-departmental issue and talked about learning from a Housing Executive officer how burnt out they are and how Complex Lives has reinvigorated them. Having met a number of front-line workers, I know that that burnout is emotionally draining because they are so committed to helping people who are homeless.

My colleague Peter McReynolds talked about how he was judged as a homeless person and that he had had a slight insight into how people who are homeless are considered on our streets. He talked about the cold and exhaustion, and I think that we can all understand how debilitating it is when you do not have a roof over your head, not getting sleep night after night.

Andy Allen is very good on homelessness issues, and I am glad to be on the Committee with him. He talked about homes being the foundation of our lives and said that we need to have a properly funded homelessness strategy. I think that we will be behind the Minister in looking for that as the mandate goes forward.

Mark Durkan broke my heart, I have to say, when he talked about children asking how Santa will find them and about the ask this year being a place to call home. We all know, as Claire Sugden highlighted, how many families and children are faced with homelessness without that security. We have to do something to improve that.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Ms K Armstrong: I will, Andy.

Mr Allen: I am not sure whether the Member joined NIFHA during its recent mobile billboard campaign, but will she recognise that one of the statistics that it highlighted in that campaign was that, at the current rate, we will not tackle the housing waiting list until 2064?

Ms K Armstrong: Yes, that is absolutely right. Because of the amount of money that the Minister was unable to secure in the Budget for capital build and the ongoing millions that we are spending on temporary accommodation, we are holding back the needed new builds for social homes for people. You are absolutely right.

Gerry Carroll said that homelessness is a political choice. In my summation, I want to read something out from the Simon Community that confirms that. He also talked about his Member's Bill. I am looking forward to seeing that, Gerry. Claire Sugden said that homelessness is a profound social failure. You are absolutely right, Claire. You talked about the victims of domestic abuse and said that too many children are being raised in temporary accommodation.

The Minister said that the theme of this Homelessness Awareness Week is a "Time for Change". Thank you, Minister, for making your announcements today. I will reiterate those so that all know that we are in support of this. There is £6·7 million for the Housing Executive to help it to meet its statutory objectives. The uncertainty regarding funding for community organisations will end as their funding is confirmed until the end of the year. In 2025-26, the Housing Executive will have its own specific homelessness prevention budget.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Ms K Armstrong: Yes, Minister.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member's comments, but I want to clarify that it is my intention that that will not just be for 2025-26 but moving forward, because I think that we need to invest far more in homelessness prevention. We need to do the other things as well, but we need to do that now and that needs to continue. I want that to be not just this year but every year moving forward.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. I was writing like crazy to see whether I could get all that down, because I was busy thinking of a 100 questions to ask you.

In summarising and bringing to a close the debate, I thank all who have taken part. I think of the words of the Simon Community, and I am very grateful to the Simon Community, Homeless Connect and other organisations that have allowed me to meet front-line workers and people with lived experience. The Simon Community said in its report:

I hope today that people outside the Chamber hear that we are committed, as all parties and all MLAs in this place, to ending homelessness.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease while we change the top Table.

Ms Kimmins: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Ms Kimmins: We tabled this motion in the hope that we can create consensus on the urgent need for greater regulation of non-surgical cosmetic products and procedures in order to improve the safeguarding of the health and well-being of our population, particularly our young people. As many Members will be aware, in the past number of years, there has been a significant rise in the number of people seeking aesthetic procedures such as, but not limited to, botulinum toxin — more commonly known as Botox — and dermal fillers.

There is no doubt that there are huge pressures in society to look good, which can largely be attributed to social media and the content that dominates our young people's social media platforms daily. In the past, aesthetic treatments of that nature were generally seen to be something that celebrities and the more affluent in our society could access, particularly in the US. However, over time, the demand for those treatments has risen exponentially, giving way for more and more people to offer these services, often at a much lower cost.

From the outset, I want to say that I have no issue with aesthetic procedures, and as a woman of a certain age, I fully appreciate that they can help many people to feel good about the way that they look, which can go some way to boosting confidence and self-esteem. Many highly trained practitioners deliver an extremely safe service, using only high-quality products. It is also important to recognise the important use of botulinum toxin and fillers in medical treatments, including, but not exclusive to, the treatment of chronic migraines and excessive sweating, often under the direction of a medical professional.

The genesis of the motion is therefore not to place a ban on those procedures but to ensure proper regulation to mitigate the risks of complications, particularly given the lack of regulation currently in place. Despite the clinical nature of these treatments and the very serious complications that can arise for various reasons, those providing treatments are not currently under any obligation to register with the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) or any similar body. That is a shocking fact, and even more shocking is that, at present, there is no legislation in the North to protect young people under 18 when accessing treatments, despite the very evident rise in teenagers getting lip fillers and other treatments. Anecdotally, practitioners have told us that children as young as 14 have attempted to access these treatments for purely cosmetic reasons. That is why I welcome the amendment from Diane Dodds and Alan Robinson, which further strengthens our objective to protect our young people from the potential negative side effects of these procedures.

As previously mentioned, more and more people are offering these services, many at a relatively low cost, yet there are serious concerns about the level of training and expertise obtained to enable them to do so. That is not a criticism of those who have undertaken training in good faith. They are not doing anything wrong under the current law. However, when things go wrong — whether a reaction to the product or an error in its administration — they may not always be in a position to provide the necessary aftercare to the client, and that can have many serious implications.

Complications from maladministered injectable aesthetic treatments can range from bruising and skin drooping to anaphylactic shock, permanent blindness, sepsis and, in some cases, even death. Many advanced practitioners in the aesthetics industry have professional qualifications in nurse prescribing, pharmacy, dentistry or medicine and have undergone much more advanced training in the aesthetics field. They have demonstrated from experience the importance of their clinical knowledge in ensuring that they respond effectively and efficiently to complications when needed, which many practitioners without the same level and depth of training would not be able to do.

In a recent case in England, 33-year-old Alice Webb, a mother of five, passed away due to complications from a liquid Brazilian butt lift (BBL) procedure, which involves placing dermal filler in the buttock area. Among advanced medical practitioners, that is known to be an extremely unsafe procedure, and there have been many public calls, dating back to 2023, from industry leaders such as Save Face to ban the use of liquid BBL procedures. It beggars belief that there is no legislation here to determine who can administer those products and procedures. As is highlighted by the examples that I have described, regulations must be put in place urgently.

In England, the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021 made it an offence for a person to administer botulinum toxin or a filler by way of injection for a cosmetic purpose to a person under the age of 18 in England. In April 2022, the Health and Care Act 2022 gave the British Secretary of State for Health and Social Care the power to introduce a licensing regime for non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England. Similarly, in the South of Ireland, following an 'RTÉ Investigates' documentary that, earlier this year, provided a covert insight into the scale of illicit practices across Ireland, particularly on a cross-border basis, the former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar indicated that work was ongoing on strengthening regulation of the industry in the Twenty-six Counties. That further emphasises the need for us to act accordingly in the North.

This is a crucial issue that we must get to grips with urgently in the interests of public safety. Making it an obligation to be properly trained and licensed by a relevant regulatory body is about protecting not just people who access treatments but practitioners. I therefore ask the Minister to develop options for essential regulation in the industry and to ensure the introduction of the appropriate oversight and training that is required for those who administer these products. I ask Members to support the motion.

Mr Robinson: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Mr Robinson: I very much welcome the fact that the proposer of the motion supports our amendment. When it comes to healthcare, no matter how minor the procedure may seem, safety must always come first. The lens through which any regulation should be looked at is one that focuses on making the industry safer for patients. My party supports greater regulation of the use of aesthetic medicines in non-surgical cosmetic procedures.

The use of injectables such as Botox, dermal fillers and other aesthetic treatments has surged in recent years, with people seeking to enhance their appearance in less invasive ways. However, the rapid growth of the sector has come, unfortunately, with significant risks. Regulation should ensure that providers are properly trained, that the products that are administered are safe, that they are administered within safe levels and that those who administer the products can be held accountable when things go wrong. When those procedures go wrong, they are not easily reversed, and, in most cases, the NHS is left to pick up the pieces. The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons estimated that intervening in a botched butt lift could cost the NHS £15,000. It might be easy to administer the products, but, when the procedures go wrong, they are not easy to undo.

The drive for perfection is driven by online trends. I have a 10-year-old who, along with all her friends, is obsessed with her skin and with beauty shops that provide very expensive products. I remember, from when I was her age, 10-year-old girls whose only obsession was with dolls and toys. However, young people are growing up, and they see many others talking openly online about their use of Botox and fillers, which are portrayed as common beauty treatments. The social media era has a lot to answer for.

It must be said that many professionals in the industry would welcome regulation, because their high standard of work is being undermined by individuals who have basic knowledge and limited training and who provide cheap cosmetic products that can be bought online and even from the black market. Quite simply, there are some unqualified individuals who provide poor and unsafe cosmetic practices that have lifelong and devastating consequences that are not just physical but inflict a lifetime of psychological harm. Doctors, dentists and nurses have high standards to follow, but unqualified and untrained individuals are free to carry out procedures that can be life-changing and, on occasion, not for the better. It feels a little bit like the Wild West.

Indeed, Save Face said that 100% of failed treatments were carried out by untrained and unskilled staff. Save Face also stated that it had received a startling 5,000 complaints over the past four years, 70% of which were related to fillers. In October 2021, the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021 came into force in England, making it illegal to administer Botox or a filler by way of injection for a cosmetic purpose to a person under the age of 18, but no such law exists in the Province. Under-18s here can have Botox and dermal fillers with no checks on their age. It is concerning that there is no legislation on non-surgical cosmetic treatments for those under 18, yet young people under 18 are banned from using, hiring or buying sunbeds and cannot get a tattoo. There is a gap in regulation. The Health Minister should, therefore, move to introduce a mandatory registration scheme in the Province so that local authorities can work in partnership with the Department of Health to protect public safety. New legislation would enable environmental health teams to regulate the industry throughout the Province.

The consequences of improperly injected Botox or poorly stored dermal fillers can range from adverse reactions and infections to serious complications that require immediate medical intervention. That is not a scenario that we want for anyone. It is, therefore, crucial that steps are taken to ensure that only those who are properly trained and qualified are allowed to administer the products. The Department must regulate the sector in a way that ensures that patients can trust that the procedures will be carried out by professionals who meet the highest standards of safety and care and that no one under 18 can access the treatments in those settings. The Department must ensure that the products are stored and handled in a way that safeguards their effectiveness and reduces the risk of contamination or misuse.

We can no longer have a situation in Northern Ireland where those carrying out treatments such as Botox and fillers are not required to be registered with the RQIA and local authorities have no powers to refuse their registration. My party, therefore, calls on the Minister of Health to review the lack of regulation whereby a practitioner can inject a client with a substance without being registered with the RQIA or their local authority. A registration process would help those considering a cosmetic procedure to make an informed choice. In the meantime, I call on the Health Minister to ensure that his Department increases awareness through campaigns that warn of the public health risks from using untrained individuals to administer such cosmetic products. I trust that the House will support our amendment.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Sinn Féin Members for tabling the motion and the DUP Members for their amendment. We, in Alliance, are content to support both.

In recent years, we have seen an increase in the use of aesthetic medicines in non-surgical cosmetic procedures as a result of new technologies and products in that field. The procedures, all of which are growing in popularity, include botulinum toxin, more commonly known as Botox; anti-wrinkle injections; cosmetic fillers; chemical peels; and energy-based treatments. They provide a boost to the local economy and are important to small- and medium-sized enterprises. That is especially important as the majority of business owners in the industry are female. According to the British Beauty Council, it is estimated that, in 2022, the cosmetics sector supported a total GDP contribution of £24·5 billion and tax contributions of £6·8 billion to the UK Treasury.

With new procedures come new responsibilities, and the Department of Health here has a responsibility to ensure that any such procedures are safe for the public. In Westminster, the Health and Care Act 2022 gave the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care the power to introduce a licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England that ensures that people who choose to undergo such a procedure know for certain that the treatment that they are receiving is safe and of a high standard. Such a regulatory framework would be appropriate for Northern Ireland as well. In particular, a licensing scheme would ensure that those who offer specified procedures are suitably trained and qualified, hold appropriate indemnity cover and operate to the highest standards of hygiene, cleanliness and infection control.

The motion notes that the Save Face campaign:

That further reiterates the need for a modern and comprehensive licensing framework. As I mentioned, such a framework was legislated for in England earlier this year, and the Welsh Government launched a consultation on the mandatory licensing of special procedures in Wales. The Scottish Parliament held a similar debate recently. It is concerning that unqualified and unsupervised individuals can handle Botox and dermal fillers for the public without the oversight and insurance policies that we would expect for most other medical procedures. We must act to fill the void in regulating the medical aesthetics industry.

I also welcome the amendment. We will support the call:

It is important, however, to clarify that there are legitimate medical reasons why someone may be injected with Botox. For example, as a treatment to help with hyperhidrosis, or excessive sweating, it is an approved medical treatment that is carried out by professionals in a professional setting. That is an important distinction, which the amendment acknowledges. It states that it should be illegal to administer such procedures:

Indeed, the motion and the amendment reference another important aspect of the debate, which is the growing pressure of social media. Part of that pressure comes from unethical advertising, with social media posts offering such treatments with little further detail or presenting them as online raffles or other gambling advertising. That connects to a concerning trend on social media of encouraging unrealistic and unattainable beauty standards through, for example, the use of filtered images. That can have a significant impact on young people's physical and mental health, and any regulation of the use of aesthetic medicines should consider the threats posed by social media in that regard.

I thank the Sinn Féin Members who tabled the motion and the DUP Members who tabled the amendment. The issue is important and under-discussed. We encourage the Minister to act by introducing a legislative framework similar to the precedent that we have seen set in England.

Dr Aiken: The debate is topical and timely, and I thank the signatories to the motion for bringing it to the House.

In recent years, there has been a rapid growth in the popularity — indeed, even a greater normalisation — of non-surgical cosmetic procedures. A number of reasons lie behind the spike in demand. Perhaps one of its biggest drivers, alongside advancements in technologies and treatments, has been the rise of social media. People of all ages, but especially younger people, now effectively carry around with them 24/7 an infinite advertising display in the form of their smartphone. The cosmetic and personal care sector is booming as a result and is now more accessible than ever before. Although, on the whole, that is a positive, because people are absolutely entitled to spend their hard-earned money as they wish, the sector's rapid growth also carries with it risk. Even though treatments may be classified as non-surgical cosmetic procedures, they still entail making changes to people's physical bodies. It is therefore essential that, at the bare minimum, those undergoing such procedures have confidence that the treatments that they are receiving are safe and of a high standard.

Thankfully, the vast majority of treatments are perfectly routine and safe, and the majority of providers are entirely responsible. My party and I, however, are concerned that there has been such growth in the sector, combined with such a prevalence of information online, that some people may be exposed to an unacceptable level of risk. Indeed, as the motion references, there has been an uptick in the number of complaints being made. Regrettably, the figures will include a number of people who have experienced serious complications as a result of treatments and procedures.

Therefore we support the motion. We also support the amendment because we have concerns about the risk to young people and perhaps, sometimes, those whom we would class as children of receiving such treatments.

As was referenced, England has already implemented an age limit and announced a new regulatory framework. I am sure that the Minister and Department of Health will be closely watching the developments in England. No doubt, there will be important learnings for us to take from the changes being made, and, resources permitting, I am sure that the Department here, just like its counterparts across the rest of our nation, will be keen to explore and make progress on the broader issue, because, ultimately, whilst it is important to strike a balance with consumer choice, consumer safety should be what matters most.

Mr Durkan: The rapidly expanding cosmetic industry and its largely unregulated market are pressing issues that I have been raising concerns about for the past few years. We have all heard horror stories about botched treatments of teenagers — children who are not even legally allowed to buy a pint in a pub undergoing cosmetic procedures that could have life-altering consequences.

In 2022, with limited data available here and in the absence of an Executive, I commissioned a comparative research paper — I thank the Research and Information Service (RaISe) team for their efforts — on non-surgical cosmetic procedures in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain. While the report confirmed many of my suspicions, the dearth of data not just here but across the water is of concern. What is clear is that cosmetic surgery is a lucrative market. The industry in the UK is worth an estimated £3·6 billion. It is no wonder that so many practitioners are diversifying into the field.

The Zoom boom during the pandemic, which saw us all ogling our own images in countless work calls, coupled with social media and the use of online filters, has seen the demand for Botox and fillers skyrocket. I fully understand the positive impact that the procedures can have on people, but people are pitting themselves against impossible standards of perfection. Of course, that is nothing new, but the lack of regulation of licensing and advertising is worrying.

Social media is filled to the brim with influencers promoting the latest on-the-market trends from Barbie Botox to Russian lips. Newsfeeds are filled with posts from individuals testing out a move into those procedures, offering freebie treatments to anyone willing to act as a guinea pig. It is not my intention or that of anyone here to attack the many practitioners and businesses that pride themselves on their high standards; rather, this is about improving the system that they work in.

Registered healthcare professionals performing NSCPs are required to meet the competency standards set by regulatory bodies such as the GMC, but there is no such requirement for non-medical practitioners, regardless of how much or how little training they have received. That creates a Wild West scenario where, essentially, anyone can practise cosmetic procedures without a proper screening process for customers. If you have the cash, you can access the treatment. It leaves individuals under the age of 18 and those with a history of mental health issues such as body dysmorphia completely unprotected under the current system and often unaware of serious and potentially life-altering complications. Therefore, we support the amendment.

It is important to emphasise that, when we talk about botched procedures, we are not referring to just the lack of raised brows or the overdoing of lip filler. The lack of regulation, particularly around hygiene, can have dire, even fatal, consequences, such as sepsis. That not only puts additional pressure on emergency departments and the broader healthcare system but can leave the individual with lifelong physical and emotional scars.

It is clear that government has not kept pace with this booming industry. Worryingly, however, the North will fall even further behind our counterparts elsewhere in these islands, given that the Health Minister has not been in a position to legislate. When I first raised these concerns, there were no active plans for legislative protections. However, since then, the Health and Communities Ministers have expressed to me their willingness to introduce a draft regulatory framework not only for non-surgical cosmetic procedures but for broader regulation of the tattoo and piercing industries.

We urgently need regulation, oversight, better mechanisms for reporting and stricter controls on online advertising to ensure the safety of consumers and prevent the exploitation of vulnerable individuals. That said, any such protections must not harm the livelihoods of the many reputable, conscientious practitioners. We must work with them to create a system that safeguards them and their clients. The industry is not going anywhere; it is here to stay. The Executive need to act now to ensure its safety, rather than wait for disaster to strike.

Ms Bradshaw: I support the motion and the amendment. The start of the motion refers to "greater regulation", but the issue is that, in many instances, there is, in practice, no regulation. The regulation of non-surgical procedures and products is effectively absent in Northern Ireland. Premises must register with their local council, but there are no grounds to reject such a registration. Those acting as health professionals must register with the GMC, but those who offer aesthetic or beauty products or procedures have no means of getting a licence, even if they want to, as many do. That carries a significant risk to consumers, about which we have heard, but it is also totally unfair on competent practitioners, as they have no means of formally demonstrating their professionalism and training, apart from with course certificates.

As I mentioned in a public statement on the topic over a year ago, when, frustratingly, we had no means of legislating to deal with the issue:

as well as, no doubt, in the interests those who wish to provide them competently and safely. At that time, I went on to say that we in Northern Ireland must not be left behind because of our inability to legislate. We now have that ability, yet we are still left behind. I appreciate Mark Durkan's providing an update on what he has been advised; I was not aware of that. This time last year, Scotland had already run a consultation on the topic before the UK Department of Health and Social Care did so for England. Wales is proceeding with similar work. That will likely result in a licensing scheme for providers of procedures such as Botox and dermal fillers. In Northern Ireland, the RQIA has the power to regulate only those who provide laser or intense pulsed light (IPL) cosmetic treatments.

Regulation and licensing would also give us the power to consider two further aspects of the problem here. First, we may wish to raise the age of prohibition to 18, as per the amendment and as has been the case for Botox in England since 2021. I would certainly like to see the Health Committee consult on that. There is also a cross-border element to the matter in that we need to avoid people simply popping across the border to get procedures that may carry significant risk. I am aware that concerns have already been raised in England regarding different regulations or prohibitions in Wales and vice versa.

The second issue concerns the potential prohibition of some procedures altogether, most obviously sunbeds. As a liberal party, we wish to investigate every option short of prohibition, including the improvement and enhancement of public health information. However, the evidence on the overall public health risks of sunbeds is mounting, and countries such as Australia have already moved to outright prohibition.

I very much hope that we will see the issue progressed and investigated by the Health Minister and his departmental officials in order to get us to a position where Northern Ireland at least has licensing and regulation schemes that are similar to those applied elsewhere in the UK. That has clearly been the direction of travel since the start of the decade, and I wish to see no further delay.

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

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I shall deviate from the motion just for a moment to acknowledge that my counterpart in the Government of Ireland, Stephen Donnelly, the Minister for Health, lost his seat in the general election over the weekend. It is a matter of regret for me, because, over the last six months, we had been building a positive relationship and discussing specifics in terms of service delivery on an all-island basis. I look forward to working with the new Government of Ireland when formed.

To the debate, and I thank the movers of the motion and, indeed, of the amendment. I fully empathise with anybody who has been affected in any way and has suffered harm and injury as a result of accessing non-surgical cosmetic products and procedures that have not been administered appropriately. It is an important issue and one that can impact on vulnerable people, in particular. It needs to be addressed if we are to reduce public harm.

I note the significant volume of complaints that Save Face, which registers accredited practitioners and clinics, received in 2022 regarding unregistered practitioners. I have no doubt that those issues have prevailed since 2022. Therefore, it remains important that action be taken to increase public safety and awareness of what can happen when the procedures are not undertaken safely. In April this year, my Department wrote to Save Face regarding high-risk, non-surgical procedures and treatments on those under the age of 18. We acknowledged the importance of the issue to Save Face at the time, and it is a matter of concern to me that there is no minimum age limit.

To give Members a fuller sense of the concerns from other public bodies around these issues, I can advise that, in recent years, the Department has also been contacted by several local councils on the issue of regulation of cosmetic treatments in Northern Ireland and the introduction of a licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures. That is the clear direction of travel in the rest of the UK; indeed, as Members have pointed out, the issue was debated in the Scottish Parliament in October last. My Department therefore recognises the public interest in the area and notes the advocacy by some of the need for statutory regulation. We are aware that the issue of greater regulation is being actively considered by the United Kingdom Government, who have stated a commitment to taking action to address the safety concerns. The new Government are still to set out their position following the consultation in 2023, which was undertaken by the previous Administration.

As Members have heard, in England it is a criminal offence to administer botulinum toxin — Botox — or a filler by way of an injection for a cosmetic purpose to a person under 18, even if they have the permission of somebody who is over 18 years of age. Currently, there is no set minimum age at which a person can avail themselves of the treatments in Northern Ireland, nor is there an age limit in Scotland or Wales. It is essential that people are fully aware and cognisant of the potential consequences before undergoing procedures that could have such long-term effects. The passing in March 2022 of an amendment to the Health and Care Bill gave the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care the power to bring into force a national licensing scheme for aesthetic, non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England. The treatments in question are many and varied and can include things like dermal fillers and other injectables, chemical peels and laser hair removal, to name a few.

I am acutely aware of the wider changing and challenging health and social care service delivery environment, including in relation to cosmetic treatments. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, my Department had developed a new draft regulatory policy framework. However, further development work is required. That will include public consultation on a draft policy. As Members will appreciate, the Health and Social Care system across Northern Ireland is working to address a number of the many profound challenges that it is experiencing. That work, regrettably, has been made many times more difficult by the very constrained budget, and my Department is regularly left with no choice but to make decisions in relation to the work that can be delivered within current resources.

In that context, other critical and priority projects are having to progress ahead of the work on the regulatory policy framework and the review of the regulations here. However, I can assure Members that that remains an important issue for me and the Department.

We will continue to engage with DHSC to keep up to date with the proposals and the progress being made throughout the rest of the UK. That will help us to assess how the approach in Northern Ireland should develop. Currently, as I said, the UK Government are yet to respond to the consultation that was undertaken last year by the previous London Administration, and, given the capacity constraints on my Department, which I have mentioned, it is sensible to await the outcome of the UK Government's thinking on the way forward, unless, of course, that thinking is subject to undue delay.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for giving way. We all fully comprehend the capacity constraints on his Department and the resource constraints therein as well. Given how lucrative the industry is — other contributors have touched on that — does he foresee the possibility of the implementation of a system that would, in effect, pay for itself?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his intervention. By way of a response, it would be timely to say that it is not the case that nothing is happening on interventions. When it comes to enforcement, we rely on the Human Medicines Regulations (HMR) 2012. I can tell the Member and the House that between 2022 and 2024, my Department's medicines regulatory group conducted 65 focused investigations into the unlawful possession, importation, advertisement or supply of unlicensed prescription medicinal products for use in the non-surgical cosmetic sector. To date, three persons have been successfully prosecuted, and a further four prosecutions are pending. In that period, the medicines regulatory group has issued 24 formal advice and warning letters and has seized over 4,000 units of unlicensed Botox and fillers. Work is under way, but a self-financing proposal is certainly one that I am prepared to take under consideration.

Ms Kimmins: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Minister for giving way. You mentioned illegal products and Botox products. Given that you have said that you will keep an eye on what is happening across the water in Britain, I ask that we look at what is happening in the South. The documentary that I mentioned earlier highlighted the black market between the North and South on this island. If legislation and regulation moves at a greater pace in the South, we will be more at risk of greater implications here. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind as well.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Health Committee Chair for the point, which is well made. I am just making the point that if the UK Government are going to announce their way forward in a reasonable time frame, it is worth looking at that. However, we will, effectively, have to quality-assure that against what is happening on the rest of this island, in the other jurisdiction, in order to make sure that we have as much of a seamless way forward as possible and that there are no loopholes that will jar.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes.

Ms Bradshaw: I am sorry: Liz and I spoke at the same time there. First, are the figures that you mentioned UK-wide or are they for Northern Ireland? Secondly, is there a role for councils in the environmental health space in the interim?

Mr Nesbitt: I will come to councils in a moment, if I may. The figures are local figures, which come from the Department's medicines regulatory group.

We are working to ensure compliance with existing laws and guidance. Where evidence or information suggests unlawful practice, the HMR are enforced and, as I said, there have been some successes. We are committed to taking decisive action to combat the illegal promotion, supply or misuse of medicines and to alerting the public about the dangers of misuse outside of the regulated supply chain. I am determined that we will remain vigilant and continue to work with key partner agencies in order to monitor the illicit marketplace.

We will continue to take effective action where necessary in order to protect public safety in Northern Ireland. That may involve developing new legislation or reviewing existing legislation in parallel with public health messaging but also considering the issue more widely to assess current responsibilities with a range of organisations — in addition to the RQIA and my Department — such as the councils. That is because some cosmetic services and therapeutic treatments would normally come under council enforcement for health and safety reasons. Then there is the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI), which is the enforcing authority when these are carried out under the supervision or control of a registered medical practitioner, and trading standards. Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, it is an offence for traders to treat consumers unfairly through misleading actions, misleading omissions, aggressive practices or failing to adhere to the standards of professional diligence.

In summary, I am committed to considering measures to ensure that the products are safe for the people of Northern Ireland who use them and that those products are administered by appropriately trained practitioners. I will therefore continue to make the case for additional resources for my Department in order that, in the interests of public safety, it can respond to the new challenges. I repeat that we will look to see what the UK Government do or do not say in their response to the 2023 consultation and test that against the provisions from the Government of Ireland in order to ensure that we deliver best practice and close off any potential loopholes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for that response, Minister. I call Paul Frew to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Paul, you have up to five minutes.

Mr Frew: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the Minister for being present to respond to the debate on this important issue.

It is essential that we seek to minimise the chance of vulnerable people being exploited. We need to be confident that treatments are safe and of a high standard. A balance needs to be struck between acknowledging personal consumer choice and protecting the public and building confidence in the safety of the industry.

An increasing number of people describe dissatisfaction with their body image. In some cases, that may be exacerbated by mental health difficulties. The timeline for that issue is not unrelated to the rise of social media and so-called influencers. The number of people who undergo non-surgical cosmetic procedures is increasing. There is a growing number of high-street providers, and the procedures are becoming more normalised. Examples include Botox, anti-wrinkle injections, dermal fillers, chemical peels and energy-based treatments. They are mostly carried out by private providers. Botox injections are not licensed for cosmetic use but can be used off licence. The review of the regulation of cosmetic interventions, which was carried out more than a decade ago, singled out dermal fillers as being "a crisis waiting to happen". The use of anabolic steroids for cosmetic purposes has increased, bringing with it long-term risks of cardiovascular disease and brain changes. Many dangerous procedures are undertaken abroad.

The British Beauty Council reported that the cosmetic and personal care sector contributed £24·5 billion to UK GDP in 2022. People currently have to register to carry out procedures such as tattooing, semi-permanent make-up, piercing and acupuncture. It would be unacceptable if that were not also the case for cosmetic procedures, which have the potential to cause real damage. It is essential that those who carry out such procedures are competent and safe. They need to be properly trained and qualified and should have indemnity cover. Hygiene, infection control and cleanliness must be strictly adhered to. The risks are much greater when the person who carries out a procedure is not sufficiently qualified, uses unregulated products or operates in unsuitable premises. Potential clients need to be certain that practitioners are adequately insured and of the extent of the aftercare that they offer. Save Face provides a UK Government-approved register for medical aesthetic procedures. Members of the public can also have a greater degree of assurance if individuals belong to organisations such as the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons or the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners. Save Face received over 150 complaints about Brazilian butt lifts between February and April this year, more than half of which had reportedly resulted in sepsis.

Clear standards and requirements can be established for every type of procedure and could be applied uniformly across the UK. Training needs to be of a good standard and fully accredited. There should be periodic inspections of facilities, with clear standards for infection control. Those inspections should incorporate practitioners who work from home. That is a massive issue in the cosmetic industry: many people who rent premises are disadvantaged by the fact that there are people who work from home. There should be full transparency for consumers about who is licensed and the procedures that they are licensed to perform. There should also be access to a redress scheme. Predatory advertising can use doctored images, and it should be a requirement to make it clear when that is the case.

I will recap some of the contributions. Liz Kimmins related examples of when people lost their lives. She said that it "beggars belief" that there is no regulation. She talked about the situation in the Republic of Ireland and asked the Health Minister to bring forward options for regulation. My colleague Alan Robinson said that "safety must always come first." We support further regulation in this sector. He talked about the cost to the NHS when something goes badly wrong. He also talked about social media pressure, especially on young people, a concern that was echoed in every contribution.

Danny Donnelly talked about the industry, the costs involved, the licensing scheme in England and unethical adverts on social media. Steve Aiken discussed how the rise in demand correlated with the rise of social media. He said that consumer safety should be the most important issue. Mark Durkan said that the unregulated industry —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I am afraid that your time is up.

Mr Frew: I will leave it there. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Nicola Brogan to make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Miss Brogan: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank all the Members who participated in the debate. I thank the Minister for being here — for listening and responding — and Paul Frew for summarising Members' comments.

Sinn Féin tabled the motion because it is clear that the lack of regulation in the non-surgical cosmetic industry is putting lives at risk. These are not abstract numbers or distant problems; these are friends, family members and neighbours who are being harmed when they seek treatments. The facts speak for themselves. As a number of Members said, Save Face reported nearly 3,000 cases of harm caused by unregistered practitioners. Each of those cases represents a person who trusted someone to enhance their appearance but was left with injuries, disfigurement or worse.

Now, we see cases where non-medical practitioners perform what can only be described as life-threatening surgical procedures such as thread lifts and fat-dissolving injections. Those treatments are being carried out in unsafe environments by individuals with no medical training and without proper aftercare. The consequences can be catastrophic: blindness, severe infections, tissue necrosis, permanent scarring and even death are real risks. It is not just happening in distant places; it happens here because our current system allows anyone, regardless of qualifications, to set up shop and start offering treatments without oversight, training or accountability.

The problem is not just about bad techniques or unskilled practitioners. The treatments involve sensitive, medical-grade products that need to be stored and administered with precision. Without proper training, practitioners risk clients' health, safety and trust. When things go wrong, the damage is often irreversible, not just physically but emotionally and financially.

The motion calls for stricter regulation and accountability measures to ensure that only qualified, trained and regulated professionals are allowed to perform the procedures. Voluntary registers like Save Face do excellent work to set standards, but voluntary measures are not enough. We need enforceable laws to make safety the standard, not the exception. We also need to increase public awareness and improve public understanding of the issues. Too often, people are lured by cheap deals that they see on social media or in glossy advertisements. They are unaware of the risks. Many do not know what qualifications they should look for in a practitioner or what questions they should ask. It is our duty to empower the public with the knowledge that they need to make informed, safe choices.

This is not about limiting anyone's ability to choose cosmetic procedures; it is about ensuring that, when people make that choice, their health and safety are protected. It is about protecting lives, preventing harm and creating an industry that operates on trust, professionalism and accountability. I urge colleagues to support the motion. I am glad that so many Members have spoken in support of the motion and the amendment. Together, we can make a meaningful change that protects people across our communities from unnecessary risk and harm.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for concluding the debate.