Official Report: Monday 13 January 2025

Mr Speaker: Before Members' statements, I once again remind Members of the sub judice rule. Assembly Standing Orders recognise the distinct role of the courts and the Assembly in our constitutional settlement. I remind Members that they should say nothing today that could prejudice matters that are currently before the courts.

I wish you all a very happy new year. I trust that you had a restful Christmas and that you are back refreshed and invigorated for the months that lie ahead. I trust that there will be a lot of work and legislation to go through.

Mr Sheehan: Go díreach i ndiaidh don Tionól scaoileadh don Nollaig, bhí Lá Idirnáisiúnta na nImirceach ann. Má tá an lá féin thart, sílim gur fiú cúpla focal a rá leis, toisc a thábhachtaí atá ábhar an lae ar leith sin.

Is iomaí cúis leis an imirce, amhail súil le sábháilteacht, síocháin nó saoirse, mar shampla. Is cinneadh tromchúiseach é dul idir dhá dtír, cinneadh a chuireann an t-imirceach ar thuras maslach go minic agus ar thuras marfach go rómhinic.

Agus, más olc an turas a bhíonn le déanamh acu leis an tír seo a bhaint amach, ní taise don phróiseas a bhíonn rompu le cead isteach sa tír seo a fháil ina dhiaidh sin. Cuirtear próiseas fadálach, casta orthu sular féidir leo cur fúthu abhus. Tá imircigh ar na daoine is mó atá in áit a gcarta. Tá siad ar na grúpaí is mó a ndéantar leithcheal orthu sa tsochaí.

Mar sin féin, d’ainneoin na ndeacrachtaí a bhíonn le sárú acu, d’ainneoin na gconstaicí a chuirtear ina mbealach, agus d’ainneoin na gcontúirtí ina n-oirchill, nuair a éiríonn le himircigh bun a chur orthu féin anseo inár measc, is amhlaidh is fearrde dúinn uilig é. Beireann imircigh leo eolas agus eagna dhomhanda chugainn. Nuair a chuireann siad an t-eolas sin chun a chaite mar oibrithe, mar mhic léinn, mar ghnó-eagraithe, mar ealaíontóirí agus mar bhaill teaghlaigh is é rud a chuireann siad an saol abhus chun feabhais.

Sin é an rud atáimid a cheiliúradh inniu: an feabhas a chuireann imircigh ar an tsaol agus ar an tsochaí againn. Tugann siad aire dúinn, nó is thar lear a fuair breis agus 35% de na dochtúirí atá againn a gcuid oiliúna. Tugann siad poist dúinn, nó is imircigh atá ar cheann gnó amháin as gach seachtar atá againn abhus. Tugann siad tacaíocht don gheilleagar againn, nó cuireann imircigh thart ar £500 milliún le OTI na Sé Chontae gach bliain.

Ó chúrsaí geilleagair go cúrsaí gnó, ó chúrsaí leighis go cúrsaí cultúir, bíonn lámh ar leith ag an imirceach ann agus is fearrde dúinn uilig é. Sílim gur fiú sin a cheiliúradh.

Ms Bunting: Last Sunday, 5 January, marked the 49th anniversary of the Kingsmills massacre in which 10 Protestant workmen were mercilessly murdered by the Provisional IRA after being lined up along the side of their van on a dark country road. There was a lone survivor. It has been my honour to work for Mr Black and the family of John McConville. I pay tribute to the families for their fight for truth and justice, which has lasted just shy of half a century. They have even had to take on the very bodies established to help them. What kind of system is it when it exacerbates the pain of the innocent victims who have already suffered unspeakably for such a protracted period? Mr Black sums up the situation as "cruel". It should be a source of grave embarrassment to those concerned.

I need not go into the horrors of that night; I recounted the events in a previous debate. However, Members will be aware that there has been an ongoing campaign for the Office of the Police Ombudsman to release its report. We are now nine months on from the conclusion of the inquest, when the coroner advised that they would be in receipt of the report, and still nothing. I recently wrote again to the ombudsman, and here are excerpts from her response:

There are a few problems with "in due course". We have heard it all before. The Office of the Police Ombudsman's actions vary considerably from the current ombudsman's words, and, again, she demurs to specify a date for the report's release, despite the families being advised a number of years ago that it was finished. So, which is true? Is it complete or is not? How long will it take? The ombudsman's office has been investigating this for 13 years. Unfortunately, the natural conclusion is that the body is running down the clock to the deadline relating to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR). You could write the script. The report will be released at the deadline, at which time, when the family ask questions, they will be told, "The time has passed. It is no longer our remit, and there is nothing that this office can do now. You'll have to go to the ICRIR". The ICRIR will then rightly state that it cannot answer questions related to another body's report, and thus there will be the passing of the proverbial buck. It is as predictable as it is despicable. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I fear that I am not. I publicly call again on the Office of the Police Ombudsman to release this report immediately.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Dickson: I rise today to mark a very important week. Today marks the beginning of Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Week 2025. Across the world, six cancers make up those known as the less survivable cancers, namely stomach, oesophageal, liver, pancreatic, brain and lung. Those cancers have just a 16% survival rate. This week is a vital occasion that reminds us all of the realities faced by many individuals battling cancers that often go unnoticed and underfunded. This week is a time not just for reflection but for action, awareness and commitment to the fight against these cancers that take far too many lives. Statistics tell the harsh truth. Less survivable cancers, such as pancreatic, liver and oesophageal, not only bear a heavy emotional weight on those who have been diagnosed with them but place a significant burden on our healthcare systems and the families of those who have had that diagnosis. Unlike some of the more common cancers, these conditions often receive less public attention, resulting in diminished research funding and limited treatment options. It is our duty to shine a light on these cancers, ensuring proper funding and recognition.

In December 2024, I marked a personal milestone, celebrating five years cancer-free following successful surgery for one of those less survivable cancers.

We know that early diagnosis, in the case of all cancers, gives the best chance for survival. Sadly, with the less survivable cancers, diagnosis is often made all too late, and the cancer is, therefore, much harder to treat. Over 20% of oesophageal cancer cases are diagnosed in emergency settings. Unfortunately, at that stage, the cancer has often progressed and cannot be treated.

This week, I urge people to educate themselves and those around them, to promote awareness and to support organisations that prioritise the six less survivable cancers. This week is an opportunity to confront the stigma and to amplify the voices of those affected by less survivable cancers: stomach, oesophageal, liver, pancreatic, brain and lung. Let us strive for a future where no cancer is deemed to be less survivable. I commend all the charities that are dedicated to those cancers. We demand focus and attention from the Minister and the Department of Health. We want every individual faced with a diagnosis in Northern Ireland to be given the best chance to fight, survive and thrive.

Thank you, on behalf of all the amazing charities that support less survivable cancers, such as OGCancerNI (Oesophageal and Stomach), Pancreatic Cancer UK, Guts UK, Liver Cancer UK, Brainwaves NI and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation.

Mr McNulty: I rise today to recognise the remarkable, life-changing work of community nurses. Those incredible individuals do not just care for our physical health; they sustain and enhance our lives. They are the unsung heroes who bring comfort, compassion and healing in places where healthcare is needed most — in our homes, in our neighbourhoods and in the heart of our communities. Community nurses show up when it matters most, often during difficult moments in the lives of people and families. They visit homes where a mother may be struggling with a newborn, where an elderly person is isolated or where a family is caring for a loved one with a terminal illness. They bring more than medical expertise; they bring warmth, hope and a sense of reassurance to families in times of uncertainty.

I have seen how community nurses go above and beyond for their patients. They are not just administering treatments; they listen, offer comfort and provide hope and reassurance. When a nurse sits by a patient's side holding their hand and offering kind words of encouragement, they are offering far more than just care; they are giving them dignity, respect and a sense of security.

We know that the work that community nurses do is difficult, is, at times, overwhelming and, often, goes unnoticed, but it is precisely because of their dedication, empathy and tireless efforts that our healthcare system works. They are the lifeblood of our communities, the ones who ensure that healthcare does not end at hospital doors but continues at home where it matters the most.

Today, I thank community nurses, not just for the work that they do but for the hope, warmth and kindness that they bring. I thank them for the patience, commitment and love that they give every day. They change lives and do so with warmth, kindness and grace. They make people feel seen, heard and cared for, often when they are at their most vulnerable.

I pledge that I will continue to fight for the support and the resources that community nurses need to do their work. We owe them far more than words, and we must ensure that they are recognised and valued in a way that they truly deserve. To every community nurse, I offer you a heartfelt, "Thank you". You make our communities stronger, healthier and more connected. For that, we are forever grateful.

To all those fighting illness, I send you our love and support. To my cousin, who is in a hospital bed fighting for his life, I send our hope, prayers and strength. To Danielle, Ethan, Alexis, Cara, Lourdes and Charles I say that we believe in miracles and carers and healing well.

Ms Reilly: For those who wish to avail themselves of the translation service, I say that I will make my remarks in Irish.

Is cúis mhór bhróin domh a fhógairt gur imigh Ted Howell ar shlí na fírinne. D’imir Ted ról lárnach sna cainteanna síochána agus i gComhaontú Aoine an Chéasta. Nuair a labhraíonn daoine faoin chineál fir a bhí i dTed, deir siad go raibh sé greannmhar, cineálta, dílis agus go raibh a saol tiomanta don phoblachtachas. Lena chois sin uilig, ba fhear céile é, daidí, daideo agus cara agus ba mhaith liom comhbhrón ó chroí a dhéanamh le muintir Howell.

Mo léan, d’imigh Gaeil eile ar shlí na fírinne le linn shos na Nollag. Bhí Gearóid Ó Cairealláin ina uachtarán ar Chonradh na Gaeilge ó 1995 go 1998, agus is iomaí togra ceannródaíoch a raibh baint aige lena mbunú: an nuachtán ‘Lá’, Aisling Ghéar, an comhlacht amharclannaíochta, Raidió Fáilte, Cultúrlann McAdam Ó Fiaich, agus Meánscoil Feirste. Bhí Gearóid lárnach do athbheochan na Gaeilge i mBéal Feirste, agus bhí sé mar chroílár inti. Ba mhaith liom, arís eile, comhbhrón ó chroí a dhéanamh le muintir Uí Chairealláin ag an am seo.

D’imigh iaruachtarán Chonradh na Gaeilge eile, Pádraig Ó Snodaigh, uainn le déanaí. Bhí Pádraig ina uachtarán ar Chonradh na Gaeilge ó naoi déag seachtó a ceathair go naoi déag seachtó a naoi. Bhí sé ar dhuine de phearsana móra shaol na Gaeilge agus shaol cultúrtha na hÉireann: mar bhunaitheoir an tí foilsitheoireachta Coiscéim, mar údar, mar fhile, agus mar ghníomhaí teanga. Déanaim comhbhrón ó chroí le muintir Uí Snodaigh, agus go háirithe le mo chomhghleacaí Aengus, ar Teachta Dála i dTeach Laighean é.

MórGhaeil go smior imithe uainn. Mar Ghael, gabhaim mo bhuíochas le Ted, le Gearóid agus le Pádraig as ucht bhur gcuid iarrachtaí ár dteanga, ár gcultúr agus ár bhféiniúlacht a chur chun cinn. Ní bheidh bhur leithéid arís ann.

Mr Buckley: People say that you can judge an individual or organisation not on their words but by their actions. In six months of the Labour Government, their actions have amounted to no more than betrayal, deceit and destruction. In Opposition, the Labour Party said that it supported a public inquiry into grooming gangs — gangs that gang-raped young white women right across England — yet, in Government, it has voted against a public inquiry. In Opposition, Labour said that it supported pensioners and their right to retain the winter fuel payment. In Government, it has cut some pensioners' eligibility for the winter fuel payment. As we have seen in Northern Ireland, many pensioners are now in hospital, where there are backlogs because there are no care packages for those pensioners who would be best placed at home. Labour promised the farming community that it supported farmers, but introduced a change to the farm inheritance tax that is the most destructive measure that has been introduced to farming in the past 100 years. As a point of conversation today, although the Labour Government promised the growth of the UK economy, they have tanked the UK economy.

Let us look at the facts of Rachel Reeves's blunder Budget, because they speak clearly. As of last week, the cost of Government borrowing has exceeded a nearly 30-year high. The pound has taken a further hit against the dollar and is now at a 14-month low. The UK is seeing the worst inflation in the G7. Growth rates are around zero. Does anybody remember the public outcry from the media and Labour when Liz Truss's mini-Budget had apparently destroyed the UK economy? What was it over? It was over bond rates. Today, bond rates exceed those that Liz Truss's mini-Budget delivered. The cost of Government borrowing is increasing to staggering levels. It is we, the people of the United Kingdom, who face the consequences.

We were told that "Growth, growth, growth" would be the priority. However, what have the Labour Government delivered since that blunder Budget? It has been a policy of tax and burn. They have set the economy ablaze and left farmers, businesses and pensioners smouldering in the ashes under the weight of new taxes. Confidence in the business community is at an all-time low. It is high time that the Labour Government woke up from the la-la land in which they operate and got into the real world, because the prosperity —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: — of our nation and our people depend on them.

Mr Butler: Hopefully, someone has wished you a happy new year, Mr Speaker. If they have not done so, I will.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Butler.

Mr Butler: Our newsfeeds are filled with the unfolding international tragedy of the wildfires in Los Angeles that, we have been told today, have claimed 24 lives. Tragically, that count may still escalate. The count of 24 deaths does not paint a picture of the full devastation that is unfolding in that region. It is one of the wealthiest and most highly and densely populated areas in the world, so you would think that the fire safety standards and attitudes to such things there would mean that people live in absolute safety.

I take the opportunity — I am sure that Members will join me — to send a message of not just sympathy and awareness but support to all those who have been affected. I do not know what the investigation will pull out as to the cause, but there is no doubt that the tinder-dry area that it is, the heat and the winds that people are talking about will have played a part.

I want us to turn our minds to the people who step up to the mark in instances such as this. First, obviously — you know that I will make no apology for this — I pay credit to front-line fire and rescue personnel who step up and, at great risk to themselves, step in to evacuate and protect property and lead people to safety. At great risk, they have spent days away from their families.

I had the pleasure of being with the fire service in LA a number of years ago, on the fire engines, or fire trucks, as they are called over there, in Fresno, California. Wildfires are a very real and present everyday danger that they face and they do so on a much greater scale than we do. I noticed today that the local government there have talked about easing the bureaucratic burden on building back. That is welcome, but I warn that their standards for house construction and their attitudes to fire safety are not like ours. I hope that, if there is a role that we can play in Northern Ireland, where we have perhaps one of the best fire and rescue services in the world and really good construction regulations, we can do so.

I will end by, unusually, paying tribute to two members of our media. The media give us a rap on a daily basis, which is quite right. We have seen absolutely fantastic representation from David Blevins of Sky News and Emma Vardy of the BBC, who have, in the midst of the unfolding tragedy, been giving us accurate, truthful and up-to-date information. I am sure that Members will join me in passing on our thoughts to the people of LA. If there is any support that we can give, I am sure that we will give it.

Mrs Mason: I will talk about an issue that is nothing short of a crisis: the mental health and well-being of our children and young people. That crisis is claiming lives, devastating families and stretching our health and education systems to their limits. I begin by acknowledging the parents who, last month, just prior to Christmas, shared their heartbreaking experiences with me: your courage in speaking out reminds us why urgent action is needed.

Last month, I also met people from New Script for Mental Health, who spoke passionately on topics such as the need for early intervention, the rise in the use of prescription antidepressants to treat our children and young people and the stark reality that suicide is more prevalent in areas of high disadvantage. The statistics are clear and deeply troubling. Suicide is one of the leading causes of death among young people, especially in areas of high deprivation, yet, as the crisis grows, the services that are designed to support those in need are failing to keep up.

Child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) waiting lists are shockingly long, with children and their families often waiting months — sometimes years — for the help that they so desperately need. For many, those delays are life-altering; for some, they are life-ending. We cannot let that continue. That is why I am calling on the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health to prioritise health and well-being in our schools. Schools must become front-line hubs for early intervention. That means embedding mental health practitioners in schools and ensuring that there is immediate access to support when children need it most. Early intervention not only saves lives but reduces the long-term burden on our health services.

Mental health provision in schools cannot stop at crisis response: it must include preventative measures. We need to equip our children with the tools to manage stress, build resilience and navigate the complexities of life in this digital age. Speaking of the digital age, we cannot ignore the enormous impact of social media on our young people's mental health. The pressure to conform, the endless comparison and the damaging effects of online bullying are contributing to rising levels of anxiety, depression and self-harm. We must work with schools, families and the tech companies to educate young people about safe and healthy social media use.

We must also demand accountability from social media platforms, whose algorithms profit from amplifying harmful content. This is a call to action. Mental health and well-being provision must be woven into the fabric of our education system. Every single child deserves to feel safe, supported and understood in their school environment. This cannot wait. If we truly care about our children's futures, we must invest in their mental health now. We need shorter waiting lists, mental health practitioners in every school and an education system that prioritises well-being alongside academic study. I urge Ministers to make it a top priority, because the stakes are simply far too high.

Ms Brownlee: I express deep concern about and am raising awareness of the ongoing search for Larne man Gary Patterson, a 45-year-old who has been missing for almost three months. The last confirmed sighting of Gary was on Saturday 12 October 2024, when he withdrew £100 from a bank machine close to his home in Larne. Since then, there have been no further sightings and no developments in the case.

Gary is described as having dark hair. When last seen, he was wearing a distinctive yellow and black checked-pattern coat, dark blue jeans, hiking or walking boots and a black beanie hat. He has links to the Larne and Belfast areas, and his disappearance has caused significant distress to his family, his friends and the wider community.

I commend the police for their continued efforts to locate Gary and for reissuing their appeal to the public for any information that might help. The case, however, serves as a stark reminder of the heartache and uncertainty faced by a family when a loved one goes missing. I take the opportunity to urge anyone who may have seen Gary or who has any information about his whereabouts, no matter how small it may seem, to come forward and contact the police on 101. Every piece of information could be crucial in the search to bring Gary home.

I acknowledge the support and efforts of Gary's family and friends, who have worked tirelessly to organise searches and raise awareness about his disappearance. Their determination is a testament to the power of our community and the importance of standing together in difficult times.

Mr Donnelly: I will talk about the importance of vaccination and the need to tackle misinformation about vaccines. The situation is especially concerning over the winter period, as we have seen a rise in infectious diseases such as COVID-19 and the flu, in addition to the usual pressures that our already overstretched and under-resourced health service faces.

We will be discussing those pressures in more detail later through our Alliance Party motion on ambulance services. At the Health Committee last week, we heard about the low rates of vaccine uptake, and the Minister and the Public Health Agency (PHA) have attributed some of that to vaccine hesitancy.

I emphasise to everyone that vaccines are safe. Every available vaccine has been rigorously tested across many stages of trials before being introduced and is regularly reassessed after its introduction. Any potential health risks are constantly monitored by scientists. As with any medication, there is a small chance of side effects from getting a vaccine, but most are minor, such as a sore arm following an injection or a mild fever for several days. Serious injuries are extremely rare, while tragic incidents, where lives have been lost owing to the side effects of vaccination, are even rarer. In the vast majority of cases, however, vaccines are safe, and it is important to remember that people are far more likely to be seriously injured or killed by a vaccine-preventable disease than by a vaccine.

Although there have been a small number of deaths and serious injuries following the introduction of the COVID vaccines in 2021, those same vaccines have saved millions of lives. Their development within a short time frame, while following all the required trials and taking precautions, remains one of the great scientific achievements of this century.

More broadly speaking, vaccinations are the most effective method of preventing infectious diseases. Vaccines have been the primary cause of the worldwide eradication of smallpox and the restriction of diseases such as polio, measles and tetanus in much of the world. Vaccines are available for 26 preventable infections, and the HPV vaccine, which protects against cervical, head and neck, anal and genital cancers, is now available to our children and young people.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that vaccines are a very safe and effective way in which to combat infectious diseases. No vaccine or medicine is perfect, but there is no safer way of staying protected this winter. All Members and the Department of Health should therefore encourage everyone who can avail themselves of vaccinations to take them. In doing so, they will better protect themselves and support the health service. I also encourage everyone in the Chamber to call out vaccine misinformation, which is sadly becoming more prevalent in our politics, and on social media sites in particular. Social media companies must play a greater role in challenging misinformation and false statements, as we are seeing a backward step being taken on many such sites.

Ms Sugden: I rise to express my concern about the Riverside Theatre in Coleraine, which has been an important cultural institution in Northern Ireland since 1976. It is the only professional theatre in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area, and its potential closure would have wide-ranging consequences not only for those who rely on it for creative expression but for the wider area.

The Riverside Theatre is a space in which talent is nurtured and showcased. It has hosted world-class performances and served as a launch pad for local actors, writers and musicians. Notably, James Nesbitt, one of Northern Ireland's best-known actors, began his journey here. It has also been a home for amateur theatre groups and a space where talent has flourished across genres from drama to music, comedy and dance. Beyond professional productions, it offers a platform for the community to come together, build connections and celebrate the arts.

While its cultural contributions are significant, the theatre's closure would also have a tangible impact on the local economy. It draws visitors to the area, supporting nearby businesses such as cafés, shops and hotels. If the Riverside Theatre were to close, the borough would become the only council area in Northern Ireland without a professional theatre, an unacceptable gap that would deprive the community of opportunities for creative engagement and connection and undermine a part of Northern Ireland that we often sell as our premier tourist destination.

Unfortunately, the challenge facing Riverside Theatre is not an isolated issue. It reflects broader concerns about the gradual reduction of resources and focus at Ulster University's Coleraine campus. For over 50 years the campus has been a cornerstone of the town's economy, attracting students, staff and visitors who support local businesses and create jobs. Its presence has been integral to the area's identity and infrastructure, providing access to education for generations of families. However, the steady movement of key courses, including the performing arts, to Magee and other campuses raises questions about the long-term strategy for Coleraine. While not an immediate threat, the erosion of resources has created uncertainty and unease in our community in Coleraine. For a town that has built so much of its economy and future around the university, that trend risks diminishing Coleraine's role as a centre of education and opportunity. If we pull down this key structure, we pull down what has been built around it.

I urge the university, the local council, the Minister for the Economy and the Minister for Communities to ensure that the theatre's future is built on its popularity and success.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That ends Members' Statements.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have 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 questions. Also, I take the opportunity to wish you all a very happy new year. Bliain úr faoi mhaise daoibh.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Today I set out my vision for the most ambitious programme of special educational needs (SEN) reform in a generation, which will see our children and young people with special educational needs truly thriving in education.

The challenges around special educational needs provision are well documented and have rightly been the focus of many debates in the Assembly and across society. Today is about moving beyond the commentary to focus on the actions that are needed to ensure that our children and young people with SEN benefit from greater inclusion and receive the right support from the right people at the right time and in the right place.

The context in which I bring forward the programme of reform is vastly different from the one in which our existing system was developed. One in five pupils in our education system currently has a special educational need. Some 8% of pupils across the school population have a statement of SEN, in contrast to other parts of the United Kingdom, which average around 5%. Some 11,000 of our children are now in specialist education provision, an increase of 45% in the last seven years. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) projects that those figures will increase to over 16,000 by 2031-32. That picture is not unique to Northern Ireland. The challenge is how we respond and ensure that our system meets the needs of an increasing proportion of children in our school population.

The need for reform is clear. Since taking up the role of Education Minister, I have spoken to many parents, families and teachers who are frustrated by the current system. Delays in securing school placements; inadequate, insufficient and late support; an outdated schools estate; and school leaders struggling to meet the needs of their pupils are just some of the issues that need to be addressed. We need to rebuild the confidence of children, parents, families and our education workforce. Today is an important milestone in doing that.

I want to be clear that the key driver of reform is my unstinting commitment to better meeting the needs of children with SEN. The reality is that our current approach does not work. The limited outcome measures that we have show that we are not doing well for our children with SEN, and that needs to change. In 2022-23, 10% of young people with SEN had no GCSEs or formal qualifications, compared with 1·6% of students without SEN, and only 14% of school-leavers with SEN went on to higher education, compared with 41·5% of their peers without SEN. That is despite expenditure in SEN increasing by 145% since 2017-18, forecast to rise to an estimated £622 million in this financial year. We are spending money on an approach that is simply not working. Imagine the impact that we might achieve for our children if that money were spent differently and on approaches that are highly effective and evidence-based.

The need for change is clear, and the scale of the challenge is significant. We have a job of work to do that requires commitment, investment and collaboration. SEN transformation is a key priority for the Executive. My personal commitment to the reform agenda is without question, but I must have support from my ministerial colleagues to successfully deliver the scale of ambition that is required. The need for true collaboration has never been greater. Many of our children's needs require support from beyond Education, so we must harness the expertise and resources that reside across Departments, local government and the voluntary and community sector to ensure that needs are picked up and addressed early; that young people leaving school have access to meaningful, well-supported pathways; and that our children with the most complex needs are supported to learn.

The reform agenda represents the Department's response to more than 200 recommendations that were made across a range of scrutiny reports and signals my intent in leading the transformation that is required. The five-year plan accompanying the reform agenda sets out the actions that will be taken to provide our children and young people with the right support from the right people at the right time and in the right place. Those four pillars, drawn from the SEN end-to-end review analysis, focus on identifying and responding to needs early; providing the highest quality in school support; building the confidence and capability of the workforce; and ensuring that children thrive in high-quality learning environments. All of that is set in the context of my Department's ongoing work to develop a longer-term vision and plan for inclusive education that meets our Northern Ireland context.

In October 2024, I set out my vision for a high-quality, efficient and sustainable system of education that provides choice, is inclusive and encourages collaboration. Children with SEN deserve to benefit from a world-leading education system that is delivered on the basis of evidence on what works. The reform agenda will, for the first time, articulate clear, measurable outcomes for our children with SEN, their parents or carers and our education workforce and set expectations for the services that are delivered to support them. As an early action, I will bring forward an outcomes framework that will include clear and positive ambitions for our children with SEN and set out how we will measure our progress towards meeting those. Building a strong and confident workforce is central to my reform agenda, recognising that it is our workforce who can often be the first to identify a need and are in the best position to respond early. To do all of those things, our workforce must be supported and valued. I will do that by investing in teachers, early years practitioners and non-teaching staff through the development of a continuous professional development framework for SEN; by working with our initial teacher education providers to develop a strategic framework for SEN in initial teacher education informed by evidence on what works; and by improving career pathways for practitioners and support staff.

We know that early intervention works. The early identification of need and timely intervention in response must be in place throughout a child's educational journey from the early years and on an ongoing basis through primary and post-primary education. In the early years, I will do that by establishing a bespoke regional programme for two- to three-year-olds that will include support for parents and families; providing resource and trialling the introduction of SEN classroom assistants in preschool education settings; and piloting an early education and intervention centre approach for children who are aged between three and six. For school-age children, I will do that by piloting the introduction of a professional support programme in schools; expanding nurture and other evidence-based therapeutic preventative approaches; and developing understanding of inclusive learning environments and approaches, including supporting learners with SEN in accessing the curriculum.

Of course, in some instances, schools may need access to specialist support services where a child needs support beyond what the school can offer. The Education Authority (EA) has commenced its phased implementation towards a new delivery model this year. That will see support services move towards a model through which holistic support will be provided on the basis of the needs of the child through local impact teams. The educational psychology gateway has already been removed, and a Tell Us Once approach is being implemented. The sensory service will remain as a stand-alone service due to its very specialist nature. In addition, my reform agenda will seek to expand that multidisciplinary approach to include health professionals; ensure that support services are high-quality, evidence-based and delivered by those with expertise and experience; introduce performance measures to ensure that we measure how all services deliver better outcomes for children; develop, where appropriate, bespoke services to support children in Irish-medium education; and harness the expertise in our special schools and develop their role to support inclusion across the wider school system. I will enhance the role of the Middletown Centre for Autism and expand its reach in developing neuro-affirming practice across the system and partner with the voluntary and community sector to enhance and expand delivery for children with SEN.

Under the existing model, parents and, indeed, many schools see a statement of special educational need as the best way of securing support for a child. Aligned to that, we also know that many view one-to-one classroom assistant support as the gold standard intervention. Evidence from emerging practice here and elsewhere points to the effectiveness of a more nuanced approach, where schools have greater flexibility to deploy a range of professional support models in the classroom, including harnessing the opportunities of technology. Currently, many parents and schools do not have access to information on the wider range of possibilities for their children, and that must change. We now know from research and emerging evidence that one-to-one classroom assistant support is not always the most effective intervention for children. While one-to-one support is necessary for some children, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and we must be more responsive to children's needs and be guided by best practice and evidence. Securing the confidence of parents and teachers will be crucial to making that transition. My hope is that, with enhanced in-school support and an expert, responsive Education Authority and other support services, there will be increased confidence in the system to effectively meet the needs of children and young people without, in all cases, recourse to a statement. For the minority of children for whom a statement of SEN is required and their families, it is essential that the process is streamlined, efficient and easier to navigate. The EA is already leading the way on that aspect of reform through its digitisation of the assessment process.

As I have indicated, the existing system of support is simply not working. The reform agenda will seek to fundamentally change the model of support for children with a statement of special educational need by building on what we have learned from the settings that provide support in different ways. I will do that through the following: ensuring that school leaders are given flexibility to determine the support required to meet children's needs and to deploy different models of support; empowering classroom assistants through high-quality and evidence-based professional learning; developing interventions that harness emerging technologies and ensuring that classroom assistants are trained in their use to meet children's needs; bringing forward a framework of whole-school support models that are based on evidence and good practice; and drawing on the learning from schools that already deploy different approaches.

That should not be viewed as a means of reducing the number of classroom assistants but as focusing on a more effective deployment that develops their expertise and more effectively meets the needs of children.

School placements for children with SEN have been the subject of much debate in the Assembly. I acknowledge the efforts of the Education Authority, which, supported by my Department, has created 1,450 new special provision places this year to meet the ever-increasing demand. In April last year, I announced the SEN capital investment programme to enhance capacity across the system in order to support the placements of children with SEN. To date in this financial year, I have invested £51 million in the SEN capital programme and £58 million of resource for additional specialist provision in mainstream classes.

As a consequence of the reform agenda, I will also do the following: require the Education Authority to prioritise special education in its operational plan 2 and take a SEN-first approach to future planning; work towards ensuring that there is enough flex in the system so that no child remains without an appropriate place; streamline EA assessment and the review process to inform placements; formalise information sharing with Health and Economy to aid planning to support children's educational journeys; and, finally, scope a suitable education offer for the development of post-16 specialist provision in mainstream schools. Work will continue and intensify in preparation for placements in September this year. However, we need to be clear on the challenges that lie ahead. While much progress has been made on building in additional capacity across the system, there are continued pressures, particularly in some areas. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of schools engaging closely with the EA to identify and bring forward solutions.

For children with SEN moving into or out of education or transitioning to different provision, my reform agenda will, first, implement a transitional support programme at various stages of each child or young person's educational journey; secondly, introduce agreed data-sharing arrangements between health services, my Department and the Department for the Economy; and, thirdly, introduce a child development passport to include progress on milestones, interventions and a learning profile. For school-leavers with SEN, my Department will continue to work with Health and Economy to develop appropriate pathways into adulthood.

SEN transformation is an investment not only for education but for our society. Delivering on the agenda will require sustained funding. I will continue to make the case to the Executive for appropriate investment in our education system and, in particular, to drive the reforms that, I know, are necessary to effect real change. My Department awaits the outcome of a bid to the Northern Ireland Civil Service transformation fund that would provide a much-needed injection of initial investment. Dependent on the success of that bid, work will commence on the following areas this year: transformation of the support model for children with statements; development of a pilot early childhood SEN intervention programme; development of a speech and language and communications intervention programme that will target 10,000 children over the next three academic years; development of inclusive play environments that will provide in-school support; testing of an enhanced nurture programme model over three years; development of a model of special schools as resource centres of expertise; and design and trial of an inclusive capacity-building programme, including a teacher and classroom assistant professional learning programme. Whist additional investment is essential to generate momentum in that transformation effort, we must also do better with the resources that we have. In the longer term, I will look to reconfigure funding as services are remodelled in order to ensure that all investment is impactful and as close to the child as possible.

Change cannot wait. Some actions are already under way or due to begin imminently. The streamlining of the assessment and SEN placement processes will commence. Operational plan 2, with a SEN-first approach, will shortly be published. Preschool education settings will receive additional resource for children undergoing statutory assessment. That commenced in November last year, at an estimated cost of £1·2 million in this financial year. The EA will implement its graduated response framework and its new local impact teams model for pupil support services. The Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) has been commissioned to evaluate specialist education provision, including early years foundation stage provision.

I will publish my SEN reform agenda and delivery plan in the coming weeks. The plan has been developed with input from parents, practitioners and academics, and that engagement will continue as we move to implementation. My Department will also be engaging with key delivery partners around early actions, and I have asked the Education Authority to prioritise its areas of responsibility within the delivery plan. In that context, I am pleased to be able to advise Members that, reflecting the priority that I have placed on this issue, the chief executive of the Education Authority has confirmed that he will be restructuring the organisation in order to bring a renewed and specific focus on SEN reform at the most senior level.

I hope today that I have provided Members with an outline of the scale of the reform that is needed. Transformation will take time, and it will require investment. I am committed to driving this agenda during this mandate, to working with ministerial colleagues, who have an important part to play, and to ensuring that our children and young people with special educational needs receive the support that they deserve. I commend the statement to the House.

Ms Hunter: Minister, I welcome your statement and particularly the SEN-first approach to school placements. One thing that I noticed was that it did not address post-19 provision. I recently met Alma from Caleb's Cause about that issue and the cliff edge that children with special educational needs experience after leaving school. Can you provide the House with an up-to-date explanation of what is happening with post-19 provision? I note that you are exploring a pilot programme in Rossmar School in my constituency: can you tell us more about that today?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her positive response to the statement. The statement does speak to the issues around transitioning and the importance of the pathways and working with the Department of Health and the Department for the Economy. The statement is very much about ensuring that there is the best support for people who are moving from education into the post-education environment. That is very much part of the work that we will be taking forward in the transformation of special educational needs provision. I hope that those who have campaigned will recognise the efforts that are being made to ensure that we support them and their young people as they go through the process of transitioning from education.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I thank the Minister for his statement. I must admit that, when I saw that the statement was coming, I thought that we were going to get the plan today. I thought that we were going to hear that, just as when the departmental officials came to the Committee and we thought that we were going to get the plan, but it did not land. Effectively, parents need to know when this is going to change and what is going to change. Schools need to know what is going to change and when it is going to change. Minister, when will the plan be submitted to Members so that we can scrutinise what you are going to do, how it is costed and how you are going to measure success?

Mr Givan: I thank the Chairman for his question on behalf of his Committee. This is very much the outworkings now of a process of nearly 18 months, in which we have gone through those 200 recommendations and analysed them as part of the end-to-end review. I have now outlined where we are going and some immediate steps that we are taking. It is important that people reflect on some of what I have said today. That allows people to have some of that discussion. As a result of my announcements today, we will need to finalise that delivery plan, but I can assure the Chairman that that delivery plan is at the point of finalisation. I said in the statement that it would arrive in the coming weeks, and we will be able to publish the detailed delivery plan in the coming weeks. It is important, however, that, after I have taken decisions as the Minister around those areas, those stakeholders get the opportunity to finesse the delivery plan in that context. We will then move to implementation, and we are already moving forward. Those detailed plans will be published, and I look forward to the Education Committee being able to scrutinise that work.

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

I welcome the statement, in which the Minister rightly states that some of our schools will need specialist support. I presume that he is talking about speech and language therapists, behavioural therapists and other allied health professionals, of which there is a shortage at the moment. In order to put more in place, that will have to be a matter for the Health Minister. Is the Minister able to tell us what engagement he has had with the Health Minister around that issue and what progress has been made to date?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments and question. He is right to highlight the multidisciplinary teams — the local impact teams — that will be taken forward. That is very much about making sure that we support those children and young people with their additional needs in speech and language and other aspects associated with allied health professionals.

There has been engagement between my Department and the Department of Health in that respect. It is very much part of the detailed implementation plan. Additional resource and recruitment and an increase in the number of people who are trained will be required to meet that need. That work has been done in collaboration between the two Departments. I have met the Minister of Health. Nick Mathison, Chairman of the Education Committee, has engaged on the issue with me outside the Committee and highlighted the need, particularly in special schools, for collaboration between health professionals and educational settings. The Chief Nursing Officer has commissioned a piece of work on that, which is ongoing, and a joint oversight group between Education and Health is looking at the kind of provision that is needed in special schools. However, the impact teams go further than that. They will support the needs that exist for children, with or without statements of special educational need, in all schools.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement. One issue that my constituents bring up time and time again — actually, I spoke to a constituent in relation to it just on Friday — is information sharing between Health and Education, which is relevant when dealing with speech and language or mental health matters. I note from the statement that the Minister will formalise information sharing across Departments, which is really welcome. Following on from the last question, how do the EA's proposals on local impact teams fit with the SEN reform agenda? More specifically, when will the impact teams become multidisciplinary to include allied health professionals?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question, which builds on some of the issues that we have already touched on. That speaks to the issue of providing wide support for children who have additional needs. Whether it relates to speech and language or communication or behavioural issues, that support needs to be provided so that children can have their education in mainstream settings but also in specialist schools.

Work has been done in moving to what were called local integrated teams but will now be called local impact teams. The very name speaks to what we are trying to do, which is to make an impact. That will ensure that services are integrated and consider a child's holistic support needs, so that the system is more agile in providing the support that is needed. There will be a more streamlined approach to referrals, which will allow schools to have easier access to support. We will move towards the creation of local impact teams this year, but that is, of course, dependent on us being able to resource them. We will seek to build on that, which will make a positive impact on children who require that support.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call Colin Crawford for the next question, I ask people to rise in their places, because I do not think that we have everybody — not all at once, please. [Laughter.]

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his statement and join others in welcoming it. Minister, what specific plans or policies are being implemented within the continuous professional development plan to attract and retain qualified professionals?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. The statement outlines the importance of having the right support for people. It talks about the importance of ensuring that educational professionals get access to that training. It speaks to how we will work with the initial teacher education settings so that there is that support. I want to see investment in classroom assistants to empower them to provide the support that children require.

There are a number of areas that we are taking forward to provide that professional development and the learning that can do that. That is something that we will do with our initial teaching educationalists, but, again, it is also part of the collaboration with the Department of Health. We will take that work forward, in terms of professional learning, and address some of the issues that the Member has raised.

Mr Baker: Minister, I agree that real change is needed. For far too long, families have had to fight daily for the support that their children deserve. Children with special educational needs have been failed. Due to the lack of special schools, children who should have a place do not, and they have been placed in a specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiM) place. Does the Minister share my concern that, because of that, those children may not get the support that they need and that other children who may have moderate learning difficulties are being placed in mainstream classrooms? What steps will the SEN reform agenda take to ensure that all children get the support that they need?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. Yes, I share the concerns that he has just articulated. We have had to create those 1,450 places, but I want to make sure that children, when they are placed, receive the appropriate place. It is not just about getting any place. That is what we are trying to do in the processes that we are taking forward.

On access to specialist schools, the Member is right. That is why I announced that every specialist school in Northern Ireland had been reviewed by the Education Authority to identify the ability to enhance that capacity, so that we can put in place investment, where we can, and meet the needs in those localities by increasing the spaces available in special schools. We have taken that forward as part of the capital programme, but there is also the operational plan that the Education Authority will soon publish, which is the plan for how you area-plan the education provision needs in your community and across Northern Ireland. Within that, I have asked for — it will be included — a SEN-first approach. The provision and planning for meeting special educational needs has to be given priority, and that will be reflected in the document that will be published.

We are working on the capital needs of the entire school estate, we are working to make the process by which we assess people much better so that we respond with the right support, and we are ensuring that people are placed in the right setting.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. The Minister will know that we are all concerned about the huge and rising numbers of children with special educational needs in our education system, the impact that that has on the child and the parents and how teachers, in many ways, feel under-equipped to deal with those huge numbers. Minister, how will the delivery of the SEN reform agenda be costed? What will be the cost? How will that be funded? Will the Minister also elaborate on some of the performance measures, which will be key to ensuring that we tackle the issue for the long term?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments and his questions. I spoke about the need for significant investment to allow the transformation to take place. It is incredibly challenging, if not impossible, to do it within my Department's resources. That is why we submitted a bid to the Northern Ireland Civil Service transformation board for funding, and that is one of the projects that is waiting for a decision. Unashamedly, I say clearly that I need that to be approved because it will allow us to take forward the work. We await a decision, and I outlined the steps that we could take as part of the work, should we get a response in the affirmative. If we do not get a response in the affirmative, Members will need to ask serious questions as to why, because that will restrict my ability to take forward the transformation that needs to happen.

I also want to make sure that we utilise the resources that we have as effectively as possible. That is why I have spoken about the need to ensure that schools get the flexibility to deploy resources in a way that, the evidence shows, is impactful. Some schools have not been able to recruit classroom assistants, but principals have also said that they can recruit a full-time teacher and deliver lessons in a smaller class setting. That is having a positive impact, and there are good examples of schools that have moved significantly towards that model. Today's statement affirms that approach and states that it is the way in which we need to take things forward across Northern Ireland.

The independent review of education noted that an additional £136 million in resource funding a year would be required to transform SEN support. The initial costings from the exercise that we have taken forward indicate that investment in the region of £114 million a year would be required to support the identified areas that will be contained in the delivery plan. That equates to around £570 million being needed over the next five years. I do not need to tell Members how challenging it will be to deliver all that we do in education as well as taking forward the transformation work in the absence of that additional resource. I am absolutely committed to taking forward what I can with the resources that are currently available to me, but the plan will require significant investment.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. SEN transformation is anxiously awaited by parents and schools. I am sure that the Minister will agree that children have to be at the heart of any action that is taken. We have only two years left in the mandate: what difference will there be for children at the end of the mandate from what they are experiencing now?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question and agree entirely with her sentiment. This has to be about the children and young people. That is the focus. Where the evidence leads us to say that the model needs to change, we need to make sure that we change it, because that is what is in the children's interests.

As I outlined, I am committed. Some of the immediate actions that we can take are contained in the report. Early, year 1 actions are intended to rebuild confidence and capability across the education system and are embedded in a clear plan to implement system-wide reform. The priority actions include additional professional support in the classroom; improved and more child-centred communications; improved approaches to placements and admissions; and a more child-centred approach to support, which, as the Member articulated, this should be about. I agree with her that it is about the children and young people.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for the statement. He will be aware that the requirement for prior educational psychologist service assessments has been removed, which, in theory, means that children should now be able to access support without such a referral. Is it not the case, however, that special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) are now under even more pressure and are essentially carrying out the role of the educational psychologist? What will the transformation plan mean for that? Will it address the issue, and how will SENCOs be supported?

Mr Givan: SENCOs do an incredibly important job, and I agree with the Member in highlighting the contribution that they make. The transformation programme is very much about supporting children and young people to access the right support in a timely fashion. Often, it has been the delay in getting statements from psychologists that has led to services not being provided. We all know that earlier intervention has a significant impact, so we need to support it. That is why I want to have in place a process in which we are not dependent on a psychologist's report in order to access support. We have the support of allied health professionals' assessments, so we can access the support and put it in place in a timelier fashion. All of that will assist SENCOs in schools.

Mr Middleton: I, too, welcome the Minister's statement and his ongoing commitment to children with special educational needs.

Minister, in your statement you said that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to one-to-one support. Will you outline your plan for one-to-one classroom assistant support for children?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. He has often engaged with me on the importance of supporting our children and young people in education settings.

I recognise that one-to-one classroom assistance will remain the most appropriate form of support for some children — I spoke to that in the statement — and I want to be clear that the role of classroom assistant remains key in our schools and is pivotal to the delivery of inclusive, whole-class provision for pupils with SEN. The evidence from a range of scrutiny reports tells us, however, that one-to-one classroom assistance is not the most appropriate form of support for the majority of children. It can lead to dependency, with children being hindered in developing independent learning skills. Additionally, one-to-one support can isolate students from their peers, limiting their opportunities for social interaction and collaborative learning. Furthermore, the effectiveness of one-to-one support can vary significantly on the basis of the skills and training of assistants, leading to inconsistency in the quality of support. Research indicates that inclusive teaching practices whereby all children are engaged together often yield better outcomes and foster a more supportive learning environment. Feedback gathered from the end-to-end review of SEN also makes it clear that the current methods of deploying that resource may not be the most efficient or sustainable.

As we know, there is a lack of flexibility in the role of classroom assistant, due to the allocation of hours and the way in which statements are written. There is a need for a more efficient strategy for providing increased professional support in the classroom. That is why I am keen to see the development of a flexible, evidence-based model for classroom assistance that can be readily deployed by schools to best meet localised, sector-specific needs. My officials are exploring a range of models and a suite of revised approaches that will be made available to schools during the first term of the 2025-26 academic year.

Mr Butler: I commend the Minister for again making sure that SEN is to the fore of his change agenda. In your statement, Minister, you used the formal GCSE qualification as a metric for bringing about change, yet the independent review of education suggests that GCSEs are not a useful terminal exam. Are we not in danger of pushing children into fitting into a format that facilitates industry when, perhaps, we should adjust industry to suit the children who are coming into adulthood?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his kind remarks and for recognising my commitment to supporting our children and young people with special educational needs.

We absolutely need to make sure that we get this right. The GCSE is one measure used in the figures that I provided for the academic outcomes of children with special educational needs. The Member is right about making sure that, when it comes to transitioning from education, we support pathways so that those young people are able to have careers, to develop themselves professionally and to participate in our economy. That is why I spoke about the need for collaboration not just to meet health needs — I am working with the Department of Health on that — but with the Department for the Economy.

Those transition years are important, and I understand the concerns of those who have campaigned on the issue. They are fearful about what will happen when their children or young people leave a formal education setting. My statement and the work with the Department of Health and the Department for the Economy speak to the need to make sure that those pathways provide the right support for those young people so that they are independent outside a formal school setting and can engage in our society and with industry. That is what the statement speaks to and what we will be there to support.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome in particular, Minister, your highlighting the importance of responding early and your unstinting commitment to doing so. On the subject of early interventions for children with special educational needs, are the proposed provisions designed for children who have been statemented, children who are awaiting a statement or children who are showing signs of having special educational needs?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments. It is about all of those. It is not just about meeting the needs of children with a statement of special educational need; indeed, the transformation work should reduce the number of children who require a statement of special educational need. Often, families have to resort to getting a legal document in order to force the provision of the support that, they feel, their children need. It should not get to the point where parents need to get a legal document in order to get their children the right educational support in school settings.

We need to transform the way in which we support children and young people. There are thousands of children who do not have a statement of special educational need but have additional needs and require that support. The transformation seeks early intervention so that we make the impact at those earliest of years. All the evidence shows that, when you do that, less intervention is required as you get older, and it is a more efficient use of resources.

The Minister of Health has referred to "shifting left" in the Department of Health when it comes to services meeting need. This is about a shift left in Education when it comes to meeting the needs of children and young people with educational need. It is about getting in early and meeting the needs of all our children and young people, not just those with statements of special educational need.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his statement and the continued delivery for our SEN children. I see the importance of the significant investment that has been delivered by his Department every single day when I leave my son to school. There is an urgent need to streamline the assessment process, which, for many parents, is complex, confusing and very stressful. It ends up being a fight for so many. Can the Minister provide further details of how the process will be improved, and when?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her contribution. She brings her personal experience to the subject and has very much added value to my consideration of the issues by speaking about the need to support her young people. My officials have done an incredible amount of work on the issue, and I commend them for it. It is very personal for some of them as well. They have invested themselves not just professionally but emotionally in taking this forward. I thank them for that, and I thank the Member for the work that she has done to support me in making this statement.

The streamlining process is really important, because there is huge frustration, as we have touched on already. We are going to streamline the process. I have engaged with the chief executive of the Education Authority in that regard. One of the directors who will be recruited will be tasked with reforming those processes in the Education Authority. That is the priority that is being given to addressing those issues within the EA. I support that work. The work that we are doing today, which I outlined in the statement, is all about supporting children, young people and their families. The streamlining of those processes is part of the outworkings of that.

Ms Egan: Minister, I welcome your statement today. I think that everybody agrees that we need transformation when it comes to special educational needs. As part of your plans, will children with SEN no longer be considered as supernumerary when it comes to placements?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that. I assure her that, when it comes to new builds, our officials are already dealing with the supernumerary issue. There is no point in building new builds, engaging in school enhancement programmes and building an estate if they do not recognise some of the children who end up going to those schools. I agree with the Member: you cannot area plan on the basis of not including people who have additional needs.

Mr McNulty: I applaud your statement, Minister, and the scope and scale of the child-centred ambition inherent in your reform agenda. I applaud your use of empathetic language around a bespoke, flexible and holistic special-educational-needs-first approach. You referred to the importance of a child's getting a statement of special educational needs. What would you say to parents who are struggling and battling with the system for their children to get a statement? Secondly, for those parents who have received a statement for their child, who is then put in a special educational needs environment that is not appropriate for their needs, what would you advise them to do right now?

Mr Givan: I would say to those parents, "I hear you. I understand you. Your voice has come through very clearly as part of the work of the end-to-end review". That experience has very much informed what I have articulated today about how we are going to address the issues. As a society, we are marked on how we treat the most vulnerable and those who need the most. If we fail them, we are not living up to the values that we should be setting ourselves as a society. The work is very much based on the evidence of people's experiences. I get the frustration: although you get a statement, you can still feel failed because classroom assistants cannot even be recruited in some areas. I have articulated that I believe that there is a better way to meet the needs and that we need to do that better and work through the process of being able to meet them. I do not want parents to feel the frustrations that they often do when they are exasperated, not able to get a placement and hear of children who have their place confirmed while they still have to fight. Those parents contact the EA, and they are frustrated at not getting a response and at being passed around from one person to the next without getting the information. All that is hugely frustrating. We have improved, but we have so much more to do. Today, I am outlining how we are going to do that. I have indicated the resource that will be required. There are short-term measures that we have already started and measures that we will start imminently so that we can improve all those issues for the people who need it most.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I welcome your comments about the importance of early intervention, and I will refer to last May's announcement on a range of measures for early education, including the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme. As well as progressing the new measures that you announced today on early intervention, will you confirm whether the measures that were announced last year will continue beyond the end of this Budget period in March 2025?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her comments and her engagement with me, particularly on the early years provision in special educational needs and more generally. The statement outlined the work that we are going to do on early years, because it is critical that we not only provide that support and make that early intervention but support the practitioners who are in early years settings. This work will complement that which we have taken forward on the early learning years strategy that we want to develop and on the measures that we have already implemented. The funding that I was able to secure from the Executive meant that we were able to provide support to early years settings and provide the childcare subsidy that the Member spoke about. That is why I am delighted that, in the draft Budget that is out for public consultation, I have again been able to secure the funding that will allow that 15% subsidy to continue into the next financial year. I know that that will come as a welcome announcement for those who have been part of that scheme, for which over 13,000 people have registered. That funding is secured in the draft Budget and will be finalised when we agree it as an Executive. That 15% subsidy will continue into the next financial year.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for the vision that he outlined today. I know that this is a top priority for him in his role. What parents really want from any reforms is their children to get the correct and proper support that they require. The Minister touched on this, but, to allow him the opportunity to hone in on it more specifically, does he believe that less focus on statementing and the battles that have been referred to in that will allow health professionals, speech and language therapists and educational psychologists to spend more time on the meaningful interventions that can be a real help to the children?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments and his question and for the work that he is doing on the Education Committee. I know that this is an important area for the Member. We have spoken about the need to provide much better support in accessing the services that are required. All the work that we will take forward, a detailed plan of which will be published in the coming weeks, will address the issues that the Member has spoken about. As I outlined in the statement, it will take time to transform these services, which have become embedded over the past almost decade. It will require time for those changes to take place, but we have now started on that journey today. We will publish the detailed documents within weeks, and there are short-term immediate decisions that are already being taken forward, including in the areas that the Member has spoken about. We will see the transformation of the support for children with special educational needs.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mark Durkan is not in his seat.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for his lengthy statement to the House. Minister, last year, I had correspondence with the Health Minister about the case of a young child who is not due to receive his NHS diagnosis of autism until this July and who should be starting primary school in September. He was placed on the urgent list by his GP in December 2023. Eventually, the family got a diagnosis, but only after going private. However, they are no further forward with getting a statement for his education.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr Gaston: The parents are applying for school places but cannot apply to special schools —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, is there a question, please?

Mr Gaston: Yes, Principal Deputy Speaker. If you just bide your time, I will get to the question.

What in the statement will address that situation? Will you commit today, Minister, to look at this case, which happens to be in your constituency, to see what can be done so that this young child can start a special educational school in September?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for outlining the case, and, of course, I am happy to look at the individual case. The statement seeks to address the very point that he has just made. It should not require a legal statement of educational need for a child or young person to get the support that is required in our educational settings. That is why it has to change. That is why we are creating these local impact teams with educationalists and allied health professionals. They all have the ability to address these issues, put in place the right support and give flexibility to schools to have the resources that they need to best meet the needs of their children and young people. That is why we are doing the work in our special schools to increase the school estate. I want to get to the point, as I said to Mr Gildernew earlier, at which you do not need a statement to get the services that are required, because professionals know what is needed. You should not need a legal document to have to take people to court. You should be able to get that support. That is what I want to do and what the statement is about: providing the right support to the right people in the right place at the right time.

Mr Carroll: The Minister's comments about classroom assistants were a bit concerning, in that it sounds like we are moving away from them. It even sounds as though we are making the case for fewer classroom assistants at a time when SEN workers are overstretched and overworked. Will the reform agenda involve the pausing or slowing down of recruitment? The SEN reform delivery plan rightly has input from parents, practitioners and academics. Was there any input from classroom assistants or the unions into the plan?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. Yes, in the Department of Education, we are always engaging with unions on a whole range of issues. What is critical here is what is in the interests of the children and young people. We have to ensure that, where the evidence shows that a particular model or approach works better than what we have been doing, we need to change the model. I am sure that the Member, like me, wants to put children first in this.

I have outlined the very valuable role that our classroom assistants play. I have outlined the way in which I want to empower them and support them with training to make that impact on children and young people. I also outlined that, in Northern Ireland, there are schools that, rather than using the resources available through a statement to have a classroom assistant, have deployed that resource to recruit a full-time teacher and have a smaller class. Those school leaders and the families have said that they are getting a good outcome when it comes to the educational impact. I encourage the Member and other Members to visit those schools, if they have not done so, of which there are a number that I will easily commend to him, to see first-hand the impact that that is having.

I will namecheck Integrated College Glengormley as one example of where resources are being deployed to employ full-time teachers and deliver in small settings. I also reference The High School Ballynahinch, whose principal could not recruit a classroom assistant. Despite repeated attempts to recruit, he was unable to do so, and the resource is being used to employ a full-time teacher. Is the Member really saying —?

Mr Carroll: The Minister is not answering the question.

Mr Givan: Is the Member really saying that we should stick to a model that does not work, or should we take an evidence-based approach that is in the best interests of the children's outcomes?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, I hope that this plan, which the House has not yet seen, signals an end to the sticking plaster approach to special educational needs in Northern Ireland. The Minister is right to point out the cost of transformation, but the cost of doing nothing is much greater to our children, young people and families.

The problems with SEN provision are well rehearsed. We have known them for a long time. Who will oversee the change agenda? Does the Minister trust the Education Authority, given its track record, to do that effectively in the interests of children?

Mr Givan: Ultimately, as Minister, it is my responsibility to ensure that appropriate governance arrangements are in place and there is accountability through being able to measure our outcomes. We will very much want to do that through regular reporting and being able to hold people to account in respect of that. As part of the reform agenda, I will create a new delivery unit in the Department. It will be established to drive forward the reform agenda. There will be progress measures for targeting. That will be monitored regularly through formal governance structures.

This is not just a hypothetical announcement: it is real. The delivery plan is real. There will be governance, targets and accountability. I am sure that the Member, who passionately holds Ministers to account, will also hold me to account as I hold my Department and all the various stakeholders to account as we take that progress forward.

Ms Sugden: Minister, post-19 special educational needs provision is not your remit, but it should be, because the Minister of Health and the Minister for the Economy are, frankly, failing in that area. There is an opportunity, even through the legislation that you propose, to extend it to the age of 25. Are you willing to consider that? Your Department has the right support and the right people. It is the right time, and this is the right place to do it.

Mr Givan: On one hand, let me thank the Member for her comments, but, on the other, let me just push back: I do not believe that the Minister of Health and the Minister for the Economy are failing in their support for children and young people. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about that transition period, but Members will criticise the Department of Education for not meeting current need. On the one hand, I will take it as a compliment that the Member thinks that I can do that effectively, but, on the other, Members will challenge me and say that my Department is not supporting children and young people. Therefore, the solution should not be a default position that my Department should become legally required to provide education up to the age of 25. If that were the case, the Department of Health and the Department for the Economy would need to relinquish functions. Those two Ministers would need to let go of certain areas for which they are responsible, and those areas would need to come to the Department of Education. The resource would also need to follow.

What I would rather do and what, I think, my ministerial colleagues would rather do — I am not speaking for them — is ensure that our three Departments work closely together and provide the pathways and support that are needed, because, ultimately, it is that support, from whichever Department it comes, that the families and campaigners on the issue want to see. I am determined to make sure that they get that support irrespective of the Department in which that responsibility sits. I am confident that that is the desire of the Minister of Health and the Minister for the Economy.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I conclude the item of business, I remind all Members that, when Ministers make statements and Members ask questions, they need to be concise. I allow a bit of latitude, but I will not allow bad manners and a lack of courtesy, Mr Gaston. I will ask the Speaker to review your comments and to ensure that you, like every other Member in the House, are courteous and respect the Chair when I am in this position. I do not care what you think about me, but you will respect the Chair.

That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I seek the Assembly's approval for the making of the draft statutory instrument (SI), which will amend the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 — the "HMRs", as they are known — and the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. That will enable the introduction of a new, tailored regulatory framework to support point-of-care (POC) and modular manufacturing (MM). In turn, that will decentralise methods of medicine manufacturing and move innovative medicines closer to the patient while maintaining robust regulatory standards and ensuring patient safety.

The introduction of the framework is intended to proactively support the development of new medical advances on the cutting edge of technology and new means of medicine manufacturing, facilitating the development of highly specialised medicines where they are most needed for patients, whether that be on hospital wards or in operating theatres, community health centres or even patients' homes. The products are in the early stages of development, but one example of the type of innovative treatment that may be enabled by the new framework is a diabetic foot ulcer treatment that uses blood-derived products obtained from the patient and manufactured at their bedside. Modular manufacture can support early-stage vaccine deployment, allowing vaccines to be locally filled and finished and ensuring efficient supply to mass vaccination centres.

The amendments are needed as, with advancing health technology, innovative medicines are increasingly being developed that will need to be manufactured close to patients and healthcare settings. The traditional approach by the UK medicines regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), therefore needs to adapt to support the development of the new technologies. Current arrangements are suited to centralised factory-based manufacture, with a small number of fixed manufacturing sites named on manufacturing licences and on marketing authorisations. Point-of-care and modular manufacture products may be manufactured at multiple sites across the country. Some of the products are developed to meet the unique needs of each patient when the patient needs them and are often derived from the patient's cells or blood; indeed, some products must be administered within an hour or, in some cases, even minutes of being manufactured. That creates an urgency and a specific demand that traditional manufacturing cannot easily accommodate. It would be extremely challenging for those innovative products to be regulated in accordance with the current regulations, and that results in significant regulatory and financial hurdles.

The objective of the instrument is therefore to provide an enabling framework to allow the safe and efficient manufacture and supply of those emerging medicines, which are still in the early stages of development, and provide the regulatory clarity necessary to encourage the development of those new products and approaches. The benefits of that approach will extend to patients and carers, who will benefit from access to new and more personalised medicines in a timely and more convenient manner with the potential, as I said, for some patients to be treated with medicines manufactured at their home. It will help to move care from hospitals to communities, which is, of course, consistent with my direction of travel for health and social care delivery. Secondly, healthcare professionals will benefit from the ability to provide a greater range of more effective treatment options, thus improving patients' response to treatment and delivering better outcomes. Lastly, innovators in industry will benefit from clear regulatory expectations and the enabling of speedier product development. The new framework will remove regulatory barriers that are not suited to novel manufacturing methods. That benefit will be seen across companies of all sizes, be they large, medium or small enterprises.

It is vital that the medicines regulatory framework is flexible for new innovations but does not compromise patient safety. I will set out how the MHRA will ensure that point-of-care and modular manufacture products meet the necessary standards of safety, effectiveness and quality that are expected of all medicines.

The new framework is centred on a hub-and-spoke model, with a single control site as the hub for each product overseeing all aspects of the point-of-care and modular manufacturing systems, including the spokes: the individual manufacturing locations and their activities. The control site will be the only named manufacturing site on the manufacturing licence and on the clinical trial and marketing authorisation applications. The holder of the control site will, as the name signifies, be responsible for ensuring product quality across all manufacturing sites and for notifying the MHRA of reportable issues.

The diligence of the control site in overseeing the manufacturing locations will be scrutinised at routine MHRA inspections, and arrangements for oversight will be examined as part of the licensing process. Several manufacturing spoke locations will also be sampled and subject to inspections to ensure that the oversight claimed by the control site can be independently supported by inspection findings. The new framework is a modified form of the current regulatory system for the evaluation of regulatory compliance at manufacturing sites and safety monitoring. There will be no change in the expected standards that must be met for the safety, quality and efficacy of the product. There will not be an increased risk to patient safety, with the MHRA retaining regulatory oversight.

There is not a different approach to implementation in Northern Ireland. I emphasise to Members that the proposed framework will apply across the United Kingdom, and there is no difference in the approach to implementation here. In practice, there are currently no point-of-care manufacturing sites in Northern Ireland, as point-of-care products have not moved past the clinical trial phase. While it may take some years before point-of-care products become widely available, the plan is to implement the new framework pre-emptively in order to provide certainty for the industry about the regulatory requirements that they will be required to meet and to promote the UK as a great place to invest in clinical trials and product development.
There was a UK-wide joint public consultation on the proposal, and it received significant support. In the consultation responses, 91% agreed that a new framework was required, and 94% agreed with the proposed framework. My officials attended the Health Committee at its meeting on 21 November, where they outlined the full policy intent of the draft SI, and again on 12 December to provide some further necessary clarification on the new framework to be introduced by the statutory instrument prior to it possibly being debated in the Assembly. I am pleased to confirm that the Committee raised no issues on the policy intent at its meeting on 21 November and was content with the further clarification given by officials on 12 December. On both occasions, the Committee indicated that it was content for the SI to be laid in draft form at the Assembly Business Office to allow for the debate today following the Christmas recess. It is, therefore, with the Committee's support that I bring the statutory instrument before the wider Assembly today.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Ms Kimmins (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to confirm the Health Committee's support for the motion. The Committee welcomes this timely legislation, which will help put our healthcare system at the forefront of advanced healthcare technologies and ensure access for patients to innovative treatments and medicines.

As outlined by the Minister, the regulation provides a framework for regulatory oversight of point-of-care medicinal products and modular manufacturing systems. The Committee welcomes that the regulatory approach in the new framework, known as a "hub-and-spoke" model, is considered to be long-established from its use in the manufacture of blood-derived medicinal products.

The Committee was encouraged to learn that impact assessments found that the public sector is expected to benefit through savings from the faster-moving treatment of patients and that manufacturers seeking to produce POC and MM products may gain substantial annual benefits of, on average, £3·3 million. The change in the inspection protocol is expected to mean a reduction of 95% in POC and MM inspections and bring cost savings to small, medium and large firms that are at the forefront of the technology. All together, that will improve access to effective healthcare for patients.

I highlight the important role of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in ensuring the success of the new framework. The control site will be the only named manufacturing site for applications for manufacturing licences, clinical trials and marketing authorisation. It will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the internationally aligned standards and for notifying the MHRA of reportable issues and will be subject to routine inspections by the MHRA.

To ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of medicines and treatments in a new era of healthcare, the MHRA must carry out its role effectively. Accountability and best practice in the healthcare system is one of the Health Committee's main priorities. Therefore, I welcome it that, although the instrument does not have a specific review clause, the POC and MM provisions will be covered by the review clause already embedded in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and will be subject to regular review. Further, the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 requires the Secretary of State to lay a report every two years on the operation of the regulations.

The Committee considered the instrument, having been notified by the EU under directive 2015/1535. No comments were received from the EU. The Committee invited departmental officials to attend its meeting on 12 December 2024 to answer questions on the significance of any divergence by the EU from the new framework and to give an overview of engagement with the EU on the instrument.

Officials provided the Committee with an overview of the current communication mechanisms between the EU, the MHRA, the British Government and the Department of Health on the supply of medicines. On engagement activities concerning the draft SI, the Committee was advised of a possible forthcoming internationally harmonised framework and told that the EU has proposed reform of its pharmaceutical legislation, part of which takes a similarly decentralised manufacturing approach.

Following the evidence session on 12 December, the Committee agreed to recommend that the statutory instrument be approved by the Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Liz. I call Diane Dodds.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am sure that I have got that wrong again.

Minister, many times we sit in Committee and then leave scratching our heads and wondering where on earth this is all leading to and where the light is. I am sure that when you leave the Department, you sometimes feel a little bit like that. Having listened, however, to officials who were talking about the new regulatory framework and new medicines, and how they should and will improve patient outcomes and how they will be delivered at the point of care, I feel that it is incredibly innovative to think that such things are happening. I know that we are not delivering them now, but I hope that patients will soon benefit from that type of care.

We accept completely the need for it, as we do the idea that current regulations are not suitable and need to be reformed in order to meet what is new and innovative. The Chair of the Committee reflected on that as well.

Your note to the Committee indicated that the framework will have to operate within the confines of EU law as it applies in Northern Ireland. That really crystallises the dilemma for this part of the United Kingdom, what with our being subject to laws that we cannot control or make. My only reflection on that is this: has your Department given thought to what should happen — we know that the EU is to review its laws — should the EU change its laws and regulations, which may be out of step with the framework from the United Kingdom as it applies here?

Mr Donnelly: I will speak briefly on the statutory rule (SR), which we in the Alliance Party are content to support. I thank the Minister for bringing it to the House today and for his contribution. As has already been outlined, the SR will provide an updated regulatory framework for point-of-care and modular manufacture medicines, which reflects modern technological innovations beyond previous factory-based methods of manufacturing such medicines.

Many of the medicines have a short shelf life and therefore need to be manufactured close to hospital or to where patients are situated. The regulations will therefore be useful to providing that flexibility in order to accommodate patients and providers.

We discussed the issue at the Health Committee last month, and the Committee was content to support both the draft SR and the intent of its policy objectives. It is important, however, that the regulations provide the highest standards of quality of manufacturing and other aspects, such as clinical trials and marketing. I therefore encourage the Minister to continue working with the relevant authorities to achieve that. The point-of-care innovations have the potential to have a huge benefit for patient health, so it is very welcome that Northern Ireland will be prepared to adopt them into treatments when they become available.

Mr Carroll: Having a regulatory framework to ensure that medicines are made near the patient, at the point of care, is important, and it is essential in many cases. It is important to have personalised manufactured products near the point of care owing to the nature of diseases and, as the Minister said, the short shelf life that many of the medicines have. It potentially allows medically vulnerable people to be given the best chance of improving their health. It also allows for cell or gene therapies, which often have a short shelf life, to be produced much more easily and, hopefully, readily.

As a general point, we need to ensure that there are no barriers to people receiving healthcare. There should be no barriers whatsoever, but medical companies should not be allowed to profit off the back of people's ill health and suffering. All medication should be provided to patients without any further payment from, or cost to, them. Investment in public health is key.

I want to ask the Minister a specific question about how these regulations might affect a constituent of mine. I wrote to the Minister, just over the weekend, about this; I appreciate that he might not have the letter in front of him. The person has a rare enzyme disease. She was provided with a treatment from a pharmaceutical company for two years, with no extra cost to her. That treatment has now been withdrawn from the constituent, and that is having a huge impact on her health and life. My understanding is that NICE has said that the medication is too expensive — some half a million pounds a year. Frankly, it is cruel that a private pharmaceutical company can dangle that in front of someone. This is someone's life; it is their healthcare as well. Will these regulations have any impact on that constituent? Could these changes in regulations benefit my constituent? Can the form of medical treatment that they have received be replicated locally? Can the profit motive that currently dictates their life be removed and essential healthcare provided? I would appreciate it if the Minister could give an answer to those questions, if not today, as soon as possible.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Health, Mike Nesbitt, to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the debate and motion. Minister, you will be aware of the fact that I might need to interrupt you to allow for Question Time to begin if you do not finish before 2.00 pm. I am not putting pressure on you; I am just reminding you.

Mr Nesbitt: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you. I will be finished before 2.00 pm. I thank the Chair of the Committee and the others who have spoken for their broader support for what we are achieving.

I want to address two specifics. I will take them in reverse order. Mr Carroll mentioned a constituent of his. I have not seen his communication yet, but, as a more general point, as there are no medicines currently being manufactured under modular manufacturing or point of care, I do not see how there is any impact on the patient whom he has referenced and their care. His point goes beyond what we are discussing today. I am more than happy to look at the potential removal of a medicine, which, if I heard him correctly, is being carried out on the grounds of expense.

Mrs Dodds talked about alignment with the European Union. It is my understanding that this legislation achieves the same aim for decentralised manufacture as that of the European Union's proposal in its future pharmaceutical reforms, which is to ensure that current standards of safety, quality and efficacy are maintained while, at the same time, delivering the framework that enables innovative manufacturing across multiple decentralised sites.

I emphasise, again, that it is UK-wide legislation. While the Windsor framework resolves concerns around the long-term risk to Northern Ireland medicine supply expressed by the pharmaceutical industry through the disapplication of the EU falsified medicines directive and a move to UK-wide licensing of medicines, it is true that other aspects of EU law relating to the manufacture of medicines continue to apply here in Northern Ireland. That includes directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Therefore, we will, of course, keep a close eye on developments from within the EU.

I firmly believe that the introduction of these legislative changes to enable the introduction of a new tailored regulatory framework to support point-of-care and modular manufacturing is a very, very positive step. Instead of placing additional burdens on the health service, some patients will be able to be treated with novel medicines manufactured in their home, aligning with the concept of moving care from hospitals to communities — the shift left that you often hear me discuss. We could see a greater number of hospitals being able to use new medicines, safe in the knowledge that they comply with a regulatory framework that is appropriate to innovative manufacturing methods, and which maintains patient safety. In short, the regulations support wider access to life-saving, innovative medicines. They make an enabling change that caters for new ways of manufacture and supply and has the flexibility for future technological developments. They are a vital step forward in making sure that regulation not only supports but actively encourages innovation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Much appreciated, Minister.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): My officials and I have regular discussions with our colleagues in the UK and Irish Governments on matters relating to ending the harm caused by paramilitarism. The Independent Reporting Commission has an important role in reporting on progress towards that objective, and I welcome its positive feedback on the work of the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, for which I am the lead Minister. I welcome, too, the progress that is being made against the new recommendations that were made in the Independent Reporting Commission's most recent report, which was published last December, particularly the inclusion of a continued Executive-wide commitment to tackling paramilitarism in the draft Programme for Government.

The Independent Reporting Commission previously recommended that Northern Ireland should have specific organised crime legislation like that used in other jurisdictions. I intend to create two new offences in the new Justice Bill that is before the Assembly: one of participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group and another of directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group. The draft clauses have been shared with the Justice Committee and will be formally added to the Bill at amendment stage. I look forward to the publication of the Independent Reporting Commission's seventh report in the coming months.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

Minister, there has been some speculation that a person is to be appointed to engage with those illegal groups. Can you confirm or deny that? Obviously, there are those of us who are concerned that, given that a lot of years have passed since the Good Friday Agreement, that would risk legitimising illegal paramilitary groups rather than rectifying the behaviour of those who are engaged in paramilitary activity such as drug dealing and other nefarious activities.

Mrs Long: The particular recommendation from the Independent Reporting Commission to which the Member refers is a matter for the UK and Irish Governments, not the Department of Justice. As far as I am concerned, anyone who is engaged in criminal activity should cease that activity now and needs no further assistance to do so. Those groups should disband. It is unclear to me what any process of transition or interlocution would achieve. However, how the Irish and British Governments proceed with the appointment of any interlocutor is for them to decide. I agree with the Member, however, and I urge caution on any actions that could undermine the work of the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime or lend any legitimacy to the organisations that are still in existence.

Ms Bradshaw: Minister, will you please outline what the proposed new organised crime offences will be?

Mrs Long: I thank my colleague for the question. The new legislation is intended to demonstrate the important commitment of law enforcement to specifically tackle serious organised crime by ensuring that it has additional legislative tools available. It is also intended to send a strong message that no individuals are deemed to be untouchable for their criminality and to ensure that there is scope for sentences to more accurately reflect not just the nature and seriousness of the crime but the level of their engagement in the commissioning of such criminal activity.

Mr Beattie: Minister, I acknowledge the hard work that your Department has done in dealing with paramilitarism. I fed into that work, particularly the language used for paramilitaries.

Has the Minister had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) on ending the separated prison regime?

Mrs Long: That issue is raised with me perennially. I have said before to the Member, who often raises it, that the solution will come from outside in, not from inside out. The threat that is posed by those who are granted access to the separated regime by the Secretary of State is managed carefully in the prison. Increasingly, those who are held in the separated regime are subject to the same regime as the remaining prisoners, so there is, in many ways, a somewhat narrow distinction between them and those in the rest of the prison. I have raised it with every Secretary of State, not least because of the additional cost burden that we, as a Department, have to carry. If the NIO continues to allocate people to the separated regime, it should also pick up the tab.

Mrs Long: The management of the PSNI estate, including custody suites, is an operational matter for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. As I am committed to respecting the operational independence of the Chief Constable and the role of the board, I suggest that you direct your question to the Chief Constable or the Policing Board directly.

Mrs Erskine: The police are part of the Justice Department. I do not understand why the Minister keeps firing PSNI issues off her table to the Chief Constable. There are clear concerns in my constituency that custody suites that are being upgraded are in close proximity to operational policing matters. I am pretty sure that concerns have been raised with the Justice Minister about the timescales and how those custody suites are operating, not least the fact that it adds cost to our policing service.

Mr Speaker: Come to the question, please.

Mrs Erskine: What is the Minister doing about having conversations with the police about that?

Mrs Long: If the Member is unclear on the tripartite arrangements that pertain to the oversight of policing and justice, I am more than happy to meet her to explain them. In the interim, however, I will not enter into anything that would cut across the responsibilities of the Policing Board or those of the Chief Constable. My duty as Justice Minister is to ensure that both are adequately funded to undertake the role that they have to do: it is their job to decide where they allocate the resources, not mine.

Mr Chambers: There are around 140 custody cells throughout the police estate, including those in reserve custody suites. Can the Minister confirm whether any of those cells have been used to house prisoners in the short to medium term due to pressures in the Prison Service estate?

Mrs Long: We do not outsource responsibility for housing prisoners on behalf of the Prison Service. People are committed to prison on remand or on the basis of full-time committal, and they are housed in the Prison Service estate. There are, of course, pressures in the prison estate, but I can say that, currently, accommodation is still available for anybody who is referred to it.

Mrs Long: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 3 and 12 together.

I believe that both questions have been prompted by erroneous reporting of a recent court case and wish to clarify the position. An application for leave to issue a writ of habeas corpus was lodged, alleging that an applicant's detention at the instruction of the court in a male prison was unlawful. The application was dismissed by the court with no order as to costs. The judge made no order in respect of Prison Service policy or transfer to Hydebank Wood College. During the hearing, the judge was advised of the process that was ongoing to confirm the most suitable location for the applicant and was satisfied that the process should be allowed to conclude.

As per the wishes of previous Ministers of Justice, the Northern Ireland Prison Service had a long-standing, albeit unwritten, position of dealing with transgender prisoners on a case-by-case basis. However, following the deaths of two transgender prisoners in English prisons and issues in Scottish prisons, a decision was taken to put in place a formal process. An instruction to governors with guidance on the care and management of transgender prisoners was subsequently issued in August 2022. That followed a review of the current arrangements and was developed after consultation with the Equality Commission and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust.

When an individual who identifies as transgender is committed to custody by the courts, the Prison Service will consider their specific needs and risks on a case-by-case basis and take a person-centred and risk-based approach to decisions around accommodation and care informed by advice from colleagues in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, which is responsible for the delivery of healthcare services to people in prison. It would be dangerous to give a commitment that a male prisoner will never be housed in a female prison or vice versa, as there may be unique risks and issues that lead to such a situation. The risks presented by each case will be assessed on their merits. To that end, Hydebank Wood College and Women’s Prison is already a mixed-gender site where the risks of holding males and females in separate accommodation are managed daily. I am satisfied that the Prison Service remains committed to ensuring that people in prison are held safely and securely at all times and are treated with dignity and respect.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but the issue of self-identification has the potential to be a predators' charter. As we have seen in England and Scotland, predators will cynically exploit any loophole, and, in all of those circumstances, it is the hard-won rights of women that are depleted —

Mr Speaker: Can we have a question?

Ms Bunting: — and their safety that is diminished and compromised. In full knowledge of the disturbing statistics around the backgrounds and mental well-being of women in prison, rather than championing the rights of those who want to be women, will the Minister move to protect actual biological adult human females in the prison setting?

Mrs Long: I am disappointed by the tone that the Member has adopted with regard to the issue. Referring to trans people as adopting a predators' charter is scurrilous. Many of those who are trans in our system are among the most vulnerable people in the prison system and, far from being predators, are predated upon. It is important to say that what I champion as Minister of Justice is justice, fairness, equality and dignity, and, when it comes to prisons, I champion the safety of every prisoner, whether that person identifies as female, whether they were natal female, whether they were born as a man or whether they identify as a man. It is their safety and not any ideology, whether that be trans ideology or anti-trans ideology, that will drive the protective work that we do in the prison system.

Mr Gaston: Minister, at the weekend, one of our papers carried a report with the headline, "Belfast woman cleared of battering elderly mum in row over table salt". Does the Minister agree that that headline was an insult to women who suffer at the hands of violent men squandering as women?

Mrs Long: I am not sure what the Member understands by the word "squandering", but it does not seem to match what he is actually talking about.

It is not my job as Justice Minister to comment on headlines in newspapers. It is my job to ensure that the Justice Department does all in its power to ensure that, irrespective of how anyone identifies, when they come into contact with the justice system, whether they be a defendant, a victim or a witness or whether, ultimately, they be committed to the prison system, their safety is paramount and their dignity is secure.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, this is obviously a sensitive topic. Will you give your assessment of the importance of following an evidence-led and risk-based approach rather than indulging in some of these knee-jerk, populist reactions when you are keeping prisoners safe?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for acknowledging that this is a sensitive issue, because it is the first time that it has been acknowledged in the course of the questioning. Instead of trying to divide people, to other people and to further diminish and marginalise people, it is our job in the Prison Service to treat every person who arrives in our care with dignity and respect and to ensure their and every other prisoner's safety. Managing risk is what the Prison Service does, and I commend our prison officers for the excellent work that they have undertaken in that regard not just now, when it is in the headlines, but long before it appeared in the headlines and became part of the ludicrous culture war that some people are indulging in today.

We ensure that every prisoner, irrespective of how they identify, their gender identity, their sexual orientation, their race, their religion, their colour or their creed, is treated with dignity and that any risk that they pose to the remainder of the prison population is properly handled on the basis of a proper risk assessment and an evidence base. That is how it should be done. It is how it is done for every prisoner. Let us be clear: prisons are, by their very nature, places where dangerous people are held. If we did not do those risk assessments based on the needs and individual risks posed by prisoners, we would have far more serious incidents in our prisons than we do at the moment. Therefore, it is important that we hold to that objective, look at each prisoner individually and ensure that other prisoners do not pose a risk to them and, crucially, that they are not a risk to other prisoners in how they are housed.

Mrs Long: Enniskillen courthouse is currently designated as a hearing centre and is opened for three days per week, primarily for the delivery of Magistrates' Court business. In recent years, investments in the building have included internal and external redecoration works and an upgrade to the custody suite ventilation system.

The publication of its estate strategy in December 2023 was an important milestone for the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) as it provides a long-term framework for investment over the next decade and beyond. To implement the strategy, NICTS will continue to use data and evidence to baseline the existing estate against the agreed strategic outcomes and to develop prioritised investment in delivery plans in the context of the finite resources available. Future investments in Enniskillen courthouse will form part of that process.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for her response. However, do you accept that any future diminished investment in Enniskillen courthouse threatens the fabric of the building and access to criminal justice in the future?

Mrs Long: I apologise, Mr Speaker. I did not hear the Member's question. I was coughing at the time.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for your earlier response. Do you accept that any future diminished investment in Enniskillen courthouse would threaten the fabric of the building and access to criminal justice in the future?

Mrs Long: No decision has been made on any courthouse that is part of the overall implementation of the estate strategy. There will, of course, be difficult decisions that need to be taken with respect to all the facilities that we have. However, any proposal to either reduce or change the operation of courthouses will be subject to public consultation and to the scrutiny of the House.

Ms Ferguson: I want to ask the Minister about the estate. I recently visited Derry courthouse and did a tour. It is a beautiful building, but the conditions for staff, the legal profession and local people arriving at that centre are pretty dire, to be honest. Is there any further update on the upgrade to Derry courthouse?

Mrs Long: Again, it is part of the overall programme of improvements. I know that there is ongoing work at the courthouse on Bishop Street. There was, at one stage, a plan for an entirely new facility for the north-west. However, we have been able to obtain — potentially — additional land, which will allow us to instead look at refurbishing the existing courthouse, therefore maintaining the fabric of the building that the Member refers to while improving access for people who come to the courthouse to use the range of facilities and services that are provided in it.

Mrs Long: When staff are being recruited to the Northern Ireland Civil Service, they have the option of indicating on the application form if they have a disability. At any stage following recruitment, staff may update their HR records to declare a disability. As of 1 January 2024, 148 employees in the Department of Justice had declared a disability. That equates to 4·4% of employees in the Department.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for her answer and for breaking it down into a percentage. The Minister will be aware that the disabled community makes up around 25% of the population of Northern Ireland and that that community is woefully under-represented in all workplaces, not just in our Departments and the Civil Service. Is the Minister taking any specific action in her Department to increase the opportunities for people with disabilities to work in the Department of Justice?

Mrs Long: The Northern Ireland Civil Service, which is responsible for HR for the Department of Justice, operates a guaranteed interview scheme as part of its commitment to the employment of disabled people. The guaranteed interview scheme does not guarantee anyone a job. Its objective is to ensure that applicants who have a disability and who meet the minimum essential eligibility criteria for the role that they have applied for are offered an interview.

The Department has also offered placements under International Job Shadow Day, which is an opportunity to celebrate the valuable contribution that disabled people make to our workforce and an opportunity to promote inclusion in the workplace for people with disabilities. Action to increase the diversity of the Northern Ireland Civil Service workforce is also being considered in the context of a new five-year people strategy for NICS. That is under development, and the Department of Finance is taking the lead. As I indicated in my response, 4·4% of employees in DOJ declared that they have a disability. The equivalent figure for the wider Northern Ireland Civil Service is around 6·1%, and that compares with the Northern Ireland economically active comparator of about 10·2%.

Mrs Long: As you will be aware, it was not possible to introduce any legislation or progress key policy decisions in the absence of Ministers, the Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly during a significant portion of the early part of this mandate. I therefore had to review and re-prioritise my previous, more ambitious legislative plans on my return as Minister of Justice at the beginning of last year.

My revised legislative programme now includes plans to bring forward three Assembly Bills, which equates to one per annum, during the time remaining in this significantly shortened mandate. They are a mixed-content Justice Bill, which was introduced to the Assembly on Tuesday 17 September 2024; a sentencing Bill, which is planned for introduction by autumn 2025; and a victims and witnesses of crime Bill, which is planned for introduction by March 2026.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Minister, there has been a great deal of interest expressed to me, as a former member of the Justice Committee, about the content of the victims and witnesses Bill. Can you perhaps outline for the House the general principles behind that Bill and the type of offences that will be covered?

Mrs Long: We are looking at a range of issues in relation to the victims and witnesses Bill, including, first, the potential to include some of the recommendations in Judge Marrinan's report around support for victims of hate crime and special measures in the courts. We also intend to bring forward additional measures to complete some of the legislative requirements of elements of the Gillen review that, we agreed, were necessary, and to put the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime on a statutory footing.

We are looking at a number of other issues, but it is the third Justice Bill in the mandate, so there is ongoing development in what we intend to include in it. It is important that those issues are advanced during the mandate and that we have the opportunity to look at, for example, legislation around a disclosure regime, protection for complainants and restriction of access to third-party material, particularly when it comes to things such as counselling records, about which I know many Members are concerned.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I commend you for introducing legislation in 2024. Many Ministers could learn from that. I also appreciate your being in the Chamber. You are clearly suffering from a cold, so fair play for being here and answering questions.

In light of the seriousness of the hate crime situation that we face, given what we saw on the streets of Belfast last summer, will you revisit your plan not to introduce stand-alone hate crime legislation, which was a commitment in your party's manifesto, and seek to introduce a Bill in this mandate that properly tackles hate crime? I appreciate that you will say that that will be part of another Bill, but will you revisit your plan not to introduce stand-alone hate crime measures?

Mrs Long: I have no intention of revisiting that plan. I considered the issue carefully before opting for the course of action that I took. Had I decided to not decouple the elements of the hate crime Bill from each other and to proceed with them as I have, at pace, I would not be in a position to make any progress on hate crime in the mandate, because it would have been the fourth Justice Bill of the mandate and would have fallen off the end of the time frame. If I were to revisit the hate crime Bill now, I would not have sufficient time, first, for legislative counsel to advance it, and for the policy development work that would need to take place in my Department before the end of the mandate. Effectively, I would be slowing down progress on tackling hate crime rather than speeding it up. I have opted to accelerate it, albeit it means that there will not be stand-alone legislation. To be clear, there is no difference between legislative provisions being in a stand-alone Bill and their being included in other vehicles. When they are in legislation, they are the law.

Mrs Long: My Department's additional allocation from the Executive in draft Budget 2025-26 is £134 million, compared with our stabilisation pressures, initially reported, of £207 million. His Majesty's Treasury has earmarked £38 million of additional security funding for the PSNI. That funding, combined with a reported £5 million reduction in pressures, leaves my Department facing over £30 million of stabilisation pressures. That excludes an estimated £15 million pressure as a result of the Chancellor's changes to the rules on employer National Insurance contributions. My Department also submitted capital bids of £146 million and received an allocation of £100 million.

Whilst the allocations in 2025-26 are welcome, difficult decisions on the prioritisation of service provision will continue to be required to manage the remaining pressures. That will continue to present challenges for legal aid payment times, the ability to grow police numbers and delivery against the draft Programme for Government.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she give an update on the PSNI workforce recovery business case?

Mrs Long: One of the Executive's priorities, under the New Decade, New Approach agreement, was to increase police numbers to 7,500. That is the same figure that was recommended by the Patten report 20 years ago. However, police officer numbers are at a record low. Without additional funding, it will not be possible for the PSNI to recover and grow as we would wish it to. In order for the PSNI to have adequate funding to stabilise and recover numbers to a sustainable position, I have repeatedly raised the need for a better financial settlement for my Department with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as well as with the Finance Minister and other Executive colleagues. I pay tribute to the Finance Minister, who, in recent allocations, showed that she had listened to that argument. My officials are considering a business case from the PSNI on stabilisation and recruitment, and we continue to work closely with PSNI colleagues to help support them to prepare a robust business case for onward submission to the Department of Finance.

When the work has been completed, I will make the case to the Executive for additional funding for that purpose. For the affordability requirements to be met, however, we will need to deal with the additional £30 million pressure in the Department. Otherwise, the affordability component of any business case will not be met. It is therefore important that the Department continue to work to reduce that pressure insofar as we can and that the PSNI and our other arm's-length bodies seek to do likewise.

Mr Durkan: I ask the Minister whether it remains the case that the Executive are not in line to get one-off Treasury funding of up to £240 million for the unforeseen and unavoidable costs arising from the PSNI data leak? Does that, along with the pressures that the Minister has outlined, mean that the PSNI's ambition — indeed, it is all our ambition to see this happen — to recruit up to 500 PSNI officers in the next financial year is now extremely challenging, if not impossible?

Mrs Long: I agree that it is extremely challenging, but I disagree that it is impossible. I do not believe that it is impossible. Rather, I believe that it is possible and that, if we work together, we can achieve it. The first and most important part of doing that is for us to get the business case together. That business case will need to be robust. Remember that there are costs associated with having too few police officers as well as with recruiting more. We need to consider what those costs will be. That will form part of the business case.

It is important to recognise, as the Member has done, that, in addition to the immediate pressures that it faces, my Department faces exceptional pressures of £227 million from McCloud injury to feelings legal claims, from the data breach and for holiday pay. Those costs are not affordable within my Department's budget under any circumstance. The Finance Minister would conclude that they are also not affordable within the Executive's Budget under any circumstance. I therefore continue to support the Finance Minister's efforts to secure a reserve claim from HM Treasury to fund those particular costs, which are outwith the normal workings of policing.

Finally, on the question of whether investment in police services here keeps pace with that elsewhere in GB and on these islands, none of the money is hypothecated when it arrives with us, with the exception of security funding, which is sent directly from Treasury to the PSNI. As does every other Department, we have to bid through the local devolved processes to obtain the resources that we need to run our Police Service, our Prison Service and all the other elements of justice that we have to cover within the budget. To date, we have managed to do that reasonably successfully. I again thank the Finance Minister for her work on that, because it is an uphill struggle.

Dr Aiken: I wish the Minister a happy new year. Minister, the cost of the separated prison regime is significant. Has your Department been able to annualise the costs and look at their impact? Will you report those costs, please?

Mrs Long: My understanding from the last time that I looked is that the cost of the separated regime is somewhere between £2·5 million and £4 million per annum. That is a relatively small amount in the context of my overall budget, but, as the Member said, it is nevertheless significant. As I said in response to the Member's colleague's question, we raise the matter routinely with the NIO, which is ultimately responsible for whether people are committed into the separated regime.

We need to look carefully at the fact that, whether they are in the separated or normal regime, prisoners have to be accommodated and that there will be costs pertaining to their security and other issues. We should therefore not lose sight of the fact that there will be a cost to people being imprisoned, irrespective of how they are housed. An additional cost, however, results from separation, and I raise that matter with the NIO periodically.

Mrs Long: Rehabilitation is a key priority for the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Individuals committed to its care are offered the opportunity to develop skills and employer-recognised qualifications in order to give them the best chance of securing gainful employment on release, which, evidence shows, is a key factor in the desisting of reoffending. Adopting the further education delivery model, Belfast Metropolitan College and North West Regional College deliver accredited training in all prison establishments, offering entry level 3 to level 3 in educational, vocational and employability skills. That includes essential skills training in literacy, numeracy and information computer technology; construction skills such as bricklaying, joinery and tiling; hospitality skills such as barista training, catering and food hygiene; and training in sectors such as barbering, hair and beauty.

Soft skills in interview techniques and CV writing are also offered as part of the range of employability skills programmes. Furthermore, higher education is accessible for prisoners in Northern Ireland through the Open University.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mrs Long: It is well known that, during periods in which people are confined to home and do not have access to work, school, employment or other diversions, sadly, the number of reports of domestic incidents, abuse and violence increases. Times where financial pressure is layered upon that, particularly around Christmas, can exacerbate that further, and, in a culture in which the celebrations often tend towards alcohol, that can further exacerbate any underlying issues in households. It is not unusual for there to be a spike in domestic incidents during the Christmas period. However, it is not acceptable that anyone should be in fear in their home at any time of year, be that Christmas, Easter or any other period.

It is important that the PSNI has the tools, which we provided through the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act, to respond appropriately to those incidents and that we have the other support services in place to provide, as part of the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, front-line support to people who are affected directly by domestic violence and abuse. It is sad to see that those issues are seasonal, but it is also true to say that the police brace themselves for an increase in calls in the aftermath of large sporting events for largely the same reasons: people are at home, they have taken alcohol, their team loses or wins, and, sadly, the people who live in the household with them are the ones who suffer the most.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her answer. What reassurance can she give to victims of domestic violence and abuse who come forward that their case will be taken seriously at every stage of the justice system?

Mrs Long: I can give the assurance that, first of all, that formed my priority in the previous mandate, which is why, during that period, the legislation changed so dramatically around this issue, stalking, sexual offences and all of the other related issues. It continues to be my priority. It is important that anyone who is under threat from someone living in their household and feels fearful for their life or safety, or feels that they are being coerced and controlled into doing things with which they are uncomfortable, has the confidence to come forward and make those reports, and that they are believed.

As the Member will know, there is a programme of ongoing training for first responders in that area to ensure that they are ready to direct people to the right services. There is also training in place right across the justice system for those with whom victims will come into contact.

I cannot guarantee — no Minister can — that everyone will have a perfect experience when they report a crime, but I can say, hand on heart, that the response to such situations has improved dramatically in recent years. I fully encourage people who report a crime but do not get the response that they are entitled to under the Victim Charter to come forward and make that known either to the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime or to the Department, because we will act on that and raise it with those who are responsible.

Mr Beattie: I hope that the Minister feels better soon.

Mrs Long: The Member will know that the rationale for safe space advocates is part of the TEO-led ending violence against women and girls strategy. We have a number of strands of work that we do with prisoners — those who are themselves victims of domestic and sexual violence and abuse and those who are perpetrators, through perpetrator programmes. Given the living conditions of most of the people with whom we engage, the safe space is the prison itself. As I said earlier, it is our commitment to try to make that a safe space, not only for people to be able to make disclosure but for them to receive whatever counselling and support that they may need to recover.

It is an area that I am happy to look at in future to ensure that, if there are further areas where we can allow for additional support for people who are making disclosure or who feel that they are fearful for their safety, we are able to do that in conjunction with our other partners. However, the Member will appreciate that very little of the Northern Ireland Prison Service estate is open to the public and that the majority of it is there purely for the service provided to those who are already committed to our care.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister. You are right, and, in many ways, I am looking at training our workforce. The Northern Ireland Civil Service has implemented a domestic and sexual abuse e-learning package for staff. Can the Minister confirm whether that e-learning package has been rolled out in the Northern Ireland Prison Service so that prison officers and all staff in the Prison Service can complete continuous learning on the issue?

Mrs Long: As you are aware, employees of the Northern Ireland Prison Service are NICS employees and therefore can avail themselves of all the online services and training programmes that are available. Bespoke training opportunities are also available for Prison Service staff. Those who work in prisons as prison officers are often dealing with people who have themselves been victims of abuse as well as the perpetrators of crime. Therefore, it is important that they understand the seriousness of the issues. In recent years, some of our prison staff developed an ONC qualification on healthy relationships, which they delivered to the women in Hydebank Wood prison, very effectively, identifying that a number of the women in that prison had been victims of trafficking and of sexual abuse and had been manipulated and abused by people whom they had previously viewed as intimate partners. We also work with the White Ribbon organisation, which comes in and delivers, to staff and to prisoners, its programmes on how to be a bystander and how to intervene. All those programmes are important, but we do have bespoke training on the issue for people who work in our prisons.

Mrs Long: Ultimately, the decision to go to recruitment is one for the Chief Constable, and it is for the Chief Constable to be confident that he has the money to recruit new officers. As I explained earlier, we do have a business case that is under preparation with my officials and the PSNI at the moment. We hope to take that to the Department of Finance, and hopefully that will secure funding not just for this year but over the next three years for us to grow the PSNI to a more stable and representative level. In the interim, I think that the Chief Constable has reached a conclusion that he has to go out to recruit, even if only to ensure that there is no further fall in numbers due to attrition.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for her answer. I understand that it is the responsibility of the Chief Constable, but I am also aware that sometimes in the past there has been a long delay and a waiting list for officers appointed through a recruitment exercise. Has the Minister had some communication with the Chief Constable or the Policing Board to ensure that officers appointed through this exercise can have confidence that at least some funding is in place to enable appointments and not long waiting lists?

Mrs Long: The Policing Board, the Chief Constable and I meet regularly on a tripartite basis now to discuss issues arising either to do with budget, to do with policy or, indeed, where appropriate, to do with recruitment. However, it remains for the Chief Constable to answer the question that the Member asked about whether the money is available and how long it will take to appoint officers. That can often be about more than just money; it can be about the availability of posts that are suitable for an officer who is coming out on probation to start their career. It is not often about simply the money. For my part and the part that I have responsibility for, I have said that I will make the bid to the Department of Finance in due course through the normal budget processes so that we can secure the funding to allow us not only to recruit enough members to stave off attrition but to actually progressively increase the number of officers in the PSNI to the more reflective level that we should have.

Mrs Long: The investigation of crime is ultimately an operational matter for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Given that I am committed to respecting the operational independence of both organisations, as I have made clear repeatedly in the House, it would not be appropriate for me to become involved in live police investigations other than in circumstances where I am either the complainant or a witness.

Ms Bunting: I am glad that the Minister has clarified that, because she will be aware that an issue has arisen in relation to an Alliance Party councillor.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker —.

Mr Speaker: There is no point of order, but I am going to intervene, because I mentioned sub judice earlier this afternoon. If a case is ongoing, we should be very careful to note the separation between this institution and the courts.

Mr Tennyson: It is disgusting.

Mr Speaker: I am speaking at the minute, Mr Tennyson, if you would kindly keep quiet. [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: Sorry?

It is for the Member to decide, but I have to draw to the Member's attention the fact that anything that would jeopardise a court case is upon them.

Ms Bunting: Thank you. I am aware of that, Mr Speaker. If I had been permitted to finish my question, it would have been clear that I was not going to stray into that territory. Given that this is a serious matter of public importance, I am attempting to offer the Minister an opportunity to make it clear categorically, yes or no, whether she or anyone else on her behalf intervened in any way during or after any investigation.

Mrs Long: I can make it categorically clear, as I just did in my original answer, that I have never sought to influence or in any way interfere in any live police investigation in my role as Minister. I can also make it categorically clear that I think that raising the issue in this manner and highlighting an individual in this context is completely and utterly scurrilous.

Mrs Long: The policy and legal frameworks for the misuse of drugs, including the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, are reserved to the UK Government. It is therefore a matter for the Home Office to determine and bring forward any proposals on the benefits of decriminalising drugs. I have not been made aware of any plans in the Home Office to decriminalise or review the classification of drugs. Any change to the status quo would require the engagement of all four jurisdictions.

The organised crime task force drug subgroup provides a forum for engagement between the PSNI and other stakeholders in response to the challenges that the misuse of drugs and related threats pose and to identify solutions to effectively deal with the enforcement and supply of drugs. A key focus of my Department is the promotion and support of preventative approaches to substance abuse and misuse and of the harm and vulnerabilities that are associated with addiction. We will succeed in improving outcomes only if we see substance misuse in the broader context.

Policing and community safety partnerships, which are funded by the DOJ and the Northern Ireland Policing Board, also deliver local interventions in each council area to address harm and vulnerability. That includes awareness-raising and education projects and initiatives on substance misuse, including drug awareness.

Mr Carroll: Minister, I appreciate the answer and the fact that this is a reserved matter, but I will come back to you on some of it. You will probably have a view on it, and, given the fact that 10,000 people here are affected by the issue, I would like to tease that out. Decriminalising drugs has proven to reduce addiction and keep out of prison people who should not be there. Do you have a view on the decriminalisation approach, and have you made any attempts to try to move it forward?

Mrs Long: I do have a view on decriminalisation. It is one that I have raised with previous Health Ministers, who have the lead in drugs policy in their engagement with the Home Office and others. As I said, there seems to be no indication from the Government that there will be any review of the approach. I believe that the approach should be reviewed so that we can follow evidence-based policy and do all that we can to, first, prevent people becoming addicted to substances or engaging in substance misuse; secondly, to criminalise those who are involved in the procurement of those drugs for onward sale and distribution; and, thirdly, to ensure that those who are addicted to drugs are dealt with in a therapeutic manner.

Mr Speaker: We do not have time to go to the next question. Thank you, Minister, for persevering today. I can see and was forewarned that you are not feeling your best. You persevered well. Well done for that.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): It is now illegal for a person to own an XL bully-type dog without a valid exemption certificate. Any person who is in breach of the law could be subject to prosecution. As the Member will be aware, I introduced those measures in response to public safety concerns and to bring Northern Ireland into parity with the rest of the UK, where similar measures have already been implemented. The Republic of Ireland has made it illegal to breed, sell or import XL bully dogs since 1 October 2024.

The deadline to apply for an exemption certificate passed on 31 December 2024. Councils have informed me that, as of today, for the 698 licensed XL bully dogs in Northern Ireland, there have been 673 applications for an exemption certificate, which is 96% of the known population. Complete, final data on the number of dogs for which an exemption certificate has been granted will not be known until all applications have been processed, so the final number of certificates approved may vary slightly.

It is encouraging that the overwhelming majority of owners have embraced the need for responsible dog ownership and taken the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. My Department continues to liaise with all councils regularly to provide appropriate support and guidance.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for that answer. It is heartening to hear that that high percentage of exemption certificates has been issued. However, only 140 of those dogs were registered in March 2024, and, come the end of December, there were almost 700. Given that increase in the number of registrations in that short period, is the Minister concerned that there might still be a number of those dogs out there that are unregistered? Does he have any plans, in conjunction with councils, to identify whether that is the case and where those dogs might be?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. People must remember that it is an offence not to license their dog. Although dog licensing is a council matter, my Department is working with stakeholders on key priorities on licensing and encouraging compliance, as the income funds for the essential dog warden service in councils are assisted by the dog licence fee. Later this week, I will meet councils. We will discuss further how we can encourage greater uptake of dog licensing. On the specific issue, we must go with the figures that we have for the number of dogs that are licensed. It is important that we encourage people to license their dogs.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the information that he has given on the issue so far. How does Northern Ireland's approach to the XL bully breed compare with that of other jurisdictions in the UK and Ireland? Does he have information on further efforts to ensure that dogs are licensed?

Mr Muir: XL bully legislation has already been implemented in England, Wales and Scotland. When I decided to introduce legislation in Northern Ireland, I did so in that context and to protect public safety. The legislation introduced here is broadly similar to the legislation introduced in the rest of the UK, although Northern Ireland will not implement a deregistration process. The Republic of Ireland has also made it illegal to breed, sell or import XL bully dogs since 1 October 2024. The deadline for exemption applications is 1 February 2025. A while ago, I met the relevant Minister, Heather Humphreys, to discuss the issues and the need for continued cross-border collaboration on them, of which a significant amount already occurs.

Mr Chambers: Minister, you will recall that I have raised in the House previously the issue of control of those dogs in a residential setting. In recent months, there have been serious attacks throughout the United Kingdom and, indeed, some tragic fatalities in family homes. Does the Minister plan to keep the issue under review?

Mr Muir: The Member has been steadfast in raising the issue with me. I understand that that is due to safety concerns. The legislation that I brought in, which was secondary legislation, was what was available to me under primary legislation in Northern Ireland. I will keep it under review for the same reason as the Member raises the matter, which is the concerns about it. More broadly, we want to raise better awareness of good dog ownership. I am working with stakeholders on how we can do that.

Mr Buckley: Where a dog behaves in an aggressive manner, I have no problem whatever with the authorities dealing with the individual dog, but I have always had concern regarding the designation of a whole breed under the legislation. The Minister knows that. He will be aware of Max, the five-month-old puppy in Lisburn and Castlereagh. Under the breed legislation and guidance, the puppy would have been put down at five months. Thankfully, there was a reprieve for a third-party assessment. Does the Minister not accept that to put a healthy puppy down on the basis of an interpretation of how it may behave in future is totally wrong?

Mr Muir: On the issue in Lisburn and Castlereagh that the Member referenced, under the legislation, any dog considered to be a restricted breed and in council care can be returned to its owners only if the courts determine that it is suitable for exemption. Until there is confirmation of the dog's breed, which, as the Member understands, the council has agreed to reassess when the dog is more mature, the council is not in a position to release it. Pit bulls have been a restricted breed since 1991, and the exemption process for the breed also entered into force in 1991. It is illegal to breed, sell, gift, exchange or abandon a restricted breed dog. I emphasise that the reasons for restricting pit bulls — to protect public safety — still pertain.

Ms Ferguson: I am aware of the deadline of 31 December for exemptions, and I am aware that, particularly in my council area, council staff have been really proactive in visiting people and encouraging them to apply. In the new year, I heard from people who did not meet the deadline and were gravely concerned. Has the Department given any direction to councils about people who missed the 31 December deadline but applied by 2 or 3 January?

Mr Muir: First, I record my thanks, especially to animal welfare stakeholders and to print and broadcast media, for the effort that they undertook last month to raise awareness of the pending deadline, which was demonstrated by the level of sign-up for the exemption process. I thank people for that.

The deadline was set in legislation, and the date has, unfortunately, passed. It is no longer possible to apply for an exemption, regardless of the circumstances. Owners had a period of almost five months, the longest window provided for in the UK, to submit their application. My Department, in conjunction with councils, carried out extensive communications and had direct contact with known XL bully dog owners to ensure that they were aware of the legal requirements and the consequences of missing the deadline.

Unfortunately, any unexempted XL bully that is found may be seized by dog wardens, and the council responsible for enforcement will decide the best course of action. Owners of seized dogs may have to go through a court process to allow them to retain ownership of the dog. My Department provides comprehensive guidance on the legislation to councils and continues to work intensively with the Northern Ireland Dog Advisory Group, which represents council dog wardens, to ensure that the legislation is effectively enforced.

Mr Muir: I shall seek Executive approval for the introduction of the dilapidation Bill once the process of confirming that the Bill is within the legislative competence of the Assembly is completed. The proposed Bill will provide councils with a modern and fit-for-purpose regime, including a clear toolkit of powers to tackle dilapidated buildings and neglected sites, including a series of notices, offences, penalties and appeals. Powers would be similar to those available to local authorities in other parts of the UK, where low-level dilapidation can be dealt with at a much earlier stage.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate the Minister's answer. He will be aware that some in the sector have been calling for the Bill for some time and that it would benefit many areas, including our constituency of North Down, where derelict buildings can become a real health and safety hazard. Will the Minister give a more detailed timescale for seeing the Bill in action? When will it benefit the redevelopment and regeneration of our town, city and village centres?

Mr Muir: As soon as we get sign-off from the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) and all the legal sign-offs, I will bring it to the Executive and then the Assembly. It has taken a bit longer than I anticipated, but I hope that the Bill will come here very soon so that we can scrutinise the legislation and see the benefits for communities of the Assembly passing it.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Minister. I know that you share my frustration that councils were not enabled to deal with regeneration. Minister, I am excited by the dilapidation Bill that the Member mentioned. Can you outline what difference the Bill will make to the regeneration of our towns and cities?

Mr Muir: Dilapidation affects towns and cities. Once dilapidation develops in an area, it makes people less inclined to invest there. The legislation will give councils the power to tackle dilapidation in their areas, particularly in respect of financial bodies if the owner of a property cannot be found. The Bill will bring our legislative powers up to date. We have worked closely with the councils to give them the necessary tools in the legislation.

Dr Aiken: Minister, one of the issues that have been raised with me about the dilapidation Bill, which will be welcomed by most people, concerns historically significant buildings that, for various reasons, some people would like to get rid of. Can you outline any safeguards that we can expect to see in the dilapidation Bill to ensure that our much-valued built environment is not desecrated?

Mr Muir: At the outset of my response, I declare that I am a member of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society (UAHS). I have an appreciation of our built heritage and listed buildings. The responsibility sits primarily in the Department for Communities. One of the benefits of the enhancement of councils' powers is that, when they exercise the associated functions, they will consider interventions in the round because some elements of the listing buildings protections in planning legislation also sit with councils. Councils already have powers, such as the urgent works notices, so this will be an additional power. It is an important point. I would like Northern Ireland's built heritage to be valued a lot more, because it gives tourists something to see and allows us to celebrate our history.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you touched on the fragmented nature of responsibilities here. When the dilapidation Bill is finally introduced, can there be careful joint working — to use the cliché — between the different agencies? We clearly have a crisis in parts of the city. I brought the issue of the Tribeca Quarter to the Chamber, but there is also Crumlin Road courthouse: we are allowing our built heritage to slip into disrepair. Will there be jointery between councils, the Communities Department, the Finance Department and your Department, which is responsible for the dilapidation Bill, to make the regeneration joined up and coherent?

Mr Muir: I am keen that we do that. I will visit Belfast city centre with the Lord Mayor and the Minister for Communities to look at dilapidation, because it is important that we have a joined-up approach. I have continued liaison with the Finance Minister. We all have different powers, but we can use them collectively to deal with areas in our towns and cities where we want to see regeneration. That is a practical example of our cooperation immediately before passage of the legislation. It also says something about my commitment to working with local government and across Departments.

Mr Muir: The climate action plan will set out Northern Ireland’s approach to meeting the carbon budget for 2023-27. It will also establish a pathway towards the interim targets for 2030 and 2040 and the overall net zero by 2050 target. Ambitious policies and proposals will be required to put us on the path to net zero; our current policies, as they stand, will not be sufficient.

My Department has been leading on the development of our first climate action plan with input from all Departments. Extensive work has been undertaken to ensure that we have a credible plan that is supported by robust science and evidence, which is important. Significant progress has been made. Last month, the first three carbon budgets for 2023-27 and the interim 2030 and 2040 emissions targets were set. The legislation came into operation on 12 December 2024, which was a positive moment. Officials are in the process of finalising the draft climate action plan document for consultation.

Given the cross-cutting nature of the climate action plan, the draft will need to be approved by the Executive prior to its publication for consultation. I aim to bring the draft climate action plan to Executive colleagues as soon as possible to seek their approval to publish the plan for a 16-week statutory consultation. I am fully committed to delivering a climate action plan that is transformational, evidence-based, informed by stakeholders and in line with my commitment to a just transition.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, I am sure that you have seen the devastating destruction caused by the wildfires in LA over the past week. Against that context, what is your response to the news that 2024 was the first year to pass the 1·5°C global warming limit?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his important question. That news is very concerning, but, sadly, it is not surprising. It is yet another example of a global tipping point. Climate change is expected to become more severe and more frequent as global warming increases, which will have real impacts on lives and livelihoods. Tragically, we are seeing that today. My thoughts are with all the people affected in California, especially those who have lost loved ones and those who have been forced to flee their homes.

Whilst that might be on our TV screens, it is real to us in Northern Ireland because each of one of us, whether individually as citizens or as participants in government, needs to take action on climate change and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. It does not need to be like this, and it is really important that we invest in taking action, whether in climate change mitigation or adaption. That is why I am taking forward this work on climate change: I believe in it. We have a moral responsibility, not just to the people of Northern Ireland but to those way beyond it, to address those issues, which affect people across the globe.

Ms McLaughlin: The delay in the climate action plan is concerning because of the global crisis. What impact will that have on our ability to meet interim carbon budgets and overall net zero targets? You mentioned the cross-cutting nature of the issue. Are you concerned about the lack of pace in our progress?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Sinéad, for your question. In this place, we lost a lot of pace in taking action on climate change as a result of the collapse of the Assembly. We lost two years to that, and, before that, we lost years because of stop-go government. That is why we need to have reform of these institutions.

Since taking up office, I have been working hard on this. I worked hard to get Executive agreement on the carbon budgets, and I was glad to get support in the Assembly to be able to do that. That was just before Christmas, and very quickly thereafter I met officials to go through the content of the CAP. That is being finalised, which is important and detailed work. I will bring it to the Executive for consultation once that work is complete. I am quite confident about the content and interventions in the first CAP. It is a bit like a marathon: the first 10K is a bit easier than the last, but it is important that we do the first 10K. Collectively, we must take action. My Department and I cannot do it alone: we all need to do take action collectively. I am confident that we can do that in Northern Ireland if we put our shoulders to the wheel.

I am massively positive on this. I brought the green growth strategy to the Executive, and I continue to engage with my Executive colleagues to get agreement on it because it is about the benefits associated with decarbonisation, such as good green jobs, with which, hopefully, everyone is on board.

Mr Frew: It seems to me that the main outcome, or one of the main outcomes, of the Minister's ambitious plans is to penalise hard-working people who are trying to provide a living for their families, including business owners, farmers, electricity bill payers and ordinary employees. How can the Minister ensure that the transition is a just one?

Mr Muir: I am firmly committed to a just transition and I am taking action in that regard. That is why we are look to set up a just transition commission in Northern Ireland, which, perhaps, will be one of the first to be set up under statute. Beyond that, I was glad to be able to secure an agreement with the Finance Minister to set up a just transition fund for agriculture within the draft Budget. That is an example of my commitment to a just transition, and I encourage people to respond to the consultation on the just transition commission, because the road to net zero has to be about a just and fair journey. That is what I am passionately committed to.

Mr Muir: The enforcement of non-farmed animal welfare remains the statutory responsibility of each council. Councils are best placed to determine how that function should be discharged and the level of resource that is required to meet the specific requirements of their regions.

My Department has no remit to dictate how councils fulfil that requirement and to do so would undermine their legal and operational authority. Nevertheless, my Department has established structures to liaise with local councils on non-farmed animal welfare policy and legislation. Councils, for example, are represented on my Department’s multi-agency enforcement working group alongside the police. I also intend to meet the councils later this week to discuss animal welfare priorities for the remainder of the mandate and listen to their views.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that there are a considerable number of cases of animal welfare and cruelty ongoing across Northern Ireland, and there are likely a great number of instances that go unreported and undetected. I am advised that, on average, each council area has only two dedicated officials to undertake every aspect of that work. What message is the Minister hearing from local government about capacity? What assessment has his Department made of current effectiveness? What more can it do to help?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. As I said, I am meeting the councils this week. It is important that we collaborate on the issue. An outcome from the Member's question is that we encourage people to report concerns about animal welfare to their council, because it is important that issues be reported in order to allow for follow-up action to be taken. We are meeting later this week, and we will see what further work we can do by working together on the issue, because we can achieve a lot more collectively.

Ms Á Murphy: Has the Minister assessed whether councils have sufficient funding to deal with the increase in complex animal abuse and cruelty cases?

Mr Muir: It is for each council to provide its services. Councils have the ability to raise revenue through rates. I understand the financial pressures that each council faces. My Department faces similar pressures, particularly in light of the draft Budget settlement for next year. We can, however, work together, particularly on the legislation that I am looking to introduce, which will hopefully address some of the concerns that a number of Members have raised in the Chamber. We will be commissioning an expert-led review of dog-breeding establishments, for example. I have heard a lot of concerns about such establishments, and I have listened to them. Introducing legislation will hopefully make life a wee bit easier for councils and assist them in their duties.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Member who asked the substantive question. What action does the Minister plan to take to improve animal welfare in the remainder of this mandate?

Mr Muir: We are finalising our plans. Before Christmas, I had really good engagement with relevant animal welfare stakeholders. That engagement took place not just in Clare House but with the all-party group on animal welfare, which my colleague to my left, John Blair, ably chairs. We were able to discuss some of the measures that we are looking to take forward, one of which is Lucy's law, which is a ban on the third-party sale of pups and kittens.

Other measures that we want to take forward include the comprehensive expert-led review of dog-breeding licensing, as I outlined, and a ban on aversive training devices. I do not agree with the use of shock collars. They should be banned. We are also looking at bringing in the mandatory microchipping of cats, and we are looking at the licensing of rescue and rehoming organisations in particular. We are also looking at introducing CCTV in slaughterhouses. Those are just some of the things that we are discussing, and we will be meeting the police and councils this week.

I conscious of the fact that we have a restricted mandate, but we can focus our resources and work together to get the outcomes that we seek. I found the engagement with the stakeholders to be really good. We can continue to get their perspective on what can work. Most importantly, we need to make sure that the legislation that we make will tackle the issues. That is why we are going to continue to engage and consult on the issues.

Mr Muir: My Department does not provide financial support to councils to address dog fouling. It is, however, responsible for the legislation that grants councils the powers and the flexibility, subject to upper and lower limits, to set fixed penalty notices for dog-fouling offences.

In December 2022, following requests from key stakeholders and members of the public to take stronger action over dog-fouling offences, my officials amended the legislation to increase the maximum penalty available to councils for such offences from £80 to £200, and some councils have since increased their fixed penalties.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer. My office has been working closely with council dog wardens in my constituency to tackle the issue in a number of areas along the north coast. The dog wardens are doing their best with limited resources. Is the Minister aware of how many fines have been handed out by councils in the past year to dog owners who have let their pet foul?

Mr Muir: I do not have those statistics to hand, but my Department supports councils on the issue. In addition to overseeing the robust legislation that covers the fixed penalty notices that councils issue for dog-fouling offences, my Department is committed to reducing and preventing them. DAERA supports educational and promotional campaigns that are aimed at achieving behavioural change. Our environment fund directly supports Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful to deliver a number of programmes, including Eco-Schools, Live Here Love Here and its Adopt a Spot project, all of which promote a sense of civic pride and encourage individual environmental responsibility. I will write to the Member with the information, if we have it. It may not be available, however, because that information is collected by councils. The Member raises an important issue, and I am aware of it. Dog fouling was one of the issues that Harvey Milk, one of the first openly gay men to be elected in the United States, campaigned on.

Mr Muir: A public consultation on the establishment of the just transition commission was launched on 11 November 2024. It has been extended to 17 January 2025. I encourage people to make any responses to it that they feel are necessary.

The consultation focuses on the proposals to establish the commission, including the legislation that will set out the type of public body that the commission should be; its composition, role and legislative functions; the proposed sectors to be represented on it; its reporting arrangements; and its secretariat and the support that it requires. As part of the consultation, my officials have met representatives of various groups from the mandated sectors that are to be represented on the commission to seek their views. Following the completion of the consultation, the feedback will be analysed, and the draft regulations will be updated. My officials will ensure that the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, which the Member ably chairs, is updated at each step of process. I shall then seek approval from my Executive colleagues on the final draft regulations that will establish the commission. The regulations will then go through the draft affirmative legislative process, which includes laying the regulations in this place for debate and approval. Once the regulations are made and in operation, a recruitment competition will be launched to appoint members to the commission. That will be done in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments' Northern Ireland's guidelines.

The just transition commission will be an important body to support all Departments in ensuring that a net zero transition is fair and just. I am hopeful that the commission will be in place during 2025.

Mr Speaker: Mr Butler. Go ahead.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I thank the Minister for a very detailed answer. He will be aware that politicians can make false promises. That leads me to the Labour Government, particularly in regard to farming and agriculture. Our farming families and agriculture sector were hit with a double whammy of unfulfilled promises by the Labour Government last year. What assurance can the Minister give to the farming and agri-sector about its voice in the creation of and outcomes for a just transition commission, given that farmers and the agriculture sector probably face some of the biggest challenges when it comes to helping us achieve net zero?

Mr Muir: I heard the anger about the UK Government's decision on inheritance tax when I was at the Oxford Farming Conference last week. From that platform, I outlined my opposition to it again. I look forward to meeting the Ulster Farmers’ Union, the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association (NIAPA) and the Finance Minister soon to discuss ways forward around that matter and the further representations that we can make to the UK Government, because I believe that the proposed changes to inheritance tax are wrong.

The agriculture sector will be represented as part of the just transition commission, but it will go further than that. Subsequent to the Budget last year, in which we did not get a just transition fund for agriculture, my engagement with the Finance Minister has been successful, and she has allocated a draft amount of money for us to be able to create our own just transition fund for agriculture in Northern Ireland. I am working with officials on what that will be about. That is really key. It is a commitment around not only policy but funding. I, personally, am very committed not only to a just transition for farming but to one that goes more broadly, because it has to be fair and just for us to be able to bring people together on the road towards decarbonisation.

Mr Muir: The very constrained funding that is available to the Executive and the agreed draft Budget for 2025-26 provide a very difficult proposed outcome for my Department. I am working with my officials on how much resource and capital departmental expenditure limit (DEL) funding can be allocated to Lough Neagh to continue to take forward that important work in the next financial year.

The implementation of the Lough Neagh action plan to address the blue-green algae issues requires significant investment across Departments. The issues in Lough Neagh have been decades in the making, and there are no quick fixes. A sufficient Budget allocation to that issue is important. I am seeking a meeting with the Finance Minister to discuss the draft Budget.

By way of context, there was a bid in the draft Budget of £11·5 million for the environmental improvement plan, including Lough Neagh. I was not awarded any funding to go towards that. I am engaging with officials about what budget allocations we can make internally, but it is important that I continue to engage with the Finance Minister around that key issue.

Mr McGlone: Minister, we have heard on many occasions about the effluent from sewage disposal works that is going into the watercourse. In the past, you committed to officials from your Department meeting DFI and NI Water officials, and you said that they have done so. Will you advise us on the outcome of those meetings to remedy the situation whereby effluent is going into our watercourses quite frequently?

Mr Speaker: Quickly, please, Minister.

Mr Muir: We are aware of the issues with water quality and the sources around that: agriculture, waste water and septic tanks. I tasked officials to review what is known as "SORPI", the statement of regulatory principles and intent. Essentially, it is a separate regulatory regime for NI Water whereby the historic underinvestment is taken into account when considering any decisions around enforcement. It is not fit for purpose; it is not fair to have a separate regime for NI Water. I am of a mind to withdraw from SORPI. I have already sent communication to DFI and NI Water that I am of that opinion. I will seek their views and take a final decision within eight weeks' time.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions. The first Member is Patsy McGlone. Keep going, Patsy.

Mr McGlone: That worked out well. A double.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy. My Department takes all litigation claims seriously and complies with the 'Managing Public Money' guidance from the Department of Finance. The amount spent by DAERA on all special payments, which includes litigation cases, is published annually in the Department's report and accounts. Central departmental records, however, do not differentiate between various types of compensation cases. That has necessitated a comprehensive review of our records. My Department is revising its procedures to assist with making that information more readily available.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that, Minister. If that is the case, I thank you for your intervention and welcome the fact that that information will be made readily available on the public record.

Mr Muir: I am happy to write to the Member once we have done the review of records.

Mr Muir: There are two sides to that. The first is the work that Forest Service is taking forward. The small woodland grant scheme is open for applications, as far as I am aware, so there are current schemes. In the Lough Neagh report and action plan, we are looking at specific interventions, particularly the replanting of riparian buffers. That already occurs through, for example, the sustainable catchment area programme. I was privileged enough to visit the programme in the Upper Bann catchment area and saw the good work that is going on there. That planting is taking place in conjunction with the Rivers Trust.

As part of the Lough Neagh report and action plan, we are looking at what more we can do. We are looking to review our progress on that and explore, as part of the budget for next year, what more we can do. There is a lot happening, but we are reviewing what more we can do, because it is absolutely crucial that we do that and a lot more planting.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer. Tree planting is just one of many measures that can be employed to reduce the blue-green algae in Lough Neagh. Has the Minister experienced any difficulty in acquiring semi-mature trees in Northern Ireland? Has Brexit or the Windsor framework hampered the ability to bring semi-mature trees in from the rest of the UK?

Mr Muir: Brexit has hampered an awful lot, particularly the growth of the UK economy, and we are all paying the consequences of that. I work through the issues. There is trade between GB and NI, and there are challenges associated with that, but my officials work through such issues. If there are particular concerns about our tree planting targets being impeded as a result of the Windsor framework, I will be happy to work through the UK Government to address those.

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for raising the question. I regularly read the 'Irish Farmers Journal'. I read it every week, cover to cover. This has been raised as a concern by the Irish Farmers' Association. Whilst a free trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur was announced on 6 December 2024, it is likely to be some time before the agreement is fully ratified and comes into effect, if, indeed, it is ever fully ratified. Talks about an EU-Mercosur free trade agreement first commenced in 1999, with an agreement in principle being reached 10 years later in June 2019. It is expected that progress on the full implementation of the agreement will remain slow.

Whilst the agreement does not apply to the UK, it has a potential impact on UK agriculture markets, including those in Northern Ireland, due to the increased imports from Mercosur into the EU, particularly of beef and poultry. I appreciate the concerns that the agriculture sector has expressed about the agreement, but imports under reduced tariffs will be limited by a quota for some products, including beef, where the concessionary tariff of 7·5% is limited to 99,000 tons, and poultry, where tariff-free access is limited to 180,000 tons.

Dr Aiken: The Minister is aware that labelling on various agricultural goods says, "Not for sale within the EU". Will the Minister take the opportunity, during his North/South talks, to suggest introducing labelling of goods in the Irish Republic that says, "Not for sale in the UK"? That would prevent Mercosur goods contaminating the Northern Ireland market, which is something that most Northern Ireland farmers would like to see.

Mr Muir: We need to step back a wee bit on the wider issue of the Mercosur trade deal. I recognise the concerns that farmers not just in Northern Ireland but in the Republic of Ireland have expressed, and I listen to those concerns. However, let us look at the trade deals that the UK did with the rest of the world. They were not good trade deals for farmers in the UK. When people try to sell me any benefits of Brexit, I struggle to find any. [Inaudible.]

Mr Muir: I fully recognise that and that you are one of the enlightened few on the matter, so I give you that credit. [Laughter.]

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her question. There are two aspects to that. There was a discussion about an all-Ireland animal cruelty register. I met Minister Charlie McConalogue in Dublin a while ago to discuss that, and, at that meeting, he outlined that there are no current plans to bring in a register in the South. Obviously, that causes issues for the North. I asked officials to review the possibilities around the proposal, and we will look at the future pathways for animal welfare and at whether having the ability to look at AccessNI checks is one of the ways that we could resolve the issue while getting round data protection and GDPR, which are key issues in the matter.

Ms Bunting: I am really glad to hear the Minister say that. Does he accept that it is a matter of import for the public and that, whilst elements of it fall between his Department and the Department of Justice, it takes only one of them to move so that we can gather some momentum on this significant issue?

Mr Muir: I have been working alongside the Justice Minister, for whom I have utmost respect as a person with the integrity and commitment to address the issues that affect the citizens of Northern Ireland. The potential option of having the ability to look at AccessNI checks is something that I want to explore and consider as a way to address the concerns about offenders having access.

Mr Muir: I have a lot of respect for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, and I have been doing a lot of work to improve processing times for applications. There is a further bid for additional staff so that that can be done. One of the issues is to do with applications that are made but do not meet the relevant criteria or cannot be properly assessed because of a requirement for additional information. We need to raise awareness about what is required. Some of my engagement with stakeholders on ammonia, for example, is on whether additional information can be provided in advance of an application being made. That will, hopefully, help to speed up processing times. There will be further engagement on ammonia this month with stakeholders so that we can, hopefully, get agreement on the way forward. We can then issue guidance that, hopefully, will mean that, when people put in applications, there is no need for re-consultation.

Mr Buckley: Whilst I accept that some applications that fall under the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's remit have not supplied the appropriate details, vast swathes of genuine planning applications across a range of sectors are being held up with a point-blank, "No" or a delayed response from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Will the Minister outline what funding could be rededicated and repurposed to ensure that the agency fulfils its obligations so that we can have a timely planning process?

Mr Muir: The issue of funding is key, and I will take any funding going. If it is being offered by other Ministers so that we can do that, I will say, "Thank you". The other key issue is having the resource to recruit so that we get staff into post. I am confident that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency is working hard at that. The chief executive of the Environment Agency has done a lot of good work in turning that situation around. I know that more needs to be done, and that is key for me. I get your point, but we need to raise further awareness of the need to ensure that further information is provided when sending in applications so that we can then get them processed quickly.

Mr Muir: I am aware of the issue from correspondence. There has been significant correspondence from not just the Member but others. DFI also has a role to play. I will check on the latest situation and write to the Member. I understand the importance of the matter, particularly given the traffic congestion and environmental damage that have been caused by the landslide.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his answer. On 3 December, in the Adjournment debate that I secured, the Infrastructure Minister advised that he was waiting for further correspondence from Forest Service. Since 3 December, has the Minister had further engagement with the Infrastructure Minister on that specific issue?

Mr Muir: I am trying to recall, and I cannot, so I will check and come back to the Member. If it is appropriate, we can then have a short meeting to move the matter along, because I am conscious that it has been going on for a while.

Mr Muir: A public inquiry started today. Members will understand that I have to be careful in what I say about that. My Department will work with the inquiry and comply with any statutory requirements associated with the needs of the Public Accounts Committee and the Water Appeals Commission.

Mr McAleer: Minister, the inquiry runs until the end of March. I note from the running order that your Department and associated bodies such as NIEA are scheduled to take part on most days. Given the strong local feeling and scale of concern, will the Minister give an assurance that his Department and officials are fully apprised of the situation and equipped to scrutinise the proposal to the level that it requires?

Mr Muir: In my initial response to the Member, I said, "Public Accounts Committee" instead of "Planning Appeals Commission"; there are two PACs in Northern Ireland. I meant to refer to the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission.

It is important to assure the Member and the general public that I have every confidence in the work of my officials They are professional individuals who will perform their tasks diligently, and they will comply with any requirements of the inquiry.

Mr Muir: That is a serious issue for me and for the people of Northern Ireland. Water quality has come so much on to the public agenda, and it is on my agenda, because two consecutive years of blue-green algae in Lough Neagh is of massive concern not just for Northern Ireland but more broadly. There is also sewage pollution around Belfast lough and issues with water quality in other areas of Northern Ireland. I am taking action on that.

I will work with the Justice Minister on a review of fines and penalties for environmental crime. It is important that we undertake that review in relation not just to water quality but, for example, to waste crime. I believe that SORPI is not fit for purpose on waste water. It is time to end that arrangement, which is why I have asked my officials to engage with DFI and NI Water as part of an eight-week consultation with a view to terminating that.

Once that consultation is completed, I will make a final decision on the issue, but I believe that all polluters in Northern Ireland should be treated the same. There should be no special dispensation for anyone, and I will not be found wanting in relation to that, because it is really important that we improve water quality in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: Time is up for questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Ms Bunting: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to wilfully misinterpret what a Member has said? The record will show that what I actually said during Justice Question Time was that self-identification presented an opportunity for predators to exploit the system. At no time did I equate or link trans and predators. It is interesting that, in labelling me and attempting to admonish me, the Minister ended up linking them by inferring something that was not there. I am confident that the record will show that I am not anti-trans. Instead, I am anti-predator.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure that that is a point of order, Ms Bunting, but you have put it on the record.

We will move on to the next item.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): When I take decisions on development proposals, I work within a very clear legal framework. Integrated education is defined in the law. I am under a legal duty to encourage, facilitate and support the development of integrated education, and I take that duty extremely seriously. However, I am prohibited legally from approving the transformation of a school to become an integrated school unless it is likely that the school will provide integrated education. Section 1(1)(a) of the Integrated Education Act 2022 states:

In the report to me, departmental officials concluded that a figure of 3% Catholic children did not satisfy "reasonable numbers" at present. However, I did not just consider the current religious balance. I considered whether it was likely that the schools could achieve reasonable numbers from the minority community at some point in the future after transformation. Given the community breakdown in the area and the availability of other well-regarded options for Catholic children, including Catholic maintained and other integrated options, I was unable to conclude that that was likely.

I did not vote for the 2022 Act, which confirmed the requirement for reasonable numbers of Protestant and Roman Catholic children, but I am obliged to obey it.

Ms Egan: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber today. Minister, the communities of Bangor Academy and Rathmore are devastated by this decision, and I hope that you will understand that. Would you be willing to meet the principals and the school communities to discuss how you will fulfil the need and the desire for more integrated education in the north Down and, specifically, Bangor area?

Mr Givan: I have acknowledged, in taking the decision, that some people will be disappointed by that decision. I recognise that, for the two schools concerned, the principals and those parents who voted to allow the process to get to my desk will be disappointed with the decision. However, I am absolutely reassured by the commitment of those two schools and, indeed, all our schools across Northern Ireland that they want to provide an inclusive education system that is open to all. I am confident that both those schools will be able to provide that inclusive education system.

I have undertaken to write to every parent. I will finalise that letter, send it to the two principals of the schools and ask them to share that with the parents, so that I can directly engage with them rather than doing so through the filter of the media and, indeed, at times, the misrepresentation by some people in the House, including the Member who brought the question. She mischaracterised the decision but also said things about north Down, including that I had stopped those who want to have an integrated education. I encourage the Member to speak to other schools in Bangor. Some principals have written to thank me for the decision that I took and to say that it was the right decision. They have all assured me that they provide inclusive education in their particular sector. There is an inclusive ethos in Bangor. That will be found not just in those two schools but in other schools, and I commend the Member to visit them.

Ms Hunter: Minister, many schools across our constituencies seek to become integrated. You have rejected parental choice for those two schools. What would you say today to parents who are listening and to other schools, such as schools in my constituency, that seek integration, if they were to say that they are concerned that their votes and voices do not matter?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. To all parents who are very invested in the education system, I would say this: continue to be so, and put forward your case. However, decisions that I have to take are not predicated solely on parental choice and parental demand. I took decisions last week to close down some schools. The parental demand was to keep them open. The demand of the principals of those schools and the representation that I subsequently received about the decisions that I took last week to close those schools was to keep them open.

If parental choice and parental ballots are the determinative factor, why was that not voted for in the legislation that Members passed in 2022? If that is the legal basis on which a Minister must take decisions, the Member who introduced the legislation should have put that requirement in it. That would then have been the legal framework by which a Minister has to abide.

I also say to the Member that I have approved five schools to transform to integrated status. I look at each case individually, and there have been examples during my time as Minister of Education where I have supported that transformation. I declined a request for transformation to become an integrated school from, I think, St Eugene's in Omagh on grounds of sustainability. A number of factors come into the framework in which I have to apply my decision-making process. Fundamental to the case in north Down was the test set out in the 2022 legislation that was voted for by other Members in the House, which stipulated a requirement for there to be a "reasonable" number of Protestant and Catholic children.

Mr Mathison: The integrated education section 10 report from the Minister's Department confirms that Ards and north Down is an area in which there is substantial unmet demand for integrated education at post-primary level. Bearing that in mind, how does the decision not to approve this development proposal align with the statutory duty to monitor and meet demand for integrated education?

Mr Givan: I referenced that in my earlier response to Ms Hunter. The test of "reasonable numbers" is set out in legislation. I know that the Member was not here when the Assembly voted for that legislation, so I can give him a bye ball when he indicates that he is baffled by the decision. I will not extend that to some of his colleagues who authored the legislation and put that requirement in law. I am absolutely meeting my duties with regard to the integrated sector, just as I am when it comes to shared education and Irish-medium education. I support all sectors. I have made it clear that I am here to support all sectors in our education system, but I have to take decisions on the basis of development proposals that come forward. In those two schools, less than 3% of the pupil enrolment identified as Roman Catholics, which means that 97% identified as either Protestant or other. Just 3% identified as Catholic. The legislation that the Assembly passed stipulates a requirement for the numbers of Protestant and Catholic children to be —

A Member: Reasonable.

Mr Givan: Reasonable is right. When taking that decision, you look at a school with less than 3% of one group. In north Down, 11% of the population is Catholic. In Bangor, 9% of the population is Catholic. The schools did not meet that level, so they did not reflect their locality. As I outlined to the Member who asked the question for urgent oral answer, it did not appear likely to me that the proposal would meet that level in the future either.

I have to take such decisions. I appreciate that they will not always be agreed to by other people. When those decisions are taken, Members will ask, "Well, what is reasonable?". Members are right that "reasonable" is not defined in law. If you look at the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE), however, you see that it aspires to an intake of 40% Protestant, 40% Catholic and 20% other for integrated schools. If you then look at the —.

Mr Speaker: Minister, we have a two-minute limit. Perhaps you can wax lyrical at some other point.

Mr Givan: Sorry.

Mr Sheehan: The Minister said that he was legally prohibited from granting integrated status to the two schools in Bangor. During the process of working towards that point, however, his officials believed that he should have granted them integrated status. Will the Minister explain why there has been such a divergence of opinion in his Department?

Mr Givan: It is important that we appreciate that the responsibility for taking those decisions rests with me, as Minister. I must be satisfied that the process has been followed and that the statutory tests have been met. My officials advised that the numbers for those schools did not meet the current test for a reasonable number. That is in the report. That was the conclusion that the officials reached; it is contained in the advice that was given to me, which is now publicly available. I had to determine whether it was likely that the reasonable number could be reached. As I have outlined, it was my view that it was not likely to be met, because of neighbouring schools and the demographics of the locality.

That allows me to conclude the point, Mr Speaker, on which you asked me to stop. NICIE aspires to a composition of 40% Protestant, 40% Catholic and 20% other. The Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 is also relevant. It outlines a need for 10% minority enrolment in the first year of enrolment for the school to qualify as integrated, which it should then seek to grow. The conclusion that I reached on those two schools was rationally based on the legal framework that I have to operate within.

Ms Forsythe: Does the Minister accept that many controlled schools represent a wide range of children from all backgrounds? Will he take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work that they do?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her questions, which speak to the wider issue of how people want to frame this debate. I have been in controlled schools, Catholic maintained schools, integrated schools and Irish-medium schools. I have been impressed by all of them in that they seek to be inclusive and open to all. That is something that everyone wants in their school system. I have never met a principal who has said, "We are here only for this particular type of community. Others aren't welcome". I have never met a principal who has said that. I would love to hear someone here say that they have met a principal who wants an exclusive and segregated system of education in their school. I would want to know about that so that, as Minister, I could challenge them, because I want our schools to be inclusive and open.

The Member is right to highlight some of the information and statistics for controlled schools. Those are important points for us to consider in the broader debate. Let me take Integrated College Glengormley as an example. In 2022, it had an enrolment of 4% from the Catholic population. Nearly three years later, it has achieved 5% enrolment from that community. It is an official integrated college. Of the controlled post-primary schools, 28 have a higher percentage of pupils from a Catholic background than that school in Glengormley, which is officially called an integrated college. There are 67 controlled primary schools that have a percentage of pupils from a Catholic background above 6·4%, which is more than the percentage in Central Integrated Primary School in Carrickfergus, to give one example.

Mr Speaker: Minister, your time is up again.

Mr Givan: Controlled schools are inclusive. So, too, are maintained schools, Irish-medium schools and schools from other sectors that I have been to. Those schools strive for an inclusive education system.

Mr Crawford: Does the Minister agree that the Integrated Education Act reduces the ambition to have children from different backgrounds sharing classrooms, which, for the majority of parents, is the most important aspiration of integrated education?

Mr Givan: The Member is right. The point that I have just made is that schools strive to be inclusive. There are 73 schools in Northern Ireland that are officially integrated with a capital I. There are many hundreds that are not integrated with a capital I. Of the 73, one Catholic maintained school has transformed to integrated status. Some Members on the Benches opposite — Ms Hunter submitted a question for urgent oral answer — said that people need to go integrated. I have not seen some of those Members campaigning in their constituency for schools to become integrated. The evidence shows that, of the 73 that are integrated, one came from a Catholic maintained background. I caveat that by pointing out that St Columbanus' College in Bangor, which is a Catholic maintained school, has a high number of pupils from the Protestant community in it and far exceeds many officially integrated schools as being integrated but not with a capital I.

As a parent and as Minister of Education, I do not want our children going to school looking at the colour of people's skin or the creed or religion that they hold to; I want them going into a shared environment in which they respect one another's differences. I see that taking place in hundreds of schools across all sectors.

Mr Kingston: Last week, Connie Egan MLA wrote in 'The Irish News':

Will the Minister confirm that it was not in fact 80% of all parents, as was implied in her article, and that, in the case of Bangor Academy, the true figure represented around 40% of all parents?

Mr Givan: It is an important point to make, because, when the decision initially entered the public domain, there was commentary that I had gone against the majority of the parents at the schools. Yes, that is the case for the majority of those who balloted, and I have set the context as to where parental choice sits in the legislative framework. It is not in the 2022 Act. When it came to it, for Bangor Academy, it was 40% of parents of pupils at that school. It is important that we frame the facts appropriately and do not misrepresent the situation, as some did. It was not just Members who did so, because some in the media also framed the issue in that context, ignoring the legislative duties that I, as a Minister, have to undertake.

I have covered in a number of responses what it is to be an integrated school on the basis of the 2022 Act and the statutory test of "reasonable numbers". I have highlighted what it is to be integrated on the basis of the information on the NICIE website: 40%, 40% and 20% other. The guidance that the Department held, which related to the 1989 Order, talked about 10%. That was the guidance that the Department produced. I think that any reasonable person would conclude that less than 3% is not reasonable for passing the test that is set out in law, which was introduced and passed by Members of the House.

Mrs Guy: Please excuse my voice, Mr Speaker. It is not the best today.

Minister, you contend that you turned down the integration proposals because of legislation. Your officials, in their recommendation to approve, said that they did that in the context of:

We can only presume from that that you requested and received other legal advice to help you make the decision. Will you publish that advice for review, please?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. There seems to be, again, an inability to understand the decisions that I have to take. Article 92(6) of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 states:

The 2022 Act then went on to spell out in law what integrated education is. In section 1(1)(a), it is defined as including a reasonable number of Protestant and Catholic children. The legislation passed by the Assembly sets the test. It was the Alliance Party that brought the legislation through, and I trust that it understood what it was doing. I certainly understand it, and it is my duty as a Minister to make sure that the law is followed. It is within that framework that I have taken the decision that I have taken, and the basis of that decision is laid out in the publication of the development proposal, which is available to any Member who wishes to access it.

Mr Buckley: Will the Minister agree that one of the most regrettable aspects of the debate is the misrepresentation and mis-characterisation of many of our controlled schools, maintained schools and schools from other sectors, which already provide that naturally integrated and inclusive education? It is clear that, for some Members of the House, such is their lust for the status of integrated education at a school that they are willing to sacrifice the good and steady integrated education that already exists across the system.

Mr Givan: The Member articulates a frustration that I have heard from principals in schools that are not officially designated as integrated. Some of that is a result of the language used by Members from, in particular, the Alliance Party. They talk about segregation, and, in the promotion of one sector, they denigrate others. It is not necessary to do that. As Minister of Education, I have sought to support all of our sectors, and the decision-making processes that I have followed, including funding new builds for integrated schools, not least Central Integrated Primary School in Bangor, and taking forward other integrated schools that the UK Government let down when it came to their Fresh Start funding, are evidence and demonstration of that. I brought those schools into my Department's capital programme. The UK Government abandoned them, and I moved in to protect them and am taking forward those proposals.

The evidence shows that I have been a Minister for all sectors, but we should not run down some sectors to promote others. That is why I am frustrated that, when we take forward, for example, the Strule campus in Omagh, which is a world-defining intervention by the Executive, bringing together 4,000 young people from various sectors, the Alliance Party has opposed it at every step of the way because it does not regard shared education as being integrated education. It is campaigning actively against a landmark, iconic shared education programme in a town that bears the hallmarks of our Troubles. The Alliance Party is against it because it does not neatly suit the particular approach that it wants to take to education. I will be a Minister for all of our sectors.

Mr Chambers: Have flaws in the integrated education legislation — legislation that my party opposed because of those shortcomings — in any way made it difficult for the Minister to apply any degree of flexibility to the decision-making process around the two Bangor schools? I wish to place it on record that both are excellent places of education.

Mr Givan: I have heard the language used of there being "a headcount". I do not want to be involved in a headcount. I do not go into schools and look at people and think to myself, "I wonder what they are". Who was it that legislated for a headcount? It is the 2022 Act, brought in by the Alliance Party. Its Members shake their heads. Let me quote, because they clearly do not know the legislation that they brought in. It speaks to the question that Mr Chambers has raised. Section 1(1)(a) defines integrated education as:

However, it did not stop with that. There is no full stop. It went on, and the Alliance Party specified in law:

It was the Alliance Party that brought in a deliberate headcount as part of the test. It was not me; I voted against it. The question now for Members and for those who want to promote the integrated sector — I will absolutely take my responsibilities seriously in that regard — is that, if they no longer want it to specify Protestant and Catholic children, the Member should not have included it in her legislation, because that is the statutory test that I have to take decisions on.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you say that you made the decision on the basis of legalities, but everything that you have said today makes it fairly clear that you are taking the decision for clearly political reasons. You have outlined what appears to be a vendetta against integrated education. It comes after you decided to take money from integrated education — £150 million — earlier this year. Given that your party says that it promotes, in all other areas, parental choice in education, when it is about selection or relationships and sexuality education (RSE), on this specific occasion, parents have literally chosen to begin the journey of integration, and you have said no. You said —

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole —.

Mr O'Toole: — a DUP Minister will not allow them to proceed with that journey. Can I ask —.

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole, please take your seat.

Mr O'Toole: — what is your definition —.

Mr Speaker: If you have a question, ask the question. We are not having speeches.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, given that you have decided that "reasonable" means that you will block those two schools from becoming integrated, what is your view of a reasonable number, so that parents who want to begin this journey can understand what the Minister will say?

Mr Givan: The Member has just demonstrated his agenda when it comes to such issues. He does not say, "Minister, can I thank you for the work on Millennium Integrated School?". I know that he has an interest in that school in particular. He does not say, "Minister, you came and visited the school and have taken that project forward. The UK Government let that school down, but, Minister Givan, you stepped in and helped the school that I campaigned for in my constituency". The Member again wants to misrepresent this and deliberately frame this into something else that, as I have outlined for the past 30 minutes, cannot stack up in any shape or form. To be honest, going into even more detail with the Member's questions only gives credibility to a question that has no credibility.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, given that you have now failed to replace Fresh Start funding, have prioritised meeting an umbrella body for paramilitary organisations and have ignored the advice of your officials by blocking two schools from transforming to integrated status, do you accept that your credibility on sharing and inclusion is shot, and will you apologise to the parents and pupils of the schools affected for letting them down and prioritising ideology over their wish to be educated together?

Mr Givan: Again, I appreciate that the Member wants to frame this in a way that I do not think can stack up. I have outlined all of the evidence that formed the decision-making process that I have had. It is not helpful, on issues with this kind of sensitivity, that some Members seek to frame their responses in the way that Mr Tennyson and Mr O'Toole have in asking their questions.

There are legitimate questions that people will want to ask about those specific two schools, and I have outlined the decision-making process that I followed in reaching the decisions that I have taken. I have also demonstrated that I have been a Minister who has approved schools wanting to transform to integrated status. I have supported schools from the Irish-medium, Catholic maintained and controlled sectors and will continue to provide that support, just as I have been out and opened schools from the integrated sector and been very much welcomed. That is the right thing, and it is the approach that I will take. I will respect all of the sectors. I will seek to be a Minister for all of them.

I understand that there will be some decisions on which even my colleagues on these Benches will not agree with me when it comes to making difficult decisions on schools. That is the responsibility that I have to carry as a Minister, and I seek to do it with integrity and absolute sincerity in the decisions that I reach. I cannot answer for how other Members want to deliberately misrepresent and frame the responses that they are now trying to put out in the public domain.

Mr Brooks: Some Members want to put up quite the defence that says that 3% is a reasonable number of pupils from a minority community in an integrated school. Does the Minister agree that, if we were to abandon the test of reasonable numbers entirely, some would say that it would become difficult to identify why exactly the "integrated" label was attached to many schools — many good schools carry that label — relative to our other very good schools that are, as the Minister has pointed out, diverse, tolerant and working in all communities?

Mr Givan: The Member makes an important point when he highlights what it is to be an integrated school. I have now outlined the responses on that. I have outlined the number of schools that are very much inclusive and open to all. The integrated sector has a specific objective that it wants to achieve for a school to be officially integrated. If the message that is coming through now is to set aside the test for reasonable numbers of Protestants and Catholics, and that is no longer what the integrated sector aspires to, I will facilitate that conversation. I am happy to have that conversation with the integrated sector. However, that would be a departure from the historical establishment of the integrated sector, which spoke exclusively of 40% Catholic, 40% Protestant and 20% other. It would bring in all those schools in the controlled and maintained sectors that are inclusive and, as I demonstrated that the evidence shows, are more integrated, based upon the headcount that the Alliance Party supported in its legislation, than some other officially integrated schools. We should have that conversation.

In the past, NICIE brought forward concerns that some schools that have transformed will not meet the inclusive nature through the numbers of Protestant and Catholic children. Therefore, the sector has raised concerns about schools that do not meet those kinds of numbers. I am happy to facilitate engagement if Members and the integrated sector are now saying that they want to move away from that. I am happy to have that conversation.

Mr Donnelly: The transformation process is clear: a school, once it is granted integrated status, transforms over time and will not be the finished article when making the case for change. Why has the Minister not given those schools the opportunity to transform, including on reasonable numbers, over time?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. Obviously, the report looked at the issues on transformation. It looked at the case for change that both schools had to put forward to specify how they would address the disparity in numbers in order to close that gap. The case for change that was put forward did not demonstrate how they would address that point. If, for example, Bangor Academy wanted to take forward an approach in its admissions policy to prioritise children from a maintained primary school, it could do that without being an integrated school. If it wanted to increase its Catholic population, Bangor Academy — not me; the academy — could change its admissions policy. The academy can take that decision. It does not need to wait for me to say, "Yes, you can do that". The academy could do it now.

Other schools that have also taken forward transformation have, for example, set up stalls at local events, such as Gaelic football events. They bring in speakers from other denominations. They include things like the Irish language. Again, Bangor Academy can go ahead and introduce those different aspects if that is what it wants to do. It does not need to wait for me in order to do that; it can go ahead and do it. There are things that schools can do and take forward so that change can happen. Bangor Academy is in a position to change its admissions policy if it wants to do that. That is entirely a decision for it. I will support it in that decision. I, however, must take decisions that are based on the law, which is the law that the Member's party colleague brought through the Assembly that sets a statutory test for reasonable numbers of Protestant and Catholic children. That is the framework within which I must take decisions.

Mrs Dodds: This has been a very useful session in the Chamber. Will you point to measures that schools can take not just that will produce integration — we know that that is a particular subset — but that can increase inclusivity across the education sectors? I am thinking of increasing the shared education and cultural experiences etc that schools can offer. I point to schools such as Carrick Primary School in the Lurgan part of my constituency, which is a brilliant example.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. I have visited schools in the Member's constituency with her. A representative of one of the controlled schools spoke passionately about the diversity in the school and the frustration as a result of some wanting to frame her school as not being diverse when there were 25 or 26 nationalities and languages in the school. That absolutely diversity-rich school has broken down any barriers to attending it. That is what I encourage all our schools to do when I visit them: if your school is in a particular locality and some people feel that they cannot go to it, you need to ask yourself why that is: "What barriers may put somebody off from attending our school, and what should we look at trying to change in order to make our school attractive?" Many of our schools already put that into practice.

I support the delivery of shared education programmes; indeed, I am under a duty to support them. Schools engage in shared education, which takes place in many ways. Whether in sporting or educational exchanges, shared education is a way for those to happen. There are good examples of that taking place, and I encourage that. As I highlighted in my answer to the previous question about transformation, there are schools that can make changes, and Bangor Academy is one of them. It can change its admissions policy, if it wants to, to give preferential treatment to children from maintained primary schools. That is a decision for Bangor Academy. It can take such decisions.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this matter today. I am disappointed, Minister, by your misreading of the Integrated Education Act.

Mr Speaker: Ms Armstrong, you are not able to speak on it. You are able to ask a question on it.

Ms K Armstrong: I was about to come to that, Mr Speaker.

Minister, the Act states that you have to, "encourage, facilitate and support" integrated education. In your response to a question for written answer from me, you outlined the fact that you do not monitor how many children are turned away from integrated schools in Ards and North Down. How do you fulfil your requirement to encourage, facilitate and support integrated education if you do not even bother to measure and monitor the number of pupils?

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Ms Armstrong.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. I welcome the opportunity to engage with the Member, who, frankly, has said some outrageous things in the media on these issues. She should retract many of her comments. I advise her to do so, but, if she does not, that is a matter for her. Some of the approaches that she has taken and the language that she has used about people and schools are, frankly, outrageous. I have provided great detail in the report behind the development proposal. That is available to the public. I have responded to many of the questions that the Member, in particular, submitted. I turned them around very quickly.

All that I will say to the Member who brought in the legislation is that she should have fully understood what she was bringing in when she included a requirement for "reasonable numbers" of Protestants and Catholics. It was the Member who brought in a headcount approach, not me. The Alliance Party brought it in. I will continue to discharge my duties, as I have been doing, in all sectors of our education system. The Member and the Alliance Party may want to reflect on the legislation that they brought in. The Member, rather than behaving in her juvenile fashion, with the facial expressions and so on that she is exhibiting —

Ms K Armstrong: On a point of order —

Mr Givan: — should take the matter —

Mr Dickson: On a point of order —

Mr Givan: — much more seriously and ensure that her language reflects the sensitivity and the seriousness of the issues.

Mr Speaker: That draws to a conclusion the question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Education. Before the next item of business, I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while there is a change in the Chair.

Mr Dickson: I beg to move

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

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to propose the Alliance Party's motion on Ambulance Service waiting times. The motion proposes some tangible measures that, we believe, can be taken by the Department of Health and the Minister to ease the pressures. The motion is not about complaining; it is about trying to propose solutions and bringing them forward.

Unfortunately, many will have heard the stories in the media over the past number of weeks that illustrate the pressures on our health and social care services. Often referred to as "winter pressures", the reality is that those unacceptable pressures are with us all year round. I will quote Dr Clodagh Corrigan, the deputy chair of the British Medical Association locally, who put it at the beginning of January:

It becomes particularly clear when we look at the fact that ambulance response time targets for every category of call were missed in every month of the financial year 2023-24. I will return to what we might describe as the definition of a target. That means that regardless of whether calls were for immediate, life-threatening or emergency cases, such as a heart attack, a stroke or any urgent problem, ambulance crews were not in a position to respond in the timely manner that they would like and for which they have targets.

That has led to an unacceptable delay in ambulances' access to emergency departments in recent weeks. We saw a snapshot of that on Friday morning, when it was reported that 19 of 56 ambulance crews across Northern Ireland were sitting outside hospital emergency departments, the longest wait of which was for over nine hours. We know that that snapshot does not adequately describe a full day of movement for hospitals, but, with Fridays tending to bring an easing of pressure ahead of the weekend ramp-up, it is extremely concerning.

We hear statistics and figures, but we must remember who is at the centre of all this: the patient. Generally but not always, it is an elderly and/or distressed patient with concerned family members. Mary Donaghy, whose case was widely reported last week after she was involved in a head-on car collision, was left to be treated in an ambulance outside Royal Victoria Hospital for more than seven hours before finally being admitted. There was the story of Robert, an 88-year-old gentleman with dementia who fell on New Year's Eve and, unfortunately, had to wait a total of 40 hours before being admitted. That included 23 hours waiting on an ambulance to arrive, nine hours waiting inside the ambulance outside the emergency department of the Ulster Hospital and eight hours waiting inside the emergency department. The families of Mary and Robert both made it clear that they had no issue with the hospital staff or the incredible ambulance crews who took care of their relatives. Indeed, Mary's sister Sharon noted the effort made by staff to ensure that Mary was kept warm while in a very cold position in the ambulance and the fact that she received proper pain medication.

In my East Antrim constituency, I had to deal with the head of the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service when an ambulance took an hour and three quarters to respond to an incident at an urban special needs primary school, where a young child fell and broke his femur in the playground. Distressed school staff had to look after him with blankets in a soaking wet playground because it took an hour and three quarters for an ambulance to get to him in an urban area that is just off the motorway. That most distressing situation resulted in a number of 999 calls to the Ambulance Service. One of the calls was answered by an English call centre, which is the default backup when calls cannot be answered in Northern Ireland. In an urban area in East Antrim, that is simply unacceptable.

A number of years ago and under a previous Health Minister, we had, in East Antrim, the much-lauded Maggie's Call scheme, which would have allowed for alternative emergency services, like the Fire Service, to attend such an incident and perhaps provide further support. Yet, the Minister's response to my question for written answer indicated the sad reality that, despite all the ballyhoo, Maggie's Call has not been rolled out across Northern Ireland. It still exists only in Carnlough.

I wish now to take a broader look at why our unreformed health and social care system inevitably leads, as the motion says, to the pressures facing the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service. It is directly related to the sad and predictable, but nevertheless harrowing, crisis that we have seen in our emergency departments. We have all had constituents contact us over the past number of weeks and months about incidents such as those that I just mentioned. Many of us feel frustration when we see ambulances trapped outside emergency departments, unable to provide the services that those working within them wish to provide. It is a problem that we could resolve with the political will of all in the Chamber.

We have the road map. The answers are there. They were given to us by the expert panel chaired by Professor Bengoa and, indeed, by many others before that. We need to be clear that, if we have chosen not to implement the panel's recommendations, we have opted against change and, now, we pay the penalty. Fundamentally, the main reason that ambulances are stacked up outside our emergency departments, and that people have to be treated in those ambulances, is that there are too many people in hospital. They do not need to be there. There is a chain of backlog. If people cannot be discharged, they have to be left in hospital wards. If people are left in hospital wards, there will be people left in emergency departments. If people are left in emergency departments, others will be left in ambulances. Patients cannot get into wards, because other patients cannot be discharged into care. That is the chain reaction that we are all facing. Some 700 patients were left in or near ambulances because, at the same time, 500 patients were unable to be discharged from hospital and, thus, were occupying beds to which those in the ambulances should have been processed within the appropriate time targets. The issue of too many people being in hospital and the failure to discharge patients promptly and effectively is, at scale, a particular problem here in Northern Ireland, yet it should not be. In England and Wales, social care, which deals with those people who need to move out of hospital into assisted help in the community, has to battle with local authorities. Here, we have a joined-up — allegedly — health and social care system, yet the joined-up bit has failed us.

We could save some £500 million a year if we revised and refreshed our social care budget. That, in large part, means that the Department has failed to adequately address the causes of the ambulance waiting times. One reason for the inefficiency is that our social care system is understaffed and inefficiently funded. Indeed, that £500 million would go a long way to addressing that. However, as we saw last week, it is not just an issue of underfunding, but one of inefficiency. If we had reformed the system, we would have more money. We do not even have a proper procurement system in social services. People are pushed out into the community and into the private sector. There is little or no public-sector accommodation available for people who need it to allow them to move out of hospital and create space to allow a flow through so that our hospitals can deliver on their targets. It is particularly distressing that we fail to meet the four-hour waiting time target in emergency departments. Once that target is breached, the rest of the things that flow from it fail. If you cannot be treated within four hours, if you cannot get the appropriate tests and if you cannot get a hospital bed, the problems are exacerbated.

We need to have an opportunity for more direct diagnostic testing. GPs should be able to refer people for diagnostic testing directly rather than putting them through what are quite often pointless appointments systems that result in diagnostic tests being ordered for a second time. The GP might think that the patient needs the diagnostic testing, but that can only be done when a consultant says that it should be done.

It is important that we recognise the incredible work that is done by our health and social care staff and the amazing work that is done by our ambulance crews, their management and all the people who have been struggling over this winter to deliver. We also need to take a step back and recognise that we, as politicians in Northern Ireland, have failed to support them and to deliver proper transformation in healthcare. That is what the debate is about. That is why I am appealing to the Health Minister to embark on the Bengoa proposals. Get the negotiations up and running —

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

Mr Dickson: — and get them delivered as soon as possible.

Ms Kimmins: In the past few weeks, we have, undoubtedly, seen some of the most harrowing scenes in our health service for many years. The impact of that has been felt across the North by way of corridor care, patients being stuck in hospital as they cannot be discharged home and the backing up of ambulances at emergency departments for hours, as others have said, and sometimes days due to the overwhelming pressure on the system. Whilst there has been a serious escalation as a result of the winter period, those pressures are felt all year round. Many of the issues that we are speaking about today are, unfortunately, not new.

A perfect storm of increasing demand for emergency and unscheduled care — there was a 12% increase in category 1 emergency calls between 2022-23 and 2023-24 — along with chronic staff shortages across our health and social care workforce have led to capacity deficits in our hospitals and social care. That has meant that patient flow through hospitals is often at a standstill at the front and back doors. That impacts on ambulance waiting times at emergency departments and, more importantly, on response times, which, as we have heard in the past few days from Dr Nigel Ruddell, the medical director for NIAS, will result in deaths if the situation is not addressed. Sadly, a number of years ago, I saw such delays result in the death of a young woman in my constituency.

People do not want to hear platitudes from us today, and they do not want to hear us talking about the same issues and going round and round in circles. They want solutions. The solutions are there.

Paramedics and ambulance staff are held up in ambulances with very sick patients for hours on end instead of being able to do properly the job that they trained to do and that they love. Those very ill patients are often lying in the ambulance for two or three shift changes of ambulance staff before they get through the doors of an emergency department, let alone admitted to a hospital bed. The call handlers in the ambulance control centre are dealing with some of the most traumatic scenarios imaginable while trying to advise people on the other end of the phone, reassure them and keep very difficult situations calm while patients and their families wait on an ambulance. They all want us to produce realistic solutions that will ensure that patients no longer experience what can only be described as a less than adequate service.

We all agree that the budget is not there to do everything that we need to do. We recognise that and acknowledge that the Minister undoubtedly has a very difficult job. We also need to recognise, however, that the key solution is external to our hospitals: it is in our social care system and in our primary-care and community services. As the previous contributor said, those services are fundamental to Professor Bengoa's vision of transformation. The longer that we are unable to progress his vision, the further away that transformation will be. We know that our budget will never tackle all the issues that we encounter here, and that is as a result of over a decade of Tory austerity. No matter how we dress it up, the Tories starved this place of the funding that we not only need but deserve in order to deliver the public services to which people right across our communities should have access. We must start to shift the dial.

Some of the solutions to the problem are things that will help keep people, particularly our older population, out of hospital. Our acute care at home service — it is also known as Hospital at Home — is hugely successful in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust (SHSCT), for example. That trust has a really effective way of improving patient outcomes and taking pressure off our hospitals. I hope to hear more from the Minister about how the Department can work not only to expand that valuable service so that there is equity in accessing it across the North but to enhance it.

Some other ways in which we can look to reduce pressure are by ensuring that GPs and other senior clinicians can assist with admissions, be that through direct admission by a GP rather than people having to go through emergency departments or through helping to triage patients in hospital to keep the flow moving at pace.

Finally, social care reform is key. I acknowledge the huge amount of work that is being done through the social care collaborative forum. I hope to hear more about where we are at with that today, because we know that the issues will not be solved overnight, as much as we would like them to be. The recent crisis has, however, crystallised the need for us to move at pace on some of them. Doing so will undoubtedly have a huge impact across the board.

I am not here to attack the Minister or to criticise him for things that are beyond his control in the here and now. As a collective, we will all work together. My colleagues, the Committee and I are keen to work with the Minister to deliver on the issues as soon as we can.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Alliance Party Members who tabled the motion. The debate is incredibly important and useful. In addressing the motion, we need to acknowledge and be thankful for the absolutely supreme efforts of the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service in trying to keep going in the most difficult of circumstances.

Unfortunately, however, a lot of what we are experiencing today is not new. It is repeated over and over again. At this particular time, the situation is dressed up as winter pressures, but, as I said at the Health Committee meeting last week, that means that we are just chugging along and trying to get through this period, but we will soon return to the same old issues. That is demonstrated in some of the answers to questions for written answer that I have received over the past year. Last May, the former Health Minister responded:

He described trusts as being required to develop plans with:

He indicated that funding had been allocated to the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service for additional hospital ambulance liaison officers at hospital sites. As part of the winter planning arrangements, he indicated that ambulance handover information would be made available to the public fortnightly via the departmental website. Minister, I hunted on the website — I accept entirely that I may not have found all the information — but cannot not find the figures for that; they are not easily accessible on the Department's website. I am interested to hear your comments on the matter. Bringing transparency to the issue is really important.

I am also interested in the number of ambulance hours that were lost over the Christmas and new year period as a result of staff being delayed at emergency departments. I read one report that said that the northern region's target of having 12 ambulances available was met only once during the eight-month period from January to August last year, and the southern division's target of having 10 ambulances was met only three times. We know that demand has been increasing year on year, but the number of staffed ambulances has not risen. That results in a failure to keep pace with increased calls and rising demand and places additional pressure on staff, who have become overstretched and are struggling. They have few rest periods and cannot finish their shifts on time. Therefore, the reference to workforce planning in the motion is really important, because, unless we get ahead with that, we will continue to have the same problem over and over again.

Over recent days, we have heard of patients not being able to be released from ambulances and of crews being marooned and having to sit with patients, sometimes in very cold conditions. Minister, I know that you were at Craigavon hospital last Thursday. I was there a couple of hours before you. They said that it was cold, uncomfortable and difficult for patients. That leads to poor outcomes in the long term. We know that the answer to that is patient flow, and it is really important that we get to grips with that.

Last week, at the Health Committee, I indicated that I had asked these questions. In March last year, 628 patients who were medically fit to leave hospital were unable to do so. In the summer, 512 who were fit to leave hospital were unable to do so. Dr Mark Taylor said that about 500 were unable to leave hospital at the weekend. Unless we get to grips with social care, we will continue to have the problems that we currently have in hospitals. It is not new: it is happening over and over again. We really need to get to grips with that element of the problem. If we can increase patient flow, we will ensure that our patients are treated in EDs, not in corridors and on trolleys, —

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

Mrs Dodds: — but with some sort of dignity.

Mr Chambers: I am sure that no one in the House underestimates the scale of the pressures facing our Ambulance Service. Equally, I suspect that no one will try to pretend that our ambulance response times are acceptable. We need to be mindful of the fact that the delays to patient transfer at EDs reduce the availability of ambulances for other emergencies. We need to be conscious that it is not just a Northern Ireland problem. Various ambulance trusts and even greater numbers of hospital trusts have declared critical incidents across Great Britain in recent days. Our priority must remain doing what we can to ease the pressure facing patients here.

One could question whether a motion that is heavy on apportioning blame but maybe light on solutions is really the best use of everyone's time. Similarly, we could question the integrity of some parties blaming the Department of Health for apparently not investing in greater Ambulance Service capacity while supporting and voting through a Budget that, most health stakeholders and expert bodies were clear, was wholly insufficient in meeting need.

The fundamental answer involves sustained, long-term investment based on need, strengthening capacity to deal with the growing demand for care. I hope that the debate will serve as a chance to highlight once again the immense pressures on our health service and our dedicated staff. Calling on the Minister to do more whilst tying his hands behind his back is, however, the height of double standards. As MLAs, we should be able to do better than that. I ask some parties in the House to exercise a bit of self-reflection as to when the seeds of the problems were first sown.

Mr McGrath: I thank the proposers of the motion for bringing it to the House. It is really important that, if nothing else, we acknowledge the fear in our community about ambulance provision. People are genuinely afraid, forbye all of our discussions here as to why, that, when they need an ambulance, when they lift the phone and dial 999, there is not immediately somebody at the other end who can come and help them. Of course, the paradox in that is that, as politicians, we will always try to find the blame and see who we can point the finger at in order to say, "Why is that not happening?". We certainly cannot point the finger at our ambulance personnel. We have to recognise the absolute frustration that they feel.

I am sure that all of us will know paramedics. We know people who are working in the trade. Imagine being a highly trained, highly skilled, life-saving individual who goes to work to use those skills but is sent to an ambulance that has been sitting outside a hospital for a number of hours and asked to take over looking after an individual and spend their whole shift sitting in the back of that ambulance until the next person comes on duty and they pass the individual on to them. We might think that that is something that is exceptional and takes place only on the odd occasion: regrettably, it happens every day. When we look at what happened in our health service over the Christmas holidays, we saw that in a really acute way. We saw one occasion when the vast majority of our ambulances were stuck outside emergency departments.

As has been mentioned, the issue is patient flow. If we had 500 people who were medically fit to go home but could not be allowed to leave hospital because no care packages were in place for them, the 400-odd people in the emergency departments could not move up to the wards. If those 400-odd people were in the emergency departments, there was no room at the inn for those in the back of ambulances, and that is where they had to stay. We can identify the problem, but it is not a new problem.

Mr Chambers mentioned that the seeds of the problem were sown some time ago. I would go back further than Alan was maybe thinking. The agenda for the last 20 years in the health service here has been about centralisation. I was listening to some of those consultants over the holiday period saying that they had never seen so many people in our emergency departments. My thoughts were that I have never seen the North have so few emergency departments. If we do not have the places to put people — there are only a handful of those places left — they will be crammed. I look at my constituency and my home town. There was a home — St John's House — that had 50 or 60 beds for elderly people or those who were maybe exiting hospital and could spend a few days or a week or two there before they went home. The whole agenda was to close those places. Other homes in my constituency are open only because there was a massive community movement to fight the agenda of closing such places. We need to wake up to the realisation that, if we close places and do not spread the burden, we will have the pinch points.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. He raises a valid point. People in Fermanagh travel past the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) and Omagh Hospital and have to go the whole way to Derry to get to an emergency department. That adds to huge pressure that could be taken away and spread over those other two hospitals. Does the Member agree?

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

Mr McGrath: Yes, I totally agree. Also, if you are in a rural community, there is that little added concern that, if your ambulance comes to collect you to take you to, for example, Belfast or Derry, once the ambulance rolls out of the hospital, it could well be diverted to another call in that city, which means that, when people in a rural community ring for an ambulance, it sometimes has to be sent from 20 or 30 miles away. That means that the rural dweller is often the one who loses out in that movement.

I know that we have problems with staffing. I know that we cannot open every unit and have every emergency department filled with professionals. We do not have them. I raise the point, however, because I know that we want to look for solutions. I know that the Minister will agree with me and that he has tried this in the past, so I will continue with other Ministers from the past, present and future to say: let us build our workforce so that we have people. About six weeks ago, I sat with my mother in the Ulster Hospital for six and a half hours to get a blood test. Surely, my 81-year-old mother, who will slaughter me for calling her age out, could have had a blood test done somewhere much closer to home without having to travel 25 miles.

There are lots of problems in the system. It is not the ambulance staff; it is the system. Let us get the systemic problems fixed.

Ms Á Murphy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. The strain on our Ambulance Service is undeniable. Every missed response target means that a patient is left waiting in pain, distress or potentially life-threatening circumstances. Those are not just numbers; they are people. They are parents, grandparents, neighbours or friends who deserve timely, compassionate and effective care. The evidence is staggering and heartbreaking. As we heard, 19 ambulance crews were left outside EDs, patients were held in corridors for hours and delays stretched beyond 12 hours for far too many individuals. Behind every one of those cases is a person whose health outcomes and well-being have been compromised by a system that is under relentless pressure. Dr Nigel Ruddell, medical director of the Ambulance Service, has made it clear that those delays have a direct and devastating impact. The longer patients wait outside EDs, the more their conditions deteriorate, and, tragically, lives are being lost as a result. That is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue.

The causes of the issues are complex, but we must confront them as a matter of urgency. Our Ambulance Service is stretched thin, with workforce shortages making it increasingly difficult to meet rising demand. Ambulance staff are under enormous pressure, and handovers at EDs are delayed by bottlenecks in hospitals. There is an over-reliance on EDs as the default option for care. Those are systemic problems that we can and must solve. We need a robust plan to support our Ambulance Service workforce. Recruiting, training and retaining paramedics and support staff is not just an operational necessity; it is an investment in saving lives. Our Health and Social Care (HSC) workers have shown extraordinary dedication under extraordinary pressures. It is time that we showed the same dedication to them.

Hospital capacity, which has already been mentioned, must be addressed. Too often, patients who are medically fit to leave remain in hospital beds because the social care that they need is unavailable.

By improving discharge processes and expanding social care supports, we can free up critical bed capacity in our hospitals and enable emergency departments to function more effectively. As we know, timely discharge results in better outcomes for patients.

We must also rethink where care is delivered. Many patients do not need emergency department care. Expanding alternatives such as acute care and Hospital at Home, urgent care centres and community paramedic schemes will ease the burden on hospitals whilst providing that patient-centred care. For others, new pathways such as telemedicine and integrated care models can ensure that they receive the right treatment at the right time in the right place.

This is a matter of life and death. Delays in ambulance response times and patient admissions are not mere inconveniences; they are failures of a system that is meant to protect and care for our communities. We must invest in solutions, improve patient flow and support our dedicated health and social care workers. Let us come together to deliver the changes that are needed to save lives and restore dignity to our health and social care service.

Mr Robinson: We should all be gravely concerned about the pressures facing the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and the profound impact that those pressures are having on patients with life-threatening and emergency health needs across the Province.

None of us knows when we, a family member or a constituent will need an ambulance. Indeed, when I saw the headlines over Christmas about multiple ambulances queueing outside hospitals and patients waiting 19 hours in the back of an ambulance, given that I had elderly relatives who were very unwell at that time, I would be lying if I said that it did not fill me with fear. However, it would be pretty selfish of me to say that it put a dampener on my Christmas, as it pales into insignificance compared with the fear of the patients in those ambulances and the staff who had a huge, pressurised responsibility on their shoulders to deal with people in life-or-death situations.

Over the past year, we have seen that response time targets for category 1, 2 and 3 calls have been missed consistently month after month. As far back as 2022-23, over 100,000 on-the-road hours were lost due to Northern Ireland Ambulance Service ambulances missing handover time targets and having to wait outside emergency departments. As the service struggles under huge strain, it is a clear indicator that there is something fundamentally broken in the way that we are delivering emergency healthcare in Northern Ireland. The missing of those targets throughout the year cannot be blamed solely on the current sustained pressure due to the large numbers of patients presenting with flu-type illness. Category 1 call targets, which relate to patients in the most critical situations, are missed with disturbing frequency. Category 2 calls, which include serious but not immediately life-threatening emergencies, and category 3 calls, which relate to patients with urgent health concerns, are also suffering with unacceptable delays. Due to the missed targets, we are failing to meet the basic needs of the most vulnerable citizens when they need help the most.

The issues facing our Ambulance Service are not new. The Department of Health is aware of these challenges, yet it does not have the ability to address them. Pressures on that hard-working workforce have been exacerbated by the delays in admitting patients to hospital, with a lack of flow in the system, including a lack of available domiciliary care. Ambulances, often filled with patients in desperate need of care, are left waiting outside hospitals for hours, unable to hand over the patients to EDs. That gridlock further exacerbates the delays and strains on the entire system.

The consequences of that should fill all of us in the Chamber with fear. Lives are being put at risk, and lives have been lost, with 12 patients dying in 2024-25 while waiting for an ambulance. However, the Department states that patient deaths whilst waiting for an ambulance can be complex and that a number of factors need to be considered. Families are being left in limbo, unsure whether the care that their loved ones need will arrive in time. For those who do receive care, the experience of waiting for an ambulance, sometimes for far longer than is medically acceptable, adds unnecessary distress and anxiety at an already difficult time.

Patients deserve better, and they deserve a health service in Northern Ireland that can respond swiftly when their lives are in danger. Dedicated ambulance staff deserve the resources, training and support that they need to do their jobs effectively and safely. Therefore, I support the motion and the call for Minister of Health to bring forward any proposals to help to address that. It is imperative that there is a comprehensive Ambulance Service workforce plan that not only attracts new staff but ensures that current staff are supported, trained and better equipped to meet the demands of that vital service.

The issues in the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service are only one part of the jigsaw. The wider health and social care system needs to be repaired to resolve the delays in patient handover and the lack of capacity in our EDs. The bottlenecks contribute to the crisis that we are witnessing and are in desperate need of being addressed. Today is yet another critical moment for Northern Ireland's health service at a time that, staff say, has been and continues to be the most difficult in its history. The Ambulance Service is the pipeline that connects individuals to the care that they need in their most vulnerable moments. A forward-looking strategy that supports the new clinical response model is an absolute must, ensuring that the right response is available at the right time for every patient, regardless of the complexity of their condition. I therefore support the motion.

Mr Gaston: As we have heard several times this afternoon, this is not a new problem. It should therefore not be blamed entirely on the current Health Minister. As far back as 2016, my predecessor in the House, Jim Allister, tabled questions that revealed that, in just one month, January 2016, there were no fewer than 20 occasions when an ambulance's downtime at Craigavon Area Hospital exceeded two hours. This afternoon, I will touch on why speed from our Ambulance Service and from hospitals generally is so essential.

That fact was particularly brought home to me by a briefing from the Stroke Association that, I suspect, all Members received ahead of the debate. Stroke continues to be one of the biggest killers in Northern Ireland and is a leading cause of adult disability. We have the second-highest incidence of stroke in the UK and the second-highest mortality rate. Most pertinent to the debate was the fact that, according to the latest stroke stats, it took 13 hours and 15 minutes for a stroke patient to arrive at a stroke unit following the start of their symptoms. That is an increase from the same period in the previous year, when it took 10 hours and three minutes. Only 61% of stroke patients are scanned within one hour of arriving at hospital. In most part, that is due to a backlog of people at our A&Es. With a stroke, every minute is vital.

I take the opportunity to relate to the House something of a personal experience. Shortly before Christmas, my party chairman, Cusher councillor Keith Ratcliffe, had a suspected mini-stroke. It was later confirmed to be a transient aphasia. He waited 13 hours before approaching the desk to enquire about his situation, only to be informed that there was just one full-time doctor available that evening for emergencies. Keith was eventually seen 26 hours after arriving at the hospital. He could not speak more highly of the stroke clinic for its efficiency, but his experience in A&E left him deeply concerned about the state of the health service.

One of the major issues causing the pressures on A&E that night in Craigavon was the number of people who were there as a result of alcohol abuse, many of whom were in A&E every weekend, according to hospital staff and the police officers who were present that day. Let us not kid ourselves that the issues with alcohol arise only when people arrive in A&E. Alcohol abuse also contributes to the pressures on the Ambulance Service, yet, in 2021, when the Assembly was voting to liberalise the licensing laws, where was every Member of the House, with the exception of Jim Allister and Jim Wells? They were voting to approve such a move. Members did so in spite of evidence from the Public Health Agency that was presented to the Committee considering the Bill. Mr Meehan of the PHA told MLAs:

They did so in spite of evidence from Professor Fitzgerald of the University of Stirling, who told MLAs:

Alcohol consumption seriously increases the risk of developing a stroke.

There needs to be a holistic approach to the health service. There is an onus on us all to think about the impact that we, as legislators, have on the pressures on the vital service on which we all rely, and I am not convinced that that has been the case in the House to date.

Mr Carroll: Unacceptable ambulance waiting times and a lack of capacity in the Ambulance Service are terminal symptoms of a health and social care system on the brink of collapse. It is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. The longer a patient waits outside an emergency department, the more likely they are to experience harm, and the higher the risk of death. The longer a patient waits for an ambulance after experiencing a critical illness, the higher the risk of death.

This will sound like an obvious point, but it is one that is too often missed when we talk about patient flows through the hospital system and bed-blockers: we are talking about people here, and they should be regarded as such. We should remember that we are talking about people and that, on the Executive's watch, people are dying in ambulances, in our emergency departments and on the streets. On Friday morning, as we have heard, 19 of 56 ambulance crews were waiting with patients outside emergency departments. That is 19 crews that cannot respond to other emergencies in the community; 19 crews listening to emergency calls, desperate to respond but unable to do so. Years of political failure under the watch of various Ministers from various parties have normalised long queues of ambulances outside EDs and patients being treated in corridors, changing rooms and tea rooms rather than on wards. Annual winter pressures, as they are called, bring our healthcare system to the point of collapse year after year. That is not to mention the women who are forced to give birth in cars, on the roadside, because of a lack of support for them when giving birth.

It is not possible to talk about ambulance waiting times and the crisis in our EDs without considering the wider issues. Ambulance crews are tied up at EDs because our EDs are over capacity; our EDs are over capacity because hospital wards are full; and our hospital wards are full because patients cannot be discharged back into the community in a safe and timely way. Last Sunday, as we have heard, more than 500 people who were medically fit could not be discharged from hospital. That was partly because of a lack of care packages in the community. There is a lack of care packages in the community because of a wider crisis in social care. The fact is that social care workers are simply not being paid near what they deserve. Some domiciliary care workers are not even paid for travel time between house visits. That is a scandalous state of affairs. Those workers provide life-saving, life-enhancing care to our loved ones when they are chronically ill or in their older age.

A lot of that care is privatised, and the DOH funds that privatised care as well. Rather than investing in our health service, the Department of Health is throwing good money after bad, spending millions on private ambulances: since 2020, the Department has spent, on average, £10 million a year on private ambulances. Saving lives should not be a private enterprise. The Executive need to turn the tide in order to increase capacity in the Ambulance Service's fleet. That is the only reliable way to reduce response times and save lives, but, instead of increasing investment in in-house capacity, the Executive have overseen the widespread use of agencies to provide workers and of private healthcare facilities. That is exceptionally poor value for money that diverts resources away from the core funding of health and social care services. Instead of shifting the responsibility to individuals to mitigate the crisis in our emergency departments, the Executive should tackle the systemic issues that plague our health and social care system: chronic underfunding, a lack of planning and coordination and a failure to listen to the voices of workers on the front line. Until we value all health and social care workers properly and end, finally, the creeping privatisation of healthcare, we will not be able to solve the recruitment and retention crisis. We will not be able to fix the chaotic scenes in our emergency departments until we reverse the effects of years of chronic underfunding, plan and coordinate our services and listen to the voices of workers on the front line.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Carroll. I also thank the other Members who have spoken. I call the Minister of Health to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. I thank the motion's sponsors. It is always important to test our mutual understanding of the issues and our passion for finding fixes. I am sure that there is not a single Member who does not recognise that the health of our people is the single most important issue that we face, although at Budget time some may make an exception.

I am loath to pick any specific area or service of the health and social care system for special attention because healthcare is a continuum and there are so many moving parts that are all interdependent. Changing one part may improve that aspect of health and social care, but it may also have unintended and negative consequences for others. The motion states:

The same could be said about the entire HSC service across Northern Ireland, and, indeed, the entire National Health Service across the United Kingdom. As each day passes, we become more aware of the fact that pressures are being felt UK-wide.

The motion references the need to address:

I question how well understood it is that those delays are about hospital flow — the flow from front door to back door and beyond — but I am encouraged that Mr Dickson and various other Members recognised that it is about the flow. You could double the number of ambulances or double the workforce, but those measures alone would not solve the problem.

I pay tribute to all health and social care staff and recognise their work over the Christmas and new year period in incredibly challenging circumstances. I also thank the front-line clinical and support staff who work for the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service. Since Christmas, I have visited six emergency departments, and what I have seen and heard is universal to all six and fundamental to the problem that needs to be fixed. In the current circumstances, far too many patients have to surrender their dignity and privacy to spend hours — sometimes days — either lying on trolleys or sitting on chairs, with limited facilities. I have listened to ambulance crews outside EDs, often in the freezing cold of recent weeks. Like ED staff, they are suffering moral injury; they signed up to deliver better than this, as did so many health workers across the UK. We have to recognise that, as is the case elsewhere in the UK, our health and social care system as a whole is under sustained and significant pressure. That is not to minimise the challenges that are faced here, but Members will be aware of reports of a significant number of trusts in other parts of the UK having declared critical incidents, including the East Midlands and Welsh ambulance services.

My goal is to develop a better, more equitable, more effective and better integrated urgent and emergency care service. I have already set out my long-term vision to improve services and deliver better outcomes. Part of that involves making it easier to access the most appropriate services as quickly as possible in an appropriate setting. The issues with EDs are not about our EDs; EDs are where the problems manifest themselves and become quite horribly obvious. The problem is about the flow. I do not believe that the answer is about bigger EDs, but I acknowledge that it is essential that we have sufficient capacity, which is why, in the coming months, I will be commissioning an evidence-based emergency care capacity review. It is about identifying the pinch points where the flow gets blocked. Currently, as Members have acknowledged, the problem is not at the front door, where the ambulance crews and their patients seek access; it is at the back door, where trusts seek to discharge patients who no longer need an acute hospital bed. Therefore, the debate could easily, and rightly, have been about community capacity instead of Ambulance Service capacity. On that topic, let me put it in Hansard, the Official Report, that I am committing some £500 million in the next financial year to introducing the real living wage for social care workers. I do so in the hope and expectation that that will help to address the huge gap between demand and capacity in providing social care in the community. For the first time and for the remainder of my term in office, I want to ensure that we take real steps to break the association of social care work with the minimum wage. It is an incredibly rewarding career, and this new plan will see more money put into the pockets of workers.

Our ambulance staff are facing the daily challenge of not having sufficient available resource to respond appropriately for timely dispatch, timely response and timely delivery into EDs. Like all staff involved in emergency health service delivery, they are asked again and again, day after day, to make judgement calls not about what is the best option but about what is the least worst option. With that comes a constant worry about whether they have made the right least worst decision, and that is a worry that they often take home with them at night.

Mr McGrath: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: I will give way.

Mr McGrath: It is a really quick point. Given the agreement that there is in the Chamber about the problems at the back door, and at the front door as well, the mere fact that patients are remaining in an ambulance and are not in the emergency department means that a form of triage is taking place to say that they are the least unwell because they are able to sit in an ambulance rather than in an ED. Is the Minister aware of what happens in London? There, there is a minimum handover time, because there is an understanding that the patient can be passed on. It is not great for those who are in emergency departments, but it does allow ambulances to get back out on the road.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his intervention. I will come on to that in a moment, and I will also touch on something that Mr Dickson talked about when he mentioned double diagnosis. That is when one goes to a GP and then to an ED. Is that second diagnosis really necessary?

To repeat, the moral injury that staff are feeling is not what they signed up for, it is not what they trained for and it is not what they turn up for, shift after shift. Some Members of the House want to add to the pressures on those individuals by placing on them a statutory duty of candour as individuals, with criminal sanctions attached. I respectfully say this to Members: please, please, please think about the consequences of what you are proposing and about how staff may react.

Although there are difficult and unacceptable challenges, my Department has taken action to increase Ambulance Service capacity and address workforce challenges. There is a broader trend in healthcare whereby paramedics play an increasingly versatile role not only in emergency response but in primary, secondary and community care. I remember being with my dear mother on a Monday morning when a paramedic came out to examine her and said that he was not prepared to risk not admitting her to the Ulster Hospital emergency department, and he was right.

Are we fiddling while Rome burns? No, we are not. My Department has provided funding to train 50 paramedics every year since 2021. That means that people from Northern Ireland who wish to graduate with a BSc honours in paramedic science no longer need to travel outside of the Province to complete their studies. As a direct result of that funding, 41 paramedics graduated from Ulster University in 2024. They have already taken up paramedic roles with the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service. I am glad to say that I was in Derry to see them graduate, and I was delighted to hear that there were local jobs for each and every one of them.

In addition to paramedic training, my Department is actively engaged in developing a 10-year workforce plan with NIAS to further develop capacity, capability and utilisation of skills mix. That will allow the Ambulance Service to better meet the needs of our communities by developing the enhanced paramedic role, new care pathways and even better coordination across the health system. NIAS has a targeted programme for 2024-25 that has addressed long-term staff absence and increased available workforce.

In addition to workforce, we have funded a number of initiatives in the Ambulance Service, including the development of an integrated care hub. The hub places clinicians, paramedics, nurses and mental health professionals in NIAS's control centre to triage patients and direct them to the most appropriate care pathway or service. Mental health practitioners play an important role in providing support to those in mental health crisis, and early indications are that that has reduced conveyances to emergency departments by around 40% for those in crisis. I repeat: 40%. That, of course, is leading to better outcomes. The integrated care hub has enabled NIAS to enhance its See and Treat and Hear and Treat capabilities in line with best practice as part of its reform agenda to reduce the number of patients needing conveyance to EDs.

The integrated care hub has been invaluable to NIAS this winter, ensuring that emergency ambulances are prioritised for people who need them and that patients are directed to appropriate alternatives, which may include Hospital at Home, fall services and community teams. Investments associated with the urgent and emergency care review have resulted in Phone First and urgent care services being established across all geographic trusts, and this is an alternative to patients calling 999. Over 160,000 people accessed these services in the financial year 2023-24. Of those, almost 85% finished their care without attending a type-1 ED. More, of course, remains to be done.

My Department also has a programme of work to provide access to same-day emergency care for patients without the need for an overnight admission to hospital. I want trusts to afford the Ambulance Service with direct access to these pathways. We are also working with trusts to create pathways that avoid ED. If your GP says that you need to go to the hospital, do you need a second assessment in an ED or can the GP refer you directly elsewhere: for example, to an urgent care department at the hospital, an ambulatory unit, a dedicated respiratory or cardiac unit? These things are happening. We are reforming the HSC system.

Last month, I visited a new service, the regional coordination centre (RCC). This is a trust-owned initiative to provide a coordinated response on a daily basis to regional pressures. All five geographic trusts discuss their ED pressures and how they can help each other. It is new; it needs time, and they need to build trust in the system, but I believe that it will work, and it is part of that reform.

I accept the need and requirement for further and more urgent reform. I have only two years left, but I aspire to take a big bite out of that problem. For those who are disappointed in that, I simply direct you to the fact that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in London has a 10-year plan. That is beyond my term of office. Importantly, however, there is also a palpable decision, from across the Cabinet, to prioritise the health of patients, whereas, despite some rhetoric here, actions are not matching words.

I believe that I can only make some difficult decisions, some unpopular decisions and, hopefully, set a direction of travel that the next Minister feels compelled to follow. I accept that there is an urgent need for reform, including the development of community-based services enabling patients to stay well, remain in their homes and avoid the need for NIAS to convey them to hospital for admission. However, that requires financial support. Let me reiterate this point. In negotiating a return to Stormont, we made a collective argument to London that our block grant should be based on assessed need rather than a crude headcount. That argument was successful and resulted in the current 124% Barnett calculation. Yet, when it comes to the Health budget, assessed need has been overlooked and replaced by another crude statement that Health gets more than half of the block grant. That statistic is quoted like an incantation as if it proves, by itself, that Health does not need additional resources.

I accept that we need to be more productive and efficient; I get that. However, I stress — I stressed it to the leadership of the HSC — that I also acknowledge that no amount of efficiency or productivity will close the gap between demand and capacity. The independent Fiscal Council said that to deliver the same service here as NHS England manages, we need £104 to £107 for every £100 that NHS England spends. The same Fiscal Council said that we used to get £109, but today, it is £101·50. Members, do the maths.

I want to express my deepest gratitude for the remarkable commitment and dedication shown by the staff in the Ambulance Service and across the HSC. They work tirelessly to provide essential services during some of the most challenging of times. On behalf of our 70,000-plus workers, I say this to Members: do not suggest that the Bengoa report has been gathering dust on a shelf for nine years; it is happening, but the pace and the impact is dictated by our ability to fund change. If you are told that the budget is entirely inadequate to meet the needs of the HSC service, and yet vote for it, despite the warning, and then complain about the consequences of your decision, are you comfortable taking that position? When I say comfortable, I do not mean politically; I mean morally.

I thank Members for their contributions. I do not have time to go into them too much, but Members accept that it is about the flow and that highly-skilled individuals are not delivering the service that they want to deliver and are suffering moral damage because of that.

I repeat: patients expect to retain dignity and privacy when they attend hospital and are being denied that, sometimes not just for hours but for days. That is not right. I get it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for that response. I call Danny Donnelly to make the winding-up speech on the motion. Mr Donnelly, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will begin by thanking all Members for their contributions. It is an important debate. I welcome the fact that this is the first Assembly motion of 2025. I encourage all Members to vote in favour of it.

As the final Member to speak in the debate, I want to discuss some of the points that were raised by other Members, particularly the Minister, but I want to make a few specific points first. As I mentioned, this is the first opportunity for debate in this new year, and it is absolutely appropriate that we begin with such an important issue: the pressures facing the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and the implications of those pressures across the wider Health and Social Care service. As we all know, the pressures on health services are significantly worse in the winter months. I was pleased that, last week, we discussed that with the Minister in the Health Committee. The pressures were simply too urgent to wait until we returned today.

To his credit, the Minister provided a written statement to the Assembly on his plans for winter preparedness on 6 November, but, while welcome, it did not provide the details or the planning needed to fully tackle the yearly crisis that we faced this winter. That will require a long-term approach, including multi-year budgets, political support for reform and greater efforts to protect the welfare of hard-working HSC staff, who go above and beyond all year round to deliver the best possible service. As has been said many times, we cannot deliver in the long term until we have proper political stability in this place. The need for institutional reform cannot be ignored or forgotten.

The statistics that indicate the pressures on the Ambulance Service are truly shocking. As the motion states:

The number of people who have died while waiting for an ambulance has also trebled in the past five years. From 2020 to 2024, sadly, 149 people have lost their lives while waiting at home for emergency response help; specifically, 50 in the year 2023-24. Of course, it cannot be said that a delayed ambulance response is a contributory factor, and we must remember that every death is a tragedy for the individual, their family and friends and the wider community. The Department of Health must do what it can to assist the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service to release ambulances to respond to those calls.

The motion raises some of the issues facing the Ambulance Service that, to date, the Department of Health has failed to address adequately. One such issue relates to the lack of workforce capacity. The Minister has indicated that more staff have been recruited in the past year. Certainly, members of the Health Committee visited ambulance HQ and met some of our new trainee paramedics. That is fantastic to see. That recruitment is always welcome, and we should encourage people to consider a career as a paramedic or ambulance staff, but we have not heard the corresponding number of people who are retiring or leaving the service.

There is also the threat of abuse, harassment and even violence towards ambulance staff. Last week, it was reported that around 55 members of ambulance staff are abused or attacked every day across the UK. That is absolutely unacceptable abuse that can have a lasting impact on the well-being of staff and has led to many people leaving the Ambulance Service. There is no excuse for such violence. No one should ever have to face that while they are at work, especially not those who are working under severe pressure to save lives, as our hard-working and resilient Ambulance Service staff do every day.

Another problem that faces the Ambulance Service is the difficulty in admitting patients into hospital. We have talked again and again today about the issues with flow. One example of that was reported by the BBC news during the Christmas holidays, when a patient was waiting in an ambulance outside a hospital for 19 hours. Nineteen hours covers a series of paramedics' shifts. I think that it was Mr McGrath who said that paramedics were handing patients over to each other in the back of an ambulance. No patient should have to wait that long. However, the most concerning aspect of that is that it is not an isolated incident. Long waits outside hospitals have become increasingly common. Again, we heard that when we met paramedic and ambulance staff at the headquarters. While it is an all-year problem, it is exacerbated by winter pressures.

The key problem here is the flow of patients throughout hospitals, particularly the bottleneck at the back door: the failure to discharge patients when appropriate, leading to a lack of available beds for those who need to be admitted. I saw that for myself while working over the holidays in a busy hospital ward. It is clear that little has changed since the publication of the Department of Health's winter preparedness plan in early November. That did not adequately address the issues, which led to overcrowding in hospital wards and delay in people being safely discharged.

It should be noted that overcrowding in A&E departments is associated with longer hospital stays and even increased mortality. Dr Russell McLaughlin from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine did a study last year that looked at 2022. The evidence that he presented suggested that 1,400 people died in that year in Northern Ireland — excess deaths — because of overcrowding in our A&E departments. I can only imagine what the figure will be for this winter.

While it is understandable that the Minister has called on people to consider, when appropriate, alternatives to hospital such as visiting pharmacies or general practice first, that needs to be accompanied by more decisive decisions by the Department to support people who are in vulnerable positions. Community staff are working as hard as possible to deliver those essential services. We also need further progress on and support for care homes and domiciliary care, recognising that those services can provide an alternative to hospital visits. However, the Department is not providing adequate support in those areas. The Minister's statement in November on winter preparedness mentioned the possibility of people accepting a temporary community placement in a care home or a nursing home after being discharged from hospital. That would be a positive step for those who can avail themselves of it, but what further support can the Minister and the Department provide not only to care and nursing homes but to organisations such as our community pharmacies, which also face pressures?

We have all heard over the past couple of weeks from constituents who, sadly, have needed A&E or the Ambulance Service for medical emergencies. We have heard their experience, and it is very real for anyone who has been in those circumstances and for their family. One case that particularly struck me was that of a 98-year-old lady who required an ambulance. She was in the back of the ambulance for 11 hours and then on a trolley in A&E for five days. That is absolutely unacceptable. It must have been incredibly traumatic for her and her family, who were hoping to see her get better as soon as possible.

I will address a few of the comments that people have made. My colleague Stewart Dickson opened the debate and gave examples from his constituency of the long stays in ambulances and A&E that people had come to him about. He suggested that GPs should have better access so that they can refer people more quickly for diagnostic tests, and he emphasised the need for transformation towards the Bengoa reforms.

The Chair of the Health Committee, Liz Kimmins, highlighted the fact that the pressures are not new but are the result of a perfect storm of increased need. We have certainly seen that with the increased flu numbers over the past couple of weeks. Liz highlighted the Hospital at Home service that is active in the Southern Trust and suggested that its expansion across Northern Ireland could help to divert people from A&E. She also suggested that direct admissions to hospital from GPs could also help people to avoid our A&E departments.

Diane Dodds noted that the pressures are not new and that we are just chugging along, that the number of staffed ambulances has not risen along with the increasing pressure on our staff and that workforce planning is needed to improve patient flow and address issues in social care.

Alan Chambers said that this is not just a Northern Ireland problem and pointed to critical incidents across the UK. He queried whether the debate is the best use of everyone's time. I say that it is and that this is a very important debate. People need us to talk about the matter and to highlight solutions and raise the urgent issues that patients have faced over the past couple of weeks. It is important that those issues are raised in this place at this time.

Colin McGrath highlighted the fact that, at the end of their shift, paramedics are handing patients over to the next paramedic in the back of an ambulance, which, again, must be unbearable for them and for the patient in the ambulance. He said that there had been closures of units that could have provided beds for recuperation and eased a bit of the pressure.

I will go on to the Minister's speech. The Minister said that he had visited six A&E departments since Christmas, which is laudable. I welcome that, because I know that he has talked to front-line staff about what they see as solutions. He said:

He is absolutely right about that and about how all areas of healthcare are interdependent. It is about the flow, and we need to address the problems in social care in order to widen the bottleneck. I was glad to hear the Minister mention the £500 million investment to increase the real living wage for domiciliary care workers —.

Mr Nesbitt: Fifty.

Mr Donnelly: Sorry: £50 million. I was glad to hear about the £50 million to increase the real living wage for domiciliary care workers this year; that 50 paramedics are being trained every year in Northern Ireland; the announcement of the 10-year workforce plan for the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service; and about the success of the integrated care hubs — again, the Health Committee saw that on its visit to headquarters — which has resulted in a 40% reduction in mental health calls.

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

Mr Donnelly: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the House will support our motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, take your ease before we move to the next item of business in the Order Paper.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As the business in the Order Paper is not expected to be disposed of by 6.00 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3), I will allow business to continue until after 7.00 pm or until the business is completed, if earlier.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notice from the members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The next item of business is a motion on protecting front-line services from the increase in employers' National Insurance.

Ms Forsythe: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. 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 time for the debate. Diane, please open the debate on the motion.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I move the motion with huge concern for what is about to hit us on 1 April 2025. Since the Labour Government came to power over our United Kingdom last year, they have acted unpredictably and with incredible detriment to so many of us. First, it was their shocking removal of the winter fuel payments, seriously hurting some of the most vulnerable in our society. Then, in the autumn statement, it was the unexpected announcement of the increase in employers' National Insurance contribution, imposing a hugely destructive impact on employers, their businesses, our public services and our voluntary and community sector. The fact that both of those significant decisions were not in the Labour election manifesto and were not consulted on is disgraceful.

We tabled the motion to call on all in the Northern Ireland Assembly to recognise the huge impact and the need for us, as elected representatives, to take steps to protect our businesses, public services and community and voluntary sector. We know that the Labour Budget has caused increased anxiety for many of our small business owners and their staff, who make our high streets and town centres thrive. They provide essential services to the most vulnerable and are at the cutting edge of manufacturing and food production in all our communities. It is alarming that, following the Budget announcement, the Office for Budget Responsibility downgraded its projections for growth in real household incomes. It warned that employers are likely to pass on the higher tax to employees, there will be lower nominal wages and labour supply will be impacted by a reduction in employment and a reduction in hours for those who stay in work. The impact will be far-reaching throughout our society, with lower wages and higher prices. Many businesses are considering redundancies and pausing their growth plans on the back of that announcement. It is incredibly detrimental to our economy and our workers, who may be paid less or even be out of work.

Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy in Northern Ireland, and we want to see them grow. However, this Budget will see an increase in the employers' National Insurance contribution and a decrease in the threshold at which businesses start making those contributions. Combining those factors with an increase to the national minimum and living wage will result in a rising cost of doing business, and that leaves many of us feeling as though we are being taxed to death.

Hospitality Ulster in particular has warned that trying to balance the books from the pockets of high street businesses will simply leave hospitality as collateral damage, threatening jobs, future investment, price increases for consumers and business viability. We have seen reports, recently, of investments being on hold due to the rise in National Insurance contributions. We also have the impact of the increased costs being passed to consumers, which businesses will need to do to remain profitable. However, with the cost-of-living crisis, the public do not have the disposable income to be able to pay those increased prices for goods and services.

The childcare sector is one that has been prevalent. Childcare is widely accepted as critical economic infrastructure and is a key priority of the Executive. A sector that is already under pressure sees the increases to employers' National Insurance contributions leading to a number of settings considering closure, and, again, if they remain open, they will need to pass on the additional cost to the public, which will see childcare costs increase further when it is already unaffordable to many. That is a real risk, with many businesses facing a cliff edge on 1 April 2025.

We need to protect our local businesses and local economy, including our childcare sector, and we also need to highlight the risk that this increase by the Labour Government will have for our public services in Northern Ireland. Through a series of Assembly questions for written answer, I have identified some of the increases in the cost of the National Insurance contributions across different Departments and their arm's-length bodies. I will give you a flavour of those. For Infrastructure, it is an additional £9 million; Justice, an additional £10 million; DAERA, an additional £0·8 million; the Department for the Economy, an additional £6·8 million; Communities, £2 million; Health, some £100 million; and Education, through the Education Authority's employer National Insurance contribution, an additional £51 million. I also note the health service businesses, such as GP practices, dentists and community pharmacies, which will face increases but do not operate in a business environment in which they can pass increased costs on to the end consumer. They are expected to continue to provide the same high-quality health services with significantly higher overheads.

Most local councils are looking at an increase in the region of £1 million, which will be passed on to ratepayers without any intervention. That is huge. In Northern Ireland, we are already under significant financial pressure. Our DUP leader, Gavin Robinson MP, has long led the fight to achieve a fair funding model for Northern Ireland. Whilst we have made progress, we are not there yet. Facing increases of tens of millions of pounds in employers' National Insurance contributions from April will have a destructive impact on our public services. We simply do not have the money to fund that. I ask the Finance Minister to, please, seek clarity urgently on the total additional cost to Northern Ireland and on how much of that will be provided by the Treasury and the Labour Government who imposed this extra cost of employment on our public sector. It was widely reported recently that, in Scotland, only three fifths of the additional costs will be funded by Treasury. That falls well short. We need to know where we stand in Northern Ireland.

I also take the opportunity to highlight, once again in the Chamber, the incredible contribution of our voluntary and community sector to the delivery of front-line public services in Northern Ireland. On government-funded contracts, supplemented by fundraising, they deliver critical services to the public across all of our Departments. They will all be subject to this substantial increase to employers' National Insurance contributions, but have been advised that there will be no subsequent increase to their funding from Departments to cover it. There will inevitably need to be a reduction in service provision under the existing funded projects as the costs of employing staff go up. The impact of reducing service provision is a reduction in our front-line public services. That is of huge concern.

I have previously made the point that the Executive need to identify the full scale and reach of public services and public-sector outcomes that are delivered by our voluntary and community sector. The failure to do so has, I believe, exposed us to a much bigger risk than is fully realised. The voluntary and community sector groups provide direct health services, including mental health support, to thousands of people across Northern Ireland, with direct referrals from the Department of Health and GPs into the sector. A recent Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) survey, which had responses from 68 organisations representing a breadth of organisations in size and scale across the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland, showed that 76% of them expected major financial impacts, with many facing additional annual costs of between £5,000 and £200,000 from April 2025. One social care provider anticipates annual costs of up to half a million pounds. The reduction in the capacity of our voluntary and community sector will have devastating effects on our healthcare system and wider public services.

I wish to specifically mention the impact on organisations that support victims of domestic and sexual abuse in Northern Ireland. Those organisations will have the additional cost of tens of thousands of pounds per regional body imposed upon them. That will reduce the capacity of Women's Aid, Nexus and others to support services at a time when the Executive are prioritising ending violence against women and girls and of high levels of murders of women in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is one of the most dangerous places in Europe for a woman to live, and we cannot afford to see those services reduced.

The increase in employers' National Insurance contributions from 1 April, which has been imposed on us, will be of huge significance; it is a cliff edge, and we need action. I ask the SDLP to reach out to its sister party, Labour, for any intervention that may be possible, but, in keeping with what the motion is asking for, it is imperative that the Minister of Finance works with Executive colleagues to:

and the voluntary and community sector. We also ask the Minister:

I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Tennyson: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. You may be relieved to know that I do not intend to take the full 10 minutes to propose the amendment.

During the last general election campaign, Alliance warned of the real and pressing challenges that the UK's public finances faced after 14 years of Conservative rule. We also, however, set out credible and progressive solutions that focused on ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders would bear the greatest burden and on promoting economic growth. Sadly, it appears that the new Labour Government have largely ignored those calls. Instead, they are pursuing a regressive tax on employment, cutting the winter fuel payment and breaking promises that were made to women against state pension inequality (WASPI).

The hike in employers' National Insurance contributions will create obvious and enormous pressures on not only businesses and the community and voluntary sector but the Executive at a time when our finances and public services are under strain. Some of the estimated additional costs to individual Departments have already been read into the record by Diane Forsythe. I will not repeat what Diane said, but I echo her call for the Finance Minister to provide some more clarity in her winding-up speech on the implications for the whole Executive, given that the Scottish Government have already set out their assessment.

Despite the obvious complications and implications, it is clear that no meaningful consultation took place with the Executive or any other devolved Administration, nor with business or third-sector organisations. Whilst the Chancellor has confirmed her intention to provide relief to public-sector employers, she has not committed to covering the costs in full. Instead, we will receive a Barnett consequential based on the funding that is provided to Whitehall Departments. That approach is obviously flawed, given that Northern Ireland's public sector is proportionately larger than that in other parts of the UK. It means that, in effect, Northern Ireland's public services will be funding a tax increase for the rest of the UK.

There also has been no commitment to provide support for the community and voluntary sector that provides vital front-line public services on behalf of the Government. As mentioned, vital organisations like Women's Aid and Nexus are key to the Executive's strategy to end violence against women and girls. Mental health charities are key to delivering our ambitions on mental health and childcare providers are key to the Executive's ambitions to deliver universal and affordable childcare. The change will create a bizarre two-tier system whereby those third-sector organisations that deliver vital services on behalf of Government are hit harder than those in the public sector itself. That is against the backdrop of the enormous challenges that those organisations have already faced in recent years, including the loss of EU funds through Brexit and the recent UK Government decision to reduce shared prosperity funding.

The picture is also bleak for independent providers. GPs and community pharmacists have warned of the potential for the changes to create a further disparity between funding for primary and secondary care. Those fears were echoed by the Health Minister when he stated that he did not anticipate any additional funding being made available to support family practitioners and the independent sector. It is clear that, in failing to properly mitigate those cost pressures, we will hamper service delivery, jeopardise the reform agenda and cap our ambitions to move towards a preventative and community-based model of care in our health service.

At Westminster, my colleague Sorcha Eastwood MP has tabled amendments on behalf of Alliance that seek to protect vital services. Our proposals would exempt care homes, domiciliary care providers, GP and dental surgeries, pharmacists, health and social care charities and community organisations from Labour's proposed National Insurance increase. However, the UK Government must go further and properly compensate the Executive for all the costs that are incurred. I welcome the motion in that we have an opportunity to send a clear and united message from the Assembly to the Government that Northern Ireland's public services and its community and voluntary sector should not bear the brunt of the tax hike. On that basis, I urge Members to support the motion and our amendment.

Miss Hargey: I am in favour of the motion. Increased National Insurance contributions will put an additional strain on our local businesses, our public-sector employers and, critically, our community and voluntary sector, as has already been stated, especially at a time when they are already struggling with rises in inflation, the cost of living and decades of British Government underinvestment and austerity.

In addition, we know that our community and voluntary sector has already faced massive funding cuts as a result of the British Government's Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). That is funding that many groups and communities rely on. The knock-on effect that the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions will have on already stretched front-line services is deeply concerning. I know that the Finance Minister has raised the issue consistently and spoken about the fact that it will compound the issues that are already there as a result of a stretched budget.

GPs, dentists and care workers — to name but a few of those affected — have all spoken out to warn against the damaging effects on their ability to provide the much-needed services that our public here rely on and to highlight the fact that there is no appropriate mitigation forthcoming from the Chancellor. We have heard about the impact that the increase will have on areas such as childcare and tackling violence against women and girls and on people with disabilities, particularly those who rely on direct employment and support to address their social care needs.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Member take an intervention?

Miss Hargey: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: Does the Member agree that the budgetary changes that the British Government have made will exacerbate an already incredibly challenging situation in our housing sector, particularly for the 80 Supporting People organisations that provide vital services for over 20,000 vulnerable people across the North to ensure that they can remain in their home and live independently?

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

Miss Hargey: Thank you.

That further demonstrates the fallacy that this is being done to protect public services; in fact, it is continuing to erode public services and increase inequality in our society here.

The motion calls on the Minister:

I know that Minister Archibald has already engaged on the issues with the Chancellor, as well as with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Thankfully, the Minister of Finance recognises the issue, and she has been working hard to mitigate yet another British Government assault on our front-line services.

The motion also calls on the Minister:

Indeed, we are aware that she has already moved to commission the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre (UUEPC) to conduct a cost-of-doing-business sectoral study that will look at the issue and at other factors that are having an impact, such as insurance costs, energy costs and the rise in property costs. I look forward to seeing the result of that detailed study.

The increase is just the latest move by the British Government over decades to attack our public services and front-line services, particularly here in the North, as was stated. It shows that, although we may have different faces in the British Government, the policies are the same. I trust that all parties will join forces today and unite against the policy and, indeed, any austerity measures that may be forthcoming. We must work collectively to press for further investment in our public services, which is an issue that the Finance Minister raises consistently. I commend and support the motion.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the proposer of the motion. Like others, I support it. The motion highlights the urgent need to protect businesses and community and voluntary sector organisations that provide vital front-line services across Northern Ireland from the disastrous impact of the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. Many businesses are still struggling to process what that means for their long-term sustainability and for the future retention of employees. There is no doubt that a range of really important sectors will be adversely impacted on by the changes. That is particularly the case for sectors that have independent providers with large workforces, such as domiciliary care and the childcare sector, which was mentioned. They are often dependent on public funding but do not have the same certainties and guarantees, such as day-to-day operational costs.

I will focus on public-sector employees. His Majesty's Treasury said at the time of the Budget that it would work with the public sector to support it with additional costs. It is assumed that recurrent funding will be received for 2025-26 to cover the costs. The Treasury has said that it is compensating public-sector employers for employers' National Insurance contributions bills through increases to their budgets, but there is a big difference between who is eligible and who really should be eligible. I would welcome clarity from the Finance Minister on the question of compensation for the public sector. For instance, healthcare providers will be greatly affected by the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions. Amongst those are general dental practitioners, GPs, community pharmacies, care homes and hospices, all of which have voiced major concerns about the impact that the increases will have on them. As public contractors, any business that undertakes more than 50% public work is ineligible for employment allowance.

As has been highlighted by other Members, the additional costs imposed by the increase in National Insurance contributions threaten the long-term sustainability of many vital front-line services. Those were the very services that stepped up to the mark during the COVID pandemic, and, at the time, that underlined how much society depends on those services. Is it right, now, that those services should face threats to their sustainability? It is surely incumbent on the Labour Government to recognise the role of vital front-line services and to protect them where possible.

As it stands, the providers of some of our most important services, such as those that I have mentioned, face a great deal of uncertainty. Therefore, there needs to be absolute clarity on the definition of "public sector" adopted by HM Treasury. I will, of course, support the motion and the amendment. However, I call on the Minister of Finance to seek assurances from His Majesty's Treasury about the definition of "public sector", in order to ensure that those front-line services are protected from Labour's disastrous autumn Budget.

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to speak to the motion, which we will support. Like others in the Assembly, we recognise the negative and damaging impact that the increase in employer National Insurance contributions will have on our public sector and on those bits of the community and voluntary sector and private sector that help to deliver public services. That will have a deleterious, knock-on impact across a range of front-line services. It is really important that where we, as the Opposition, can add our voice constructively to an Executive approach to the UK Government, we do that. That is what we will do today. It is clear that it would be better if the additional costs were not being lumped on to our public sector and, indeed, to our community and voluntary sector. It is particularly important to say that, in the areas, for example, of general practice or in social or domiciliary care, where we know that, given the debates that we have had today and the state of our health service, it is vital that those areas of service are primed and ready to take the burden off acute care, particularly in our emergency departments but in hospitals more generally, and that those areas are well staffed and operating as they need to be and are able to do what the Health Minister keeps referring to as the "shift left". It is a particular concern for those services, and I share that concern.

More broadly, however, the fact that we are having the debate is in itself slightly frustrating and a bit sterile, if I am honest. This is a devolved Chamber. I completely agree with the thrust of the motion — I would rather that we were not facing those additional costs — but, ultimately, people send us to the Assembly, and the Assembly elects an Executive in order to use its power to effect meaningful change for people's lives here. It is slightly ironic that we have heard from the opposition party — the party opposite, I should say; we are the Opposition party — and, indeed, from the other main governing party about their frustrations around the limitations of the power that they have. Let us go back to why the UK Government are doing this in the first place: it is in part because the UK is a smaller and weaker economy than it used to be. That is the blunt truth: Brexit has weakened the UK economy. We had a decade and a half of austerity that ground down public services and reduced deficits on the backs of the poorest people and to the cost of public services. What is happening now is that a new Government have come in, with a weakened economy, and have made the decision not to invest in those services.

I find it ironic that the DUP has tabled the motion, having championed Brexit. They have no particular interest in looking to a new future in which we can make more of these decisions ourselves on this island. I personally think that that would be a much preferable outcome. To be honest, much of what we say today will not change the employers' National Insurance picture. I wish it were otherwise, but let us be honest with ourselves about that. I strongly support the call that we should lobby, and the Finance Minister should, of course, make those representations, because imposing extra costs on our public sector is not the way for the UK Government to proceed. We strongly oppose it, we wish that it had not been imposed, and we are deeply frustrated with some of the content of the Budget. Let us be honest, however: unless we choose at some point to do things differently ourselves here, we will keep being faced with decisions that have a deleterious impact on our public services. We will keep being faced with choices that we did not make and cannot fundamentally change or reshape.

By all means, let us lobby the UK Government to give clarity on what additional support they will give and lobby them hard to meet the additional costs of this. We fully support that, and we will support the motion and the amendment. However, let us also be honest about the long-term limitations of our current arrangements and how, in the very long term, we will not be able to effect fundamental change without more fundamental change in our arrangements.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I have little time. I am happy to give way, if I am allowed.

Mr Frew: Will the Member agree that maybe he is in a position to lobby his sister party at Westminster to change this?

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

Mr O'Toole: Will you give me an extra minute to respond?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You get an extra minute from this Deputy Speaker.

Mr O'Toole: Being a sister party in the Party of European Socialists in no way binds me to agreeing with decisions made by the British Government. My party is not in a confidence-and-supply arrangement like yours was. That went really well for the DUP; you really were able to undo austerity.

My party, like all the other parties here, will vote for the motion and agrees that raising employer NICs is the wrong decision and the wrong way to go by the Labour Government. The point that I made was that, unless we are fundamentally honest about the limitations of our current arrangements under the devolved settlement and, ultimately, in terms of where decisions are made, we will never be able to effect fundamental structural change.

Those are the only points that I wanted to make. We will support the motion and the amendment.

Mr Brett: It was hoped by some that, with the election of a Labour Government, things could only get better. We were told that that Government would deliver a Budget that would be about growth and investing in the long-term future of the United Kingdom. Despite their whopping majority, they have presided over cuts and chaos.

The first target was our pensioners across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, whom they stripped of their entitlement to a universal winter fuel allowance. They next targeted our farmers by proposing the most fundamental reform to family farm inheritance anywhere in western Europe in a generation. Now they are targeting small businesses and hard-pressed family budgets across the United Kingdom, which is worrying for us in Northern Ireland. Their record of delivery as a Government has made this place seem like a panacea and makes the record of Ministers here at Stormont get an A+.

I am extremely concerned at the effect that the changes will have on our economy. I make these remarks as DUP spokesperson on the economy and not as Chair of the Committee for the Economy. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Official records show that 90% of businesses in Northern Ireland are small businesses. Their turnover is less than £100,000 in 60% of cases, and, for every full-time employee, the additional cost to them will be £2,500. Frankly, for many businesses that is unsustainable. What that will do and what we have already seen in the media and in conversations that I and, I am sure, other Members have had is that those businesses will slow down expansion opportunities, reduce the number of hours that they offer to workers and limit new job opportunities into the future.

The Labour Government's Budget is anti-growth and anti-competitive in trying to get Northern Ireland's economy back on the right footing. That is why this party has taken immediate action on issues that that Budget inflicted upon the people of Northern Ireland. Our Communities Minister has come forward to deliver £100 for those families that were impacted on by the cut to the winter fuel allowance. Our Education Minister today announced that the childcare subsidy scheme will continue next year. The childcare sector in Northern Ireland estimates that the extra cost of the National Insurance contribution changes for some of its providers next year will be £18,500. However, that subsidy scheme will ensure that millions of pounds are put back in that sector's pockets.

However, we need strong action from our other Departments. To date, the Department of Finance has been unable to tell us how much those changes will impact on budgets right across Northern Ireland and the public sector. We are now weeks and weeks and months and months after the announcement, and not having those figures makes the case for change even more difficult. The Department for the Economy had its budget set just before Christmas. There is not a single proposal or mitigation package for the businesses right across Northern Ireland that will be impacted on by the changes. I understand that the Minister for the Economy's focus may be on seeking election to other places rather than on protecting the economy here in Northern Ireland, but my focus and that of my party is on protecting the economy. We need to see the Executive collectively coming together, but that means that other Ministers now need to step up to the mark.

In the brief time that I have left, I want to make clear the impact that the increase will have on our universities. Our two universities estimate that the impact on them will be £5 million of extra cost each year. Their income is already dropping, and this measure will see discretionary spend being lowered. That is on issues such as maintenance support for those who are on low incomes and widening participation bursaries. Again, the most vulnerable will lose out on the support that they need and deserve.

One of my other hobby horses, the Northern Ireland Hospice, has estimated that the cost to it will be £3 million. That is simply unaffordable, but we now need the evidence to go to the Executive. I call on the Minister to try to get those figures and facts together as quickly as possible so that the House can speak with one voice.

I commend the leader of the Opposition for attempting to defend his sister party's actions, but the policy was more like something that Vicky Pollard would say — "Yes, but no, but yes, but no". [Laughter.]

Mr Gaston: Members, it is important to remember that National Insurance is only part of the tax burden to fall upon employers. It is shocking that the Labour Government have chosen to reduce the threshold to £5,000, meaning that the vast majority of people with a part-time job will end up with their employer now paying 15% National Insurance. That will result in question marks over the viability of many jobs. The hospitality sector in my constituency, which is a sector that already runs on relatively small margins and employs a lot of part-time people, will fall victim to a double whammy: the increase in the living wage, plus employers now having to pay National Insurance. Many businesses in North Antrim are small. They employ 10 people or fewer but have a vision to expand and grow. The changes will mean that many of them simply will not be able to afford to do so.

As I understand it, the Government are offsetting the National Insurance rise in relation to the public sector. That said, following a question for written answer in the Commons, my party leader obtained information that suggests that the higher level of employment in the public sector in Northern Ireland, which is 26·8% as opposed to 17·3% across the UK, will not be recognised. Therefore, we face being short-changed in another issue that is developing in the budgetary pressures that bedevil this place.

Importantly, I believe that the change will result in Northern Ireland once again being funded below the level of need. Since the UK Government adopted that definition, funding for Northern Ireland has fallen below the definition of need not once but twice in five years. I also note that there is no suggestion of the Government offsetting the cost of National Insurance in relation to agency staff, who, as Members will know, do a Trojan amount of work and without whom our health and social care service would simply collapse.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. Part of the reason why the UK's public finances are in such a difficult climate is low growth and low productivity. Given that fact, surely the Member recognises the importance of the UK's returning to the single market to boost trade and boost headroom for investment in public services?

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

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member — I think — for his intervention. I would certainly rather that Northern Ireland were released from the shackles of the Northern Ireland protocol —.

Mr Tennyson: So that people would be poorer.

Mr Gaston: What?

Mr Tennyson: People would be poorer.

Mr Gaston: People would be poorer? No. It would allow our businesses to flourish and take advantage of Brexit. Northern Ireland did not get Brexit, but, once again, the Alliance Party is still in denial.

I will finish my remarks by saying that the changes mean that the sector will struggle even more than it does currently. That is another reason why I support the motion. Agency workers in Northern Ireland are the backbone of our industry. If the Government do not stand over helping to offset the cost of National Insurance increases, rather than foisting the increases on agency workers and public services, I despair. I look to the Finance Minister to see what work she has done to date and what figures she will produce for Members this evening on the issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Happy new year to you.

Dr Archibald (The Minister of Finance): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

and happy new year to you too.

I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this important matter, and I thank the Members who tabled the motion and those who tabled the amendment. It will not come as any surprise to them, I am sure, that I have done what the motion asks for. I am sure that they would expect nothing less of me.

The planned increase to employers' National Insurance contributions will prove incredibly challenging for our businesses, our community and voluntary sector and our public-sector employers, including councils. Devolved Governments simply do not have the financial capacity to compensate for decisions made on reserved taxation matters. The British Chancellor said that support will be provided for Departments and public-sector employers, but that is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the increased cost across the board. I have written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury asking for the costs to be met in full, and I have appealed for consideration to be given to those outside central government who provide and support us to provide public services.

My Department has been working with Departments to ascertain the additional total cost of increased employers' National Insurance contributions for the public sector, including the independent providers. The current assessment is that the additional cost facing Departments and other central government bodies as a result of the changes in 2025-26 is likely to be at least £200 million and potentially higher. That does not include the cost facing healthcare providers or councils. For example, the Department of Health has estimated an additional annual cost of over £35 million for family health service providers, which include GPs and dentists. I understand that the Department for Communities has received information from local government that estimates an additional cost to councils of around £12 million. Those are huge additional costs for our vital public-sector providers.

There appears to be some confusion surrounding announcements that were made in England before Christmas of funding for councils. To be clear, we have not yet received formal confirmation of the Barnett consequentials that we will receive in respect of National Insurance increases. However, it looks as though what will be provided through Barnett consequentials will fall far short — by tens of millions of pounds — of what is required to meet our increased costs. This was a decision taken in Westminster on a reserved taxation matter. The Executive do not have the ability to mitigate such decisions. The Treasury must, therefore, meet those costs in full so that we are not limited in our ability to deliver public services. The Scottish Finance Minister is of the same view, which is that the funding that devolved Administrations will receive is unlikely to be sufficient.

The British Government have said that additional support will not be provided for voluntary and community sector organisations. Like Diane and others, I acknowledge the huge role that our community and voluntary sector plays in helping us to deliver public services. It is extremely disappointing and concerning that they have not recognised the need to provide support for or to mitigate the impact of the changes to National Insurance contributions for the sector. I am extremely disappointed by that, given the critical role that voluntary and community sector organisations play in delivering services to all citizens here, including providing support for some of our most vulnerable individuals.

The voluntary and community sector has faced a double blow, as some Members mentioned. Some of those organisations receive Shared Prosperity Fund funding, which will be cut in the next financial year, at the same time as their bills increase. In a recent survey of 68 organisations, NICVA found that 76% expect there to be major financial impacts, with many facing additional annual costs of between £5,000 and £200,000 from April 2025, and one social care provider anticipating costs of between £200,000 and £500,000. I raised that issue with the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government when I met him in December and urged reconsideration of that approach.

The Executive's Budget is extremely constrained, with demands for funding that far outstrip the available funding. I will continue to press the British Government on the need for support or mitigations to ease the impact. In doing that, I am keen to present as strong a case as possible. Therefore, in December, my Department commissioned Ulster University's Economic Policy Centre to carry out a sectoral study into the cost of doing business here. I asked it to present evidence on the impacts of the planned increases to National Insurance and other potential cost pressures such as insurance and energy. It is important that we hear the voices of those who will be impacted on, which is why the Economic Policy Centre team will engage with business bodies, the public and the community and voluntary sector as it undertakes the research, which will be concluded by the end of March. The terms of reference have been published on my Department's website. I am keen to understand which sectors will be hit the hardest and whether the impacts and costs are more severe for sectors and businesses here, given the size and structural differences when compared with Britain.

My Department is leading that research, but the National Insurance increases will impact on the whole public sector. Other Departments will therefore be engaged as the work progresses. I urge any organisations that would like to engage with the study to reach out to the Economic Policy Centre, the contact details of which are included in the published terms of reference. It will be an important piece of work for providing evidence-based research that will put me in a position to provide as strong a case as possible to the Treasury as part of the spending review. The British Treasury has indicated that the second stage of the spending review will provide funding for 2026-27 to 2028-29 for resource DEL and a further year for capital DEL. It is anticipated that the outcome of the spending review will be announced in June.

There is no doubt that the financial outlook for public services is incredibly difficult, and the increases in National Insurance contributions exacerbate that. I will therefore continue to press the British Treasury for further investment in public services. I support the motion and the amendment. However, as a devolved Administration, our ability to absorb the costs is limited. I will continue to urge the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to ensure that the public sector is fully compensated and to put in place mitigations to support those outside central government who play a key role in delivering our public services.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I call Kellie Armstrong to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have five minutes, Kellie.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try my best to be quicker than that.

Today, we must all think about why the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, brought these changes forward in her Budget. Certainly, she believes that raising £24 billion to fund public services will add funds to a stretched health service. That makes sense, until you consider the fact that the money being raised is coming from employers, including, as others have confirmed, front-line deliverers of public services: our GPs, dentists, social care providers, pharmacies, education system, Infrastructure, Justice, DAERA, councils and the community and voluntary sector. Those services cannot pass increased costs on to customers. As others have said, SMEs — small to medium-sized enterprises — which make up most of the non-public sector here and provide a significant number of jobs across Northern Ireland, will not be able to pass costs on to customers either, because we are still in a difficult cost-of-living situation. Their customers are the public in which Labour say that they are trying to increase investment in order to provide public services.

The impact on employers — all employers — could mean that they freeze wages; evaluate and alter long-term strategic planning, including decisions on recruitment; delay business expansion; and reduce the operational delivery of services. None of that would be good news for Northern Ireland.

The community and voluntary sector will be one of the hardest hit. Grant or contract income, especially from Health, has been restricted for some time. When the sector has been wrung out, there is nothing left to squeeze. The losers will ultimately be those who need domiciliary care and addiction services; domestic abuse survivors; children with learning disabilities, such as autism; and many of the services that help to keep people out of hospital. There is no point in raising funds for the health service if we will not be able to deliver the front-line services that citizens across Northern Ireland need.

Although the Labour Government's approach is aimed at employers, it will have a negative impact on local people. We, in the Assembly, do not have the capacity to compensate for decisions that are made on reserved taxation matters, as the Minister of Finance highlighted. The Alliance amendment adds a specific requirement for the independent and community and voluntary sectors to be included in the call to the Chancellor to meet the shortfall that was created by her Budget on 30 October, which will cause such difficulty for front-line service deliverers that depend on public funding to deliver vital public services.

As my colleague Eóin Tennyson outlined, Northern Ireland will be funding a tax hike by Westminster out of the public purse. We will be robbing Peter to pay Rachel. If support to meet additional costs is not found, we must be honest with the public about the potential reduction to public services. To that end, I ask the Minister of Finance to ensure that she publish all responses from the Chancellor and the Treasury, confirming what support is coming, and, if no additional support is coming, to ensure that all Departments confirm what the additional National Insurance costs will mean to their delivery of public services and the services that are delivered by those in receipt of grants and contracts. I ask all who can to support Sorcha Eastwood MP's amendment in Westminster to extend the exemption to all independent public service delivery agents, such as GPs, dentists, pharmacists and the community and voluntary sector. As Diana Armstrong said, we need to see a change in the HM Treasury definition of "public sector".

I thank all who have spoken with one voice today to send a clear message from the House to the Chancellor: stop breaking Northern Ireland. Please support the motion and the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Paul Frew. Paul, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Frew: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

First of all, I applaud and welcome the one voice that has been shown here today. Despite the leader of the Opposition's defeatist attitude, I think that we are all aware of the damage that the tax raid will do to every sector and every business in this country. Every one of them will be a victim of that atrocious play. We all lamented the fact that the previous Government were incompetent, did not do detail very well and did not understand the problems that they created. Labour promised so much more. In fact, Labour promised that there would be no tax hikes in certain elements. However, the way in which they have gone about trying to raise revenue is, in many ways, sneaky. They have tried to do it through the back door, but it will hurt every person. No matter whether you are an employer or an employee in the public sector or the private sector, you will be hurt. Most businesses that produce something will have no choice other than to put the burden of that cost on to their product. It does not matter what it is. Who pays for that product? The consumer, the housewife, the house husband — all of us; we pay.

It will raise inflation. That is one of the big no-nos that the Government should have been trying to avoid. It will also lead to low growth. When there is low growth, you are talking about recession, which will impact on jobs and wealth. No one — no one — is going to avoid that damage. It will affect every single one of us who lives in Northern Ireland. Whilst it is true that the small businesses that produce something will be able to put the costs — no matter how much they loathe doing so — onto their product, there are so many people in Northern Ireland who produce a service. Many of those people will not be able to hike the cost of that service because they provide it to the public sector. Therefore, we will feel that when we lose GP surgeries, dental surgeries, care homes and hospices. It will affect the most vulnerable. Everyone will be affected, but the most vulnerable will be affected more.

The Minister raised the issue of councils, which was something that had not really struck me. I think that the Minister said that councils' costs will be a burden of around £12 million. Who pays for that? The ratepayers. No matter what way you look at this, while we have all been told about trickle-down economics, this is trickle-down torture from a Labour Government whose first act as the Government has been to attack labour. It is to attack the workers. That is how stark and how blatant it is, and they must know what they are doing. You do not really go far into a degree in economics before you hit everything that I have just said.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I do not share all of his analysis — I do not come from exactly the same place as him politically or economically — but, given what he is saying, the two alternatives are greater fiscal powers for the Northern Ireland Executive, which I do not think that he wants, or, perhaps, an entirely new constitutional settlement. There is a jurisdiction just down the road that is in a much better fiscal position and is not having to impose new charges. Would he like to select from either of those choices? I invite him to pick one.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. Again, it is his sister party that has done this blatant damage. His politics are the same as the Labour Party's, yet they are going to do this to our people. The Member scares me every time he raises the spectre of fiscal powers for this place because I am not sure that we have enough maturity to be able to tackle some of the issues that Westminster and global factors have in play when it comes to the attack on our people. Therefore, I worry about incompetence, not only in Westminster but in other global markets and democracies around the world.

Many people have blamed many things for the place that the British economy is in, but not one Member has mentioned the price and the cost of lockdown philosophy and how mountains of money were pumped out as part of that philosophy that should not have been and would not have been required if we had tackled things in a different way. We have to pay for that somehow. In fact, the Labour Party has to pay for that somehow. This is the manifestation of what we experienced through lockdown philosophy, but not one of the parties here will admit to that. Why? Because they were zealots when it came to lockdown philosophy. We can all blame the big bad Tories and we can all blame the big bad Labour Party, but we also have to look at the measures that this place implemented. It was OK then because the money was flowing in from Westminster Government. We were giving it out like Smarties, but it was not Smarties; it was taxpayers' money. In fact, it was not even that: it was debt. We have to pay that back somehow. We all need to have a look at the part that we have played in the past four or five years.

There is no doubt about the Budget move and this sneaky way of raising revenue. Other agencies and business groups have poured cold water on the Budget that Labour has produced. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has already poured cold water on the Labour Government's claim that the levy from increased employers' National Insurance contributions will lead to anything close to raising £24 billion to £25 billion. How much money will it raise? A figure does not really come into it whenever we know that the Government will not necessarily spend the money wisely. Even if the levy did raise £24 billion to £25 billion, can we be assured that it will be spent wisely? What we do know, however, is the impact that the increase will have on employers, employees, small businesses and places that provide a service outwith government, such as GP surgeries, dental surgeries, care homes, hospices and charitable groups. Charitable groups do the work that government cannot do, because government does not have the ability to do it. Charitable groups, however, do it at the coalface and at the tip of the spear. Those services will disappear.

Every single person who loses their job will impact on the service that charities provide, and, in turn, that will lead to job losses in the sector, because organisations cannot cost their way out of it. They cannot put a new price on the service that they provide. They do not produce a product that they can hike up the price of. They provide a service on behalf of government. A lot of that service is contracted already, and they will not be able to change the contract. We are therefore in dire straits, and the increase will affect every single person in Northern Ireland, as I said. Rich and poor will be affected to some degree, but for the most vulnerable, who need to see a GP or get dental care, because not doing so will lead to more complications for them down the line, who need home help or who need hospice care, the service will not be there. Those people — our loved ones — will be affected most by this Labour Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the debate.