Official Report: Tuesday 03 December 2024

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I wrote to the Attorney General to raise a query about the legality of the democratic consent vote that is due to be held in the Chamber next week. Section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 provides that the Windsor framework must be applied "without prejudice" to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, which means that the suspension of article 6 of the Acts of Union is unsustainable. Will you confirm that the consent vote will not be held before the Attorney General's advice as to its legality is obtained?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, I will pass that on to the Speaker's Office, which will get back to you in due course.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should rise in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes in which to make their statement. Members, you already know this, but I remind you that interventions will not be permitted and that points of order will not be taken until after the item of business has finished.

Mr Kearney: Inniu táimid ag ceiliúradh Lá Idirnáisiúnta na nDaoine faoi Mhíchumas. Tugaimid aitheantas don mhaith a dhéanann daoine faoi mhíchumas do leas an phobail. Aithnímid fosta na deacrachtaí a bhíonn ann do dhaoine faoi mhíchumas rochtain a fháil ar sheirbhísí, fostaíocht agus deiseanna eile atá neamhiontach ag daoine eile sa phobal.

Bíodh gur tionscnaíodh Lá Idirnáisiúnta na nDaoine faoi Mhíchumas thiar sa bhliain 1992 is amhlaidh a chuirtear go fóill constaicí go leor i mbealach daoine faoi mhíchumas.

Bhí díospóireacht againn an tseachtain seo caite ar Choinbhinsiún na Náisiún Aontaithe ar Chearta Daoine faoi Mhíchumas a bheith ina chuid den dlí againn anseo. Is cinnte go mbeadh sin ina chuidiú le daoine faoi mhíchumas a chosaint, ach tá rud is suntasaí ná sin a thiocfadh linn a dhéanamh: cluas le héisteacht a thabhairt dóibh. Is ag na daoine faoi mhíchumas iad féin is fearr a fhios cad é atá le déanamh.

"Faic fúinn, gan chead uainn," sin mana atá ag an ghluaiseacht dhomhanda ar son chearta na ndaoine faoi mhíchumas. Thiocfadh linn uile go léir rud éigin a fhoghlaim ón mhana chéanna. Caithfear barúlacha agus tuairimí daoine faoi mhíchumas a chur san áireamh i ngach aon dlí dá rithimid sa Teach seo.

Ní bhfaighimis de chroí dlíthe a rith thar ceann cuid ar bith eile den phobal gan na dlíthe sin a cheadú leo ar dtús. Leoga, bíonn próiseas comhairliúcháin againn agus bíonn comhrá againn leis na daoine a rachaidh an dlí i bhfeidhm orthu. Cad chuige nach ndéanfaimis amhlaidh i gcás daoine faoi mhíchumas? Tá an ceart ar fad acu nuair a deir siad, "Faic fúinn gan chead uainn."

Ba cheart do lucht déanta beartas cluas a chur orthu féin ach chan é sin amháin, ba cheart daoine faoi mhíchumas a bheith i measc lucht ceannais láithreach bonn.

Mr Bradley: I rise to highlight the further delay to the commencement of work on Portstewart's Merrow hotel and spa complex, which will be a tourist destination of immense benefit to the tourism offering in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area. The hotel project has finally been approved, following prolonged legal disputes that were led, in the main, by North Antrim MP Jim Allister, on behalf of objectors.

Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council's planning committee approved the £20 million Merrow hotel and spa complex in Portstewart on Wednesday 28 August 2024, despite further submissions being made. The project has been beset by objections since it was first introduced by C&V Developments in 2016. Located near the start and finish lines of the renowned North West 200 motorcycle race, the project has faced several legal challenges over the years. The project now faces further delay, with the application sitting on the Minister for Infrastructure's desk waiting to see whether it will be called in. I checked with the council yesterday, and it said that it had written to the Department on 3 September and 12 September to seek guidance on the application's status. I asked the Department for an update on 7 November, and there has been further correspondence from Gregory Campbell MP. The council issued additional correspondence on 28 November, but the Department for Infrastructure has not replied. Paragraph 11.2 of the Department's guidelines on processing a call-in application states that it has a 28-day period within which to reply. The council sought guidance on 3 September, and it is now 3 December: two months later and still no guidance has been issued by the Department.

A new hotel on the north coast would provide much-needed accommodation, create various employment opportunities, offer training and support local businesses. If the planning application is subject to a call in, it faces further political delay. Mr Speaker — sorry, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker — I urge Minister O'Dowd to issue guidance to allow the project to commence and be built and functioning in time for the Open golf tournament and the North West 200.

Apologies.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You are grand, Maurice. Do not worry about it: I get called lots of things.

Mr Blair: I want to take a moment to reflect on the significance of World Wildlife Conservation Day, which is celebrated annually on 4 December. World Wildlife Conservation Day was envisioned and set in motion 12 years ago by then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. The day was established by a pledge by the US State Department, which committed it to the vital cause of safeguarding wildlife species across the globe. Charities such as the World Wildlife Fund use 4 December to remind people of the urgent need to protect endangered species and their habitats. Over the past 12 years, we have made some strides in wildlife conservation. However, we have a long journey to make before we can truly commend ourselves for the progress that has been made.

The day offers an opportunity for us to reflect on our planet's astounding biodiversity and acknowledge the essential role that wildlife plays in sustaining the fragile balance of our ecosystems. Regardless of size, each species serves a specific function that supports our existence, yet we are confronted with a grim reality as our wildlife grapples with relentless threats, including habitat destruction caused by human expansion, the far-reaching impacts of climate change, the extensive dangers of pollution and the cruel practice of blood sports.

The alarming speed at which species are vanishing poses a severe risk to the natural world and, ultimately, humanity. Our well-being is intricately linked to the health of the ecosystems around us as they are connected to the processes that provide us with clean air, drinkable water and a sustainable food supply. Protecting wildlife is therefore synonymous with preserving our future. The importance of defending our planet's diverse creatures cannot be overstated. That involves igniting a passion for nature in future generations so that they, too, will appreciate its beauty and understand the urgent need to preserve it.

There are constant and dangerous threats to the local natural habitat. Our damaged and delicate ecosystems face many pressures, not least from pollution locally. Lough Neagh presents a current stark reminder of that. Members will know that Belfast lough is also presenting serious problems. It was most disappointing to me, therefore, that, just last week, the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, refused to support efforts to reverse leniency on penalties based on cross-compliance in the agri sector. Those would simply have reverted to a previously held position and used penalties as a deterrent to breaches of matters including pollution. We really need to do better than that.

I am sure that I will have more to say on the matter when the political reaction to the next Lough Neagh crisis starts. It is crucial that we recognise —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, John.

Mr Blair: — our responsibility to actively protect our natural world for generations to come —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Blair: — through actions as well as words.

Mr Butler: What date is it? It is 3 December. May I wish you a happy Christmas, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker? I am a Christmassy type of person, but I often have to catch myself on when December starts and I play my Christmas music and get really happy, because the reality for many people across the world is that they have illness or sickness, and, for them, Christmas can be a really challenging time.

I am not sure whether you were listening to the radio this morning, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Kevin Sinfield, the Leeds Rhinos legend, is visiting Belfast today to raise awareness of motor neurone disease. Obviously, motor neurone disease affects people globally. Here in the UK, around 5,000 people a year are diagnosed and live with motor neurone disease. It is a debilitating and, ultimately, painful disease for those who have it and the families who support them.

Kevin and the Leeds Rhinos team have taken on a challenge. I think that this is their third year. Last year, they were in Dublin. Today, they are in Belfast. It is the 7 in 7 in 7 challenge. Over seven days, they are running 7 kilometres in seven regions and trying to do each 7 kilometres in an hour. I think that they are called ultramarathons. I know how hard it is to run 5 kilometres, never mind 7 kilometres. The team are doing it with a team of volunteers to raise awareness and, hopefully, money to combat what is a dreadful disease that affects far too many people.

When I worked in Springfield Road fire station many years ago, in the early 2000s, there was a very fit, popular and good firefighter who, in his early forties, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. Sadly, he lost his battle after three or four years. We know that, often, it can be lonely for people with the disease, but a team of people in the Motor Neurone Disease Association will walk those steps with those who suffer and their families and support them on their journey. That is really important. What we can do is face into the challenge that affects those people. We can support them, raise awareness, hope and pray and put finances and resources towards, perhaps, one day, achieving a cure for that dreadful disease.

I put on record my thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of the Chamber to Kevin Sinfield for what he is doing in memory of his Leeds Rhinos teammate Rob Burrow. To all who are navigating their lives with motor neurone disease, I say this: we see you, we hear you and we will support you in your battle.

Mr McGuigan: This Saturday, 7 December, is Small Business Saturday. The initiative, now in its twelfth year, aims to encourage people to visit their local town centres and support local traders and businesses. Essentially, it is to encourage people to shop and trade locally and to support the many micro and small businesses across the North that are the engine of our local economy and local communities.

Recently, we had a debate in the Chamber on rejuvenating our high streets. The consensus across the Chamber was that the hospitality sector, local traders and independent retailers play a vital role. There was agreement not only on their economic value but on their role in creating vibrant centres where we can live, work and socialise. That is certainly the case in the main towns in my constituency of North Antrim: Ballycastle, Ballymena and Ballymoney.

As we go about our Christmas preparations, Small Business Saturday presents a timely reminder to look to the small traders and independent retailers who can offer unique products and fresh produce with a shorter supply chain, as well as showcasing local talent in arts and crafts, bakeries, restaurants and much more.

If we want to see our high streets not just surviving but thriving, we need to play our part in promoting and supporting them. This Saturday offers a great opportunity to do so.

Mr T Buchanan: TB has been a long-standing and challenging problem for farmers in Northern Ireland. Following the recent publication by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Chief Veterinary Officer of a 90-page review, it is extremely disappointing to find that TB is far from being resolved. It is clear that the Department has little or no intention of taking any meaningful action to tackle the crisis that is happening across Northern Ireland.

The scale of the problem is alarming. Northern Ireland continues to face one of the highest rates of TB in Europe, and, in the first half of 2024, there was a 22·5% increase in the number of cases compared with previous years. DAERA's efforts to control the spread of TB to date, at a cost of £55·7 million in 2023-24, have been unsuccessful. In fact, the Northern Ireland Audit Office stated:

it cannot be argued that it is the best value for money.

The bovine tuberculosis eradication strategy for Northern Ireland was launched by my colleague, who was the AERA Minister at that time, Edwin Poots, and it consisted of 21 recommendations that would have enabled the eventual eradication of TB. However, it is disappointing to find that, as we stand here, the majority of those recommendations were not implemented and that, given the increasing scale of TB infections, the Department has now stated that that strategy is no longer sustainable.

Scientific studies all suggest that the most effective way to reduce the spread of TB is through wildlife intervention. Culling infected badgers is necessary to break the cycle of infection between wildlife and cattle. Culling, alongside the long-term aim of moving to a vaccination-only approach, is the only way that progress on reducing the number of TB infections can be made. No other method has worked thus far.

Farmers bear the burden of the Department's inaction on the continued spread of TB, with substantial financial losses due to herd restrictions, the loss of prized livestock and disruption to farm operations. It is therefore vital that the Department safeguards and protects the livelihoods of farmers and farming families by making the eradication of TB a priority. I hope that the Minister is listening today when I say this to him: continuing to kick the can down the road will not solve the problem. We need an effective eradication programme. The Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) has asked:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Tom.

Mr T Buchanan: —

2025?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr T Buchanan: I trust that the Minister is listening and that he will take cognisance of the issue.

Mr Donnelly: As has been mentioned, today is International Day of Persons with Disabilities. It is appropriate that we take time to consider the continuing barriers that people with disabilities face in our society. The theme for this year is:

It is right that we seek to amplify the voices of the many passionate and determined campaigners who improve the lives of people with disabilities in Northern Ireland. Organisations such as Disability Action, the Inclusive Mobility and Transport Advisory Committee (IMTAC), My Way Access, Mencap and many more have been working here for years to support and advocate the rights of people with disabilities.

Last week, we debated the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) into our local law. It was encouraging that the Assembly endorsed that essential legislative change. The UNCRPD is recognised as the gold standard for equality rights. While the UK has been a signatory since 2009, it has not sought to fully incorporate the convention, and political instability here has resulted in a widening gap in equality legislation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

Today, I am launching a public consultation on a Member's Bill that would introduce a new "due regard" principle on public authorities in respect of our obligations under the UNCRPD. Such a Bill would represent a positive first step towards recognising the importance of the UNCRPD and improving the conditions for people with disabilities in all aspects of life. Given the shortened time that we have to legislate, equality for people with disabilities cannot be postponed any longer or delayed until the next mandate. I look forward to engaging with other Members and continuing to engage with the relevant sectors to develop the proposal. I encourage everyone to read and respond to the consultation.

Mrs Mason: At the end of last week, I met a large group of local principals and special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) to discuss the critical issues facing the special educational needs system in our schools, following widespread concern among school leaders in response to the Department's comments about the role of SENCOs. Following the meeting, it was clear that there is a disconnect between the Department, the Education Authority and the stark reality of SEN provision in our schools. Parents of children placed in the new specialist provision in mainstream (SPiM) classes shared their struggles and highlighted the constant battles they face to secure an appropriate education for their children. The stories paint a deeply troubling picture of the current state of SEN provision.

The challenges faced by children, families and educators in South Down highlight the urgent need for a major transformation of how SEN services are delivered. Without swift and meaningful action, I am deeply worried about the future of those children and their families. The staff who deliver the support to children with SEN are underpaid and under-resourced and feel undervalued. Those professionals keep the system afloat despite limited resources and ever-increasing demands, but their goodwill and determination cannot be relied on indefinitely.

At the heart of the issue are the children and families who rely on the SEN system. Parents across South Down have told me about the delays in assessments and statements that are creating an unacceptable backlog and leaving schools to manage complex needs without the necessary resources or specialist input from allied health professionals. That is having a profound impact on principals, teachers, support staff, children and families alike. One parent whom I spoke to whose child was placed in one of the new SPiM classes spoke of the sheer exhaustion caused by the constant battles for assessments, statements, places and even basic communication. That is not an isolated experience, and it reflects a wider failure in the system that forces families to fight for what should be a fundamental right: access to education.

The Department must now step up and listen. Without urgent and meaningful transformation, the future for too many children in South Down and, indeed, across the North will be compromised. Every child deserves the opportunity to thrive, and every family deserves to feel supported, not obstructed, by the education system. The time for action is now.

Mr Frew: I rise today to talk about the support group Parents 4 PEGs. The group came to Stormont yesterday, and it fights — families, parents and friends — for their children, who have complex medical requirements and needs and thus have to be fed through a tube. Many of the children are still in prams or wheelchairs, and, for most if not all of their short lives, they have had to be fed through a tube. The tube goes up their nose and down their throat.

Some of the children have to use the tube for 17 hours a day, every day of their short lives, but that can be fixed by a simple procedure that takes up to 15 minutes to replace the tube with one that goes directly into the child's stomach. The procedure only takes up to 15 minutes, yet there are over 90 children in Northern Ireland who suffer this impact even though they have complicated medical needs and have to be fed through a tube that goes up their nose and down their throat. For the life of me, I do not know why those small vulnerable children cannot be served by our health service. Many of the children have to go to London to have the procedure done. All of them are on a waiting list; some have been waiting for years. It is not fair, it is not right, and the health service should sort it out.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, did you stand up to make a Member's statement at this late stage? OK. Go ahead.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker, for clarifying that. In the season of goodwill, I appreciate your festive spirit in letting me in briefly.

I want to talk about a couple of developments in a really wonderful community — Carryduff — that is part of my constituency. Carryduff is one of the most vibrant, community-spirited parts of South Belfast, which will soon, for the purposes of the Assembly, be Belfast South and Mid Down.

In the last little while, there have been some really positive developments in the Carryduff community, and I just want to highlight them. Two of its brilliant local sports clubs, Carryduff GAC and the Carryduff Colts soccer club, have been rightly honoured for their amazing work. Carryduff GAC was named Down GAA club of the year. In the last couple of years, it celebrated its half-century. It has been an extraordinary achievement. It is now one of the fastest-growing and strongest senior clubs in the county. It is what is called a "dual code club": it is strong in both hurling and football; indeed, it is challenging for championships, certainly in football and possibly in hurling. Carryduff Colts is a glorious local football club. It has one of the largest and fastest-growing memberships in all of Northern Ireland. It won the Irish Football Association's regional amateur club of the year.

There is a wonderful local community group; indeed, Michelle Guy, who is in the Chamber and was just in a meeting with me, has been a strong supporter of that too over the years. The local Carryduff Regeneration Forum has done a huge amount of work to develop and grow Carryduff as a community.

The reason I say all this is that Carryduff, through local sports clubs, community organisations and community regeneration, has done a huge amount, and we will see evidence of that in the weeks to come around Christmas. However, it has never properly had support from its local council. That whole area of what is called "BT8" — the postcode of Castlereagh South — which includes Carryduff, Newtownbreda and Four Winds, contributes a huge amount in rates revenue to Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council. However, it gets a frankly shameful amount of support from local government, so it relies on those great community institutions — Carryduff GAC, the Carryduff Colts, Carryduff Regeneration Forum and others — to deliver for it.

In the next couple of weeks, we will see a really positive development in Carryduff, which is the opening of a new Lidl supermarket. That might seem to be a modest development, but it has been really longed for and long-awaited and has been literally a decade in the making for Carryduff. It is a really important development.

Going forward, however, we need more, and I want more for that community. I want more investment in the public realm. I want more investment in public transport for Carryduff, including, ideally, the extension of Glider phase 2, assuming that it is delivered, all the way to Carryduff to reduce congestion down the Saintfield Road to properly build and grow that community and make it sustainable and liveable in a way that the terrific residents of Carryduff and the groups that support them deserve.

Ms Sheerin: I congratulate Robert Emmet's GAC Slaughtneil on retaining an Ulster title on Sunday after a spectacular victory over Portaferry, when the team came from eight points down to eventually win by three points. I congratulate the people of Slaughtneil on again becoming Ulster champions. As my wee friend Patrick McMullan always says to me, "Up the Robbies". There will be plenty of people shouting, "Up the Robbies" from now on.

Mr Martin: This morning, I rise to talk about dogs — super dogs. These dogs use a combination of air scenting and terrain training to locate missing and vulnerable people in any environment. Those amazing canines can cover a search area in half the time it would take a dozen humans.

The organisation is called K9 Search and Rescue. It is a professional, voluntary team that uses specialist search dogs to locate missing people across Northern Ireland and abroad. Last week, I had the opportunity to meet one of those four-legged heroes, the longest-serving canine, Max — also the name of our cockapoo — who has been leading the way on life-saving missions for more than seven years. K9 has 13 canines and 22 volunteer dog handlers.

The organisation has also trained some of its live-victim dogs as urban search-and-rescue dogs to help to locate people in collapsed structures, and they have been used in the aftermath of the 2023 Turkey/Syria earthquake and at the Creeslough explosion. Making the group a success are the incredible team members, who are entirely voluntary and on call 24 hours a day, balancing that commitment with their personal and professional lives. As it stands, the group receives no government funding and relies completely on public donations. The volunteers have met the cost of their own training and equipment, and, to give some context to that, training one dog over a year costs about £8,000.

The most incredible aspect of this story is that K9 Search and Rescue has been declined membership of the Northern Ireland Search and Rescue Practitioners Group by the Justice Minister on the grounds that there is "no service gap". That decision renders statutory agencies such as the PSNI and coastguard powerless to task K9 Search and Rescue directly, even though it may be in a position to assist in a search but, through red tape, cannot. Given that we hear regularly in the Chamber about legitimate shortages in Departments, it is, frankly, astounding that, in the case of an organisation that requires no resources, is fully qualified and is offering its service for free, the Department of Justice is refusing its help. In 2021-22, the PSNI received over 10,000 missing person calls. That is nearly 200 people a week. K9's purpose is to be life-saving, and given that there is no question about its professionalism and competence, it makes no rational sense to me for it to be made redundant by a Department at a time of extreme human need and distress. I call on the Justice Minister to urgently reflect on her decision and change it to the right one.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Brett: I rise to raise my concerns about how the Northern Ireland guard force has been treated in Northern Ireland by the Ministry of Defence. The Northern Ireland guard force provides armed protection to 11 Army Reserve camps across Northern Ireland, including in my constituency, which is also yours, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, at Dunmore in North Belfast. The role of the Northern Ireland guard force is to protect people and personnel as they carry out the vital work of the reserve services. It is its responsibility to search vehicles and to ensure that the public using those centres are protected. After many years of its members' dedication and brave service to the people of Northern Ireland, the Ministry of Defence earlier this year informed them that it plans to replace their roles. Members were told that their roles would be replaced by 2028 and that that would be done in clear consultation with current staff. Just two months ago, members of the force were informed that their roles would now be replaced in 2025, and that was done without any consultation or any due regard to the brave and dedicated service that members of the force have given for many years. There is no guarantee that they will be able to apply for those new roles, there is no guarantee that they will be given the same terms and conditions if they are granted the new roles and there is no guarantee that they will have continuation of service, which, as Members will be aware, will be vital to their pension contributions. Having spoken to members of the force, I know that their disappointment at how they have been treated is palpable.

The principles of the army are clear: courage, discipline, respect for others, integrity, loyalty and selfless commitment. The brave men and women of this force have shown those attributes in spades, however the Ministry of Defence has not. It has shown disrespect for their past service and disrespect for their future work. Today, I put on record my thanks to these brave men and women, who have provided armed guards and protection to people right across Northern Ireland during our darkest times. They have stood at our side to ensure that they were able to protect members of the public, and I and this party will continue to stand by them until the Ministry of Defence overturns its disgraceful decision.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker's Office has received notice from the Minister of Education that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate or long introductions.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I want to address the Assembly on the important topic of how we can enhance and support the educational experience of our young people through targeted, strategic capital investment in our schools. Investment in the schools estate is not just about how much money we spend but how well we spend it. Today, I am signalling a new approach to investment in our schools. I want to end the game of winners and losers: a situation where, given the limited budget, there are great facilities and opportunities for the few, but the many have to make do and mend.

In launching my new curriculum-led capital investment programme to support teaching and learning, I am determined to make sure that every child in every school feels the benefits of capital investment through a range of high-impact, lower-cost projects. The best investment is not necessarily the one with the highest cost; it is the one that has the greatest impact on children’s learning. Every child deserves access to the resources and equipment that will help them discover their full potential. The new curriculum-led capital investment programme will ensure that every pound of funding is used effectively to provide the tools and resources that will lead to the very best outcomes for our children and young people. That means smarter spending, focusing on what really works for pupils.

Historically, my Department’s capital programme has focused on new builds and major extension and refurbishment projects. Those large projects are extremely important but, unfortunately, can only be provided to a limited number of schools. Curriculum-related capital investment outside those programmes has, to date, been very limited. In recent years, smaller capital works have been restricted to emergency and statutory schemes to keep schools open and children safe. That is not acceptable. The aim of the new curriculum-led capital investment programme is, therefore, to invest in priority areas across the education system that will directly support, enable and enhance delivery of the curriculum in Northern Ireland. The programme will target for investment areas of learning across the curriculum, including physical education, science and technology and drama.

We have very strong evidence that inadequate facilities are having a key impact on the delivery of PE in our schools. It will, therefore, be the initial focus of the first stage of the programme, with a call launched for outdoor covered sports spaces for primary schools and synthetic pitches and sports halls for post-primary schools. The focus on PE will be supplemented by specific annual priorities to refresh resources and equipment more widely. That will allow us to target investment flexibly at key areas of need.

High-quality resources support high-quality learning and teaching. Therefore, this year, I will provide £10 million of funding, which will roll out outdoor play equipment for all nursery and primary schools. It will also deliver 15,000 new desktop computers across all post-primary and special schools and, as previously announced, defibrillators to all schools in Northern Ireland. The curriculum-led programme will ensure that every pupil in every school will benefit from capital investment to improve curriculum delivery. To quote Socrates — the Greek philosopher, not the Brazilian footballer that I knew:

With the right resources, we ignite curiosity and a lifelong love of learning.

So, why is PE being selected as the initial area of focus within the curriculum? The simple answer is that we know that the effective delivery of PE is often hampered by inadequate facilities. PE should be not only a key element of the curriculum but a central part of children’s overall development. There is growing consensus on the need for PE and sport to be positioned at the core of the curriculum. PE has a wide range of physical and emotional benefits, from developing muscle and bone strength, increasing concentration and improving educational performance and learning to boosting mood and reducing the risk of many lifestyle-related diseases. Developing regular physical activity in childhood is crucial. We know that children who are active are more likely to become active adults and to continue to reap the benefits of an active lifestyle throughout their life. In recent years, a growing evidence base has suggested that physical activity has the potential to support learning more broadly. Research has shown that physical activity can improve short-term memory, reaction time and creativity. It increases attention span, coordination and complex thinking and enhances behaviour and academic achievement. There is also a significant body of evidence that engagement of young people in high-quality PE supports the development of life skills such as leadership, organisation, communication, resilience and problem-solving, yet we know that our schools are frequently held back by having poor facilities.

In 2022, the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) thematic evaluation of PE highlighted the inequity in current facilities, with 30% of our schools having inadequate accommodation to plan for and deliver the PE curriculum effectively. Equally, the ETI highlighted the excellent practice that can exist when the right facilities are in place. We know that fewer than a quarter of schools are delivering the recommended two hours a week of PE. That contrasts with England, where the most recent PE subject report published by Ofsted found that most primary schools and about half of secondary schools timetable a minimum of two hours a week of PE.

The time has come to address those critical gaps in our school infrastructure. Many smaller primary schools in particular lack reasonably sized hall accommodation that is suitable for PE. Having to utilise available hall space for dining and all other school activities further reduces its availability for PE. Covered outdoor sports spaces can provide a lower-cost and convenient way in which to encourage and support a variety of sports activities. Such spaces have been utilised to good effect in the schools estate in England and Scotland. I am therefore announcing a pilot project to provide outdoor covered sports spaces at 20 primary schools. The application process will require schools to implement a minimum of two hours a week of curricular PE as a condition of funding and to participate in self- and external evaluation of the project. I am pleased that, to inform future investment, the ETI will evaluate the impact of the pilot facilities on the delivery of PE. Similarly, there remain post-primary schools without separate sports halls and on-site access to synthetic sports pitches. That needs to change.

Over the coming weeks, my Department will launch the application process for the pilot project. One of the most exciting aspects of the programme is that it will help ensure more equitable access to PE across all schools. Whether you are a pupil in a large urban post-primary school or a small village primary school, the programme will help increase opportunities for high-quality PE. I invite all principals, teachers, parents and pupils to embrace the new programme. It is time for us to recognise the critical role that modern, well-maintained PE facilities play in the success of our pupils. We are giving them the tools that they need to be not only successful students but confident, well-rounded individuals who are ready to take on the challenges of tomorrow. I hope to ensure that high-quality PE is at the heart of every school and that every child can discover the joys and benefits of an active lifestyle.

I will turn now to the annual investment streams for equipment and resources. This year, I am investing over £5 million through the programme to provide 15,000 computers to refresh completely the desktop stock at post-primary and special schools. Not all educational technology is equally effective, but, when used appropriately, it can improve education outcomes for all. It is not a substitute for good teachers or good teaching, but, in the hands of great teachers, it can be transformational, yet 42% of principals in Northern Ireland, when responding to the programme for international student assessment (PISA) in 2022 indicated that a lack of digital resources was a key barrier to teaching.

For our pupils to stay ahead, we must ensure that our schools are equipped with the best possible digital equipment. In this age of rapid technological advancements, computers have become indispensable in every area of life. From enhancing teaching and learning to facilitating communication, research and creative expression, computers are essential to modern education.

I am conscious that not every student has the same access to technology at home. By providing computers in schools, we level the playing field, ensuring that all students, regardless of their background or socio-economic status, have equal access to digital tools and opportunities. Investing in new computers for schools is not just an investment in technology; it is an investment in our future. It is a promise to our children that we are committed to their education, their growth and their success. The programme will ensure that every child, regardless of where they live, has access to the tools and resources that they need to succeed in the digital age.

Alongside the investment in computers for schools, I am delighted to announce a £4 million investment in outdoor play equipment for nursery and primary schools. Funding will be provided directly to schools to buy the equipment that they need most. There is an increasing understanding of the importance and value of outdoor play across all phases in the early years sector to promote the learning, development, resilience, health and sense of well-being of young children. For the vast majority of children, the opportunity to play outside when not in school is in decline. Therefore, outdoor learning needs to be a core component of every child's educational experience. It is an essential tool for fostering physical health, cognitive development, social skills and a connection to the environment. Appropriate equipment is a key element of high-quality outdoor learning.

The investment is a clear commitment to enriching the educational experience of our youngest learners and ensuring that they have access to safe, engaging and stimulating environments where they can grow and thrive. From climbing frames and balance beams to interactive play panels and sensory gardens, the resources will offer endless opportunities for children to explore, create and learn in the outdoors. Cost-effective investment will create a dynamic and engaging outdoor learning environment for our children.

Today, I have announced the first annual priorities for investment, which have been informed by recent inspection evidence and wider research as well as my extensive engagement with school leaders during the past 10 months. In the coming months, I will work closely with our educators to shape the annual priorities for future years. Early in the new year, my officials will launch a detailed survey for schools that will aim to pinpoint further areas where additional investment in equipment, resources and facilities is particularly needed and will significantly enhance curriculum delivery.

The curriculum-led capital investment programme represents a major step forward in our commitment to providing the best possible education for every child. By investing in equipment and facilities that directly support the curriculum, we are ensuring that our education system is aligned with the needs of the modern world. It is an investment not just in buildings and infrastructure but in the future of our education system. It is an investment that ensures that every child has better access to the resources, equipment and opportunities that will unlock their full potential.

Let me be clear: I will continue to make the case for much-needed higher levels of capital investment in our schools estate. There has been a legacy of underinvestment. We have to address the ageing schools estate and the requirement for additional specialist places for the rapidly increasing numbers of children with special educational needs, yet I am equally determined to make the most of the capital funding that is available to enhance learning and teaching for all our children. From technology upgrades to sports and play equipment and outdoor learning spaces, high-impact, lower-cost capital projects offer opportunities to enhance the learning environment for pupils across Northern Ireland. By making thoughtful, strategic investments, we can create school environments that are more engaging and supportive of pupils' learning across the curriculum. Effective spending in schools is not just about the quantity of funding but about how well that money is used to empower teachers and inspire pupils. A well-resourced classroom is a powerful engine of possibility. The right tools do not just support learning; they inspire it.

Our children need and deserve the investment, so, today I set out my unwavering commitment to providing the best resources possible for our children's physical and academic success. I finish by reminding the Assembly that money spent on our schools is never a cost; it is an investment in the future.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for this positive statement of intent and investment.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Durkan: Many schools and students will be delighted to hear of an overdue upgrade of their computer facilities that will enhance access and educational opportunities across the board. Investment in PE is also massively welcome, given the indisputable health benefits that it brings. Can the Minister assure us that that there will be a level playing field for the pilot and that he will ensure a good geographical spread of successful projects?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his warm words in welcoming the announcement today. It is absolutely good news for our children and young people across Northern Ireland. We will take forward the pilot scheme, which I referenced, for the 20 primary schools. We will set out the criteria that we will use to do that as we seek applications. I assure the Member that I will seek to have as wide a geographical spread as I can, but I can provide more details to him on how we will take forward that pilot project in due course.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I welcome the announcement and thank the Minister for his statement today. Any investment in our education system is, of course, welcome.

I want to pin down some of the figures in a bit more detail. The beginning of the statement references £10 million and refers to outdoor play, computers and defibrillators. We then have a reference to £4 million for outdoor play and, later, £5 million for computers. Can the Minister outline the specific total amount of investment that is being announced today, break that down into the curriculum areas in which he will invest it and confirm to the Assembly the period over which the investment will be made?

Mr Givan: I thank the Chair of the Committee for welcoming the announcement today. It is good news.

I have outlined the £10 million that we are spending now, in this current financial year. It is around £5·4 million for the computer roll-out in our post-primary settings; £4 million for the primary-school funding that will be allocated; and the defibrillators come to around £750,000. That is the spend that we will roll out this year for our curriculum-led capital programme.

I have outlined that, early in the new year, we will make that open call to all of the post-primary schools to bring forward their applications for the physical education component of the curriculum-led capital programme that I want to take into the next financial year. That will look primarily at issues around synthetic pitches and sports hall provision. When the call goes out, the applications will come in, and the funding will then be aligned to make sure that we can take forward as many projects as possible for that element of the programme next year.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for his welcome statement. A significant issue that faces the Irish-medium sector is the availability of language-appropriate support, curriculum resources and materials. Does the Minister intend looking at that issue with a view to supporting our Irish-medium school communities?

Mr Givan: Absolutely. As regards supporting the Irish-medium sector, I have met the sector. I have been in many of the Irish language-speaking schools. One of the themes coming out of those visits is the ability to have the appropriate resources for those who choose to have their education immersed in the Irish medium, so it is important that that support is being provided and that I continue to engage with the sector to make sure that we can support them as best we can.

Mr Harvey: Minister, will you clarify which aspects of the programme will be delivered in this financial year?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. The Chairman of the Committee asked how we would break down the spend this year. Obviously, there is £10 million for outdoor play, desktop computers and defibrillators, which will all be delivered in this current financial year. The £10 million is allocated for those purposes. We have already commenced the process of procuring the appropriate computer equipment. In the next number of weeks, we will provide that funding to schools, which can then procure the outdoor play equipment.

Mr Crawford: I join others in welcoming the Minister's announcement and thank him for bringing it to the Assembly. How will the additional PE facilities cater for the needs of students with disabilities to ensure that all students can participate in physical education?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for North Antrim for welcoming this good news story. He rightly outlines the importance of sport being accessible to everybody. I very much want people who have additional needs to be supported by making equipment available and sports halls accessible to all. I have visited schools where those facilities are not accessible to all, and those schools are having to overcome challenges. The initiative presents an opportunity to enhance our infrastructure provision, and disability access is a vital part of taking that forward.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome the investment. I can talk with a little experience about my community, where we have a covered sports area that a multitude of sports use, including football and handball. Just recently, Ulster GAA had a wheelchair football session for our local school in that covered outdoor facility. I appreciate its benefits for local schools and the wider community.

Will the Minister consider reinstating the funding for the Department's GAA/IFA curriculum sports programme, which was recognised by the ETI review but revoked by the DE permanent secretary in the absence of an Education Minister?

Mr Givan: Like the Member, I have played in those covered outdoor sports facilities. A covering makes the facilities accessible all year round and protects people from the weather conditions, which often change in our country. Having those covered outdoor spaces will enhance opportunities for play. That is why we want to take it forward.

The Member highlighted another issue, and, while I announced £10 million of funding, Members will always say, "Give us more", and I understand that. I have been engaging with the different sporting bodies on the scheme that he mentioned, which was developed a number of years ago and which was worthwhile and beneficial. I have met the GAA and the IFA, as well as Ulster Rugby and Ulster Hockey, and I am keen for those conversations to continue.

I would like that programme to be reinstated but not necessarily in the same format as it was previously — only the IFA and the GAA were involved in it — because other sports could benefit from that programme. The caveat that I always have to mention, unfortunately, is that all that is subject to finance. If we can secure the resources that we need, I would like to develop the scheme again.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for his excellent statement. It is yet another example of him and our party delivering for communities across Northern Ireland. Minister, will you confirm that the funding for the outdoor play equipment for schools in North Belfast, many of which you have visited, will be available in schools' accounts in this financial year so that pupils across my constituency can benefit from the excellent new announcement?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for North Belfast, who rightly harasses me to try to get as much funding into his constituency as possible — as do you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.]

As I said, the announcement will make sure that every school, nursery and pre-nursery will benefit. We are moving from major capital investments and school enhancement programmes, which are important, but those are for the few. The many are not getting what they need, so the £4 million that I have announced will be with schools before the end of this calendar year — within the next number of weeks. The funding that will be distributed will depend on the size of the school, but it will range from £2,000 up to £5,000 to every preschool, nursery and primary school across Northern Ireland. That will enable them to spend the funding on equipment that is important for meeting their needs.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister. I join everybody in welcoming the investment. A recent report said that only 13% of our kids got the recommended amount of physical activity, so this is really worthwhile. Is the Department collecting data on whether schools are delivering the minimum two hours a week of PE to ensure that we have some way of measuring the effectiveness of the investment?

Mr Givan: We collect information to monitor that, and the ETI carries out inspections in that respect. That informs the decisions that we take. It is also why we are making it a condition on those 20 pilot schools for the outdoor cover that, to secure that funding, they need to guarantee two hours of PE. Recently, I was at Forthill Integrated Primary School, where they have been developing their physical education literacy as part of the curriculum. They showed examples of how they can do that, and the benefits of it are well understood by people who engage in it.

This is an important announcement. It is one that will enhance the opportunities for physical education and create that lifelong experience. I loved playing sport when I was younger. I went to school not necessarily for the academic education but because of my love of playing football. Often, on a Tuesday afternoon, it got me out of double award maths classes, and that was the highlight of getting picked for the team when I was at Laurelhill. However, it created a lifelong desire to be engaged in sport from that very young age. Tonight, I will be playing with a group of fellas that I went to school with, and now, in our early 40s, we are still engaged in sport. That is something that we need to cultivate with the younger generation and get them involved for the many different benefits that we can achieve from that.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for his statement. Is there any scope within the initiative for the return of free digital devices for children from disadvantaged backgrounds in order to support their learning?

Mr Givan: The Member raises an important point. That is why I want to make sure that we address the inequality of the haves and have-nots in our society. Outside of school, it is a challenge. I have visited, now, upwards of 100 schools. I have been in some facilities where there is state-of-the-art digital technology, and in others where the technology is completely antiquated. Therefore, we need to make sure that there is a levelling right across Northern Ireland so that, at least when you are in school, you get the same opportunities to access the best possible technological equipment. That will help address the various different socio-economic factors that can have an impact on the educational outcomes of our young people.

Mr Robinson: I very much welcome the Minister's statement. Limavady High School has no dedicated sports hall. Indeed, it is the only post-primary school in that area that has no sports hall. Young people of that school have to carry out their sports activity in a park some distance away, where two people were killed and murdered. Does the Minister agree that that needs to change?

Mr Givan: The Member articulates well the need that exists. I have been at that high school. The Member has had me there, engaged in this area and highlighted that need. As a part of his engagement, we are having a new policy created. He and other MLAs have highlighted the inadequacy that exists, and I have witnessed that when I have been in schools. I was very fortunate. My school had three grass football pitches, a gravel pitch and a sports hall. That was at a secondary school in Lisburn. I have been at schools where they have none of that, or they maybe have one gravel pitch. They often look with envy at other schools that have world-class facilities, and that is something that we need to address.

The Member highlighted a school in his constituency. There is now a gateway for that school to make an application and a dedicated curriculum-led capital programme that focuses on the early years of its development on physical education. I cannot guarantee to the Member that a sports hall will be provided for the school that he has highlighted, but I can say to him that there is a way forward that can be advanced by the school in Limavady and other schools across Northern Ireland to meet that need. We can now take that forward to the next stage.

Mr Martin: I also warmly welcome the announcement this morning, which will make a real difference to, and impact on, pupils across Northern Ireland. Has the Minister any figures on how many schools in Northern Ireland have a shortfall in PE accommodation?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. We carried out a survey in November to help to inform the decisions that have been announced today. We surveyed all 190 post-primary schools, and 125 responded. Of those 125 schools, 31 do not have a sports hall that is separate from their multipurpose hall, 71 do not have a synthetic pitch on their school site and 12 have access only to a shared synthetic pitch. That information from the survey demonstrates the need.

I was recently in Newry High School, to which my colleague Diane Forsythe invited me. It has one gravel pitch. There is no synthetic pitch or grass pitch. It was pointed out that all of the neighbouring schools have not just one but two pitches. It is often the case that we see inequality in the school estate. We follow the handbook standard of what needs to be provided in new builds; they will be given an array of sporting facilities. There are also schools that have next to nothing. That is why the curriculum-led capital programme is so vital. It is a new strand of the Department's wider capital approach. We are standing up that new strand and securing funding for it. We are already releasing £10 million for it this year, and we are well on our way to identifying opportunities for it to be recurrent spend of capital investment to benefit schools.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister. Will outdoor play investment allow schools to develop outdoor learning environments suitable for the delivery of programmes such as the forest school programme?

Mr Givan: The Member highlights the forest school programme, which is excellent; all schools now want to get accreditation in that. You have your Eco-Schools green flag, and you have your forest school; I want to see whether we can develop a physical literacy type of flag. We love our flags in this country, don't we? Imagine if you were at a school that had a green flag, a forest flag and a PE flag. We need to provide the infrastructure, such as outdoor play equipment, for schools to be able to do that. The programme is all about helping to achieve outdoor learning. There is a huge body of evidence that demonstrates how outdoor learning is beneficial to our children and young people. The programme will, undoubtedly, help schools to enhance their facilities in that regard.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement today. He is delivering on the key needs of schools here in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that, when the call goes out, he will be inundated with schools looking to apply. That points to my question about the criteria: will the projects need to be spade-ready through the planning system to be able to access the fund? He will know about Devenish College's need for a hockey pitch; he is a hockey fan. Fermanagh has no hockey pitch provision. Will the projects need to be spade-ready to access the funds?

Mr Givan: When I have met principals, I have encouraged them to engage in developing opportunities to apply to the fund and make sure that planning permission is not a barrier, which was one of the conversations that Diane and I had in Newry High School. We need to make sure that the planning process is in place when I make the call to schools to apply for funding. When we open up the call, schools can engage, and we will lay out the criteria.

It is important that we have shovel-ready projects, as Members often refer to them, because, typically, there will be some slippage in major capital projects during a financial year. Although we try to minimise that, it happens in all Departments. We then seek to spend funding on smaller capital-type schemes. It is important to have an extensive list of those opportunities, so that, at the end of the financial year, we are able to move quickly on, for example, an outdoor play project. I want to have a comprehensive list of applications available, so that all of them can be assessed. Like the Member, I very much want to promote synthetic pitches, but it is not for me to tell schools that they want a hockey pitch or a football pitch. Devenish College had an opportunity to have that when the school was being designed, but it chose to go with its current configuration.

There are opportunities as part of Your School Your Club that the Department for Communities has advocated. That will also provide an opportunity for schools to link in with other funders. Take a synthetic pitch, for example. We will fund the creation of it, but, if it will be for wider community use, you will often need to go to the local authority. It can fund the provision of floodlights, for example. Schools operate in daylight hours, but, if you want the pitch to be used in the evening, you need to engage with other stakeholders. I very much encourage collaboration on what funding opportunities can be achieved from that and also engaging with local government authorities.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his statement. The funding is very welcome. I noted the Minister's enthusiasm for young people's involvement in sport. I want to tell him about fantastic work that is being done in Larne High School despite shocking dilapidation levels. The sports hall has holes in the floor. There are gaps in the roof and walls. As my colleague Nick Mathison asked yesterday: will the Minister accompany me on a visit to Larne High School to see the fantastic work that is being done in that area?

Mr Givan: I suspect that the Member is late in asking me to go to Larne High School. I am pretty confident that my own party colleagues have already asked me to attend. Where I can incorporate other people, I am happy to do that.

Larne High School is another example of why I have wanted to take forward the opportunities for that capital programme, because we do not have the provision that we need, particularly when it comes to PE. We now have a new programme and opportunity about which, at least, when I engage with schools, I can say, "Here is a programme to which you can make an application". It is not in the gift of any Minister to be able to show favouritism to one particular school and say, "You have a new pitch facility". We will build the appropriate criteria around all those programmes. There will be prioritisation, subject to all that criteria, and then the funding will flow. That now gives schools an opportunity to make an application towards those schemes.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is very welcome. It gives schools in my constituency an opportunity to apply for much-needed funding.

Can the Minister explain why he believes that the programme is needed? Can he also give us an idea of whether schools that have next to nothing will be given some sort of priority over those that already have facilities?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. I have outlined in the broader statement why I believe that the programme is needed. We all know that high-quality learning environments will help to support the delivery of the best outcomes for children and young people. We need to empower the great teachers that we have with great facilities. That combination will maximise the opportunity for young people to realise their potential.

Historically, the Department's capital programme focused on new builds, major extensions and refurbishment. This will now allow us to advance into a new of way of doing things, with smaller capital works schemes being able to be developed. Of course, the Member has highlighted the issue of where prioritisation will be. We will work through that in establishing the appropriate criteria when we make the call early in the new year.

Mr Kingston: I join other Members in welcoming the very positive statement by the Minister.

Can he set out more detail on how much each primary school will receive, how they will access those funds and how they will go about spending that money?

Mr Givan: The schools will be able to spend the funding through their normal processes. There is an Education Authority catalogue. There is a detailed list of the various outdoor play equipment. They can draw down from that, and, that way, we can follow an audit to see whether the spend is being appropriately utilised. The range of funding that will be allocated will be between £2,000 and £5,000. It will be distributed to schools within the next number of weeks. That allows schools and those who are best placed to know what they need for their particular setting to be able to spend that funding. Particularly, in early years, they know how much equipment is needed and how often it can break down and need to be replaced. The scheme will be very much welcomed by those early years organisations.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for his statement and, in particular, the emphasis on and investment in PE. We know that, with the rise of unhealthy lifestyles, PE is essential to children's lives.

My question builds on the Member for North Antrim's question about kids with disabilities. Kids in special schools and their families face some of the most challenging circumstances, and their access to physical education is so limited. What assurance can the Minister give that those in special schools will be able to access fair and proportionate amounts of the funding?

Mr Givan: The new curriculum-led capital investment programme builds on and sits alongside the special educational needs capital programme that we have announced. We are already looking at all 39 special schools to identify opportunities to enhance the provision in those schools. As part of this announcement, the provision of IT and computers will be extended to special schools to make sure that they get the opportunity to avail themselves of the most recent technology as well. The Member is right to highlight the need for an equitable and inclusive distribution of funding so that everybody in our society can benefit from it. That is what the schemes will allow us to do.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for the statement, which delivers on some of the commitments that he made when he gave us his vision early in his tenure. I know that many schools in my constituency, some of which he has visited, will be excited at the prospect of investment in pitches and outdoor facilities.

In the modern era of education, why is investment in technology so crucial?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his kind remarks. He asks why we are investing in computers and about the need for that technology. There are a number of reasons, which are well evidenced. The ETI report, 'A Baseline Evaluation of the Digital Skills provision in Primary and Post-primary Schools' and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) report, 'Software Skills for a 10X Economy: Digital Skills NI Network' highlighted that we have had a decline in the uptake of digital skills-based qualifications. That is having an impact. The number of girls who choose to study computer and software programming courses is also consistently low. More needs to be done to promote those programme pathways in order to meet the current and future needs of our economy.

I mentioned in the statement that 42% of principals who responded to the PISA 2022 survey highlighted a lack of digital resources as a key barrier to teaching. That can be compared with 24% at an international level. There is a clear need to provide the technology. It will be fully deployed using Windows 11, so the engine that will run the computers will provide a modern technology framework. That will have a real impact. When people choose their subjects, they will know that that is the kind of computer that they will use .

I picked my school because of the PE provision; that is what dictated where I wanted to go. Other people choose a school because they walk in and see incredible technology suites. The programme will help to enhance the courses that are available in schools for students who choose to pursue digital skills and to empower the teachers to effectively utilise modern technology.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his statement to the House. Will he set out any plans that he has for other areas of the curriculum?

Mr Givan: Yes. Mr Buchanan asks an important question about other areas of the curriculum. The programme's aim is to invest in priority areas in order to support, enable and enhance delivery of the Northern Ireland curriculum. It is not envisaged that the programme will be static, but, rather, that the longer-term focus on PE will be supplemented by specific priorities for investment that will be identified annually. That will allow the programme to target investment flexibly and in line with identified areas of need.

This year, we are looking at computing equipment to support digital literacy and outdoor play. Those are the first annual priorities for investment. They were informed by inspection evidence, wider research, my engagement with school leaders over the past 10 months and information that Members have brought to my attention. Over the coming months, I will work closely with educators to shape the annual priorities for future years. Early in the new year, as I indicated in the statement, we will launch a detailed survey for schools. That will aim to pinpoint further areas in which additional investment in equipment, resources and facilities is needed to enhance delivery of the Northern Ireland curriculum.

Mr Middleton: I join others in thanking the Minister for his statement. The Foyle constituency and many primary schools throughout Northern Ireland will be thankful for the announcement, particularly the part about outdoor play equipment. Will the Minister clarify whether preschools are included? Many preschools do not have the resources or access to resources that some other schools do, so will the Minister clarify whether those groups will be included?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member. He has had me in Foyle on numerous occasions to highlight the needs of the schools estate in his constituency. He asked about preschool providers outside the statutory nursery sector. Yes, they will be included. When it comes to the preschool year group, the funding opportunity will be available to them as well.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends questions to the Minister on his statement. I remind Members that, if they want to ask questions about a statement, they need to be in the Chamber when the statement is being made. Members, take your ease while we change the top Table.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate.

Mr Muir: I have brought this short Bill to the Assembly to provide for changes to two legacy EU support schemes, namely the fruit and vegetable aid scheme (FVAS) and the agri-food information and promotion scheme. The schemes have their roots in when the UK was in the EU, and, if they are to reflect post-EU policy development, new powers will be needed. If I may, I will first provide some background.

Under the EU common agricultural policy (CAP), the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products regulation (CMO) provided market support tools and aid schemes to certain sectors and encouraged producer cooperation. As part of the CMO, farmers and growers are incentivised to come together to form producer organisations (POs), which allows them to strengthen their position in the supply chain and increase their competitiveness. In addition, POs provide a mechanism for promoting environmentally sound cultivation practices and production techniques, including climate change mitigation.

While POs can be set up in a range of sectors, financial assistance is payable in the horticultural sector under the fruit and vegetable aid scheme, which supports the operational programmes that meet the regulatory requirements and fit within a UK strategy and environmental framework. Operational funds are part-financed by contributions from PO members, and, prior to EU exit, match funding came from the EU. Since Brexit, when the governing legislation transferred to UK law in what is now known as "assimilated law", the legal obligation to match-fund eligible claims for POs headquartered in Northern Ireland has, since mid-2020, fallen to DAERA.

Before I discuss the need for the Bill, I want to say that locally grown fruit and vegetables play an important role in the rural economy of Northern Ireland. However, it is my firm belief that the sector has the potential to grow and develop further for the benefit of our health, economy, food security and environment, including with respect to the decarbonisation agenda. I am, therefore, committed to fostering the sustainable growth of horticulture as part of our transition to more sustainable agriculture. To that end, my officials are continuing the development of the farm support and development programme in co-design with the Northern Ireland agriculture industry, including the horticulture sector and other key food and environmental stakeholders. Officials are also reviewing existing support under legacy EU schemes, including the FVAS, to evaluate what has been delivered and whether better targeted support could be provided in the future.

In addition, I am delighted that the Executive have recently agreed the food strategy framework, which sets the long-term direction to help to position Northern Ireland as the home of sustainable food. Increased availability of locally produced, sustainably grown fruit and vegetables will continue and will contribute to that ambition. I met representatives of the local mushroom sector, which currently avails itself of support under the FVAS, and I sought to reassure them that, while I have not reached any decisions on the way forward, I have no plans to pull the rug from under them when it comes to support. We need to let the current policy review run its course and then carefully consider the way ahead in the context of wider support to the horticulture sector.

Without the Bill, my Department will have an ongoing legal obligation to fund eligible claims under the existing legacy FVAS. Members will be aware that the autumn Budget statement will see funding for agriculture, including the FVAS, which was previously earmarked by His Majesty's Treasury, baselined within the resource funding provided to the Executive for 2025-26 and beyond. It will now be for the Executive to agree funding for agriculture as part of the Budget exercise. Therefore, the first thing that this short technical Bill does is make support under the FVAS discretionary so that Executive Ministers have the scope to fully decide on funding priorities and ensure that support is available where it provides best value for money and best meets local needs.
Importantly, the second thing that the Bill will do is provide the power to amend the assimilated law governing the FVAS. By its very nature, that unique type of legislation has not kept pace with changes elsewhere, including in the EU, that seek to support productivity while contributing to protecting and enhancing our environment and tackling climate change. Therefore, the new powers will ensure that the scheme can be developed to best meet local need. That has been welcomed by stakeholders, given that it will allow for improvements to the scheme in the future, including its alignment with support elsewhere, if appropriate.

The third thing that the Bill will do relates to EU-derived legislation that provides support for information on and promotion of agricultural products. Under the legislation, not-for-profit organisations could apply for EU support for promotional campaigns, primarily in third countries. The aim is to open new market opportunities for farmers and the wider food industry and help them to build their existing businesses and sell products in an increasingly competitive global marketplace whilst delivering jobs and good green growth. While Northern Ireland benefited from the scheme in the past, there are currently no live projects. However, the Bill includes powers so that any future promotion schemes delivered under the legislation could be tailored to best meet local need, subject again to the review of the legacy scheme and future policy development on support for food promotion.

Before I discuss the details of the Bill, I thank those who responded to the consultation on the policy proposals earlier this year and those who had ongoing engagement with officials on the wider review. I am grateful to industry representatives for briefing me over recent months on the challenges for the mushroom sector and on the value of the FVAS to that sector.

The comments received on the FVAS reflect its importance to the local mushroom sector, with calls for the scheme to continue after the current programmes end in 2025. Stakeholders also detailed the changes that, they believe, should be made to the scheme. While it is vital that I can prioritise funding where it can best be used, I again reassure Members, as I have sought to reassure stakeholders, that I am aware of the importance of the support provided under the scheme over many years. By seeking to make support discretionary, I am not signalling any plans to end support for the sector here; rather, the Bill clearly provides the scope to allow for the scheme's future development so that it can best reflect the needs of Northern Ireland, subject to the outcome of the ongoing review and, of course, the available budget.

I look forward to seeing the conclusions of the ongoing review, and I again give my assurance that I will consider it in the context of wider support for the horticulture sector in making future funding decisions. The Bill has therefore been drafted in line with the consultation proposals, and it is my hope that it will reach Royal Assent next spring, before the end of the current programmes.

I now want to take a few minutes to set out in a little more detail the key clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 amends article 32 of the assimilated CMO regulation in order to remove the statutory requirement to fund all eligible FVAS claims. It also provides transitional provisions for existing FVAS programmes. Clause 2 provides that assimilated law governing the FVAS can be modified by regulation and, by virtue of clause 4, only with the approval by resolution of the Assembly, that is, by draft affirmative resolution. Clause 2 also includes an enabling power to make regulations regarding reviews of departmental decisions relating to aid that is necessary as a consequence of support under the FVAS becoming discretionary. Clause 3 provides that the assimilated law governing the agri-food promotion schemes can be modified by regulation, again by virtue of clause 4, by draft affirmative regulations.

In summary, the Bill, if enacted, will make support under the FVAS discretionary and empower my Department to amend both the FVAS and agri-food promotion schemes so that they align with post-EU local policy. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Before I start, I commend the Minister for his performance on Radio Ulster this morning on the very important topic of Belfast lough. Whilst I commend you today, Minister, as Chair of the AERA Committee, I cannot guarantee that that will always be the case. The Committee will certainly work hard to keep your feet to the fire.

On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I welcome the Second Stage of the Agriculture Bill, which was introduced on 25 November. If the Bill passes Second Stage today, it will be the first Bill to come before the AERA Committee in this mandate. At last week's Committee meeting, to prepare for Second Stage, members considered the background to the Bill and the Committee's scrutiny of the matter to date. At the Committee meeting on 11 April, members considered a letter from the Minister informing us of his plans to consult on a Bill proposal to amend two legacy schemes from the common organisation of the markets and agriculture policy, otherwise known as CMO. The Committee is aware that, since leaving the EU, DAERA continues to meet existing funding commitments under the CMO schemes, including providing aid to producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector. The CMO schemes were part of the common agricultural policy that governed UK agricultural support as part of the UK's EU membership. The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) administers and publishes information on those schemes on DAERA's behalf.

The Minister then consulted on making the funding for the FVAS discretionary, providing a power to make subordinate legislation that will allow amendments to be assimilated law governing the FVAS and providing a power to make subordinate legislation, which will allow amendments to be made to the assimilated law governing the agri-food information and promotion schemes.

Just over two months later, at the Committee meeting on 20 June, members received an oral briefing from the Bill officials, which was to update us on the outcomes of the consultation. In summary, the Committee heard that seven responses had been received and that the comments reflected the particular importance of the FVAS to the local mushroom sector. While this was not universally supported, there was some understanding of the need to make funding discretionary and for the Minister to prioritise. There was a call for changes to be made to the scheme, as the EU scheme had improved since Brexit. At the Committee meeting on 12 September, we considered a further response from the Minister highlighting that the FVAS is a devolved scheme and that, therefore, Northern Ireland is free to consider what support best suits the needs of our horticulture sector, the current post-EU policy review and the development of agricultural support. We are told that that is ongoing. In parallel to that review, the Minister is seeking primary powers through the Bill to make FVAS support discretionary and allow DAERA to modify its legacy scheme.

I will turn to the main principles of the Bill. The Committee understands that one objective is to make the FVAS funding discretionary prior to the end of the current programme, as eligible producer organisations will be submitting new three-year programmes before September 2025, which adds some import to what we are doing today. The Committee appreciates the Minister's view that he wishes to be able to prioritise support where it provides best value for money. That should be close to home for all of us as legislators. However, if the Bill passes Second Stage, the Committee will need to consider the impact of the proposal from all sides. On 20 June, we heard the NI Mushroom Growers Association's concerns that if "discretionary" became "removal" at any point, it would remove one of the only supports for mushroom farms, as they are not eligible for land-based programmes, such as the basic farm payment. The Committee is also aware that it needs to consider the Bill in a different fiscal environment to that envisaged during the consultation — indeed, when the Minister launched it. I refer to the removal of earmarked funding for farming support payments now potentially putting additional pressure on any discretionary parts of the Minister's budget.

Other principles of the Bill are to provide DAERA with powers to make subordinate legislation that will allow amendments to be made to the assimilated laws governing the FVAS and to the assimilated law governing the agri-food information and promotion schemes. The Committee is keen to see bespoke schemes to support the local agri-food sector, but is being asked to consider the enabling Bill without having had sight of the completed policy review. That is not ideal, so we look forward to hearing what the fruit and veg growers and producers have to say at Committee on these matters, should the Bill pass its Second Stage.

Although the Bill is short, like myself, the Committee looks forward to proper scrutiny of the enabling powers and to engaging with stakeholders on these proposals to see what benefits they could bring, while fully investigating any unintended consequences. This is not the stage for going into detail on the clauses, but, in respect of the potential and unintended consequences, the Committee will need to consider and take advice on the powers in clause 4, which the Minister has touched on, although we note that they are underpinned by the use of the draft affirmative procedure. The Committee is supportive of the principles of the Bill regarding support being prioritised where it best provides value for money and best meets local need. The Committee looks forward to considering the Bill in further detail during Committee Stage, and, as I have said, will be particularly mindful of considering any unintended consequences through a detailed scrutiny process. That ends my comments as Committee Chair.

I will add a couple of small points, if that is OK. I will maybe phrase them in the way of questions, Minister, because we are now in the legislative process where we can have proper debates, which is good. It has been insinuated — it has not been bottomed out in my head — that if the scheme were not to change, DAERA would be faced with the potential of having to fund schemes outside of Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister could give us more detail regarding that aspect today, because I am sure that that is not somewhere that any of us would want to land. The Minister will also be aware, from last week's Adjournment debate, that the fishers, as well as the mushroom sector in particular, are under severe pressure at the moment with seasonal work and the inability to acquire useful visas for the workers who are required for that work. I have a concern about the potential worry of a double whammy for them. I know that the Minister has said that it is not his intention to remove the funding, but given that this is the only funding support that Northern Ireland's mushroom growers, in particular, can avail themselves of, they need some certainty in that regard. As a Member, I would welcome that certainty being given and underpinned at every iteration at which it is sought. My last point is this: we have a global food market, and the competition for every product is severe. Mushroom growers and the whole horticulture sector face into those pressures. We should be doing everything that we can do. Whilst value for money is absolutely appropriate, and we have to be on our toes fiscally, the reality is that food security on these islands has come under its greatest pressure over the past few months with the changes that have been brought in by the Labour Government.

I look forward to engaging with the Minister on the Bill. I cannot promise that we will always be so cordial — we will hold his feet to the fire — but I look forward to his answers on those points.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an Bille a thabhairt os ár gcomhair.

The SDLP welcomes the Second Stage of the Bill. I look forward to examining the Bill and its implications more closely during the Committee Stage, should it pass its Second Stage; hopefully, it will. However, it is somewhat disappointing that the Minister has been unable to introduce the comprehensive agriculture Bill that is required. A comprehensive agriculture Bill, unlike the one before us, would provide a clear purpose for future agricultural policy. It would set out clear objectives for the use of agricultural funding to guide policy decisions and is necessary to provide a strategic direction for agriculture here. I am sure that the Minister will respond later, so will he will introduce a domestic agriculture Bill before the end of the mandate? Both Scotland and Wales have already introduced that legislation, but we are still waiting.

The Bill may be small, but it is not insignificant. It is largely technical legislation that allows for changes to be made to the funding provided by the Department to producer organisations for operational programmes. That funding is to become discretionary where previously, as long as the programmes met certain requirements, funding was mandatory. Producer organisations enable farmers and growers in a variety of sectors to strengthen their position in the supply chain and increase competitiveness. It is very important that we provide support to producer organisations to make sure that a fair price, in effect, goes to farmers, who are the ultimate producers. They play a very important role in promoting environmentally sound cultivation practices in production techniques and, indeed, climate change mitigation.

This Bill introduces uncertainty over future funding for those organisations and, almost inevitably, cuts to the financial support available to them. It risks leaving producer organisations in the North at a disadvantage — I hope that the Minister will underpin that that will not be the case — particularly when they are in competition with organisations that are still in the EU. Inevitably, this is another consequence of Brexit. The financial support was previously provided from EU funding streams. As with other EU funds, the British Government have not properly replaced it. The British Government have, in effect, washed their hands of responsibility, and it is now up to the AERA Minister to find the required funding. The financial support for producer organisations will, in future, come from whatever level of budget the Minister can negotiate with his Executive colleagues from the block grant. Making that funding discretionary will mean that it will be entirely up to the Minister to decide which programmes are funded and which are not. It is not a particularly enviable position that the Minister has been placed in as a consequence, it has to be said, of Brexit.

Under those circumstances, it is not difficult to understand the concerns of producer organisations about the level of future financial support, but not all producer organisations will be equally affected. As already referred to today, one group that will potentially be affected are mushroom growers, who are not eligible for land-based programmes such as the basic farm payment or the Department for the Economy's energy efficiency scheme. The mushroom industry has already felt the impact of Brexit with the restricted access to labour through the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. I am glad that the Minister announced today that support will continue, at least for the future, I hope, on a stable basis when it is required for the mushroom industry. The best place for that would be to incorporate it in a comprehensive agriculture Bill, and I hope that the Minister will clarify that we will get a comprehensive and embracing agriculture Bill for the North, similar to legislation that has been introduced elsewhere.

Mr McAleer: I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the Second Stage of the Agriculture Bill. According to the Department, the Bill reflects the need to update legacy EU schemes, such as the fruit and vegetables aid scheme and agri-food promotion schemes, in the context of the post-Brexit reality.

Whilst the Executive have offered their support for the Bill, it should be pointed out that it presents challenges as well as opportunities for rural communities. The Bill marks a fundamental shift from mandatory funding to discretionary funding for the fruit and vegetables aid scheme. Whilst it may provide the Department with greater flexibility in managing spending, it also raises concerns about the impact on the horticultural sector and our rural economy, particularly given the divergence from the South, where mandatory funding remains in place because it remains in the EU common agricultural policy.

Stakeholders have rightly voiced concerns, during consultations and when my party met them. They noted that this disparity between North and South risks undermining the competitiveness of producers in the North, who are on an unequal footing compared with their counterparts in the South, who still benefit from the robust EU schemes.

The Agriculture Bill introduces key provisions to modify schemes such as the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, including by granting DAERA discretionary funding powers, enabling more flexible allocation of resources, providing enabling powers to amend schemes in line with evolving local policy needs and ensuring that a legislative framework is in place from 2026 to 2028, allowing producer organisations to plan their operational programmes effectively.

We in Sinn Féin acknowledge the necessity of reform, but we remain concerned by the Bill's scope. The proposal is, again by virtue of Brexit, less progressive than the EU's revamped common agricultural policy that benefits producers in the South by funding environmental initiatives, research and development and long-term plans. We believe that the North should align more closely with those forward-thinking policies to ensure fairness, sustainability and competitiveness for our primary producers. The post-Brexit context demands comprehensive, strategic action to fill the void that has been left in agricultural policy. We call for policies that promote equity across the island, ensuring that our producers have access to fair opportunities, robust funding mechanisms and the resources needed to thrive in an increasingly competitive market.

As representatives of rural communities, it is our duty to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly — we look forward to doing that during Committee Stage and remaining stages — and to advocate policies that deliver real change. Let us ensure that the legislation provides the necessary support for our farmers and rural businesses, paving the way for a fairer, more prosperous agriculture sector. I look forward to further deliberations and to working with all stakeholders to ensure that the final legislation truly reflects the needs and ambitions of our rural communities.

Miss McIlveen: Like other Members, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Agriculture Bill. Setting aside my concerns about the imprecision of the Bill's title, which, hopefully, will be revisited as it is misleading, the DUP supports the intention behind the Bill, which aims to ensure that a locally accountable Minister can bring forward proposals for and changes to the funding of the fruit and vegetables and mushroom sectors in Northern Ireland.

As the UK moves forward post Brexit, it is vital that the support mechanisms for those sectors are carefully restructured to ensure continued growth and competitiveness. However, while we acknowledge the need for flexibility, we emphasise that that must not come at the cost of financial stability or long-term sectoral growth. The transition to a discretionary model, as proposed in the Bill, offers an opportunity for innovation and tailored support to address the specific needs of the fruit and vegetables sector. It is essential, however, that the new model is not seen purely as a means to cut costs or reduce funding for critical sectors. The support provided must be viewed as a means to enhance long-term support for affected sectors, allowing them to invest in the industry and foster growth, competitiveness and sustainability.

The farm business improvement scheme has played a crucial role in reducing barriers to market entry, helping farmers and producers to meet required standards and access vital environmental and climate change support. As we consider future models of support, we must ensure that the core principles of the current system — supporting sustainable farming practices and climate change mitigation — are preserved. As other Members have said, the mushroom industry, which accounts for 40% of Northern Ireland's horticultural output and contributes approximately £64 million annually to the local economy, is a key pillar of the sector, with 700 people employed directly in mushroom production and over 300 in the supply chain. The sector's continued success is vital for economic growth and food security in Northern Ireland.

As we have discussed in Committee and in the Chamber, access to labour is vital for that sector, with 95% of those employed in it coming from outside the United Kingdom. Mushroom growers have expressed concerns about an uneven playing field between Northern Ireland and other jurisdictions, particularly regarding issues such as access to seasonal workers and financial support for innovations such as automation and energy efficiency. Those concerns highlight the need for a funding model that not only provides fairness but ensures that the industry can compete on an equal footing. Simply maintaining statutory obligations that are not finely tuned to local sectoral needs will not effectively address those challenges. A more adaptable and responsive model is needed, one that understands the specific dynamics of the mushroom industry and supports its unique challenges.

Whilst the proposed Bill provides greater flexibility, it is crucial that the Department outlines a clear pathway for the sector's development. As the Chair highlighted, the move from a 4·1% flat funding model to discretionary support raises significant concerns about the potential shift towards a competitive grant system, which could create uncertainty and insecurity for growers. Growers require clarity on future funding arrangements to enable them to plan effectively and make the necessary investments in their businesses. As the current producer organisation scheme is set to end in 2025, there is a pressing need for a statement of intent from the Minister on how future support will be structured.

The future of Northern Ireland's fruit and vegetables sector, including mushroom production, depends on a fair, flexible and secure funding model. The Minister needs to take the opportunity presented by the Bill to demonstrate a clear vision for the sector's growth, provide certainty for growers and enable them to plan for the future. Mushroom growers, along with other horticultural producers, deserve a sustainable framework that will support their vital contribution to food security, environmental sustainability and economic growth. The Minister needs to provide clarity on proposals for the development of the sector alongside the progression of the Bill, which will, hopefully, help to dispel fears within the sector. Will the Minister consult further with stakeholders in the near future on further proposals for the sector? In his response, perhaps the Minister could provide details of the next steps, including a timeline.

On the principles of the Bill, as outlined today, we are content to support the Bill at Second Stage. We look forward to scrutinising it and to hearing from stakeholders at Committee Stage.

Mr Blair: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I express our support for the proposed Agriculture Bill at Second Stage. The legislation represents a significant step forward in aiding the fruit and vegetables sector, supporting rural communities and ensuring a sustainable future for food production in Northern Ireland.

The challenges faced by the agriculture sector have recently been the focus of considerable discussion in the Chamber. Today, we have an opportunity to address some of those pressing issues with actionable solutions. First and foremost, I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to the Assembly. By doing so, he has demonstrated a strong commitment to addressing our agriculture sector's challenges and a dedicated effort to create a more sustainable future.

The legislation serves as a vital pillar for fostering sustainable growth within our fruit, vegetables and horticulture sector. It introduces crucial reforms designed to support our farmers and producers as we navigate the post-Brexit landscape, enabling them to thrive in a competitive global market. Without passage of the Bill, the Department will continue to have a legal obligation to fund eligible claims under the existing fruit and vegetables aid scheme, a legacy EU position that would restrict the Minister's ability to prioritise support in a manner that maximises value for money and effectively meets specific local needs, and, crucially, arising needs. Therefore, the Bill allows for a more targeted approach, as other Members have said, incentivising producers to adopt sustainable practices.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. This is a piece that has intrigued me. I know that the Member was at the briefing last week. There seemed to be a smaller uptake of the legacy aid scheme than was envisaged. I am sure that the Member will agree that to maximise participation in any new scheme is an ambition not just for food security but for the competitiveness that is required. Perhaps the Minister will indicate why he believes that some organisations, particularly those in apple growing, did not avail themselves of the scheme as it was, and whether it is the intention to develop something that will bring in a broader cross-section of the horticulture community?

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for the intervention. Like the Committee Chair, it is my hope that there will be increased engagement and uptake. Perhaps, the consultations and engagement on the Bill and other arising policy issues will assist in increasing that uptake.

As I was saying, the Bill incentivises producers to adopt sustainable practices that safeguard our environment. For example, it could support initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, improve soil health and conserve water resources. I also stress that the legislation provides much-needed clarity and stability regarding future horticulture support, which will, undoubtedly, be welcomed by those who work in that sector. The AERA Committee has been told of the continuing policy work in that area as well.

To conclude, the legislation signifies a substantial leap forward to a more sustainable future for our horticulture sector. By fostering local food production, advocating for sustainable farming practices and ensuring equitable access to markets for Northern Irish farmers, the legislation will directly contribute to decreasing the carbon footprint of our food system and invigorating our local economy by delivering jobs and growth. Alliance supports the Bill. We urge others to join us in expressing that support.

Mr Muir: I am grateful for Members' contributions to the debate. I will try to respond to the key points that were made. I will also check the Hansard report and, where appropriate, follow up with individual Members in writing if I miss anything inadvertently, as I do not want anyone to feel left out.

Robbie, as Chair of the Committee, raised a number of legitimate points. One of them was on a potential liability arising from changes that DEFRA might make in England. Under the current rules, claims could come from POs that are headquartered in Northern Ireland. However, some of those growers are located elsewhere in the UK, so DAERA would have a duty to support those POs to the potential detriment of local growers or other agriculture support. I am aware of the developments on where DEFRA is going on that, which is one of the reasons why we need to get the legislation progressed. We need to support our local growers in Northern Ireland.

The other issue that the Chair of the Committee raised was on seasonal workers and the worry that there could be a double whammy in the pressures that we face in that respect. Hopefully, in my opening remarks, I gave a necessary level of assurance on the support that I want to continue to give. It is a sector that is important, and it is one that I wish to see grow for many different reasons, particularly environmental ones. In addition, it produces food that we export beyond Northern Ireland to great fame, and we should encourage that. I am very aware of the concerns about the impact on seasonal workers. That is why I have written to the UK Government. I have also engaged with the Economy Minister, who is taking the lead on the issue: we are seeking to get the UK Government to listen to the concerns. There are certain sectors — for example, the mushroom sector — in which automation, which is what the UK Government desire that we pursue, is not as practical as it is in others. That is why I will continue to do the work on that, and I hear the concerns about seasonal workers.

Patsy McGlone raised the issue of a more comprehensive agriculture Bill. Initial scoping is under way on that. It is about giving the Department the necessary powers to take forward the interventions that we need. If you give me time to go through that process, we will see what steps we can take after that. It comes back, again, to stop-go government. The Scottish Parliament and the Senedd essentially have a baton race, from one mandate to the next, progressing legislation and taking things forward. We have not been able to do that in Northern Ireland because of stop-go government. We need to understand that that has implications, not just for public services but for legislation and policy development in Northern Ireland. I will continue to highlight that.

On the concerns that you raised, Patsy, on the funding and whether it will stop, hopefully I have used a form of words that provides the necessary level of assurance. There is a need for us to be able to give a bit more clarity on those issues, and the review is under way. It should report towards the end of this year, subject to staff resources. After that, I will take some time to reflect on next steps. As Michelle outlined, engagement on that with stakeholders will be crucial. I found my engagement with stakeholders to be very productive. That took place not just in my office, but while I was out and about visiting, particularly the apple industry in County Armagh, for which we are famous.

I will have that engagement, and I will not be found wanting in that, because it is absolutely key.

Patsy pointed out that this is one of the consequences of Brexit, which it is. The point is that my approach is different from that of others, because I am focused on solutions. I see what is here and the issues that have presented themselves since the referendum in 2016. We could talk about the problems — we could talk quite a lot about that — but we are in public office to work through those issues pragmatically. That is what I seek to do, because we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland voted to remain, but we left the EU, so we will work through the issues arising from that.

There was one last point that was raised — I hope that I have missed nothing — and there was dialogue between John and Robbie about the uptake of previous schemes, particularly in relation to apple growing. That probably demonstrates why we want to bring the legislation through. The Committee can potentially tease that out at Committee Stage to help us to form judgements on future support so that we can target that support and ensure uptake. It is regrettable that there was not the same level of uptake in some industries; perhaps that was because of the administration involved and the need to follow certain procedures to access it. I am keen to see it happen. I have been in County Armagh a couple times. I got apples and turned them into apple crumble. Actually, I will admit to the House that it was my mother, not me, who made the crumble, and she did a good job. I hope to have the opportunity to do that again. Last Wednesday, I was able to enjoy an excellent apple crumble at Annagh Social Farm in County Fermanagh. All parts of Northern Ireland produce good produce for us to enjoy.

As we move towards the conclusion of the debate, we can, hopefully, consider how to go forward from Second Stage. The issues raised in the Chamber reflect the points raised by stakeholders during the consultation. As I said, I met mushroom growers and heard first-hand the case for the FVAS, with stakeholders setting out the scheme's strengths and its comprehensive nature, including the environmental and climate change benefits. They also noted its potential for the development of other horticultural sectors.

In my opening speech, I reiterated my aspirations for the sector more generally. I am passionate about seeing its growth in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I acknowledge calls for the continuation of support for the mushroom sector, in particular. I stress again that I have made no decisions on the future of the scheme here or on support for the horticulture sector more widely. A lot of people know that I want to support it. I will not take decisions until I have considered the outcome of the ongoing review of the FVAS and the planned review of food promotions. However, as I said, I and future Executive Ministers must have full scope to decide our funding priorities, including the levels of funding, in order to ensure that support is provided where it provides best value for money and to target it where it best meets local need. I therefore hope that Members will agree that it is an unsustainable position for a Minister not to have control over their budget allocation.

It is essential to be able to set departmental funding priorities and to allocate the available budget accordingly. It is now even more important that I, as the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, can make those decisions. That is what devolution is about. As Members will be aware, the budgetary allocation for farming is no longer earmarked by the EU or by Westminster and will be part of the wider Northern Ireland block grant from April next year. That is a new horizon for us, because, previously, that funding came in seven-year tranches from the EU. I am aware of the uncertainty around that. Hopefully, through the agreement of a draft Budget by the Executive, we can give some reassurance to our farming community.

Without making the FVAS funding discretionary, there is a risk that our commitments under the legacy scheme may become unaffordable and that other DAERA priorities are not adequately supported. I have given assurances that I wish to support the horticulture sector and help it to develop and grow. Therefore, there are no plans to close the FVAS here. The previous UK Government made legislation that would close the FVAS in England at the end of the current programme in December 2025 and replace it with a new scheme from 2026. The Chair touched on the implications of that. I appreciate that uncertainty around the UK Government's new position is a concern for all UK growers and that it particularly impacts on those in Northern Ireland who are members of POs headquartered in England. My officials will continue to liaise with their counterparts in DEFRA and across the UK to clarify their intentions and the implications for local stakeholders and, of course, for the Northern Ireland Budget.

I note the calls for alignment with the scheme as it has continued to develop in the EU since Brexit and the fact that stakeholders see that local growers are already at a disadvantage compared with their nearest competitors. I have heard that loud and clear. To that end, the Bill's enabling powers allow for the scheme to be amended, whether that is in line with developments elsewhere or simply to develop support that works best for Northern Ireland for our ambitions for a more sustainable agri-food sector. I welcome support for that aspect of the Bill.

In closing, I thank Members for their contributions, for the questions and issues that they raised and for their support for the Bill's Second Reading. It is a short Bill that will make support under the FVAS discretionary, the statutory requirement to do so being a legacy of its being an EU scheme and not appropriate in the post-EU exit world that we live in. Doing so does not, however, signal any plans to end the scheme here, and I have made no decisions on future funding ahead of the completion of reviews of the FVAS and of support for the sector more widely. The Bill will also allow for the two legacy schemes in question to be amended as necessary and appropriate in order to best reflect local policy and needs. I and my officials look forward to working closely with the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee as it begins its important scrutiny role. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Second Stage of the Agriculture Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Mr McNulty: I beg to move

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

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

I have brought the motion to the House to address the shocking disparity in rail fares between the North and the Republic. The simple fact of the matter is that commuters in the North are being saddled with an enormous and unequal cost burden relative to our neighbours across the border. That fact is illustrated dramatically by the reality that a one-way fare from Newry to Belfast costs £14·50, whereas a one-way fare from Dundalk to Belfast costs just £6·85. That is a difference of 111%. That bears saying again: a difference of 111%. A journey from Newry to Belfast, which is shorter, on the same train on the same train line costs more than double the price of a journey from Dundalk to Belfast. That means that a commuter in Newry who works in Belfast every day will pay thousands of pounds above the odds every year for commuting. The motion calls for action to address the inequality that cross-border fare imbalances create for cross-border commuters. It is critical that we, as legislators, take a clear stand on the issue.

Affordable and accessible public transport is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It is a cornerstone of social mobility, economic growth and the fulfilment of our duty to combat the climate crisis. Public transport, particularly rail services, can be a powerful force for change. Effective rail services connect people to jobs, education, healthcare and leisure. They help businesses grow by providing employees and customers with reliable access to services. However, when public transport becomes prohibitively expensive or inaccessible, it risks creating a two-tier society where only those who can afford to travel or have access to transport or transit hubs can access the opportunities that public transport offers.

The startling disparity in rail fares between North and South is troubling. Let me be clear: this is not a trivial issue. Commuters travelling from my constituency of Newry and Armagh to work on a daily basis in Belfast, Dublin and places in between face increasingly unaffordable and unfair prices. Not only does that act as a barrier to access; it undermines our efforts to decarbonise transport behaviours. Existing rail fare structures in the North are not compatible with the integrated all-island economy that we strive for. We have to ask ourselves how we can expect people to move freely across our island for work, recreation or study when rail fares in the North make such travel prohibitively and unnecessarily expensive. How can we hope to foster a truly all-island economy when the infrastructure that connects us is so unbalanced and its pricing unfair? Affordable rail travel enables people to access better job opportunities, regardless of where they live.

The all-island strategic rail review, commissioned by the SDLP's Nichola Mallon, set out a bold vision for connecting every part of our island. It set a clear ambition of allowing people from rural communities to seamlessly commute to work in cities, facilitating students to pursue exciting opportunities across the island and enabling the isolated, the elderly and individuals living in rural areas to commute for leisure and recreation. That goes to the heart of what makes a society fair and just. The vision of the all-island strategic rail review should be lauded. My frustration is that we are missing opportunities with the basics: the fundamental foundations of building a sustainable public transport model, including fair pricing.

We are fully aware of the scale of investment required to ensure that our public transport infrastructure is fit for the future. That has been illustrated clearly by the investment required to establish the new Belfast Grand Central station. Grand Central station is a critical transport hub for the North; there is no refuting that. However, at the same time, it must be said that a £350 million investment for a new rail hub in Belfast must be met with an equivalent investment commitment to ensure that fares paid by computers are not artificially or unnecessarily inflated. We cannot simply invest in grand projects in our major cities while neglecting the fairness and equity of cross-border transport services. That is the political epitome of all fur coat and no knickers. As it stands, the lack of strategic focus on aligning rail fares between the North and the Republic is a missed opportunity. We must ensure that we do not neglect the basic needs of everyday commuters, who rely on affordable transport to get to work or school or to access healthcare.

That brings me to the core of the motion. The all-island strategic rail review represents an invaluable opportunity for us to rethink and reimagine how we approach cross-border transport. We must see the review not just as an academic exercise but as a practical step towards integrating and unifying our transport infrastructure across the island. With respect to the DUP amendment, I admit that I was somewhat surprised to see the DUP out ahead of Sinn Féin on an issue relating to cross-border transport. I largely welcome the input that the DUP has provided, and it is a positive sign that there is common ground. I enthusiastically support the re-establishment of the Armagh to Portadown rail line, which of course will extend through Monaghan, Clones and Cavan and into the midlands, as per the recommendations of the all-island strategic rail review, connecting Portadown and Derry.

I am sure that the DUP also recognises that Donegal has been forgotten about when it comes to rail connectivity and would therefore support connectivity for there, although that is beyond our remit right now. Moreover, we must ensure that Belfast International Airport is connected to a rail line. Those are all critical long-term strategic objectives that, if realised, will represent a quantum leap for public transport on the island, but they require the full weight and force of government to be behind them.

The motion calls on the Minister for Infrastructure:

the North and the Republic. That is a sensible and urgent step to take. By doing so, we would address a fundamental issue of fairness and take an important step towards greater economic integration on the island. The motion goes further, however, by calling for:

That is a vision that we must pursue. Having a unified fare structure would make travel simpler, cheaper and more accessible. It would remove the barriers to mobility that currently exist and promote greater economic integration and growth between and in both parts of the island.

The motion represents an important step towards addressing the shocking, unfair and irrational disparity in rail fares between the North and the Republic. By aligning rail fares and exploring a unified fare structure, we would reduce inequality for cross-border commuters, promote economic growth and do our duty and address the climate crisis. There is a demonstrable inequality at the heart of rail fare pricing structures, and it would be totally unacceptable to me and to the SDLP if the current system that governs fares were allowed to persist. Public transport should be accessible to everyone on the island on an equal basis. The time has come for us to take action and address what is an unfair system. I hope and trust that Members will throw their support behind the motion and demonstrate that we are serious about incentivising public transport use, that we are serious about fair play and that, when a problem becomes apparent, we can move quickly to address it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask the Member to reflect on his remarks. He made a particular statement that some might find offensive. Some in the Building have already talked about the use of language and humour that are not respected by everybody. I ask the Member to be cautious in what he says in future. I understand that some Members have already raised concerns.

Mrs Erskine: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mrs Erskine: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is important that any modern, forward-thinking society have infrastructure projects that will aid the betterment of its people, socially and economically. Setting our sights high for infrastructure capital investment should be at the forefront of all our minds. No matter how ambitious the plan, however, we must ensure that we think first about our own jurisdiction and how a plan impacts on each and every citizen who lives and works in Northern Ireland. In these days of budgetary constraint, any plan must be fair and proportionate in order to balance the books.

The DUP seeks to amend the motion to ensure that we promote the needs of Northern Ireland's rail infrastructure and boost the opportunities that should exist for Northern Ireland plc. That is why our party has focused on the rail feasibility studies that are funded by the Union connectivity review. The plans consist of:

All those plans are important for creating a better public transport offering in those parts of Northern Ireland. I know that the SDLP likes to shout about being the proponent of the all-island rail review, but its motion does not recognise the review's failure to ensure that each and every county of Northern Ireland will have train track considered for it. To me, the real lack of ambition from the Department for Infrastructure does not necessarily pertain to fares but, in fact, to stepping out and building infrastructure in rural areas. Not including Fermanagh in the all-island rail review has led to significant regional imbalances and will create inequality. For a border constituency such as mine, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, not having ambitious plans for bus and rail expansion and development has, essentially, cut us off. There must be better service planning in the here and now and for the future.

At a recent meeting of the Infrastructure Committee, officials briefed us on the all-island strategic rail review. It will not surprise Members that Fermanagh was high on my agenda. Whilst mention was made of the Fermanagh and Omagh transport plan as a means to understand the transport needs of people in County Fermanagh, that plan is being developed up to 2035. I have read the document. I did not see rail wholly mentioned in that document. Furthermore, the timescales do not fit in with the 10-year review of rail for the area, as mentioned in the strategic rail review. Surely, we need to look at the inclusion of rail in transport development plans now for its inclusion ahead of the 10-year review. I was then horrified that officials deemed a transport hub offering in Omagh to be an acceptable alternative to developments in County Fermanagh itself. I am not great at geography, but I know that Omagh is in Tyrone, not Fermanagh. Fermanagh should not be disregarded. It is an integral part of the economy and has a wonderful tourism offering. A sustainable and reliable transport offering is needed for my area.

Whilst the motion refers to the all-island strategic rail review, for which some money is coming from the Shared Island unit, it is important to recognise the Union connectivity review. It overlap the all-island strategic rail review on the development of rail, but it has also provided the funds for the necessary feasibility work. That work was funded via the UK Government's Union connectivity development fund. Funding is the component to drive forward any rail or transport expansion here. We must be realistic about that. Businesses' investment and profit also drive that agenda. That is why I recognise the need for an aligned fare structure to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have a fair and accessible transport network offering. We must ensure that fares are reasonable in our own jurisdiction to create that greater economic growth, ensure that barriers to movement are removed and promote regional development between jurisdictions.

It is important to note that Translink and Irish Rail are funded in different ways. Translink last increased Enterprise fares in March 2023. They had not been increased for five years prior to that revision. Irish Rail has been able to reduce its standard and online fares by 20% in recent years due to funding that has been provided by the Department of Transport. My party does not support the aspiration of a unified approach to cross-border rail services, not least because Irish Rail and Translink are constituted differently and it would require a harmonised approach to subsidies going forward. Any solution must, ultimately, respect the legal and political status of each jurisdiction as well as the bespoke funding arrangements for each operator. That does not, however, mean that we should not strive for greater alignment in fare structures within those parameters. Practical cooperation is possible and should be pursued. It is misguided, therefore, for the motion to propose to pitch alignment of fares in the context of economic integration.

Recently, Translink introduced a new online fare structure for the Enterprise service that is more closely aligned to the Irish Rail web fare. Translink has been operating in a challenging situation with an increasing cost base. There can be no question that the underfunding of public services in Northern Ireland has created disparities. Subsidies are likely to be required to meet the shortfall between the cost of running a rail service and rail revenues. That requires effective funding over a longer period than is currently the case with single-year budgets and an ad hoc in-year payment.

The all-island strategic rail review and the Union connectivity review present a clear vision for better connectivity throughout the British Isles. Full delivery of those commitments stands to unlock opportunities for economic growth and job creation in our communities. We will work constructively with the Executive and the UK and Irish Governments to that end and to progress the four feasibility studies that are under way. Hopefully, we will see more on rail and transport development across Northern Ireland.

It is crucial that we now see the impetus moving away from the ideas phase and aspirations to delivery. The elephant in the room is, of course, funding. As an integral part of any implementation plan, timescales need to be firmed up and underpinned by a clearly agreed understanding of available Executive allocations. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.

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

Mr Speaker: Questions 4, 6 and 12 have been withdrawn.

Dr Archibald (The Minister of Finance): Sixty-five per cent of the hospitality sector as a whole is already in receipt of support via the small business rate relief scheme. While calls for ever-increasing rate support are prominent, the Member will appreciate that similarly vocal views on how that additional support should be funded are harder to solicit. As the Member will know, England is phasing out that measure, and the reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure rate relief from 75% to 40% means that the cost of support is lower in 2025-26. The Executive have therefore received a reduction of £58·2 million in 2025-26 in relation to business rates.

Every pound that we, as an Executive, spend on rate relief means reduced revenue for vital public services or higher rates bills for homes and businesses. There needs to be a clear economic rationale for additional support. The rating system is our sole devolved tax lever and is there to generate income for the Executive and councils. The Member will be aware of the wider funding challenges being faced across Executive Departments. However, I plan to meet representatives of the sector along with other sectors in the coming days to discuss the issues that they face and how we can work together.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, that is a somewhat disappointing response. While I accept that the public finances are constrained, if businesses go to the wall, our rates base shrinks. Will you commit to working with the Minister for the Economy and the chambers of commerce across Northern Ireland to bring forward some level of support for the hospitality and retail businesses that are struggling on our high streets?

Dr Archibald: I have had significant engagement with businesses, as the Member will appreciate. I understand that they face a range of issues, a lot of which are outwith our control and are because of decisions that have been made by the British Government as recently as the Budget statement. Like, I am sure, other Members, I have had significant correspondence on some of those issues. The fact remains that 70% of non-domestic ratepayers here receive some form of support, and our finances for providing additional support are limited.

I will always commit to engaging with the sector in order to understand the challenges that it faces and to see whether, as an Executive, we can take actions to support it. Of course, the rating system may not be the most appropriate approach to providing that support. I am always willing to listen to business organisations' or other Members' suggestions in respect of that.

Ms D Armstrong: What progress has been made on rating reform to help SMEs in particular?

Dr Archibald: As I have said on a number of occasions, I have brought forward proposals to the Executive on my approach to taking a more strategic look at the rating system in the short, medium and longer term. I hope to communicate to Members on that in more detail in the near future.

Miss Brogan: Will the Minister advise when she shared her rating proposals with her Executive colleagues?

Dr Archibald: I first circulated my proposals for consideration by the Executive on 10 October. The proposals included details on a potential consultation on certain rating policy measures. I subsequently asked that my paper be considered at four meetings of the Executive: on 17 October, 7 November, 11 November and 21 November. I also wrote to colleagues to outline the potential implications that not tabling the paper may have for the implementation of any changes in April 2025.

It is regrettable that, despite having cross-party support — from my party colleagues and colleagues from the Alliance and the UUP — the paper has not been tabled for discussion at the Executive. I am not alone in holding the view that such important matters should be discussed collectively by the Executive, as evidenced by the cross-party letter that asked for my paper to be tabled. It is important to have Executive discussion, if not agreement, on the general direction of policy prior to engaging in further supplementary consultation.

Mr Durkan: Minister, I have been in touch with you about the plight of businesses on Foyle Street in my constituency that have suffered hugely due to protracted works by Northern Ireland Water in the area and are seeking relief on their rates bills. The process of revaluation is intrusive, exhausting and expensive for those businesses, and it is labour-intensive for Land and Property Services (LPS). Is there no other mechanism by which to reduce rates when the negative impact on those business is blatant.

Dr Archibald: I know that the Member has raised that issue with me previously. I am sympathetic to businesses that are being impacted by works that are beyond their control. The Member is aware that rate relief is available through the hardship scheme for businesses that suffer from impacts that are beyond their control. The award of further relief for specific purposes would mean less money to spend on public services. As has been mentioned, rates are our only revenue generator. They fund our public services, so the choice would be to have less money to give out or to put up rates bills for other homes and businesses.

Under the rating and valuation system, every case is assessed by LPS on its merits, by considering the impact of the work on the net annual value (NAV) of the property. That is determined by established case law and a long-standing statutory framework that supports the stability of our tax base, which is used to fund central and local government services. The Member will appreciate that it is important to have that statutory framework and consider every case against it, because there are a lot of demands on LPS to make support available to businesses in difficult circumstances. There has to be that framework within which the issue is considered.

Mr Carroll: Minister, you said that you were not developing a scheme at the minute, but, if you were, would you consider putting in conditions so that public money would not be given to organisations that are hostile to unions, do not pay a real living wage or use zero-hours contracts? Would you support such conditions in a public scheme?

Dr Archibald: I did not catch the first part of the Member's question, but I think that I got the gist of it. As I outlined to Mr Durkan, rating relief is provided to businesses on the basis of a statutory framework. Some of those issues are included in our social value procurement framework for other government services.

Dr Archibald: Financial transactions capital can be used only to provide loans to or equity investment in the private sector. The funding is ring-fenced for that purpose and cannot be used for anything else. It is therefore more challenging for Departments to identify suitable projects that advance the Executive’s policy aspirations and fulfil the criteria of a loan or equity investment.

I have consistently encouraged Departments to consider how they can use the funding. My Department has agreed with Treasury that any FTC underspends not carried forward under the Budget exchange scheme may be used to offset the required repayment of 80% of FTC allocations, thereby using that funding to reduce future liabilities. I am pleased that, following our continued engagement, the level of FTC bids by Departments for Budget 2025-26 is up on previous years; however, we must still consider all feasible options to use the funding most effectively.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, while your and your Department's approach to FTC has not quite been, "Computer says no", it has been, "Computer says this is quite difficult, so we need to look at it in more detail". I am afraid that we are handing back tens upon tens of millions of pounds of FTC every year. I offered the example of Tribeca, a northern part of Belfast city centre that has fallen into dereliction over decades and said that we could use the FTC for that. You sent me a letter that said —

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

Mr O'Toole: — that it will be "difficult but not impossible". Minister, rather than simply encouraging Departments, will your Department properly and proactively look at ways to deploy the money to improve people's lives, regenerate towns —

Mr Speaker: OK. Minister.

Mr O'Toole: — and build social houses in Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: I will correct the point: we do not hand the money back; as I said in the previous answer, it is used to offset future liabilities. It is not, obviously, our preferred option for using the money, and we would much prefer it if Departments could identify projects. As I have said, I have actively encouraged bids in all my engagements with Ministers, and that has resulted in a significant uplift in the bids that have been made this year. The Member has made particular suggestions of his own and has had correspondence from my Department about those. I am happy to proactively engage with Ministers to identify ways to better utilise FTC. It is an important revenue stream that has supported development in line with the principles set out by the Executive.

Dr Aiken: Minister, as well as FTC, you will be aware that Andy Burnham has been able to reach out to the likes of the National Wealth Fund and funding for GB Energy. Has the Minister tasked Neil Gibson and his merry bunch of staff to talk to people like Andy Burnham to see what we could do with other funding that seems to be there? Northern Ireland deserves a considerable chunk of those national funds as well.

Dr Archibald: The Committee has received or will receive correspondence giving further detail about the National Wealth Fund and GB Energy. I had not specifically asked my officials to engage with Andy Burnham, but, as you will appreciate, they have regular engagement with Treasury to understand the outworkings of those funds and any plans that Treasury has to utilise the funds to positively impact on here as well.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, what actions have you taken to use financial transactions capital to support the expansion of green energy?

Dr Archibald: The Member might be aware of the NI Investment Fund, which uses FTC on behalf of the Executive to support private-sector investment. One of the themes under which developers can access that funding is decarbonisation, which is one in respect of which we would encourage more interest from private developers, because there has been limited interest in it to date. We are keen to encourage more projects to be taken forward under that banner. If the Member wants to engage further with officials, I would be happy for him to do so.

Dr Archibald: The Department is currently finalising contract terms with Fujitsu for the provision of the new IT land registration solution, which will transform Land Registry's services. The new IT solution will implement a range of new services via digital channels, and customers will be able to submit applications online. Many manual processes will be automated, which will result in an improved quality of service, increased workforce productivity and value for money. It is anticipated that the contract will be signed in January 2025, with the implementation phase of the new solution commencing in April 2025.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Minister. Does the Minister have any concerns about the Education Authority's (EA) recent decision not to proceed with a contract with Fujitsu for over £5 million?

Dr Archibald: I am not over the detail of why the contract was not taken forward between the EA and Fujitsu. As the Member will be aware, public procurement here is regulated through the UK's Public Contracts Regulations 2015. My Department conducted a robust and vigorous procurement process that resulted in Fujitsu being the preferred bidder to deliver our new land registration IT solution.

Dr Archibald: With the Speaker's permission, I will answer questions 5 and 10 together.

The career opportunities and promotion policy sets out the arrangements for temporary promotions in the Civil Service, including the circumstances in which they may be considered, eligibility requirements and the selection processes. Temporary promotions are designed primarily to meet business needs and can be required for several different reasons, such as covering sick absence or maternity leave; for special exercises that are time-bound projects; and to temporarily fill substantive posts that are vacant for reasons such as resignation and promotion.

Based on information from our HR services provider, over the past 10 years, the average duration of temporary promotion was 317 calendar days. Some staff may have been temporarily promoted more than once during that time period. As of the end of October 2024, the majority of temporary promotions, which is 76%, in the Civil Service were due to vacant posts and/or resulting backfill. The Civil Service continues to work to reduce the number of temporary promotions by filling vacancies, where possible, on a permanent basis through external recruitment competitions. Budget pressures have resulted in recruitment activity for the Civil Service being curtailed, which has impacted on the use of temporary promotions.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, temporary promotions are not intended to last for more than one year. While there is no strict maximum duration for temporary promotions, prolonged periods going from one year to over four years can lead to complications. For instance, if an employee remains in a temporary role for an extended time, they might argue that the temporary position has effectively become their substantive role. Could that lead to claims of implied contractual terms based on custom and practice? Is it not promotion without the due process of advertising roles and having interview and selection processes, and, if so, what does the Minister intend to do to rectify that situation?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I set out in my original answer, there is policy in place that temporary promotions are guided by, and an individual's suitability will be assessed under that policy in reference to the selection criteria for temporary promotion. In all circumstances, if an individual is selected, they must be deemed fit for promotion by their line manager. The career opportunities and promotion policy, under which temporary promotions fall, is being reviewed as part of a wider review of recruitment policies, but I must say that temporary promotions are still likely to be required as a temporary staffing solution in certain situations.

Mr McGrath: The Minister says that the Civil Service is trying to manage this. Well, it is failing. We have 10% of our Civil Service on temporary promotion, and that number is increasing year-on-year. I worry about the practices that are being followed for filling a lot of those positions. There is still a lot of nudge nudge wink wink going on and people saying, "There is a job for you". Will the Minister commit to filling the proper ranks with open competitions that will be completely fair and will give everybody the opportunity to apply for a full-time permanent post?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I will push back a little bit on his characterisation of how the posts are filled. Proper process is followed. The Civil Service continues to work to reduce the number of temporary promotions by filling vacancies, just as he said, where possible, on a permanent basis through external recruitment competitions. As I mentioned in my opening answer, recent budget pressures have resulted in recruitment activity being curtailed, and that has had an impact on the use of temporary promotions.

Mr Allen: The Minister will no doubt be aware that today is International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and, as we speak, in City Hall, the Equality Commission is holding a conference called Breaking Barriers, Building Futures. To that end, will the Minister advise what steps her Department is taking in the Civil Service to remove barriers for people with disabilities and to enable them to take up roles in the Civil Service?

Dr Archibald: Yes. I thank the Member for his important question. I have discussed with officials at the highest level the issue of HR and recruitment and support for our existing staff. It is really important that the Civil Service, as one of the biggest employers in the North, leads the way and sets an example on issues including inclusion and accessibility for people with disabilities. I have actively encouraged that, and we are looking at our policies on how we support current workers and also at removing the barriers to employment. I am happy for my officials to write to the Member about some of the work that is being done to set that out for him.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member. I hosted a banking round table on 20 November with a wide range of representatives from the banking industry, the Financial Services Union, credit unions, the Post Office, business bodies and the community and voluntary sector. That provided an important platform to discuss key concerns and issues around access to cash and local banking services. I also invited the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority to the round table to hear the views of local stakeholders first-hand and to update attendees on the new rules that came into effect in September in relation to access to cash. My officials will monitor the impact of the new rules locally and will send a summary report setting out the key issues identified at the round table to the British Treasury and the regulatory authorities for a formal response. I also intend to visit one of the local banking hubs early in the new year to better understand the services that they offer, especially for the most vulnerable people in society. I will continue to engage with stakeholders, including by hosting an annual banking round table, to ensure that any local issues are brought to the sector and relevant authorities in Britain.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

Will she outline what her key asks are of the Treasury?

Dr Archibald: A range of issues will be raised in the summary report to which we will ask the Treasury to formally respond. That includes the need to ensure that local issues are reflected in its new national financial inclusion strategy, given our relatively higher levels of vulnerability here. As the new access-to-cash rules do not cover financial advice, I am also keen to understand its plan in that regard to ensure that communities can still receive that vital service, which is so important for our most vulnerable people. Communities here also need to be made aware of the new rules and how they can submit assessment requests, especially where access to cash is already limited. I am keen to understand what the Treasury is doing to ensure that these new rules are effectively communicated here in the North. The Treasury will also be asked how non-profit businesses such as charities can be treated fairly under its regulatory regime. That is particularly important when local bank branches close and understanding of different business models for the voluntary and community sector is lost.

Ms Forsythe: I welcome the Minister's comment that she will visit a banking hub in the new year. In Kilkeel in my constituency, we had the first banking hub in Northern Ireland, and another one is opening this week in Newcastle, which is great news. One thing that has often come from the feedback on banking hubs is that they do not give 24-hour access to cash through cash machines. Has the Minister done any work on, or made any commitments to, promoting the inclusion of cash machines to businesses in rural communities?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question; I was not aware that a banking hub was opening in Newcastle this week. The issue of 24-hour access to cash was raised as part of the discussion and was put forward very strongly by some of the representatives in attendance, including those from the community and voluntary sector. It is fair to say that the new rules that have been put in place by the FCA only came into effect in September, so there has not been a lot of time to assess their effectiveness yet. As I have set out already, it is really important that people understand the ability that they have now to ask for assessments around access to cash and 24-hour access to cash and to ensure that that is available for communities. If the Member wants to write to me, I will be happy to get officials to provide some additional information on that.

Mr Mathison: If the Minister would like to visit a banking hub, one is shortly due to open in Comber in my constituency, where she would be made very welcome. Can the Minister provide any more detail on the sorts of policy interventions at Executive level that would be useful for supporting the retention of high street banking services, particularly in rural areas?

Dr Archibald: I know that the Member will be aware that we have very limited banking powers and that the majority of such powers are reserved. That is one of the reasons that we hosted the round table: to get an understanding of the issues. I have received lots of correspondence and representations from Members about access to cash, particularly in rural areas, and we have strongly conveyed that message to the FCA and, through my officials, to the British Treasury. The round table offered an opportunity for those issues to be aired. It was good to have the chief executive of the FCA in attendance this time to hear specifically about the local issues. He found it very useful, and he reflected that. As an Executive, we are in some respects a Treasury conduit for making representations and ensuring that regulations that are being implemented by it and the FCA are fit for purpose for our people and our communities. That is something that I am committed to trying to achieve.

Dr Archibald: The British Chancellor announced the Executive's funding envelope for 2025-26 in the autumn Budget on 30 October. The settlement for future years will be announced in spring 2025. I am engaging with Executive colleagues on our approach to the 2025-26 Budget and have been working at pace to develop proposals. It is my intention, subject to Executive agreement, to publish a draft Budget early this month to allow time for a full public consultation to be held before a final Budget is agreed by the Executive prior to the start of the new financial year.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for her answer. Is she supportive of ring-fencing the agriculture funding that has been baselined for next year?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. In short, yes. I appreciate the uncertainty that the Chancellor's decision to remove the ring-fenced element of that important funding has created. It is also disappointing that the amount included in the Executive's baseline did not include an inflationary uplift. I am keen to see appropriate funding be made available to the farming and fisheries communities. I am therefore very supportive of ring-fencing that agriculture funding, and I will be proposing that when presenting a draft Budget for 2025-26 to the Executive. Ultimately, however, it will be a decision for the Executive as a whole to take.

Dr Archibald: I met the AERA Minister in advance of the Budget announcement to discuss the importance of ensuring that adequate agriculture support funding is made available to farmers and land managers in the North. I also discussed the issue with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and wrote to him to request clarity on the future of the ring-fenced agriculture support funding, as well as to request that consideration be given to uplifting any allocation for inflation. Unfortunately, an uplift was not included in the Budget settlement that the British Chancellor announced, and the agriculture support funding is no longer earmarked by Treasury. Following the Chancellor's Budget, the AERA Minister wrote to me, setting out his concerns and requesting that the resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) that was previously earmarked by Treasury be treated as Executive earmarked funding. I appreciate the uncertainty that the Budget announcement created, and I am keen to see appropriate funding be made available to the farming and fisheries communities. As I said to the Member who asked the previous question, I am therefore supportive of the funding for agriculture and fisheries that had previously been earmarked by the British Government being similarly earmarked by the Executive in the 2025-26 Budget. Ultimately, that will be a decision for Executive colleagues, however.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

The Minister mentioned that she had written to Ministers. What response did you receive, or has a response been received yet?

Dr Archibald: Are you referring to my engagement with the Treasury?

Mr McGlone: Yes.

Dr Archibald: I raised the issue with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in person, as well as in writing. Off the top of my head, I cannot recall the response, but I am happy to correspond with the Member.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I am not sure that I would characterise it as "surreal". The Member will understand that the annex to the Budget suitability plan — we discussed it at length in Committee last week — was a requirement under the financial package for raising the £113 million of revenue over two years. Any revenue that has been raised this year or is projected to be raised next year is included in that annex. That is why it is reflected.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the technical response from the Minister but, given her reputation for seriousness and detail, she would have to accept that it is a fairly surreal situation for a Finance Minister to rely on suspending the provisions of her ministerial colleague's private Member's Bill to secure savings. She has not got onto the Executive agenda a minor change to the rating system around the domestic rate caps. We have not seen any proposals as yet, despite elaborate promises, on fiscal devolution. Is it not the case that the big reform agenda that was promised around Budget and revenue-raising simply has not emerged yet?

Dr Archibald: Again, to reflect, it was simply a case that it is money that is being accrued this year, and that is why it was included.

In relation to the broader issues that the Member has raised about rates and fiscal powers, the fiscal powers piece, in particular, is part of the discussions around our future fiscal framework. In relation to issues of income generation, the Member is aware that it is included in the Budget sustainability plan and that the Executive have committed to regular strategic consideration of our income generation measures. The Member will also appreciate that we are working to tight time frames in the development of our Budget for 2025-26, so it was not possible to include that consideration in time for that. It is certainly work that the Executive will continue to progress, and I, as Finance Minister, will continue to progress the negotiations with Treasury around our future fiscal framework.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for her response on ring-fencing budget for struggling farmers. She is minded to do that, and I welcome that.

Dr Archibald: First and foremost, it is for the Agriculture Minister to develop business cases for those programmes. Obviously, they would also have to go through the normal processes of ensuring value for money in departmental spend.

Mr Clarke: I appreciate what the Minister has said about value for money. Given that she has overall responsibility for the Budget in the Assembly, does her Department scrutinise those schemes to find out the net benefit for Northern Ireland as a whole, or are they just seen as some sort of environmental scheme that that Minister wants to push to the detriment of our farmers?

Dr Archibald: I do not want to answer on behalf of the Agriculture Minister and will try to resist that, but I am sure he would not intend to detrimentally impact farmers. The cases for particular schemes that are developed by any Department — in this case, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs — is a matter for that Department. Only in an instance where a business case is above a certain threshold would it come to the Department of Finance for consideration.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I answered a question from his colleague a few minutes ago about HR and recruitment policies in respect of people with disabilities. I have had considerable engagement with my senior officials on HR and recruitment in support of people who already work for us. I actively encourage and proactively ask the Department to ensure that we remove barriers to people with disabilities in accessing employment in the Civil Service.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for her answer, and I am sorry if I missed the answer to a previous question.

Does the Minister agree that we get it right when we set things up to ensure that people are not discriminated against rather than when we use some form of positive action? We should set targets and parameters for including people as opposed to trying to stop excluding them.

Dr Archibald: I very much encourage that. As I said to Andy a few moments ago, it is important that, as one of the largest employers here, we ensure that we lead by example and set best practice. I actively encourage officials to look at how we can do exactly that.

Dr Archibald: We actively encourage the pooling of budgets as part of the budgetary process, and we did so for Budget 2025-26. I am not sure that we record every instance of that, but we encourage it. If the Member wishes to ask for further information, I would be happy for her to engage with officials on that.

Mrs Guy: Minister, the Act confers powers on your Department to make regulations to determine how Departments come together to pool resources. Do you intend to make such regulations?

Dr Archibald: That matter has been raised with me on a number of occasions. Guidance for Departments on how to do that is already in place. One concern that I have about making regulations is that it may hinder Departments in coming forward with more innovative solutions for working together to tackle particular issues. As it stands, there is sufficient scope for Departments to work together, but I am happy to keep that under review.

Dr Archibald: That issue has been raised with me on a considerable number of occasions, as, I am sure, it has been raised with other Members. I have had correspondence from public-sector partners and community and voluntary organisations that deliver in partnership with or on behalf of government and from our business sector.

National Insurance contributions will have a significant impact. We are working through quantifying the costs relating to the public sector and those who work in partnership with us, and we have asked the third sector to share any information or evidence that it has. Officials have been engaging with Treasury, and we intend to progress that engagement in the coming days and weeks.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for her answer. There has been a lot of chat about doctors' surgeries in the rest of the UK saying that they cannot afford to pay the contributions. If Treasury were to change what it has said about the issue to date and make a positive decision, would we see Barnett consequentials from that, and, if so, would those consequentials be ring-fenced?

Dr Archibald: No Barnett consequentials are ring-fenced. It is for the Executive to decide how they spend their money, which is, obviously, an important aspect of having an Executive and Ministers locally. One of my concerns about the Barnett consequentials that we will get from the change in public-sector employers' National Insurance contributions — I am not alone in this; the Scottish Finance Minister has said it publicly too — is that they will not even cover our additional costs in respect of that. We are trying to get additional information to understand fully what the impact of the costs will be, and we continue that engagement with Treasury to communicate what the impact will be, because it will be significant.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sheehan is not in his place. I call Áine Murphy.

Dr Archibald: Yes is the short answer. I am deeply concerned that increasing insurance premiums are adding further financial pressure on households, businesses and communities. My officials and I have been engaging with the insurance sector and the regulatory authorities to identify what is behind the rises and what can be done to control them. It is suggested that increases are being driven by a number of factors, some of which are being experienced globally due to inflationary pressures in the industry, whilst others appear to be more specific to the market here.

I raised my concerns directly with the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority when we met on 20 November. I asked for stronger regulation in the North, especially of claims management companies, which are regulated in Britain but not here. On 19 November, I attended a meeting of the inter-ministerial group for transport to discuss the work of the new task force on motor insurance, led by the then Transport Secretary, and I look forward to engaging further. I took the opportunity at that meeting to call for British Government Ministers to investigate high home insurance prices, which are also a particular issue here.

Ms Á Murphy: The Minister answered my question so well that she also answered my supplementary.

Dr Archibald: Did the Member say "EU laws"?

Mr Beattie: EU laws.

Dr Archibald: Work has been undertaken on behalf of the Executive on new EU laws. There is obviously the work under the Windsor framework. On specific laws, departmental officials keep abreast of what is developing in Britain and in the EU to ensure that we are kept apprised.

Mr Beattie: Minister, thank you for your answer. Clearly, laws that will be introduced in the future affect people now. For example, in 2030, EU legislation will ban rubber infill on all 3G and 4G pitches. There will be a huge cost in setting up 3G and 4G synthetic pitches for that and in maintaining them post 2030. Have you had any discussions to see what packages we can provide to schools, community groups and sporting organisations to support them in that?

Dr Archibald: The short answer is, "No, I haven't". That issue has not been specifically brought to my attention. In some respects, it would be within the remit of the responsibilities of the Education and Communities Ministers. I am happy for the Member to communicate with officials on the issue to understand what the implications might be.

Dr Archibald: As I said to the Member's colleague, we are concerned that the Barnett consequentials that we got on employer National Insurance contributions for the public sector will not cover the additional cost. As the Member will be well aware, we face significant budgetary pressures in our general Budget. Therefore, we are concerned about the impact that it will have on public sector employers.

It is difficult at this point to answer the specific question of whom we will be able to support on National Insurance contribution costs, because we have not yet had the figure clarified by Treasury. We continue our engagement with Treasury to try to understand that and to communicate the impact that the changes will have on the public sector; the community, voluntary and third sectors that work in partnership with us; and the private sector.

Miss McIlveen: I appreciate the Minister's response. I assume that the plan B option is being explored, given that, ultimately, the burden from the change will add to pressures on ratepayers. I am curious to see what other plans and options the Minister is exploring.

Dr Archibald: We are scoping future plans to understand what those costs will be, for the public sector and more widely. We are continuing our engagement with Treasury, as I have articulated. Given the budgetary pressures that we face and the fact that we do not believe that the Barnett consequentials will be enough to cover the increased National Insurance contributions for public-sector employers, we are very concerned about what the shortfall in respect of that will be. That is what we are engaging the Treasury about.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for her question. While it would be unwise to discuss the detail of security arrangements in a public forum, the Assembly Commission takes security seriously. Arrangements are kept under review by Assembly management and are revisited and amended, as required. Access by visitors to Parliament Buildings is outlined in the Assembly Commission policy, 'Conduct and Behaviour of Visitors in Parliament Buildings'. That includes general rules of entry and those conditions that are applicable to visitors.

Members may have noticed a change, with the visitor experience team taking responsibility for the reception desk to greet visitors when they enter the Building. However, that change operates within the wider framework of our existing security arrangements, which include the requirement to go through the search facility on arrival and the presence of ushers in the Great Hall.

Mrs Guy: Thank you for the answer. You mentioned that security arrangements are reviewed as and when. Is there a particular time frame within which that happens? Does it happen on a regular basis?

Ms Ennis: Not that I am aware of. The Assembly Commission will keep that under constant review. We will assess how well security arrangements are working, and if there are any incidents, or if there is any need to make any changes to that, any Member can write to the Assembly Commission on that and we will consider it.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member detail or advise what changes have been made by the Commission in the light of the fact that a Sinn Féin employee, who stood accused of child sex offences, was given the run of this Building for months because of Philip McGuigan's failure to cancel his pass? When will we see the publication of the report on the issues that have arisen from the Michael McMonagle scandal?

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for his question. As he will know, issues relating to that are under investigation. The Assembly Commission has already said that it will not be providing a running commentary on that investigation.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission takes its responsibility to maintain this historic Building extremely seriously.

As Parliament Buildings is a grade A listed building, there are strict guidelines governing how cleaning, repairs and other maintenance works are carried out. The first step in the process is to seek and receive listed building consent for proposed works. A proprietary application was made in September 2024 in relation to the specialist cleaning and repointing of the Building. The Building's age and listed building status mean that all cleaning and the repointing of joints will be agreed with a conservation architect and will conform to the British Standard code of practice on the cleaning of buildings and surface repair of buildings. All decorative features, metalwork and windows etc are to be protected throughout all cleaning processes.

The Assembly Commission has agreed that the east and west ends of the Building will be cleaned in the current financial year, subject to receipt of listed building consent.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his answer. I am a bit perplexed as to why we would only clean the east and west ends. We are the custodians of this Building and the Commission is charged with that. Is the Commission not being penny wise and pound foolish in that regard? In a number of years, will one of the lines on the tour be, "Not only did we cover the Building with tar and manure in the Second World War but we failed to maintain it in the 2020s"?

Mr Clarke: There was consideration given at the Assembly Commission to doing the whole Building. Consensus was reached on doing the east and west ends. The Building is not in such disrepair that it is causing much negativity other than among Members like yourself and others. However, doing the rest of the Building is under consideration for the future.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission takes the security of Members and staff extremely seriously, and it is recognised that the interactions that Members have mean that security in Assembly Commission offices also has to be considered. The Speaker and the Clerk/Chief Executive recently met the then Assistant Chief Constable Bobby Singleton to discuss the security of Members. It was agreed that that will lead to further meetings with senior PSNI officers to take forward Members' security on a broader, strategic basis. That should be built on the security and crime prevention advice that has already been provided to Members and their staff during previous briefings and discussions at Parliament Buildings. Staff from Usher Services and the Clerking and Member Support Office subsequently met the PSNI in Parliament Buildings to discuss the personal security and safety of Members and constituency office staff. In addition, the Assembly Commission approved a new 2024 determination that will introduce new provisions covering the cost of security measures at constituency offices and MLAs' private residences.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Member. She will no doubt share my concerns about constituency office staff, particularly those who work alone, and some of the challenges that exist there. Will the Commission agree to bring forward further measures that provide some reassurance to members of staff who are fearful about some of the more challenging situations that can arise?

Ms Ennis: Yes, I share the Member's concerns. The provision in the new determination was brought about because MLAs raised concerns about previous incidents. I was subjected to an incident at my constituency office. It was only through discussions at the Commission that we were able to provide that new assistance in the determination, and MLAs should definitely use it. However, if there are any specific security concerns, here or at constituency offices, the PSNI should be made aware of those.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his question. In June 2020, the Assembly conferred powers on the Assembly Commission to determine matters relating to MLA expenses and allowances. However, matters relating to MLA salaries and pensions remain a matter for the successor independent financial review panel. The Assembly Commission is considering the introduction of a Bill to replace the panel with a remuneration board. Any review of the pension provisions will be a matter for the remuneration board to take forward once it has been formed.

Dr Aiken: I declare an interest as chair of the Northern Ireland Assembly pensions trustees. Thank you very much indeed for your comments. Obviously, there are considerable concerns among MLAs. Speaking, in some respects, as their shop steward on the issue of pensions, it is clear that Members' pensions are significantly out of kilter with those of Assembly staff, who, under their pension scheme, get contributions of, in some instances, close to 30%. Indeed, the staff in our offices get only in the region of 11%, which, again, is not —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question there?

Dr Aiken: I am getting there, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is important that I lay the groundwork before I ask the question.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is also important that you ask a question.

Dr Aiken: The question is quite simple. Given that significant mismatch in pensions, at what stage will the Commission take the appropriate action and expedite the move by whatever form the pay and pension group takes. When will that happen?

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his question. I am sure that all Members are interested in ensuring that pensions are aligned correctly, as they are meant to be, with those in other places. As for when that will happen, I am afraid that all I can say to the Member is that the introduction of the Bill is being considered by the Assembly Commission. Hopefully, there will be some movement on that next year.

Mr Dickson: What are the barriers to bringing forward that legislation?

Mr McGrath: I do not think that there are any specific barriers, other than the fact that it is still being considered by the Assembly Commission. The Assembly Commission will meet in January and February next year, and, hopefully, the matter can be addressed then.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member. The Assembly Commission is committed to ensuring that the Assembly has the resources that it needs to carry out its scrutiny and legislative functions. It has carefully considered the recommendations of the renewable heat incentive (RHI) inquiry and the weaknesses that were identified in the Mediahuis judgement. The Assembly Commission's corporate strategy 2023-28 includes an objective to:

In light of that, the Assembly Commission has included in its budget requirements for 2025-26 funding for the establishment of new posts to perform increased support and scrutiny from both legal and parliamentary perspectives. That will include two additional legal advisers and, as recommended by the Chairperson's Liaison Group in the previous mandate, nine senior assistant clerks.

Among other things, that increased staff capacity will allow Assembly Committees to devote dedicated time to taking legal advice on the human rights implications of Bills and enable them to consider and, if necessary, challenge a Department's assessment of proportionality issues in clauses that raise Convention rights issues. The increased staff capacity will also allow for significantly enhanced scrutiny of delegated legislation, particularly at proposal stage.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for the response. I am keen that, where new posts are created, there will be opportunities for Assembly staff members who have been here for many years, particularly in areas where there is under-representation. Is the Assembly Commission able to give an assurance that additional support will be put in place in order to ensure that there is equal access to those new posts?

Ms Ennis: The Committees' scrutiny role is not a matter for the Assembly Commission. However, anything that will help us to carry out our functions better is always to be welcomed. If any training needs to go along with that, the Assembly Commission will not be found wanting. Members and staff will need to get to grips with the new scrutiny arrangements, so officials will undertake the necessary training and awareness raising with all the relevant Committees, Members and staff. That will be done primarily through the parliamentary excellence programme, which provides a very effective delivery model for engagement with Members and their staff on parliamentary issues, individually and in Committees.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for her question. References to wearing sporting paraphernalia are in a number of Assembly Commission policies in order to take account of the different categories of users of Parliament Buildings. The Assembly Commission's staff handbook contains a dignity at work policy, which aims to make Assembly Commission staff aware of the types of behaviour that may cause offence. It also highlights the sources of information and assistance that are available and the procedures for dealing with unwanted and unreasonable offensive behaviours.

The dignity at work policy details some of the common forms of unwanted, unreasonable and offensive conduct that it deals with, and it provides specific examples of such conduct. The wearing of distinctive clothing or sportswear could be deemed offensive by others and is, therefore, generally not permitted. The dignity at work policy covers Assembly Commission staff, agency workers and inward secondees. The policy does not cover Members, their support staff or other Building pass-holders who are not Assembly Commission staff or visitors.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you for the answer. I note that it is silent on MLAs and their staff. I know that we want a Parliament Buildings where everyone is comfortable, but I note that a number of Members wear sports gear, particularly in Committee meetings. What is the Assembly Commission's view on that issue, and will guidance be issued to MLAs so that staff members who have to abide by a particular policy will not be offended by Members?

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for her question. I am only here to give the opinion of the Commission and cannot speak in my personal capacity. However, when I look at examples of answers to questions that may have been asked today, there is nothing that covers that. However, it is reasonable to assume that, given that the dignity at work policy covers staff, it is something that the Commission should reflect on. Representatives present will be listening to that, and it is something that can be raised at a future meeting.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for her question. Usher Services staff issue Assembly ID passes on request to party staff in accordance with the d'Hondt formula, and some of those staff may also work in constituency offices. Members are also issued with three ID passes for use by their staff or other nominees. Usher Services staff therefore rely heavily on accurate and prompt communication from Members and parties in relation to the initial issuing of ID passes and any changes thereafter, including the termination of any staff.

A procedure has been put in place whereby Members and parties will be requested to review their ID pass allocation twice yearly for accuracy and to highlight any previously un-notified changes. Assembly Finance will also notify Usher Services of the termination of any party staff in receipt of salary. Whilst it is anticipated that these steps will assist in the wider management and governance of ID passes, there remains nonetheless a clear responsibility on Members and parties to ensure that records are fully accurate and that Usher Services are promptly advised of any changes.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for the response to my question. I welcome the fact that the process will be improved, as we have seen former staff of Members in the Building, having long since ceased their employment, and who have been subject to other outside circumstances. Has there been an audit of the passes that have been issued to people who are currently required to be in the Building?

Mr Allen: As I said, the Assembly Commission has conducted a review. As to an audit, I will write to the Member with those details.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his question. Historically, the Assembly Commission provided Members with a printer device for use in their constituency office and paid for associated maintenance and repairs. Members then paid for the cost of printer toner via their constituency office operating expenses budget. The average cost of consumables per Member was £550 per annum, which would have enabled Members to print approximately 52,000 black and white pages per annum, if you were counting.

As part of the printer replacement project, engagement with Members indicated that they require print, scan and copy capability in their constituency offices. Some Members also indicated a preference to procure their own printer from either a central contract, managed by the Assembly Commission, or an alternative supplier. The Commission therefore approved an uplift to the constituency office cost expenses budget of £300 to enable Members to either procure their own print capability for constituency offices through a leased management print service or to procure independently. Taking into account the average spend by Members on consumables, combined with the uplift that has been approved by the Assembly Commission, this will enable Members to print approximately 180,000 black and white pages per annum under the Assembly Commission's leased management print service. Of course, if a Member prints fewer pages than this, the monthly cost is lower. However, the leased management print service is not mandatory, and Members can procure their own print solution. If Members have any queries about the Assembly Commission's leased management print service, they should contact the head of IT.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his answer. It seems strange that, if the average was £550 and they have given an uplift of £300, there is a gap. They may well be wanting Members to print less but, as we communicate with our constituents through letters, that is very hard and a printer becomes vital. With regard to going out on your own and getting a contract, given the fact that some of the equipment was substandard in the first place and there is a rationale for going out on your own, are there any protections for contractual agreements that may eclipse the term of an Assembly?

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Some of the issues that he has mentioned were discussed at our most-recent Commission meeting, and we are to get an update at our next meeting, so more information may be circulated in the future. The Member asked a specific question about protections. It would be good if the Commission, or the relevant business area, were to write to the Member to answer that specific question.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 11 has been withdrawn. Pádraig Delargy is not in his place to ask question 12.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his question. Initial safety measures, including scaffolding installation, have been implemented to help ensure the ongoing safety of Building occupants and to facilitate the necessary maintenance work. Experts employed by the Assembly Commission have assessed the damage, determined how it is to be repaired and provided estimate costs for the works. Officials have been working with Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD) to determine the best mechanism by which to procure and undertake the necessary remedial works. It is expected that work to repair the rear parapet will commence early next year and that proposals to undertake the remaining works will be developed shortly in conjunction with CPD.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you for the response. The Member will know that, a few years back, quite a bit of work was done to the roof of the Building, but that work has not really stood up to the test, because, in some places, water is still penetrating. We can see the effects of that in some parts of the Building. Will the Member give me an indication of the cost of the forthcoming work? When is it expected to be completed? Can we be assured that the work that is being done this time will stand up to the test?

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Estimated costs of £2·4 million for the remedial works have been provided by experts employed by the Assembly Commission. Accurate costs and timescales for the proposed works will be provided when the works are tendered for. The work is to fix previous problems, so one hopes that there will be full and robust assurances given and that the work will finally address the issues without any further problems arising.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for her question. Colleagues will know that that is an area in which I have had significant interest since becoming a Member. The Member may be aware that, over the years, the Assembly Commission has introduced a number of physical alterations to the Building and undertaken a number of initiatives to improve Parliament Buildings' accessibility. The Assembly Commission is committed to ensuring that Parliament Buildings is accessible to all, and we are always open to receiving feedback. To that end, the Assembly Commission has commissioned a Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) audit. That comprehensive audit will identify any areas in which improvements can be made in order to enhance accessibility for people with disabilities. A consultant has been appointed and is doing a preliminary scoping exercise before the survey commences next year. Once the DDA audit is complete, we will carefully consider its findings and develop a plan of action to implement any necessary adaptations. The plan may include making physical modifications to the Building, as well as implementing technological solutions and procedural changes.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for his response. I note that much of the change that has happened is as a result of his being elected, which highlighted how the Building had to be updated.

In light of the work being done, what engagement is the Commission having with staff working in the Building who have additional accessibility needs in order to ensure that their voices are heard as the changes are being made?

Mr Allen: As I said to the Member, the Commission is always open to receiving feedback from Members, staff and other interested parties and stakeholders. The Commission regularly engages with a wide cohort of people on accessibility measures. If Members right across the House, staff who may be listening or charities are aware of any particular barriers or accessibility issues, I encourage them to make them known to the Commission. Only if we know about them can we take steps to address them.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission's Education Service has been very successful in encouraging participation by young people in democracy education. Since September 2023, 7,000 pupils have visited Parliament Buildings and a further 1,500 joined one of our online sessions. Those pupils came from a range of school types across all 18 constituencies. Our programmes are offered for primary-school-aged children right up to A-level government and politics students, who have specific and in-depth requirements. The education programme also gives Members the opportunity to participate, giving young people the opportunity to meet their elected representatives and to see democracy in action.

Alongside the schools programme, the Youth Assembly is a group of 90 young people aged 12 to 16. It is halfway through its second mandate. In this mandate, it has consulted more than 1,800 young people, formed three Committees to address identified issues, given evidence to Statutory Committees and met the junior Ministers to discuss the Programme for Government. The Assembly Commission is rightly proud of the successes of the current Youth Assembly and its predecessor.

Our programmes for young people are supplemented by regular professional learning events for teachers. Those are for primary-school teachers, teachers of learning for life and work at GCSE and A level, teachers of government and politics and teachers from special schools. We provide resources for teachers. Those events are well attended and receive excellent feedback.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas le mo chara.

First, I want to pay tribute to the Education Service staff who do that with such professionalism and are so engaged with Members and their staff as well as with the pupils and teachers. It is really beneficial. Are further, more-strategic, cross-border activities with schools anticipated?

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. As I understand, there are no plans currently for any North/South work on the education programmes, but I am sure that we can write back to the Member if there is anything on the agenda that might be able to be approved by the Commission.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends questions to the Assembly Commission. Members may take their ease while we change the personnel at the Table.

Mr Boylan: On behalf of Sinn Féin, I welcome the motion. We all know the importance of public transport in each of our constituencies and right across the island. Improved connectivity, a boosted economy and further decarbonisation are all positive outworkings of an improved all-island transport infrastructure. As a small island, it is imperative that we seize those benefits.

Contrary to the motion, however, good progress has been made on all-island travel. That includes the opening of Belfast Grand Central station and the increased hourly train service between Belfast and Dublin. Most notably with regard to all-island rail, the endorsement of the all-island strategic rail review by the Executive and the Dublin Government demonstrates huge ambition for better rail infrastructure right across the island.

However, while improved rail connections and a more frequent service between destinations will help with our goal of reaching net zero and to encourage more people to use public transport, it is undoubtedly the case that pricing is a factor in people's decisions on whether to use public transport. While prices have been subsidised in the Twenty-six Counties, the reality here is that all our public services are stretched because of the chronic underfunding of the Executive and an austerity agenda that we have felt the brunt of for many years. The effects of partition are felt across our public services, and public transport is no different.

We must be optimistic and ambitious about the opportunities that lie ahead and the potential that all-island rail and public transport have for this island. We need to develop our rail network in the North and the public transport infrastructure across the island to unlock economic opportunities and ensure that workers and families have greater access to public transport. I support the motion and the amendment.

Mr McReynolds: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, which, I think it is fair to say, is on two separate topics. On the one hand, the SDLP motion is about the fare imbalances between the North and South of Ireland, and, on the other hand, the broader DUP amendment is about the electrification of the network, the opening of key lines and the need to address connectivity imbalances. We support all those things in principle. I spoke in the Chamber before, shortly after the restoration of the Assembly and Executive earlier in the year, about the merits of investing in our rail network to realise benefits for our climate, economy and connectivity.

It is so important that we get public transport right, and it is disheartening that rail fares on cross-border services are significantly more expensive in Northern Ireland than in the South. We are fortunate that the new Grand Central station is open in Belfast. That should be welcomed, but the cost of fares is the significant factor in whether someone uses public transport or resorts to a private vehicle. We are still in a cost-of-living crisis. People will not make greener choices if that means digging deeper into their pockets. Greener choices have to be cheaper and supported choices if we are to have any hope of stimulating the modal shift that we need to see.

I just chaired a meeting of the all-party group on road safety, as the proposer of the amendment knows. One point that was brought up as a topic of conversation was that better access to public transport, specifically rail, can play a key role in reducing fatalities on our roads.

As I read the motion and the amendment at the weekend, I could not help but be reminded of a comment that the Infrastructure Minister made during the all-island rail review debate a number of months ago. He said that, in the course of that debate, Members had "spent a few billion pounds". So many of the debates that we have on infrastructure matters show that they require significant capital investment and strategic planning. That is why we support not only input from the Fiscal Council on those matters but the creation of an independent, expert-led infrastructure commission to guide us on matters such as those and to inform us of the solutions that are out there and the options that are realistically open to us. We also require multi-annual budgets to support Translink in a way that is comparable to the way in which its counterparts in the South are supported. Time and time again, we see major Departments in Northern Ireland being drip-fed money annually or via monitoring rounds. That is unsustainable for infrastructure projects specifically. I look forward to, hopefully, the return of such budgets to be able to deliver on the aims of both options.

I will make a further point about the need for collaboration between Departments and a collective will to address financial imbalances and improve our connectivity while reducing congestion, because let us face it: the public are at the heart of this debate, and they deserve fairness on cross-border lines. I understand the frustration, which we have heard about today, of people who regularly avail themselves of cross-border rail services and feel especially short-changed when the price depends on what side of the border they purchase their ticket.

I look forward to the Infrastructure Minister's response and to hearing what steps he will take forward with his Executive colleagues to deliver on the aims of the motion and the amendment.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Members who tabled the motion and those who tabled the amendment.

I am an advocate of rail. It brings many benefits, and the provision of rail will build a better interconnected and interlinked Northern Ireland. That said, however, we need to see rail fares being reduced and more capacity on rail routes. Members will understand me when I say that, for the people of Fermanagh, we first need to see the re-establishment of a rail service in Fermanagh before I can support rail fare parity with the Republic. A comprehensive all-island rail service can go North/South, but it should also go east-west.

When the Minister proclaimed an all-island strategic rail review at Enniskillen Castle in August, there was much optimism that Fermanagh would be serviced by trains once again. It is safe to say that there was much astonishment at Fermanagh's omission from the review — the only county in the entire island of Ireland to be omitted from an all-Ireland strategic rail review. The review was seen as a way of addressing regional imbalance and inequality in our transport network, but it is clear that it lacked ambition. The Minister said that the decision would be reviewed in 10 years' time, but I doubt whether many of the projects in the review will be delivered within a 10-year time frame, so why not include Fermanagh now?

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that the review puts us in Fermanagh at a huge disadvantage? Other projects will have years to get feasibility studies and other things in place, but the review leaves Fermanagh behind again on all that preparatory work.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Member for her intervention. I agree entirely with the sentiment that she has expressed. We need to have interconnected and interlinked infrastructure to facilitate economic growth and regional balance.

When I speak to my constituents, they ask, "Why are we forgotten?". The obvious response is, "The line to Enniskillen could cost over £300 million", but, when my constituents see over £340 million being spent on an integrated railway station in a city centre where there were already five railway stations, I cannot honestly say that the line to Enniskillen is not worth it. We genuinely have to ask ourselves whether we want to see more investment in our public infrastructure, so that rail is available to every community in Northern Ireland, or rail fares as low as possible at the expense of those who do not have access to rail services.

It is ambitious to think that we can have both, but fares will have to remain fair to ensure that we have the necessary resources to expand the network, increase passenger numbers and ensure that we have a better interconnected and interlinked Northern Ireland where no community is left out. I therefore cannot support the motion but will support the broader amendment from the DUP.

Mr Honeyford: My daughter is studying in Dublin and quickly learned to get a single ticket down at the start of term and purchase return tickets from there in order to avail herself of the price difference. The differences are much wider than just the cost of the Belfast-Dublin train, however. Linking to the Luas is cheaper, with a daily cap to encourage more use of public transport. The bus route between Belfast and Dublin has a similar cost whether you travel from the North or the South. The motion focuses simply on the cost of train tickets, and I get the particular issue of it costing less to travel to Belfast from Dundalk than from Newry. I understand that, and I agree that a rate should be applied across the island so that we pay the same price.

I want to bring up a couple of other issues, because the motion is so narrow and lacks any ideas to bring change. First, it has to be acknowledged that there has been major investment in our transport network. We have seen that with the new Grand Central station in Belfast, which has allowed the service between Belfast and Dublin to become an hourly one. The other side of that has brought a few problems to our constituencies, whether it is overcrowding on trains that do not have enough carriages or the station's lack of drop-off points or connections to taxis or even to the Glider. There is an issue of reliability and of needing greater investment in our train rolling stock to provide greater capacity on the network so that people can avail themselves of the station.

It is strange to use a train service between Dublin and Belfast that is booming as the example of a restriction of usage. I agree about the pricing, but the question of who pays for the subsidy to reduce the ticket price is not answered or addressed in the motion. We need greater investment to increase the number of trains and to improve interconnection with and integration between all forms of public transport.

Mr McNulty: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: Yes, sure.

Mr McNulty: Is it the Member's contention that keeping rail travel fares hiked is a proper incentive for commuters to use trains?

Mr Honeyford: No, I said that you are talking about a train line that is really busy at the minute, so I do not get that argument.

The motion refers to a unified fare structure: I agree with that, but maybe the SDLP is talking about free transport for pensioners. The age for ours is 60; in the South it is 66. Are you calling for that to be realigned? Is there a saving to be made there that you will use to reduce the ticket price? Is that what we are discussing? I will give way again, if you want to clarify that.

Mr McNulty: It is hugely positive that a bright and shiny new transport hub has been constructed in Belfast. The cost of that has been huge, but that should not be passed on to commuters. It is totally unreasonable that people travelling from Newry have to pay more than people from across the border who are travelling longer distances.

Mr Honeyford: I get that. I totally understand about the price, and I agree about it. However, if you are asking for that on the one hand, are you saying that, on the other hand, you do not want 60-year-olds with free bus passes here to get free travel on the same route and we should have the age at 66, as in the South? That is what the motion says.

Mr McNulty: Will the Member give way?

Mr Honeyford: For the third time, yes.

Mr McNulty: I am asking for a unified approach to train fare costs across the island. A unified island down the line is something that you cannot ask for, but it is something that we will firmly ask for.

Mr Honeyford: I absolutely agree with the point about the unified approach, and I will go further. [Interruption.]

I have given way three times.

Given the disparity in economic growth between the North and the South, surely the price of a ticket on a route only scratches the surface of the economic disparity and the disparity in investment across our island. Surely the debate and action should be focused on our economy and the massive growth in the South, yet we are arguing over the price of a train ticket.

We should look at public transport as a whole. We should look at connecting all our services. Whether it is me getting the train to Dublin and jumping on the Luas or somebody from Dublin coming to Belfast and jumping on the Glider or a bus, there has to be a serious wider discussion about the integration of our transport. Ticketing integration needs to happen across the island. None of that is in the motion. I get it that you are from Newry, and that there is a local issue there — I totally understand that — but the wider piece about integration is not coming through.

Around the world, we see ticketing options whereby you jump on one mode of public transport, tapping on and off with a bank card, and that automatically integrates with every other form of public transport. We do not see that here. There may well be discussions about that and plans for that to happen, and the Minister can address that. If we were to address that North and South, it would boost the tourism industry. It would help us here, whenever anybody comes to the North. There are lots of solutions that we could drive forward.

I have a got a cold and feel grumpy [Laughter.]

I have been good all year, and it is Christmas, so I ask, please, that motions from the Opposition include ideas and solutions — constructive stuff — rather than there being two and a half more years —

Mr McNulty: It is an idea. Unified rail prices is an idea.

Mr Honeyford: Can I get a word in? Can I finish? Another two and a half years. I have been good all year. It is all I ask for for Christmas.

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

Mr Honeyford: Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I remind Members that it is a basic parliamentary convention that Members always address the Speaker. That includes a process of two-way agreement on giving way and interventions. Even if those interventions are acknowledged at the time, they should be acknowledged to the Chair.

I call Matthew O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: What an apposite moment to be called: it means that I can respond to some of the comments that the Member for Lagan Valley made about constructive motions from the Opposition. I take profound exception to the suggestion that the SDLP has not put forward serious and constructive proposals; in fact, it is, frankly, asinine to say that we have not done that, given the seriousness with which we have approached our role in opposition.

We have been constructive and serious throughout. Occasionally, we are robust, and we make no apology for that, because that is our job. In the most recent Opposition day, we put forward a series of constructive and serious proposals on regeneration and childcare. Yes, one of our motions included condemnation of Ministers who had been found to have broken the ministerial code. Another one was on our future relationship with the European Union; indeed, we are publishing a paper on that tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, will you address the matter of rail fares as well, please?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr O'Toole: I will. It is very reasonable of you to bring me back to the point, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I needed to address the absolutely absurd accusation that the SDLP has not been putting forward ideas.

We have been doing our job in opposition, which is fundamentally holding the Executive to account. We have put down a range of practical proposals. We do that constantly and will do it tomorrow.

On the important motion that we are discussing today — I am slightly surprised to hear the Member who previously seemed to agree with everything in the motion say that he does not like it — it is critical that we effect what many people know now to be one of the most vital agendas for the rest of the century, which is moving away from the addiction, created in the 20th century, to getting everywhere by car. We are one of the most car-dependent regions and islands in the developed world. The car is not going anywhere. We are all aware that, as part of the migration to net zero, we will need to reform through the greater use of electric vehicles. The car will continue to be critical, particularly in rural areas and, indeed, urban areas. I am, however, proud and unashamed to say that I want more of us across the island to be able to take train routes, including those who live in County Fermanagh. I am sure that the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee would be deeply offended if I did not mention that.

My colleague the former SDLP Infrastructure Minister set out a clear intention. She commissioned the first all-Ireland strategic rail review. I am glad to see that the Minister has stuck with that agenda. We will continue to press him and his Southern counterpart to progress that. Presumably, it will be his new counterpart in the South, because there will be a new responsible Minister down there at some point in the next month or two.

We destroyed our rail network, particularly in the North, during the middle of the 20th century. We are only now starting to construct the ambition towards rebuilding the network. Grand Central station is in the middle of Belfast. By the way, the associated roadworks are causing huge disruption to my constituents, but I will never criticise it for existing, because I want that potential. I want the extra platforms and extra capacity in Belfast to build the muscle memory and capacity for rail connectivity across the North and across the island. That is what is really important.

The motion touches on a very specific issue, which is the alignment and unification of the fare structure. That will be a short-term bureaucratic challenge, but we certainly want the Minister to progress it, insofar as he can, with his Southern counterpart. It is deeply frustrating not just for people who live in border regions but those who regularly use cross-border rail services that the system is clunky and that there are cost disparities. It is, yes, cheaper, but also, in many ways, more straightforward to book a ticket south of the border that gets you north of the border. It is far too complicated. We should make it as easy and cost-effective as possible for people to use public transport, particularly our rail network. We are unabashed and proud of that, and it is one of the most important agendas facing us for the rest of the century. Let us make progress on the matter. Our motion today is about putting it on the Assembly's agenda.

There are a lot of constructive suggestions in the DUP amendment. We might not have worded it in exactly the same way, but it has a lot of constructive suggestions and things that are important to progress. I am glad that the Assembly is debating the motion from my colleague Justin McNulty. We look forward to progressing the motion and continuing to robustly put the case for rebuilding our all-island rail network, putting it on the agenda and holding the Executive to account for delivering on it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before we proceed, it came to my attention, and it may have come to yours, that a Member crossed the Floor of the House in front of the Speaker's Chair during the debate. I inform the House that the Member indicated apologies to the Chair, and I want that written into the record.

Mr Carroll: In April 2022, the Irish Government cut public transport fares by 20% across the board in recognition of the cost-of-living crisis, and that included tickets for Enterprise journeys that originated in the South. In the North, Translink fares were frozen between 2019 and 2023, but fares have been hiked again, and more and more people are finding travel by bus and rail unaffordable and inaccessible. We need to remove those barriers immediately.

During the debate, we heard that rail passengers travelling from Newry to Belfast are paying more than double the price of a ticket from Dundalk to the same destination, even though the journey from Newry is shorter. It beggars belief. The Infrastructure Minister said that the price difference is primarily due to the greater level of subsidy provided to Irish Rail by the Dublin Government. The obvious question to raise is this: why is the same level of investment not being provided by Translink? What is the point in spending over £350 million on a brand-new shiny centre, with £11 million wasted on consultation fees for it, if people cannot afford or are priced out of getting on trains? Train travel is the safest and cleanest, and it could be the cheapest, form of travel for everyone.

We also have to recognise that we did not get to where we are now by accident. We got here as a result of government policy that was designed to thwart public transport along the policy of partition and to decimate border communities in the process. It is quite remarkable, if you think about it. Sixty or 70 years ago, you could travel by train from Belfast to Ballycastle and move from Derry to remote Gweedore by rail, but now, Donegal and much of the north-west is a wasteland when it comes to rail. Those areas were previously busting with steel lines, carrying cargo and people.

We have to mention that the Beeching report also sped up the decimation of rail. It was stated, literal government policy to roll back on the availability of rail lines. Today, we are still dealing with the after-effects of that in Ireland, but so too are many, many towns and cities in Britain. The Government and their functionaries put a wager on the expansion of cars, and we are breathing the polluted air as a result of those aggressive and wrong decisions. It is totally unacceptable that we live on a small island, yet there are swathes of areas without proper access to rail and public transport.

When car traffic piles up, as it did recently in Belfast city centre, rather than introduce more frequent buses and trains etc to get people out of their cars, we see DFI revert to type by allowing more cars to funnel into the city centre. That should be used as an opportunity to break old habits and patterns, not to repeat them. The volume of cars in our society today is having a harsh impact on not only our health but our roads, with repeated journeys, heavy traffic and wear and tear. It is questionable whether that is a wise use of public money year after year. Investing more in public transport is surely the better way.

I also want to mention electric vehicles, and this is from somebody who was almost a convert to them. They are very carbon-intensive in extracting the resources that make up the batteries for them. They raise ethical questions about people in the Global South reshaping their communities and countries towards the expansion of the West and the economic model here as well.

How Governments spend money reflects their priorities. Investing in roads at the expense of public transport means that we value unsustainable, polluting travel by private car above free and frequent public transport. We should also broaden the SmartPass criteria to include free travel for people with disabilities — I will tackle the sort of "Bah humbug!" points that the Member who spoke earlier made — students and asylum seekers, with a view to making public transport free for all.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I am happy to give way on that point if the Member wants to come in.

Mr Honeyford: I completely agree. I was trying to question whether this is all about fare costs. It is not about public transport; it is about the cost of fares. Where is the money coming from? Maybe the SDLP's idea is to align that to get more money. That is all. I totally agree with what you are saying.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member. Our position is that the Government should be investing in widening the SmartPass criteria, reducing fares and moving towards free transport. I will come on to how that should be funded in a second.

The Minister said in September that, due to funding pressures, he will not be taking forward any of the options, which would increase the costs of the SmartPass scheme. In February, he said that he had no plans to provide free public transport to everyone. Those are both unfortunate and disappointing positions and statements. The cost of implementing the recommendations of the all-island strategic rail review is around £30 billion, but the benefits to society include reduced journey times, road decongestion, better health and a reduction in greenhouse gases. You cannot put a price on those. Not only is investment in rail economically sound but it is urgently needed in order to meet our net zero obligations. We need to reach net zero before 2050, and there is an urgency to reach it by 2030, if we are being realistic. Look at Valencia, where the warmer temperatures and the atmosphere mixing with warmer and rising sea levels caused a whirlwind storm, terrible weather patterns and death and destruction across the region.

We need to put more pressure on the likely incoming coalition Government, who have the biggest surplus in the history of the Southern state. This should be a time to push them for proper investment in free transport and rail. There is a €13 billion tax windfall from Apple as well. If we want to triple the number of people who use the rail system across Ireland, we need to make fares consistent across the island, with the aim of making public transport free for everyone. It is not rocket science. We have already cracked it —.

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

Mr Carroll: Thank you.

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

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank the Members who tabled the motion. It is a very important topic, and it has been a useful debate. By way of background information, the current Enterprise service was introduced in 1997, and, for most of this time, the fares offered by NI Railways have generally been lower than those offered by Irish Rail. Various considerations need to be taken into account when setting fares for the Enterprise cross-border service, not least the local fares offered by both rail companies and the received levels of government funding. Translink and Irish Rail are subsidised in different ways. As Members have noted, in April 2022, the Irish Government reduced fares on all public transport, including Irish Rail, by 20%. It is worth highlighting the impact that this 20% reduction has had on standard fares compared with those of NI Railways. A single ticket from Belfast to Dublin would be the same price when issued by Translink, £33, but, with the discount, this falls to £26·43 for Irish Rail customers. A single ticket from Newry to Dublin would have been cheaper with Translink at £21·50 compared with £23·91 with Irish Rail, but the 20% discount reduces that to £19·13.

As Members will know, the Department has been operating in a very difficult financial environment for a number of years and will continue to engage and support public transport where and when it can. However, Translink, in conjunction with Irish Rail, has amended the rail fares on offer and now provides a more flexible online fare. This enables customers to benefit from online prices up to 90 minutes before the train departs, compared with the 72-hour cut-off currently in place. Online discounts still show a difference in price, with a return journey from Belfast to Dublin available for as low as £29·98 from Translink while the same ticket is available for approximately £23·30 from Irish Rail. Translink has made efforts to ensure that all rail lines offer a reasonably equitable fare structure. However, if Translink were to emulate the reductions provided in the South, it would have a major impact on the sustainability of delivering public transport services elsewhere.

Since 2010, Translink fares have increased by some 27%, which is significantly less than inflation over the same period, which is 44%. In November 2022, the then Secretary of State set out what steps would need to be taken to improve Translink's sustainability through uprating Translink fares. This reversed my decision to freeze fares before the Assembly fell, when I recognised the need to maintain lower public transport fares moving forward. Following that statement from the British Government, Translink increased fares in March 2023 by an average of approximately 7% across its services. Those were the first fare increases in five years. Translink subsequently standardised rail fares in November 2023 to resolve some anomalies and to simplify the fare structure. In January 2024, again in the absence of local Ministers, my Department's permanent secretary continued with the Secretary of State's request to again increase transport fares, with an average rise of 8%.

It is worth pointing out that older people and people with disabilities can currently avail themselves of significantly discounted and free concessionary travel on Translink services, which are funded by my Department in the region of £47 million annually. The motion refers to the role that affordable transport plays in promoting social mobility, but it is not only about social mobility. Making public transport affordable is also about tackling social exclusion and ensuring that the most vulnerable people in our society can be part of it. That is why the Department provides a concessionary fare scheme and why, despite the very challenging financial environment, I made the decision to protect the scheme and to keep the age of eligibility for the scheme at 60, enabling older people to live active, healthier and independent lives and boosting the local economy.

As a number of Members have pointed out, it is important to recognise that, in the South, to qualify for an older person's pass, a person must be aged 66 or over. When we talk about alignment between North and South, it is important to recognise that, in some respects, our passengers are better off than their peers south of the border. That is not just in relation to concessionary fares. I have seen significant improvements in public transport here in recent years, which I believe reflect our ambitions for public transport. Many Members have mentioned the recently opened Grand Central station, and we have also refurbished York Street station. I fully recognise the need to address regional imbalance and better connect our communities, including those in the north-west. This year, I have, therefore, ring-fenced £4·7 million of funding in my budget to ensure that the Coleraine to Derry phase 3 project proceeds as quickly as possible.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will.

Mr McNulty: The Minister has placed a major emphasis on discretionary fares. Will he confirm whether those who are eligible for a half-fare SmartPass in the North, including disabled people, can avail themselves of the statutory entitlement when using cross-border services?

Mr O'Dowd: I did not catch all of the Member's point. Is he asking whether they can use their concessionary pass when using cross-border services?

Mr McNulty: Those using a SmartPass.

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, they can.

The budget allocation for the Coleraine to Derry phase 3 project is additional to the £5·3 million that has already been spent on the project. That funding will allow Translink to progress the project as planned and seeks to ensure investment in public transport across the entire region. In this financial year alone, Translink has been allocated a budget of almost £320 million, which is about 25% of the total non-ring-fenced budget that is available to the entire Department.

I will turn now to other projects. The estimated cost for the north Belfast to south Belfast Glider route is in the range of £142 million to £148 million. Although £35 million of the funding has been secured through the Belfast region city deal, a considerable shortfall of £110 million remains. Work on the feasibility of extending the route to Glengormley and Carryduff has been finalised, and I commissioned work on the delivery options that could be implemented, utilising the £35 million funding envelope from the Belfast region city deal. The outline business case is being finalised in line with the feasibility reports and delivery options. Subject to approval of the outline business case, it is proposed that the detailed design process be initiated to implement the proposals. I welcome the £35 million contribution from the Belfast region city deal and recognise that significant investment will bring enhancements to the city centre and the wider public transport network and assist in tackling the current and ongoing traffic congestion in Belfast city centre. It is another public transport option for people to use.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for giving way. He will know that I have written to him on a number of occasions about extending Belfast Rapid Transit (BRT) to Glengormley. Can he confirm where the outline business case envisages the final destination to be at this stage for the north Belfast phase?

Mr O'Dowd: I hope to be able to confirm that before the Christmas break, although I may not be able to do so until early in the new year.

The projects that I have mentioned are examples of the significant investment that my Department is making to help achieve a modal shift from car to bus or rail services. An effective public transport network is vital for the economic, social and environmental well-being of society.

Earlier this year, in July, in partnership with Minister Ryan, I published the all-island strategic rail review. It was the first strategic rail review of its kind on the island of Ireland. The final review report includes 32 recommendations, which, if delivered in full, will transform rail services across the island through such improvements as new and reopened rail routes, higher-speed trains, increased frequency and additional capacity, thereby connecting many more communities to the rail network. For the North, it will see a decarbonised rail network; new rail lines from Portadown to Armagh, Lisburn to Antrim, Belfast to Newry and Portadown to Derry; new cross-border routes from Portadown to Mullingar and Derry to Letterkenny; new and improved rail connections to our airports; increased frequency; and faster journey times.

I understand that many people who live in Fermanagh will be disappointed that a new rail line from Enniskillen was not included in that list of interventions. The constituency's representatives quite rightly made that point today. As Members will know, following the public consultation on the review report last year, I asked the report's authors to further consider the viability of rail services to Fermanagh. That review included consideration of future population growth; potential demand and journey times; tourism; and various potential corridors through Enniskillen, including to Omagh, Belfast, Dublin, Derry, Sligo, Monaghan and Cavan. A new rail line did not appear to stimulate sufficient demand to support rail services in the time frame of the review, however. As has been mentioned, the cost of building a 40-kilometre single-track line between Enniskillen and Omagh has been estimated at £335 million. I accept Diana Armstrong's point that when rural communities look at Belfast and see £344 million being spent, they rightly ask, "What's the difference?". In this case, the business case for Grand Central station proved to be value for money, but the current estimated business case for the Enniskillen connection does not represent value for public funds. However, in a recent meeting with a delegation from Omagh and Fermanagh District Council, I made a commitment to them that, as part of the Fermanagh transport plans, if new information comes to light, I will review that decision ahead of the 10-year time frame that has been built into the review. It is not a closed chapter; it is definitely open and will be returned to again if and when new evidence comes to light. I have committed to working with the council on that.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate and welcome that he will look at that again if new information comes to light. At this time, economic growth is very important for my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Businesses will plan their operations and where they go based on where the transport routes are, so I just want to impress upon the Minister their importance for economic stimulus in my area.

Mr O'Dowd: I note the Member's comments. The Member will also understand that, as a guardian of public finances, I have to be able to prove value for money when spending public funds. I am looking to establish the proof that there is value for public funds in extending the rail line to Fermanagh. I can assure the Member that she is pushing at an open door with me on the matter.

On improvements to the Enterprise service, work to implement the rail review has started to progress already on rail services on the island and the development towards the review's vision. That includes an increase to the hourly train service between Dublin and Belfast, which commenced in October. Procurement has also started on a new, faster and more sustainable Enterprise train fleet for the Dublin to Belfast route, with funding of €25 million — £20 million — provided by the Government of Ireland, through the Shared Island Fund and the Irish Department of Transport. The hourly service represents the most significant expansion of services on the route in over a quarter of a century. That is another boost for public transport and the economy, and it will improve not only linkages between the two cities but connections along the entire North/South rail corridor. An expanded and improved rail network offers opportunities to drive jobs and growth, stimulate developments in regeneration and boost access to services and education. It will also help decarbonise transport and encourage a behavioural shift to public transport.

The flagship Enterprise service is a very visible and well-known symbol of North/South cooperation, and the replacement programme is a key priority for both Governments. I certainly hope it is a priority for the next Government as well — I do not doubt that it will be. The programme will significantly improve accessibility between the two largest cities on the island, with faster journey times and an increased number of services. The funding of the programme, under the PEACE PLUS programme and from both Governments, demonstrates the positive impact that cooperation has in meeting our shared goals for a cleaner, greener, interconnected, all-island future.

I assure Members that, as we move forward, I will continue to progress the all-island rail review. A number of feasibility studies are ongoing, as has been mentioned, that are funded by the Union connectivity development fund. They include the reopening of the Antrim to Lisburn line, with a link to Belfast International Airport; the Armagh to Portadown line; the electrification of the Belfast line to the border; and the Portadown to Derry line.

The main thrust of today's motion is about the regularisation of train fares between both jurisdictions. I assure Members that I will continue to explore all avenues to ensure that Translink is properly subsidised by the Executive, allowing it to keep train fares as low as possible, including cross-border rail fares. With regard to further discussions with the incoming Minister for Transport in the South, I will continue to engage on how both jurisdictions support aligned rail fares moving forward. Members will appreciate that the Dublin Government have quite a surplus to hand and can spend funds on matters that the Executive cannot at this stage, but I always think that you have to look for solutions rather than at the problems. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before I proceed, I am going to do something that I do not do lightly and it is read briefly from the 'Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House.' This is directed squarely at those Members who seek to speak and then leave. I want to remind Members and perhaps it could be conveyed by colleagues and Whips. No one is being named at this stage but that does not mean that they will not be in the future.

I will read from the rules:

I have read that out today because this is a parliamentary Chamber; it is not a speakeasy.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Phillip Brett to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope not to catch your wrath during my contribution. It takes me back to the days when I used to get scorned by you in the chamber of Newtownabbey council.

I thank all contributors to the debate. It has been a useful and positive discussion. It is good for me to be able to return to my old stomping ground of infrastructure, a portfolio that I covered until I was replaced by the much more capable Chair of the Committee, the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Brett: That is the first time that I have been cheered by the Sinn Féin Benches for my remarks [Laughter.]

It must be true.

The importance of public transport penetrates all forms of public life and all aspects on which the Executive want to work, be that delivering economic growth in all parts of Northern Ireland or, indeed, ensuring that we get the greener and cleaner society that will ensure that Northern Ireland continues to flourish. There have been important discussions about fares and pricing, but, before we get to that — the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone made this clear — it is all very well to talk about the cost of fares, but, if you do not have access to train provision, the issue of pricing is very much secondary.

In my constituency, North Belfast, an issue that my colleague Brian Kingston and I have been engaged in is that our constituency has a train station at one end, at Yorkgate, and a station at the other end, at Whiteabbey. All the communities who live in between, along the Shore Road and the Antrim Road, have absolutely no access to those services. They are expected to bear the brunt of the trains running at the rear of their homes throughout the night while getting no benefit from those public services. I previously wrote to the Minister about halts at Loughside and the Abbey Centre. I know that, given his constrained budget, he has committed to looking at new halts when the implementation of the all-island review has been completed. I encourage him to continue to look at that.

I had worried that the debate would turn into a case of, "It has to be about the all-island rail review; it cannot be about the Union connectivity review", but there has been a degree of maturity in the discussion: all these issues matter, we as an island and a set of islands are interconnected, and our people who want to get to Dublin or London do not care about who funds it, about the manner in which we do it or about the auspices under which we travel. They just want a well-connected set of islands. It better serves all our constituents and all communities in Northern Ireland if we talk about a positive aspiration for what we want to be available to our people rather than retreating to simple tribal debates about who funds those issues.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Member for giving way. One heard during the debate various Members lamenting the once much greater rail network across the island of Ireland. Does the Member agree that, historically, across the world, the development of the railways was a strong and positive feature of British rule and influence — [Interruption.]

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

Mr Kingston: — throughout the world.

Mr Brett: Throughout the world, indeed. I think that the angry comments from People Before Profit come more from that party's election result in the Irish Republic than from anger at the motion.

I will turn to Members' contributions. Mr Boylan for Sinn Féin clearly articulated the joint mission and aspiration of the Executive to continue to deliver state-of-the-art public transport to all parts of Northern Ireland. Mr McReynolds showed what an exciting weekend it must have been in the McReynolds household for him to have spent Saturday evening reading the motion and the amendment. [Laughter.]

I will not comment any further on that.

The leader of the Opposition made a number of remarks, but given that he was chastised by the Principal Deputy Speaker this morning for turning up 28 minutes late to Members' statements and then trying to speak, then for walking in front of the Chair and the Principal Deputy Speaker during a debate and then for leaving after he made his contribution, I do not think that he needs any further chastisement from me at this stage. [Laughter.]

I welcome the discussion that took place between the Member for Lagan Valley and the Member for Newry and Armagh; the debate was turning into a discussion between Mr Honeyford and Mr McNulty. Given that there is disunity on those Benches, perhaps one of those parties might want to join us next week and vote with the DUP on the continuation of the protocol arrangements. Given that there is clearly a fallout in that corner over there, you will be very welcome to join us in the Lobbies next week.

Ms Armstrong, the other Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who spoke, articulated very well the shared concerns of all the Members who have the pleasure of representing Fermanagh and South Tyrone. There is a clear ambition from all parties that they want to see the people of the most westerly constituency in the United Kingdom having access to the same services as those in any other part.

The Minister, as always, was generous and flexible with his time, allowing Members to make further points of clarification. He articulated well the financial pressures that the Executive face in delivering public transport. In the past number of years, important progress has been made across Northern Ireland in delivering services. There is more to achieve, and, together, the Assembly can ensure that our transport services are fit for the 21st century.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Brett. I call Mark Durkan to make a winding-up speech and conclude the debate on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Durkan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to close the debate on the motion. I thank everyone who contributed to it and reaffirm the SDLP's long-standing commitment to establishing an all-island rail network that meets the needs of a modern society while addressing entrenched regional disparities. Disparity in fare structures either side of the border is creating barriers for commuters in the North, making it harder for individuals to access jobs, education and essential services. Aligning fares is a simple but effective catalyst required to achieve zero-emission climate goals and ensure that the North can share in the economic growth of regions that have historically been overlooked.

The need for investment in public transport has not been met by the Executive. Indeed, the draft Programme for Government is notable for its lack of commitment to, and detail on, future spend or commitment to public transport. Treasury figures show that public spending on public transport per person in the North is the lowest across UK jurisdictions, with just £193 per head spent here compared with £465 per head in England and Scotland. That is astounding. While Governments elsewhere are driving investment towards public transport and passing on improved services and savings to passengers, the North continues to lag behind. In the South, they are full steam ahead, with record public transport investment and record passenger numbers. The disparity in action is perfectly exemplified, as the motion highlights, in the ludicrous fact that rail passengers travelling from Belfast to Dublin pay double the price that those going in the opposite direction pay.

During her tenure as Infrastructure Minister, the SDLP's Nichola Mallon implemented two separate freezes on public transport fares during a period of significant inflation in an attempt to alleviate financial pressures on people but also to drive greener modes of travel. As caretaker Minister, Minister O'Dowd outlined his intention that fares would also be frozen the following year, but, a short time later, in the absence of an Executive thanks to the DUP, passengers were hit with a 7% hike. In fact, we then saw three separate hikes in just 15 months.

The Executive have failed to grasp the significant opportunity offered by public transport. It is ludicrous to include "Planet" as one of the key missions in the draft Programme for Government yet not have improving the affordability of and accessibility to public transport as a prominent and defining feature. Even more frustrating is that one of the key components of the Finance Minister's revenue-raising plan is to increase Translink's travel fares even further. I hope that I am wrong, but it would appear that that measure is one of very few left standing, given that the deadline to remove the rates cap for the North's most expensive homes has been missed. I hope that that does not mean that the fare increase will be even more than stated and that commuters end carrying an even bigger can.

When I asked the Infrastructure Minister for the year-on-year per capita spend on public transport per council area, the Department was unable to provide the figures. That inability is indicative of the lackadaisical approach to the issue by the Department and/ Translink. If it has not been assessed, it will not be addressed.

We have an Executive who prioritise vanity over sanity. At a time when public transport fares are becoming more unaffordable to the average person and further increases are being used as a crutch for revenue raising, we have, as Mr Carroll mentioned, spent £340 million on the Grand Central station in Belfast and £11 million on management fees. Without developing rail and bus routes, reducing costs or even tweaking timetables to bring benefits that will improve public transport and increase passenger numbers, that station runs a real risk of becoming a white elephant. I apologise for any offence caused by Mr McNulty's analogy earlier. Deputy Speaker Aiken thought that it was below the belt.

The approach is akin to embarking on a kitchen renovation when you do not have the money to stock the cupboards. We have seen some modest, incremental improvements in rail timetabling, such as an alignment of the Derry to Belfast train schedule with that for the Belfast to Dublin service. That alignment ensures that passengers do not have to wait as long for connecting trains, but more connectivity is required. Since the hourly Belfast service from Derry was introduced in 2017, we have witnessed exponential growth in passenger numbers due, in no small part, to the lobbying of Into the West and others. That is the living embodiment of the phrase, "If you build it, they will come". It stands to reason that if we make public transport more affordable and more accessible, even more will come. Public transport journeys are on the rise, despite multiple fare increases and fairly limited rail networks, which is proof of the public's desire to use more sustainable modes of transport.

I will touch on some of the contributions by Members. My colleague Justin McNulty proposed the motion and spoke of the enormous and unequal burden on people who are travelling from the North that is created by the difference in fare structures. He gave numerous examples. Of course, the one closest to home and closest to his heart is that of a ticket from Newry to Belfast costing more than twice the price of a ticket from Dundalk to Belfast. At the heart of that is inequality. Affordable and accessible public transport is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

Our inability to address those issues undermines efforts to meet climate obligations and reduce our carbon emissions. Affordable public transport benefits so many people, including students, and so many areas and aspects of society. It will combat congestion in and around our towns and cities, and it will relieve pressure on parking and on the Minister to deliver residents' parking schemes. It is a question of fairness, and it is ironic that prices in the Six Counties are going north while prices in the Twenty-six Counties are going south.

The Chair of the Committee moved the amendment, which we will support. She pointed to a perceived shortcoming in our motion, in that it does not name every county. However, I remind the House of the very first motion that the SDLP tabled in the reconvened Assembly, which made that call and made specific mention of Fermanagh, as I am sure the Committee Chair will recall. She told us that the DUP does not support unification. That came as no great surprise, but we are happy to support its call for alignment.

Cathal Boylan disagreed with the motion's assertion that the North had demonstrated a lack of ambition. We fully get that we have been hampered greatly by a lack of investment. Peter McReynolds also lamented that lack of investment and the lack of a strategic approach. He then echoed the SDLP's long and loud call for the establishment of an infrastructure commission to oversee all those massive and expensive projects, many of which were later described by the Minister.

I come to his party colleague David Honeyford. I will see your grumpy and raise you. He said that our motion was "narrow". I know that Alliance motions are normally sufficiently broad to include motherhood and apple pie. As for his assertion that the motion lacks any ideas, "asinine" was the term that Matthew O'Toole used to describe that. The motion latches on to one idea to make a wider point. It is about the economy — I will stop there. It is about the environment, people and places. Improved connectivity will improve our all-island economy. The Member asked where the money will come from. It will come from addressing the cost of division.

Matthew O'Toole spoke of the importance of engaging with the new Minister in the South to further all-island rail. I look forward to the Minister's engagement on that. The Minister spoke of the difficult financial environment in which his Department and all Departments are operating. We recognise that, of course. He outlined some of the bargains to be had on Translink. I encourage the Minister to encourage Translink to do more to promote and raise awareness of those.

Without question, rail is the most environmentally friendly transport option. Its success is core to achieving a greener future on the journey to zero emissions by 2030. Aligning fares on an all-island basis is a simple but necessary solution. The Executive must recognise the tremendous opportunity provided by rail. Making rail the choice for daily commutes means improving accessibility, reducing travel times through high-speed networks, controlling costs and connecting people and places. Failure to act and invest now will hamper future prosperity and hinder our ability to meet our Climate Act obligations.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I verbally indicate my apologies for walking in front of the Speaker's Chair some moments ago. I was rushing, but, obviously, that is in breach of protocol, so I apologise.

On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will respond to some of the commentary that was made during the debate about me in my role. I would say that I contribute more to plenary debates in the Chamber than any other Member. If anyone wants to do a time-in-motion exercise, they can do one about my and the Opposition's contribution to debates and our work in holding the Executive to account. It ill behoves anyone who speaks on behalf of Executive parties to challenge the Opposition on our contribution to debates when their Ministers take £40,000 trips across the Atlantic and miss important Assembly debates. I have made my point. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Carroll, I will respond to the first point of order, if you are OK with that.

Mr O'Toole, I will ensure that any remarks about conduct that other Members have made in relation to you are taken back to the Speaker's Office for advice.

I will clarify a statement that I made — I said that I did not do it lightly from this Chair — about Members leaving before they had heard the Members following them speak or the Minister respond. I stand by that. If anyone needs clarification on it, it is available at point 1 in the 'Rules of behaviours and courtesies in the House'. The other matter can go to the Speaker's Office. As for your apology, I noted that earlier. I put on the record that it had been signalled to me.

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the debate, the Member for North Belfast made an inaccurate comment, and I suggest that he correct the record. He praised the British Empire's role in rolling out rail across the world. I suggest that he correct the record and pick up a copy of the 'The Blood Never Dried: A people's history of the empire' for Christmas, although I will not be buying it for him.

Mr Kingston: Would the Member like me to respond, or will he take a point? I suggest that he might want to watch a bit more Michael Portillo when he is off over Christmas.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I think that those matters have now been dealt with.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Diane Forsythe to discuss the need for significant roadworks across South Down. I call Diane Forsythe, who has up to 15 minutes.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Infrastructure Minister for being here to hear the call for significant roadworks in South Down.

South Down is a predominantly rural constituency, and our roads are our critical infrastructure. In their current state, they are failing the people of South Down. Since being elected, I have relentlessly campaigned for significant road improvements across my constituency. With no railway infrastructure and poor bus links, our roads are essential for our connectivity. With substantial businesses located throughout South Down, whilst our main roads are not motorways or dual carriageways, they are our main roads and the only routes by which lorries and large industrial vehicles can travel. Our roads are critical, and they need significant work.

Thirteen months ago, following significant adverse weather, three of our main arterial routes in South Down suffered serious damage. Those were the A2 in Kilkeel at Riverside, the A2 Shore Road in Rostrevor and the B27 Kilkeel Road in Hilltown. When those roads were closed, entire towns and communities around them were cut off, businesses ground to a halt, public transport could not function and the emergency services were severely restricted. The A2 in Kilkeel at Riverside collapsed following years of neglect and underinvestment on that stretch of road. After weeks of closure, it was repaired and reopened, but that begs this question: how many other significant weaknesses are just waiting for serious weather to cause a collapse?

The Shore Road in Rostrevor and the Kilkeel Road in Hilltown are, however, a much worse story, and I have written to the Minister on a number of occasions about them. Both roads still operate with temporary traffic lights and single-lane traffic, 13 months after they were first damaged and closed. That is not good enough for the people of South Down and those who travel to and through it. The failure to repair and reopen those roads for so long is raised with me every week, everywhere I go. My constituency office is inundated, so I ask the Minister to hear the significant impact that it is having on people and businesses and to please take some urgent action.

The A2 Shore Road in Rostrevor is the main road from Newry through Warrenpoint to Kilkeel and Newcastle. The emergency services are significantly impeded by the road restriction, and that could cost lives. Until last year, the road was regularly filled with lorries and industrial vehicles with wide loads for business purposes, but now that it is down to one lane and a narrow lane for tall vehicles, many vehicles have to take an alternative route, adding significant distance to their journey, with increased fuel costs and challenges for the businesses that they are reaching. For locals, the routine journeys in and out of the town to work and to school are severely impeded, and the large metal plate over the huge hole in the road on the only open lane is often loose and has clipped up and damaged many vehicles.

On 1 July, Minister, you told me that steps were being taken to move the concrete blocks back to the verge and there were issues to be resolved by DAERA, Forest Service and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). Last month, the AERA Minister confirmed to me that NIEA officials had told DFI Roads that the measures were permitted in the NIEA-managed Rostrevor Forest nature reserve, so the ball is in DFI's court. Minister, when you respond to the debate, I ask you to please advise when the A2 Shore Road in Rostrevor can be opened to two lanes of traffic again and repaired. People in the area see no end to the situation. They are depressed and in despair, and they are just looking for clarity.

The B27 Kilkeel Road in Hilltown is another significant road and is the main road through the mountains from Kilkeel to Hilltown and Rathfriland. It is used by many commuters and large vehicles every day. The restriction to one lane is, as in Rostrevor, slowing emergency response vehicles and causing significant delays. The Minister has outlined the complexity of the land slippage and the scale of the repairs in previous responses to me. Again, however, as with the road in Rostrevor, I ask you, Minister, to please advise when the Kilkeel Road at Hilltown can be open again to two lanes of traffic and repaired. I make the point again that people are exasperated and are looking for some progress and clarity.

Two significant roads in South Down are in need of significant work just to allow two-way traffic to resume as it was. We need to see the improvement soon. We do not know, as we look across the country, whether we would see this anywhere else.

As well as those significant, long-term, one-lane road closures, the road network across South Down is in serious need of other significant works. The A2 from Kilkeel to Newcastle is in a terrible state. Alongside my local Mournes councillors, Glyn Hanna and Henry Riley, I have campaigned for much-needed resurfacing for a long time, and we will continue to do so. Earlier this year, I asked the Minister about that issue. Initially, there was no money for it, but I am grateful that he was able to secure some for a small 1·4 kilometre stretch of road. However, Minister, that is far from the worst part of the road, and I ask you to please support the continued resurfacing out of Kilkeel, past Council Road towards Newcastle, as it is currently like a train track that no vehicle could run on. Motorbikes and cyclists face incredibly dangerous conditions, and it is an issue of constant complaint to my office. Further down the road, as we reach the Ballagh, we also need to see the long-promised road widening scheme, as two large vehicles cannot pass without a high-level collision on that part of the road. With many buses and lorries on that through route, it is a significant issue.

Mourne needs investment in the improvement of the roads. This is the Mourne coastal route, and it should be a tourist attraction, with people out enjoying their drive. We need the infrastructure to support that.

In the upper part of my constituency, people have long been disappointed by the lack of progress on the promised Ballynahinch bypass. I wonder whether the Minister has any plans to revisit that. In the absence of an official Ballynahinch bypass, we all know that drivers take an unofficial one. That has led to serious deterioration of the roads through the Spa. Alongside my local Slieve Croob councillor, Alan Lewis, I call for significant investment in improving the road in the Spa to cope with the volume and complexity of traffic that travels through it to bypass Ballynahinch.

Up over the mountains to Rathfriland, and it is often said to me that there is no road into Rathfriland that does not need significant work. Patched-in jobs do not cut it. With the volume of traffic and farm machinery on those roads, we need investment to fix and improve them for the long term. Again, whilst they are not motorways or dual carriageways, in rural South Down they are our main through roads, our connectivity, and when the roads are failing, we lose that and the critical infrastructure connecting our rural communities.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report released today: 'Road Openings by Utilities'. To maintain and enhance assets and services, the utilities regularly open the road network to access their gas and water, and it is their responsibility to reinstate the road to an acceptable standard. Today's report notes that the issues are significant, with 55,000 openings in 2023-24. When we get the good news of a road resurfacing scheme, I get regular feedback and comments, "How long until it is open again for another piece of work?". I hope it is not true, but I have had a few messages today about the newly resurfaced piece of Kilkeel Road being cut into. I hope that that is not true, but I can only believe what my constituents bring to my door. It is so visible on the ground, and there is nothing more disappointing, when you fight and get to deliver a lovely new piece of road, than seeing it cut open. It needs to be managed better.

The quality of repairs also needs to be improved. We have potholes repaired only to fall further apart and in a worse state, needing repeated and more significant work at higher cost. Recently in my area, we have had the road out at Glenloughan on the Banbridge Road, Rathfriland. Just this weekend, I felt I was playing dodgem cars as I navigated my way around it. The poor quality of repairs, when the tar comes out of the road and it gets worse, is a really significant issue, and I ask the Minister for a review of the quality of the repairs.

I love my constituency. I love where I live and represent, the people, the businesses, the groups and clubs. I want to see South Down be the best it can be: thriving. In order for that, we really need to be connected to the rest of Northern Ireland by better infrastructure. South Down is one of the best parts of Northern Ireland; we all know that, in spite of the many challenges that are faced by us. I hate always to be negative in the Chamber in my interactions with you, but we need to see significant investment in our roads. At the very least, the roads that have been in need of repair for some time must have two-way traffic or at least a date for a commitment to give people some faith that things are moving in the right direction. I call on you to commit to delivering more in South Down and to reinvigorate the Mourne coastal route by committing to resurfacing. It will save you a fortune in car damage claims, and it will improve the lives of many people working in and visiting South Down. I invite you at any time to come down for a drive, if you are brave enough.

Mrs Mason: I thank my South Down colleague Diane Forsythe for bringing this important topic to the Chamber. I could not agree with her more: South Down is definitely the best constituency to represent. The debate could not be more timely, because, as winter conditions settle in and the darker evenings come in, icy roads are becoming the norm. It is critical that all road users feel safe and that they can drive with confidence.

Our rural communities in particular face unique road safety challenges. It is imperative that their needs be prioritised. I welcome the announcement from the Minister of an additional £19 million investment in our roads and street lighting. That funding is a step in the right direction and will help ensure that roads are maintained, that street lights are repaired and operational and that our entire road network is as safe as possible, especially in the rural areas in which neglect has been felt most acutely. It is also welcome news that the Minister has fully funded the winter service. That will help ensure that our roads will be gritted and kept in the best possible condition during the colder months. Again, that is especially important for rural communities, where icy or untreated roads can mean isolation and, in some cases, life-threatening delays for emergency services.

I welcome the completion of the £350,000 resurfacing and footway refurbishment of Church Street in Downpatrick. That project was jointly funded by the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for Communities. It has transformed a key gateway into the town, improving road safety and enhancing the area's overall appearance. Additionally, I welcome the ongoing work on Irish Street and Market Street, which includes the upgrading of traffic signals and further resurfacing improvements. Those works are vital not only for the residents of Downpatrick but for visitors and businesses that rely on the town's infrastructure. They show what can be achieved with targeted investment, and they serve as a reminder of the potential that fairer funding could unlock for our rural areas. I thank and congratulate the Downpatrick regeneration working group, which has championed those projects.

While those measures offer much-needed relief to road users in the months ahead, it must be acknowledged that they come against a backdrop of years of underinvestment and cuts that British Governments have imposed. Decades of austerity have taken their toll, leaving many rural roads in South Down and, indeed, across the North in an unacceptable state of disrepair. For too long, rural communities have been forced to bear the brunt of underfunded infrastructure. Fairer funding from the British Government is urgently needed in order to address those disparities and to deliver long-overdue projects, such as the Ballynahinch bypass, which my South Down colleague mentioned. That vital project will not only reduce commuting times for workers and families who travel back and forth to Belfast and other local amenities but enhance road safety and accessibility for rural residents.

Fairer funding is also critical for improving rural connectivity. For too many of our rural communities, poor infrastructure means longer, more expensive commutes, higher transport costs and limited access to essential services. Investing in our rural roads will help drive local economies, strengthen our agriculture sector and reduce the inequality that persists between urban and rural areas.

Additionally, fairer funding would allow for long-term flood mitigation interventions, such as those that are urgently needed in Newcastle and Downpatrick and along rural roads such as the Carnreagh Road. Rural residents should not have to live in fear every time a storm warning is issued, wondering whether their home and community could be cut off or flooded. The interventions are not just about infrastructure but about giving rural families peace of mind and security in their daily lives.

The roads in our rural areas are lifelines for those communities. They connect workers to jobs, children to schools and families to services. Poor infrastructure isolates those communities, making it harder for businesses to thrive and for young people to stay in their local area. Fairer funding would help reverse those trends, allowing us to build a road network that supports sustainable growth in our rural economies and enhances the quality of life for everyone.

The Minister and Sinn Féin remain steadfast in our commitment to strengthening public services and addressing the neglect of rural infrastructure. It is imperative that we continue to press the British Government for fairer funding, recognising that investment in our roads is an investment in the safety, prosperity and well-being of our people. Our vision is one in which rural and urban communities are equally valued and in which no one has to endure poor road conditions, poor connectivity or the isolation that comes with inadequate infrastructure. It is about more than fixing potholes or gritting roads; it is about ensuring that all communities, no matter how rural, can thrive and prosper.

I ask the Minister — I look forward to hearing his response — and all the representatives in the Chamber to stand together with our rural communities in South Down. Let us work together to deliver the investment that our road network needs, the fairness that our rural residents deserve and the safety that all road users expect.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Andrew McMurray. Members, I should have indicated that you have up to seven minutes.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I certainly associate myself with the comments of and the love for South Down that the two Members who have spoken have expressed. There is a well-worn cliché of politicians appearing in the local paper pointing at a pothole, but it is a cliché for a reason. The issue of potholes is raised regularly with us, and it is important to our constituents in South Down. I hear regularly about people having to drive in the middle of the road, people having their back pain exacerbated by going over potholes and, indeed, parents' difficulties in trying to keep their children with special needs comfortable on journeys. The list goes on. That is why I stand here this evening talking about potholes and the state of the roads. I thank the Member for South Down Ms Forsythe for raising the issue and, indeed, the Minister for being here. The Minister has been at the crease for quite a while now. He has had two innings, not out. Happy days.

The state of the roads is appalling, no more so than in the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area, which covers most of my constituency of South Down. With 20,005 potholes in 2023, Newry, Mourne and Down has the highest number of surface defects in Northern Ireland by a substantial margin. It also has the worst ratio of potholes to road length, with approximately 6·5 potholes for every kilometre of road in 2023. For the past five years, Newry, Mourne and Down was also the council area with the highest number of claims resulting in compensation. Potholes can cause a lot of damage. Vehicle damage claims from Newry, Mourne and Down have nearly tripled in the past five years. There were 704 claims in 2023-24. DFI paid out for nearly 600 of them at a cost of over £770,000. I think that Ms Forsythe referred to that. Most of that increase in claims was due to potholes. In most cases, a vehicle was damaged, but we must not forget that 120 claims in the past five years were made because someone in the Newry, Mourne and Down area was physically hurt due to a road defect.

Potholes are more dangerous for vulnerable road users. That includes cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians, especially those with reduced mobility. That is easily forgotten when the focus is on damage to cars. I wrote to the Minister, asking for a breakdown of public liability claims for personal injury by road user type. The response confirmed that the majority of personal injury claims are from pedestrians but that the Department cannot disaggregate personal injury claims from pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. I encourage the Minister to collect that data in future so that the risk that is faced by different road users can be better understood.

Vulnerable road users can be seriously hurt if they ride through or trip over a pothole or veer into traffic in order to avoid one. Those road users are also at increased risk from other drivers losing control of their vehicles. A few weeks ago, an interesting piece of research was mentioned at the Infrastructure Committee about the use of eyeball tracking to show that motorcyclists spend more time scanning for road defects than car drivers do, and that that time is not spent scanning for other hazards. I am a pedal cyclist. While we travel more slowly, other motor vehicles will often swerve to avoid hazards and therefore put cyclists at risk. People have a tendency to think about themselves rather than the cyclist at the side of the road.

We already know that inattention is a major cause of road accidents, so any distractions that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable road users must make us pause. That is not adequately reflected in the way in which road safety statistics are currently presented. Again, as a cyclist, I find that deeply concerning. I am not alone in feeling that way. In a DFI survey on road safety, 40% of cyclists said that poor road conditions made them feel unsafe, ranking behind only heavy traffic and inconsiderate drivers.

Unfortunately, our roads are getting worse. In recent years, the gap between defects instructed and defects repaired has widened dramatically. DFI's most recent report shows that, last year, almost 28,000 priority defects were recorded in Newry, Mourne and Down, but only around 18,000 were repaired within the specified time frame. That is a gap of almost 10,000 serious potholes that are just sitting there waiting to be repaired.

As is so true about many other issues, that reflects significant long-term underinvestment in our roads network. To make matters worse, DFI's transport and road asset management branch has also been struggling with severe staff shortages. All that means that only an essential road maintenance service has been delivered for some time now, and only the highest-priority defects have been fixed in areas of high risk. As we have seen, even priority defects can often take longer to fix than they should.

Today, as was referenced, the NI Audit Office published a report on road openings by utilities. The issue is that utilities must sometimes open roads or footpaths to maintain their infrastructure, but they are then obliged to repair the opening to an acceptable standard. Unfortunately, that does not always happen, and, in those cases, the road or footpath might deteriorate more quickly. Indeed, I witnessed that on Sunday morning on my run, when the tarmac around a manhole disintegrated in front of my very eyes. That issue happens all the time.

If the Department does not spot a substandard repair within three years, it becomes responsible for fixing the damage. The report found that the Department has improved the way in which it manages those road openings but also that further improvements could be made. For example, it suggested that the inspection and testing programmes could be improved, the warranty extended and inspection charges increased. I hope that the Minister will consider those options carefully to ensure that the Department focuses its limited resources on the repairs that are truly its responsibility and does not pick up the tab for issues that are caused by utilities.

Mr McGrath: I thank my constituency colleague for securing this important Adjournment debate. I reflect that, as a party health spokesperson, after about six or seven weeks of Adjournment debates on health matters, I spoke to the Whips and implored them to move on to different subjects. We have now had about five weeks of South Down issues. It seems that we are compelled to be the latest Members in attendance on Tuesdays.

There are so many different layers to the issue. There is no point in laying punches into the Minister. He has inherited the Department and an absolutely deplorable road network. Two different examples came to my mind. The first was that I remember joining the local town twinning committee about 10 years ago on a visit to Moldova. We arrived in the capital city, which is quite far up in the north, and we were to attend a city that was about a three-hour drive to the south. It was the worst drive of my life. There were literally massive craters in the road. The minibus that we were in was weaving its way down to that city. It took an age to get there, and you felt that your stomach was in your mouth for that journey. That experience is what comes to mind on some of the roads in South Down and across other parts of the North.

You really find yourself paying serious attention to the sides of the road when you are driving to try to work out when you will have to pull over onto the other side of the road to navigate around potholes and sometimes even little surface defects that mean that your car will bump its way along. That is not necessarily comfortable for you or your passengers. Of course, you are also worrying about the fact that cars are coming on the other side of the road and about not straying into their path. On some of the country roads in rural constituencies, at times you really have to take your time, and you really sweat when driving along some of the roads because of the danger. Add to the mix a heavy rainfall, and you do not know whether something is a puddle or a pothole. If you drive over it, will it be grand, or will you bump right down into it?

From our constituency office work, we all know the number of complaints that we get about roads. None yet has topped the complaint that I got as a councillor about 15 years ago, when a person sent me the bill and asked me to pay it for them because of the state of the road. Thankfully, I was able to direct them to the online system to claim the money back. It seems counterproductive that we direct people to receive compensation, which runs to millions and millions of pounds, yet we cannot use that money up front to fix the roads.

The second thing that I remember is that, when I was a child, for a time, we had to travel regularly to visit sick family in Dublin. Every Sunday, the whole family used to be packed into the car, and off we went to Dublin in the morning. We visited the family and then travelled back up again. We used to laugh in the car, because we knew exactly where the border was because, as we travelled north, the road surface suddenly became much better. It was smooth. It was a much better road. The roads in the South were always much worse, but how times have changed. That has completely turned around. The roads in the South are far above the quality of the roads that we have in the North. That makes life difficult.

Other Members have rehearsed individual examples. In the area around Mourne, especially on the road from Newcastle to Kilkeel, the road surface is horrendous. I know that drivers are supposed to keep an eye on the road — that is important and is always the priority — but you have beautiful scenery around you and, for lots of visitors, the worst bit about the poor roads is that you never get a chance to take the scenery in, even as a passenger, because the car is bouncing around, people are grabbing whatever there is in the car to hold on to, and the journey is much more difficult.

I echo the remarks that were made about the Audit Office report. Roadworks that are done by utility services are an absolute bugbear. My town of Downpatrick is the greatest example. When you drive into Downpatrick from Belfast, you sometimes feel your car suddenly start to move towards the side of the road, and you realise that your tyres are in the tracks made by the utility company that resurfaced the road. The road surface has dropped down and created a bit of a recess, like a groove, where the work was done. That should not happen. I question the Department's checking system and ask the Minister to use his full influence to make sure that a robust system is put in place for every road that is ripped up by a company, because, around Downpatrick, there are numerous examples of roads that have been dug up and put back down by utility companies. Some great work has been done. I know that a period has to pass before utility companies can come to dig up a road, but it sometimes feels as if they wait and wait and, the first day after the deadline, come straight out with their diggers to dig up the road. A piece of resurfacing was done between Crossgar and Downpatrick during my time in the Assembly. It was done only about six or seven years ago, but the road has already been dug up in various places. That just ruins the road.

I will touch on a final issue, which is a bit of a pet hate. It is about something that has slipped into the Department's email response to queries; I am not sure whether other Members have noticed it. Although drivers absolutely have to be careful and take account of what is around them, every time that you ask about an issue with a road, ask for it to be upgraded or point to some surface defect, you get the response, "It is the responsibility of the driver to drive appropriately for the surface of the road". Of course it is, but if we had nice surfaces and nice roads, it might be easier and more pleasant to do so.

South Down is probably no different from any other constituency in the state of the roads. If it is, there are more grounds for them to be fixed as quickly as possible. This has been a good debate on a really important issue. It impacts on more or less everybody in the area, because we are all in a car or a vehicle at some stage. I hope that the Minister will do all that he can to address the roads in South Down.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask the Minister for Infrastructure to respond. Minister, you will have up to 10 minutes.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

First, I thank Ms Forsythe for securing this important debate on the need for significant road works in South Down, and I thank the other Members for contributing to it. I have listened intently to the comments and issues that were raised and have heard Members' concerns about the road network in South Down and the need for further investment and improvements.

Investing in new roads and maintaining roads are critical to ensure the safe movement of people and goods to allow the growth of our economy, whether rural or urban. I stress that the North can have whatever quality of road network that it wants, but it needs to be funded. In fairness, a number of Members touched on the need for funding to upgrade our road network. Without funding, new strategic roads to improve safety and help economic improvement will not get built, and roads will continue to deteriorate. My Department, like others, has been operating in a difficult financial environment. We hope against hope that we are moving out of an austerity period and will be able to stabilise our budgets as we move forward. We prepare and plan for that scenario.

I recognise the inconvenience with the A2 Shore Road in Rostrevor, which is due to a landslide that occurred in late 2023. Since it occurred, my officials have been engaging with DAERA, the Forest Service and NIEA to bring forward an appropriate, safe and sustainable solution to the issue. I recently visited the location to see it for myself. Due to the scale and complexity of the work that is required, we needed to obtain the necessary environmental improvements. Those have now been obtained, which allows us to carry out the work.

I can, however, notify Members that Forest Service wishes to coordinate tree works on the embankment slope to allow us to reopen the road to two lanes. If Forest Service is not in a position to move onto that site in the near future, however, I will ask that the road be reopened to two lanes. We want to work in cooperation with other agencies, but, if we can open the lanes without the work that Forest Service needs to carry out, we need to move towards doing that.

I also recognise the inconvenience caused by the temporary closure of one lane of the Kilkeel Road in Hilltown due to verge slippage, which, again, was caused by severe weather in late 2023. The Member will be aware of the scale and complexity of the work required at the Kilkeel Road. It is significant, which means that it will take time to deliver a safe and cost-effective scheme. My Department will continue to work hard to open the road to two-way traffic as soon as possible.

On a positive note, my Department is developing two major projects in the area. One is the Newry southern relief road, which is valued at between £110 million and £130 million. That is being progressed as part of the Belfast region city deal, which will provide a strategic link between the Belfast to Dublin corridor and the A2 Warrenpoint Road. Members mentioned the Ballynahinch bypass, which lies north of the boundary of the new South Down constituency and will bring substantial benefits to County Down. Development work on that project, valued at between £50 million and £60 million, although largely complete, is currently paused. I assure Members, however, that I am actively considering the progression of the project. I hope to make an announcement in due course.

In July, I announced in the House that the A1 junction phase 2 improvements would proceed to procurement stage. Those are valued at between £120 million and £130 million. Our outline business case was recently approved by the Department of Finance, and I am moving to commence the procurement of that project. In June, I, along with the Irish Government, announced the start of the construction of the Narrow Water bridge, which is valued at around €100 million. That project is being led and funded by the Irish Government through the Shared Island Fund. It is a key piece of infrastructure that will connect North and South and create active travel links to the centre of Warrenpoint and Newry, increasing tourist numbers from the Carlingford greenway. In total, the estimated value of ongoing work to develop major projects is around £350 million. When those projects are delivered, they will encourage economic growth in South Down.

Turning to road maintenance, the Executive agreed a 2024 Budget, and I made best use of the funding from that to target road surfacing. To that end, I allocated £101·5 million to capital structural maintenance, which includes resurfacing, surface dressing, structural drainage and verge stabilisation. That figure includes £12·5 million of the £19 million that I secured in October monitoring for essential structural road maintenance and street lighting work. I secured an additional £1 million of resource funding from the October monitoring round that I have directed to gully clearance. The clearing of gullies is an issue across all constituencies, and South Down is no different. As in previous years, the total capital funding for southern division, which includes South Down, is significant and is likely to deliver over £25 million in structural investment in this financial year.

Road maintenance activity presents challenges. The closure of roads or single-lane traffic can also cause challenges for road users, but my team has to ensure the safety of road workers. Ms Forsythe previously mentioned her concerns that roadworks in South Down were not being properly publicised, but I assure her that, where significant delays may occur, my Department publishes notifications of current and upcoming roadworks on its TrafficWatchNI website, which allows people to choose alternative routes for their journeys.

I draw Members' attention to my Department's recently launched consultation on the future delivery of active travel through the active travel delivery plan, which will be of huge benefit to the scenic areas of South Down. I am sure that Members will tell me that all areas of South Down are scenic, but I think particularly of areas such as Newry, Kilkeel, Newcastle and Downpatrick, where active travel proposals have been set out. Those will not only be of huge benefit to the local community but will bring tourism potential. We engaged with our colleagues on a number of travel linkages. I mentioned the Narrow Water bridge, which will connect North and South and likely attract locals and tourists from the Carlingford greenway to Warrenpoint and Newry.

One of my colleagues from the Department is present in the Chamber. A note will be taken of specific roads that were mentioned, and we will respond directly to Members about them.

I will respond to Members comments about the Audit Office report on utilities, which was published today. I am limited in what I can say because protocol dictates that the report goes first to the Public Accounts Committee. My Department can work with the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee to bring the recommendations in the report to fruition. I am already looking at increasing the fees for opening roads for utilities, partly because they have not been increased since 2011. Also, the increase in fees will allow me to recruit more staff and have more inspectors, which, in turn, will ensure that roads are repaired and reinstated properly and we can inspect more. Roads are not allowed to be reopened within 12 months of resurfacing unless there is an emergency, such as a leak, but that is the general rule. I assure Members that I am doing my best to target more investment on rural roads to ensure that rural communities are not left behind because of poorer road conditions than those faced by others who live elsewhere.

Mr McGrath was right: all emails receive a standard response. There is a reason for that: 95% of road traffic collisions are caused by human error. That is the reality of the situation. If there is a traffic collision, the condition of the road will be taken into account as part of the investigation, and my officials cooperate with the PSNI on those investigations. However, the harsh reality for us all is that 95% of accidents are caused by human error.

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