Official Report: Tuesday 28 January 2025

Mr Speaker: Excellent; we have a quorum now.

Before we begin today's business, I want to advise Members that, following on from my remarks last week, I will be writing to all of you on the courtesies and conventions that apply to the House. Whilst I understand that, individually, those matters may appear trivial to some, together, the procedures of the House underline that sittings of the Assembly are not just another engagement in Members' diaries and that the Chamber is not just another meeting room.

At one time, only 90 people have the immense privilege of participating in the Chamber. They are given that privilege by the people who elect them. As an institution, the Assembly is the prime source of authority for devolved matters. Therefore, with the privilege that is given to us to be here comes the responsibility to exercise that authority by representing our constituents, holding Ministers to account and taking decisions to change policy and the law to address the issues that impact on all of the community. Respecting our courtesies and procedures is about respecting the serious business that we have to do and respecting the people who put us here to do it.

I remind Members that next week will mark the 1st anniversary of the return of the Assembly, which the vast majority of Members wanted to see. Upholding a parliamentary culture around the serious business that we have to do has a major part to play in restoring and increasing confidence in the Assembly. As Speaker, I cannot control the business that Ministers and Members bring forward or the level of scrutiny that Members want to apply. However, it is my role and that of officials to seek to create the conditions for our business to be done properly and effective scrutiny to be conducted.

Frequently, I raise issues with Ministers about ensuring that they bring business to the Assembly and that they comply with our procedures. The same must apply to Members. In the coming weeks, I intend to say more about our standards of debate. However, I am writing to Members today particularly about the need to be in the Chamber at the appropriate time for the business that they are due to participate in, whether that be questions, statements or debates. Ministers and Members are expected to give priority to the business of Assembly sittings on Mondays and Tuesdays.

Although it is acknowledged that not all Members will be involved in every debate on every issue, where they are due to participate, however, it is the responsibility of Members to monitor how business is moving and ensure that they are in the Chamber when they are required to be. All those points are about respecting the business that we are here to do and the people who have put us here to do it.

Last week, a Member apologised for not being in their place in time, which was appropriate, and they sat on for the entirety of Question Time. I have no issue with that — it was an honest mistake — but, last week, other Members did not turn up to ask their questions. A lot of time is spent by Departments and Ministers on preparing answers to questions, and a lot of expense is incurred. It is pure common courtesy to be here for Question Time. Not turning up and then not apologising for that will not be tolerated.

Again, all those points are about respecting the business that we are here to do and the people who have put us here to do it. The dress code issue was determined by Speaker McLaughlin in 2016, when he ruled:

As Speaker, it is for me to ensure that that and other procedures and conventions of the House are followed in order to uphold the important and serious business that we are here to do. I have not invented any new rules; I am only upholding the rules and procedures that have been introduced and carried on over the years by previous Speakers. I have no intention of amending the procedures that have been adopted by previous Speakers. A letter will go to everyone, and I encourage Members to take note and work with us on this.

Ultimately, the Speaker has means of ensuring that people comply. We do not want to use those. I am a very generous Speaker. I want to remain so and not come down hard on people. I encourage Members to use their common sense. Thank you for listening, good people who are here. Hopefully, the others who are not here will read what is in the letter, which is a little longer.

Miss Brogan: Rinneadh Lá Idirnáisiúnta an Fhuinnimh Ghlain a cheiliúradh Dé Domhnaigh. Tá Sinn Féin go mór i bhfách leis an straitéis fuinnimh mar a aontaíodh í in 2022. Is leis an straitéis sin a bhainfear an fuinneamh glan amach.

Foilsíodh tuarascáil i mí an Mhárta anuraidh, tuarascáil inar leagadh amach na cúig bhunphrionsabal leis an neodracht carbóin a bhaint amach faoin bhliain 2050 agus le hastaíochtaí ón fhuinneamh a laghdú. Focal mór agus dea-chur leis, sin atá de dhíth anois.

Molaimid an obair atá grúpaí tras-rannacha a dhéanamh le comhar agus cumarsáid a chur chun cinn idir na Ranna uile. Tá an obair sin riachtanach le treoir a thabhairt, le beartais a cheapadh agus le moltaí a dhéanamh sna pleananna gníomhaíochta gach bliain d’fhonn na cuspóirí a bhaint amach.

Ní mór an chóir shóisialta agus an comhionannas bheith chun tosaigh san aistriú chuig an inbhuanaitheacht. Cothú na córach, próiseas cóir.

Mr Martin: Normally, in a Member's statement, I would speak about constituency issues. This morning, however, I will speak about islands some 6,000 miles away from the United Kingdom. Last year, I was invited by Queen's University Belfast to speak at a debate that was hosted by Friends of the British Overseas Territories (FOTBOT). Its role is to educate people about the British overseas territories' historical links with the UK and to foster relationships between UK politicians and politicians across the territories. FOTBOT gave me the privilege of meeting a delegation of Chagossians during their visit to Northern Ireland. I was particularly moved to hear how their families had been forcibly taken from the Chagos Islands and prevented from returning, which was an extremely painful experience.

The shameful denial of Chagossian sovereignty was compounded by the Labour Government's announcement, during a set of fast-tracked negotiations, that they intend to cede the islands to Mauritius. It is striking that, during the entire process of those negotiations, the Chagossian people were omitted from the talks and their views were not sought. Instead, the Labour Government have attempted to subvert the incoming US Administration by offering the Mauritian Government £90 million a year for 99 years to access Diego Garcia. That is almost £9 billion of taxpayers' money, yet it currently costs nothing. The Mauritian Government, in turn, are far from being an open and tolerant Administration. For example, you can receive a jail sentence of up to 10 years if you dare to say out loud that the Chagos Islands are anything other than Mauritian.

Thanks to the valiant efforts of FOTBOT, awareness of the issue has been raised across the United Kingdom over the past number of weeks. It was extremely encouraging to see such a strong demonstration of support for the Chagossian right to self-determination on 12 November, when FOTBOT held its call-to-action event in London. The event united over 600 Chagossians from a variety of backgrounds behind a single message: their wish for self-determination. I urge all Members to support the voice of the Chagossian people during the next few pivotal weeks, as we await the crucial position and decision of the incoming US Administration with the profound hope that that appalling deal will be discarded.

Mrs Guy: We debated a motion on childcare last week, during which I spoke about the need to be sensitive in the language that we use. Referring to full-time carers or parents as "not working" is disparaging. There are implications in those words. They suggest that those people are not making a contribution or do not have ambitions, and we know that that is not true: they make a huge contribution to our families and society. It is important to respect different circumstances and ensure that we do not create stigma or judgement when we talk about those people.

I worked in a career, and I progressed to the point where I was managing a team and a budget. However, it came to the point where paying for childcare and taking unpaid leave to cover school holidays meant that I was just about breaking even. Many mothers, in particular, will have experienced asking for reduced hours or a flexible work pattern, requests that are accepted begrudgingly. They will be told that having a reduced work pattern is a privilege. They will get reduced hours, but they will also get a reduced salary and reduced holidays. Strangely, they will often not get a reduced workload. When we talk about encouraging women back into the workplace, we need to be mindful of that and make sure that we have, yes, the right technical policy interventions but also the right workplace culture. When my kids were really small, I would have benefited from the subsidy scheme that we now have. Working parents deserve that support.

The issue of crippling childcare costs is not new. It has been around for a long time, but we have not addressed it quickly enough. There are flaws in the system that we have now, and it has become almost sacrilegious to point that out. I sat at a round-table event yesterday and heard from parents who are fearless, angry and passionate about the fact that we are not doing enough to help disadvantaged mothers. It is our job to speak up for the people who have been excluded from the scheme. The current scheme helps those who are in a job and eligible for tax-free childcare, and those parents deserve support. However, it excludes parents with children of school age who need childcare. It also excludes parents who are on Universal Credit and those who are in university or doing training. If you are a parent at university and you want to embark on a career or further your career, you are not entitled to the same support as those who are entitled to tax-free childcare. That creates an inequity in access to childcare, which is a policy gap that needs to be closed.

No one is naive to the financial challenges that face our Executive. The budget allocated for childcare and early years must be viewed as an investment. It is one that we would be reaping the rewards of now if we had acted sooner.

Mr Butler: Mr Speaker, on my way to the Chamber, I spent the last 20 minutes on a phone call with a constituent who raised a serious issue that has been around for many years. It is one that you are well aware of: what we are doing about TB in cattle. In November last year, the Minister brought out a review of the review, and we are in a stage of paralysis by analysis.

The constituent whom I spoke to this morning has 70 cows that have been identified as having TB. The direction from the Department is that those animals will have to be destroyed at a time of its convenience. The reality for that farmer is that he feeds those cows every day. The cows need to be milked every day, producing thousands of litres of milk that have to be destroyed. It occurred to me that, in getting rid of that milk, there is an environmental impact. Nothing good can be done with it. It has to be squirrelled away somewhere, but, obviously, the toxicity of that milk in the environment has to be considered.

That farmer is practically on his knees this morning. We have been having the discussion for many years about badgers and cattle. He said that we just do not have the balance right. Farmers often feel that they are discredited in regard to how they feel about their animals. Animal welfare features highly in their priorities. They love their cows. The daughters of that gentleman have named most of the cows, because they are from a breeding herd.

The financial implications reach further than what the Department can do by way of paying out money for those cows. The farmer has to feed them every day. Knowing that they are to be destroyed, he has to look at them. They are part of the family fabric. Farmers are under great pressure. We are in a phase now where further paralysis by analysis is just heaping more hurt and harm on our farming community, which is under significant pressure, given what is coming at it from Westminster.

I speak on behalf of farmers in my constituency, who care about animal welfare. By the way, the farmer was not calling for an all-out cull. He understands the animal welfare aspect. However, we are out of kilter, out of balance. The Department and the Minister really need to get over the analysis stage and get to a stage where we can redefine that balance not just for our wildlife but for farm animals and our farmers.

Mr Gildernew: I want to address some of the issues that continue to flow from storm Éowyn. The key issue that I want to focus on this morning is that the term "unprecedented" has been used about the storm, and the storm itself certainly was unprecedented. However, the impact of power cuts and water disruption on rural areas is far from unprecedented; it is all too precedented. My issue is that we do not seem to be learning the lessons, even the basics, around communication and how we can do better in such situations.

My area, the Brantry in south Tyrone, has been without electric for significant periods three times over the past eight weeks. Yet, every time that those situations arise, we have, at times, trouble getting through on phone lines and trouble getting action. All the time, we have not only people who need life-saving medical equipment, which has been flagged as a significant issue, but huge numbers of others who have, for example, temperature-regulated medicines, which becomes an issue after several days. Families who have children with autism experience huge disruption. We do not seem to have the correct identification and support process in place in advance of such events. Those needs can be predicted and worked on.

I welcome and acknowledge NIE's efforts over the weekend to communicate with us at times, and I acknowledge that we cannot build a perfect system. However, it has to be said that it is no accident that most of the power cuts that are still ongoing — my electricity went off again this morning — are west of the Bann. They are west of the Bann as the result of underinvestment. While we cannot build a perfect system, surely, we can, over time and with proper planning, start to improve the system that we have to make it more robust. That has to be looked at realistically.

Given that we are told that not all needs can be met this time, we have to look at the alternatives. I believe that they lie in rural communities particularly. We have small rural groups and rural halls that are more than willing to help in their communities in times of need.

Those groups' facilities are also without power, however, so we are seeing a situation in which people are being asked to travel to get support. Although the support in Dungannon leisure centre is welcome, people in Fivemiletown are 15 or 20 miles from there.

We need to instil resilience in local communities, including through a scheme that sees small rural halls being equipped with emergency generators, water to some degree, washing facilities and cooking facilities. Doing that would allow those small communities to become more resilient, because do not forget that, at the same time, we are also telling people not to travel. There is therefore much more that can be done. Following Friday's storm, we need to act immediately and make changes for the next time.

Mr Brett: The manner in which innocent victims across Northern Ireland continue to be treated is nothing short of an absolute disgrace. The perpetrators continue to try to justify their actions, while their supporters continue to attempt to rewrite the past.

I am very proud that my party has always stood shoulder to shoulder with innocent victims, and it will continue to do so. For many years, my party, alongside campaigners, made it a top priority to secure a victims' pension scheme for the innocent victims of terrorism. I was absolutely delighted that, in 2019, as a result of the work of my party and campaigners, the innocent victims' disablement payment scheme was introduced. An attempt was made to block the scheme in the courts by the now so-called First Minister for all, because she did not like the fact that perpetrators of violence were excluded from applying to it. Despite those best attempts, I am absolutely delighted to say that, to date, 10,000 innocent victims the length and breadth of the Province have applied to the scheme. Over 1,000 applications have been approved, with over £76 million having been awarded to people. The awarding of those payments will never replace a missing family member at the table, and it will never take away the trauma that they suffered because of terrorism, but it rightly recognises the fact that this place will always respect innocent victims.

Like the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, my thoughts this week are with the Omagh bombing families. As the public inquiry, which was delayed for far too long, finally gets under way, the message from these Benches and from all right-thinking people in society is this: there was always an alternative to violence and an alternative to mayhem and murder. My party will never shy away from standing shoulder to shoulder with those people.

Mr Mathison: I highlight the need for reform of our system of post-primary transfer in Northern Ireland. Over the weekend just past, P7 pupils all across Northern Ireland received their Schools' Entrance Assessment Group (SEAG) test result. Some will have got the outcome that they hoped for, while others will not have, so I begin my remarks by saying well done to all those who sat the test. They will have worked very hard and experienced a lot of pressure, and, regardless of their score, they should be very proud of how they navigated the process. There will be many children who chose not to take the test, and that is a big decision to make in a system that applies huge pressure on children to do so. I emphasise the point that their potential opportunities are not diminished as a result of that decision.

We need to consider undertaking urgent reform of the system. It is completely out of step with a modern, progressive approach to education. Reports over the years have built up a substantial body of evidence that the test is not the best way in which to manage the post-primary transfer process. Most recently, the independent review of education made clear recommendations in that space, stating:

On that basis, the review recommended:

That recommendation was stated clearly and unequivocally, and it was made with good reason. The influence of the transfer test pervades almost every aspect of our system. It results in grammar schools, year-on-year, applying admissions criteria that are not recommended by the Department's guidance. It skews the curriculum for Key Stage 2 pupils, who are often taught to attain in a test and not through a broad curriculum. The test is not approved, monitored or scrutinised in any way by any part of the Assembly. It is entirely privatised, yet it dictates the education journey of so many of our children.

As already referenced, it embeds socio-economic divisions in our schools. It also impacts on where our children attend school — taking them away from the schools that are closest to them in their communities — and skews the balance of schools that admit pupils with special educational needs. The case for change is clear. The 'A Fair Start' report was clear in its recommendations that the system is one of "systemic inequality".

I urge the Minister to engage meaningfully with the issue and not to dodge it or say that, because there is no consensus, we cannot look at it. When there is a systemic inequality in our society, a lack of consensus should not dictate whether we take action. The Minister needs to begin the conversation about how we can deliver reform. It is not about criticising schools or parents: we are all navigating a flawed system. The case for change is clear: there is systemic inequality that should not be tolerated, and it is time for the Minister to take real action to begin the conversation on how we can deliver change.

Ms Sheerin: I pay tribute to all our front-line workers who have carried us through a very difficult period since the weekend's storm. I was lucky enough to be safe and warm in my house on Friday so the wind did not knock me off my feet. However, I was blown away by the number of messages that I was receiving from very early on Friday — from 6.30 am and 7.00 am — from domiciliary care workers in my area whose main concern was not their own safety but whether the roads to their clients were clear so that they could carry out their daily visits. The concern and care that they exercise for the people whom they look after is overwhelming. Those people are the salt of the earth. Our domiciliary care workers are already overworked and underpaid, and they need to see an uplift in their pay to reflect that. The effort that they went to in order to keep others — the most vulnerable in society — looked about, was a sight to behold.

I also acknowledge the hard work of our NIE staff, including those who handle calls and respond to messages from ourselves, trying to keep us updated; and, obviously, the engineers, the linesmen and the men and women on the ground who are trying to fix the electricity faults across the North. That effort is, obviously, going to continue for the rest of the week and, indeed, into next week. They work in incredibly challenging conditions, with the wind and rain beating off them, and go for 12, 14 and 16 hours at a time without proper sleep or food. They are deprived of all those things but are still trying their hardest. I extend my gratitude to those people and to the people who work in our hospitals and our local shops, cafes and restaurants that have been providing shelter, heat, electricity and warm water to constituents who have not had those services in their homes.

As of today, I still have constituents who do not have running water or electricity. I extend my appreciation to those people for the patience that they have shown, even in trying to get updates. I acknowledge how appreciative they have been of our efforts to try to get the issues resolved for them. This has been a challenging time for people. The community has come together in a way that is brilliant to see in circumstances in which, obviously, none of us wants to be. I place on record our appreciation to all those people who are trying to take us through this difficult time. Hopefully, the next time that we have a situation like this, weather-wise, in the North, we will have infrastructure that is better able to support our rural residents in particular.

Ms Brownlee: I rise to address the recent findings of the Police Ombudsman in relation to the commemoration at Sean Graham bookmakers on the Ormeau Road in 2021. All of us are acutely aware of our unique and troubled past. It makes the already difficult job of a PSNI officer even more challenging. The political pressure that was put on the PSNI by senior members of Sinn Féin in the aftermath of the Ormeau Road incident was, and remains, unacceptable. The Scoffield judgement clearly demonstrated that that political pressure influenced decision-making at the most senior ranks of the PSNI and resulted in the officers involved being treated in a way that the Chief Constable and his senior officers must ensure is never repeated.

The Office of the Police Ombudsman has had the time to review and examine the events of that day in great detail — a luxury that was not afforded to the officers who responded on the day, who had the added pressure of COVID restrictions and guidelines within which to operate. The DUP continues to stand with the rank-and-file officers of the PSNI who, in this instance, were thrown under the bus. The Public Prosecution Service and the PSNI have, rightly, concluded that no action should be taken against the officers involved.

It is my hope that the publication of the report can allow those officers to close the door and put those events behind them.

Mr Gaston: Next week, it will be a year since the DUP returned to these institutions, boasting that it had cut the pipeline of EU law. Indeed, the Member for East Belfast Mr Brooks put his name to an article in 'The Newsletter' that boasted that the:

Having stood on the pedal, unionism has now discovered that the brake has no brake pipes attached. A matter of weeks ago, we saw that the nationalist and republican alliance in the House was happy to perform its masters' bidding and to subject Northern Ireland to laws that no one in this place or our representatives in Westminster can influence. The Secretary of State is clearly treating unionism with contempt. The core issue is that it is one of the 300 areas of law in which we are governed by a foreign parliament.

I remind every unionist in the House that they were elected on the basis of opposition to the protocol. When the votes were cast during the previous Assembly election, we all claimed that we were united behind the joint 'Unionist Declaration on the Northern Ireland Protocol' , which said that it was:

No one now disputes the fact that the Irish Sea border remains. After last week's brake failure, no one can dispute my party's claim that it is an utterly useless mechanism. The question that now faces every unionist in the House is this: are you prepared to carry on with this sham whilst unionism continues to be walked over?

Mr Carroll: There has been almost a year and a half of genocide in an attempt to annihilate a whole people in the Gaza Strip. It is worth saying that Israel, despite committing daily massacres and atrocities, failed in its aims. It stated that Hamas would be "wiped out", but it was not. Israel believed that, as a result of its war, people would rally behind it. The truth is that, as a result of its actions and killings on a mass scale, which were live-streamed, its name is the most toxic that it has ever been. During the war, we saw daily and weekly protests in most countries across the world by people of all faiths and none. Quite notably, in big cities, we saw a sizeable number of Jewish activists who were standing up for Palestine, although that was rarely featured in Western media outlets.

We cannot be complacent, because there is still a lot of work to do to end the occupation of Palestine, stop the settlements expanding and tear down those apartheid structures, but it is worth saying that people across this island played their part in the stand against Israel. Whilst there is tentative relief amongst people in the Gaza Strip and Palestinians about the ceasefire, I have no doubt that, if called upon again, people in this country — on this island — will come out in their droves. It is worth mentioning that the deal is the exact same deal that was negotiated last year. The obvious question is this: what was the obstacle? It was — surprise, surprise — Israel's reluctance to sign up to and be bound by a peace agreement.

When news of the ceasefire broke, some people rushed to throw praise on Donald Trump for it, but, in recent days, he has shown his true colours, as he seemingly has given his support for, once again, the forced movement of millions of Palestinians — into Egypt and Jordan this time. Those are countries that Palestinians do not live in or want to go to. By any definition, that is ethnic cleansing on a mass scale. Almost a week into the ceasefire, we have already seen Israel killing Palestinians on the West Bank, including two-year-old Laila al-Khatib, who was shot in the head by the Israeli military. Whilst the lives of Palestinians obviously do not matter to Israel or the occupation forces, they matter to us. That is why we protest and stand up.

Despite all the talk in this institution about exporting the lessons that can be learned from our peace story and all that kind of stuff, it is to the eternal shame of this institution that Ministers could not bring themselves to call for a ceasefire whilst a genocide was being committed live. That should be an important lesson learned for Ministers of this Executive.

Mr Speaker: That concludes Members' statements.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders and conventions of the House are clear that if issues of government policy or budgetary matters are to be announced, they should be announced in the House. As Chairman of the Economy Committee, I, alongside my colleagues, have attempted for weeks to get details of the Economy Minister's proposed allocation of £45 million for local economic partnerships. Despite our not receiving that information, the Minister made that announcement directly to the media yesterday — once again, bypassing the Committee and the House. Will you, Mr Speaker, inform Members how we can stand up for our constituents and ensure that we can ask questions of the Ministers who are allocating that vital public funding?

A Member: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: I have previously written to Ministers on that issue. The Member did not inform me that he was going to raise it, so I am blind on this particular issue. I will certainly look at it and will write again to the Ministers involved to remind them of their duty — their duty — to come to this place first to make their announcements. The First Minister and deputy First Minister made an announcement yesterday before coming to the Chamber. That was wholly acceptable, because there was an emergency in the country, and it was important that people got that message. It appears that there was not an emergency in this instance, and I will certainly review that. Due courtesy should be given to the House, the Committee and Members, who are elected here to hold Ministers to account. I will come back to you on that, Mr Brett, and thank you for drawing it to my attention.

Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Executive Office that the First Minister and deputy First Minister wish to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that questions should be concise. Long introductions will not be allowed.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): I wish to make a statement on the 42nd summit of the British-Irish Council (BIC), which took place on 6 December 2024. Hosted by the Scottish Government at the Dalmahoy Hotel in Edinburgh, the summit marked the 25th anniversary of the Council's first meeting, which took place in London in December 1999.

Heads of delegation were welcomed by the Scottish Government's First Minister, John Swinney. The First Minister and I attended the summit along with the Minister for the Economy and the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The Ministers have agreed that I make the statement on their behalf.

The UK Government delegation was led by the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer; the Irish Government delegation was led by the Taoiseach, Simon Harris; and the Welsh Government delegation was led by the First Minister, Eluned Morgan. The Government of Guernsey were represented by the Chief Minister, Deputy Lyndon Trott; the Government of Jersey by the Chief Minister, Deputy Lyndon Farnham; and the Isle of Man Government by the Chief Minister, Deputy Alfred Cannan. A full list of the principal delegates who attended is attached to the statement, which has been provided to Members.

The theme of the summit was financing a just transition, and prior to the plenary meeting, the Scottish Government delivered a presentation on the subject. Angus Macpherson, former Co-Chair of the former First Minister's Investor Panel, provided an overview of the characteristics of investor-friendly destinations. That was followed by Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, who set out the Scottish Government's approach to attracting global capital investment.

The plenary meeting commenced with a discussion about the initiatives that member Administrations are pursuing in order to ensure that communities are supported in the journey towards decarbonisation and net zero. The plenary meeting also considered efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in various sectors in a manner that is compatible with a just transition.

The Council discussed the importance of working in collaboration with the private sector to encourage inward investment and increase employment opportunities in the renewable energy industry in order to stimulate economic growth and prosperity across our islands. The discussion provided us with the opportunity to highlight several initiatives that are taking place in our own Departments as we move to meet our net zero target and transition to becoming a clean, sustainable and affordable society. Those include work within Northern Ireland's Climate Change Act, our energy strategy, our green skills action plan, our renewable electricity support scheme, our net zero accelerator fund and the establishment of a just transition commission.

We highlighted the importance of working closely with the business and farming communities in ensuring the success of the transition and the pivotal role that those communities will play in realising its full potential. We also reflected that fairness is at the core of a process and that we must provide confidence and clarity around how we will move to net zero in a fair and balanced way. While the scale of the challenge may seem a daunting prospect for some, there is no doubt that it can present opportunities for our people, our businesses and communities. It also places a great responsibility on us in government to deliver a just energy transition, where the benefits are shared by all.

Council members also briefed colleagues on significant developments in their own Administrations and reflected on a number of important domestic topics, including economic growth. The Council also discussed international topics of mutual interest. We took the opportunity to update the Council on the Executive's progress as we near the 1st anniversary of their restoration. We updated members on the development of our Programme for Government and highlighted the important work that is being taken forward under the Executive's ending violence against women and girls strategic framework. We expressed concern about our challenging fiscal situation and spoke of the vital need to transform our public services. We also welcomed the resetting of intergovernmental relations, following the Westminster election, and commended the contribution of the British-Irish Council in promoting positive relations across our islands.

Finally, the Council noted that the next British-Irish Council summit will be hosted by the Northern Ireland Executive in June 2025.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, deputy First Minister, for that statement. This is, indeed, the most vital of subjects and this is an appropriate forum in which to discuss it. You did not mention, however, that Northern Ireland has been a laggard compared with all the other regions. We have a carbon budget, which was passed by the Assembly a number of months ago. I presume and hope that the Environment Minister is now bringing forward a climate action plan. Can you confirm that that climate action plan will be agreed and signed off by the Executive and your party by the time of the next British-Irish Council meeting in Northern Ireland this June?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that there are a number of legal requirements and obligations on Ministers, and Ministers will endeavour to meet all those legal obligations. Of course, when any policy proposal is brought to the Executive Committee for discussion and agreement, it is right and proper that we scrutinise the detail of that proposal. We will have that discussion, and the desire is to get agreement and consensus on that.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for the statement. I note that the next summit will take place here in June. Does the Minister agree that those summits provide a very useful opportunity for all Governments involved to collaborate and share as we work our way through similar issues and challenges?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely, and I thank the Member for that question. Collaboration is always of benefit, as is building those robust and resilient relationships, including with other jurisdictions. Not just in relation to this area but on many of the challenges that we face, it makes sense to have those discussions and hear about what is happening and what is working elsewhere. If it is convenient and appropriate to do so, we should take some of that learning and apply it in Northern Ireland. That is the quickest way to get solutions that actually work. In relation to this particular issue, we emphasised in our contributions that it is important that we do not get into the space of competition in some of the areas in which we are developing and investing.

Collaboration, as opposed to everybody trying to do the same thing and competing in the same space, makes sense. It is a huge emerging area. There are, undoubtedly, opportunities for businesses in green growth, but we should do it in a collaborative, complementary and supplementary way with our closest neighbours.

Mr Kingston: I am glad to hear from the deputy First Minister that the important topic of reform of our public services was raised at the summit meeting. What commitment can the deputy First Minister give that reform and transformation remain key priorities for our Executive?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Yes, reform is absolutely key. We cannot continue to do things as we are doing them, or we will get the same outcomes. We know that, throughout Northern Ireland and across the Chamber, there is a desire to improve outcomes and the things that we do to ensure that we meet the needs of the people of Northern Ireland through better rolled-out and transformed public services. Transformation is key. I think that every jurisdiction is looking at the issue. We must do things better in order to achieve the outcomes that we want to achieve.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, deputy First Minister, for your statement, in which you said that you took the opportunity to update the Council on the Executive's progress as you near your first anniversary. Without reform, however, the Executive and the Assembly are as unstable today as they were at the point of restoration. What, if any, opportunity did you take with the Prime Minister to pursue a reform agenda for this institution, or are you satisfied with the high risk of continued instability?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The Member will be more than aware that these institutions, the mechanisms within them and the key principles of consensus and cross-community consensus were all in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, an agreement signed up to by a number of parties and endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic of Ireland. It has been said repeatedly that the Alliance Party seeks to change the mechanisms that were so consulted on, endorsed and signed up to: that is a matter for a different place. In this statement today, we are focusing on one of the institutions of those agreements — the British-Irish Council — and on the important issues of transformation of public services and green growth.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an leasChéad-Aire.

The Minister mentioned reaching our net-zero targets and transitioning to become a more sustainable society. Will she outline what work is ongoing across the Executive to help to achieve those aims, le do thoil?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. The Member will be aware that this work is led by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; indeed, the AERA Minister has brought forward a number of key documents. Many are cross-cutting and significant, which is why they are matters for Executive consideration and agreement. It is important that all Ministers are involved in that process.

The focus of this summit was on a just transition. That is incredibly important, because I think that, at times, people out there feel that that is an agenda that does not necessarily connect to them and will, potentially, increase costs for businesses and consumers. The key thing about the summit was the focus on what is just and balanced. I emphasised at the summit the importance of ensuring that we bring the people with us on this in terms of pace, cost and the impact on public services. Whatever we do in trying to achieve that worthy objective must be done in collaboration with farmers, businesses, the economic generators that are so important to our economy and, indeed, our public services and infrastructure to make sure that we can still do what we need to do in an affordable way.

Mr Harvey: Deputy First Minister, what work is being undertaken with the business and agriculture sectors to ensure that targets to reach net zero are fair as well as achievable?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. Our farming and business communities are the backbone of Northern Ireland's economy. I pay tribute to all those who work so hard day in, day out to hold up our economy and provide employment and many other essential things. I also pay tribute to all those who were out working throughout the period of difficult weather. Farmers do not get the luxury of staying at home and staying safe. They are out every day in every type of weather to provide the food and produce that not only feed Northern Ireland but make the sector a net contributor to the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Member is absolutely right: as we move forward with this agenda, it is critical that we do so in collaboration with farmers, recognising that there ought not to be a disproportionate burden on those who are trying their best and playing such a pivotal role in our food security and our economy.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I thank the deputy First Minister for her statement. She will be aware that, a few weeks ago, the Executive Office Committee consented to the Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. There is quite a bit in the statement on net zero targets. Will she provide an update on when the regulations will be brought forward?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. A number of questions and issues have been raised around that proposal. Establishing a Climate Commissioner is a legal requirement on the Executive Office, but I am sure that, in the Member's role as Chair of the Committee, she will be aware of the challenges that we have faced because of the drafting of that legislation. It is not without its problems. We have outlined the problems, but we are trying to move forward as best we can within the limitations. The current legislation is not adequate for us to do what we need to do in order to have a fully functioning Climate Commissioner's office, but we are working through that with our lawyers to see what we can do within the parameters of what was drafted and passed by this place.

Mr Sheehan: The deputy First Minister said that the theme of the summit was financing the just transition. Will she outline which other areas are covered by the Council's programme of work?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The British-Irish Council currently covers 10 work sectors: transport; housing; energy; early years; environment; indigenous, minority and lesser-used languages; drugs and alcohol; planning and places; social inclusion; and creative industries. The summit is reasonably flexible with its agendas. The last few summits have focused on a wide range of issues relating to green growth and the just transition. At the moment, we are discussing what our summit should look at. A number of key challenges face not just us in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom but these isles. Some of those issues have been touched on in the Chamber this morning, including transformation of our public services; tackling high waiting lists, which are not unique to us; transformation in the health service; providing affordable childcare; tackling poverty; and trying to achieve economic growth. There is a wide range of issues that we could choose to focus on in our summit. It is good that we have a body that has the flexibility to discuss emerging issues, as it has done over the past 25 years.

Mr Brett: I welcome the fact that the next meeting of the BIC will take place in Northern Ireland and commend North Belfast as the perfect location to host it.

Deputy First Minister, your statement rightly referenced the importance of green growth. Some £150 million has been secured from the Treasury for an enhanced economic zone in Northern Ireland that will focus on green growth. The Department for the Economy has made limited progress in developing that fund and supporting businesses across Northern Ireland. Given the importance of that funding, will you, as the joint head of government, commit to continuing to drive to ensure that we spend the money as soon as possible and continue to grow the economy here?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question and for raising the important issue of opportunities that are presented to us that may not yet have been taken up or have not been taken up and rolled out at the speed that we would wish to see. He is absolutely right. When I listen to people talk about our public services and about transformation, what they say always seems to be prefaced with a hunger or desire by some outside this place to push a significant additional cost on to the citizens of Northern Ireland. I say clearly that, before we contemplate doing that, we must look at every Department and agency to see what opportunities exist to maximise spend and to tackle inefficiency or waste. We need to look at what we can do better with the money that we already have before we have the audacity to say to the ordinary working people of Northern Ireland, "Pay us even more money so that we can take it and not use it in the way in which we ought to be using it". That is a challenge to all our Executive members.

I say strongly that the Executive will not simply take what I see as the easy route of heaping additional bills on the ordinary working families of Northern Ireland. We will look first at the funds that we have, how we spend them and how we can get greater efficiency and do more with what we have.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement. I was heartened to hear it touch on the importance of ending violence against women and girls. How important is it that our Government and Governments across these islands work with one another to end that scourge on society?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is such an important issue. In the first couple of days, around this time last year, the First Minister and I set out clearly that tackling it was key for us. Each death is an absolute tragedy and should have been avoided. We will do everything that we can through the strategy and implementation plan that we have delivered to ensure that everything possible is being done to tackle the scourge of violence against women and girls. We recognise, however, that we cannot do that alone: the Government cannot do it alone, and the Department cannot do it alone. We must work with partners in the community, in schools and in councils. That is why the schemes were rolled out to councils and why some of the funding from them will go to community groups that work directly with those women and girls. They know best what needs to be done to tackle that scourge.

It is also important that we send out a clear message that violence against women and girls is absolutely unacceptable. We are appalled by the level of it in Northern Ireland and are determined to do everything that we can to reduce and eliminate it.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement. Will she provide an update on what arrangements are being made for the next British-Irish Council meeting?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. Yes, I will. Work on the preparations for the British-Irish Council summit in Northern Ireland in June 2025 continues. It is a really good opportunity for us to pick the issue that we want to discuss at it, which, in my view, should be connected to our Programme for Government and should be an issue on which we can have genuinely good engagement on what we need to do, what learning we can take away and what collaborations we can continue to have that will benefit the people of Northern Ireland.

A huge amount of preparation goes into such events. It is a good opportunity for us to showcase Northern Ireland and what we do here and to showcase the food and other produce of Northern Ireland, as well as our wonderful scenery. We are working on all those issues and hope, shortly, to be able to make some announcements about what the focus will be on and about other aspects of the summit.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the deputy First Minister for the statement. She referred to the need to work in collaboration with the private sector. I have spoken to multiple companies in the energy sector. One of the main things that they tell me is that the grid is not fit for purpose. What lessons have you taken from how other jurisdictions develop their grid? Exactly what actions are the Executive taking to make Northern Ireland an investor-friendly destination?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We are working on the investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI). That is where the focus on capital investment will be. The Programme for Government deals with priorities, and the investment strategy will sit alongside it. Taking a longer-term approach is key to capital investment, because, sadly, such projects take a significant amount of time. Public-sector capital projects take a terribly long time.

Due to the length of time that they take, we see the initial projected costs rising. We see problems arising with the roll-out of some of those projects because it tends to take place over many years. We are looking at that situation through the Strategic Investment Board (SIB), with a real focus on how we improve it. Very few jurisdictions do public-sector capital programmes well. However, everybody is striving to do them better. That economic growth is so important in what we need to do to support our public services and our private sector.

The Member is absolutely right. It is a specialist area. We will, of course, continue to talk to experts in that field about what we need to do. There will probably also be lessons learned about the resilience of the network following the storm that we saw last weekend. Work will continue on that. It has also been flagged as an important issue for grid security. Hopefully, we will be able to update the Member on that very shortly.

Mr Gaston: Deputy First Minister, as the Speaker observed at the start of business today, next week marks the anniversary of the restoration of these institutions. That was partly justified by your party because of the creation of Intertrade UK, yet there is no mention of Intertrade UK in your statement. Why didn't Intertrade UK feature in the discussion, and what is its current budget?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He may not be aware of this, but the statement was on the British-Irish Council summit. That is entirely different from the Intertrade UK structure and, indeed, the many structures to enhance collaboration that we have throughout the United Kingdom and beyond. All those structures are important, because greater and wider collaboration across this United Kingdom is important. As a unionist, that is my priority, but it is also key for Northern Ireland. We are a small place, and we should be listening to and learning from elsewhere, taking what we can to ensure that we can roll that out with our public services.

Speaking in a personal capacity, Intertrade UK was very much a proposal of my party, the DUP. We are pleased that the UK Government accepted that proposal and are moving forward with it. Would we like it to be moving forward faster? Of course we would. We welcome the fact that a chairperson has been appointed and understand that we are to have further discussions shortly with the UK Government on the setting up of the body.

I have emphasised, in this role, through a number of the bodies that we sit on — the inter-ministerial councils and the UK-wide bodies — the importance of having Intertrade UK, because we know that there are many businesses in Great Britain that do not understand the current set of systems and are pre-emptively withdrawing from the Northern Ireland market when there is no need to do so. It is critical that companies know that they can send their goods to Northern Ireland, that Northern Ireland is open for business and that those consumer lines are still protected to ensure that we have consumer choice in Northern Ireland. Intertrade UK will play a pivotal and good role in that. The UK Government need to step up and get on with establishing it so that it can fully engage in its work.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, deputy First Minister. That concludes questions on the statement. Please take your ease for a moment before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I will update the Assembly on the housing selection scheme and the ongoing, fundamental review of social housing allocations. I have carefully considered the evidence available and, today, made a decision on the matter of intimidation points.

It has long been a source of frustration to me, along with many others in the Chamber, that the selection scheme treats victims of violence differently, based on the cause of that violence. A victim of terrorism receives more points than a victim of domestic abuse. Someone who has been targeted because of their ethnic identity receives more points than someone who has been targeted because of their gender. We must level the playing field for victims of violence. I am keen to ensure that victims of violence and those who are at risk of violence, including victims of domestic abuse, are prioritised appropriately. We must be more focused on how violence, or the threat of violence, affects a victim and their ability to remain in their home.

My Department has worked with the Housing Executive on a fundamental review of how social homes are allocated, with the aim of making the process fairer and more transparent. A public consultation on 20 proposals for change took place in 2017. The Housing Executive commissioned independent research to inform the future of intimidation points through a range of options. Following careful consideration and in line with the Housing Executive's recommendation, I am announcing today that intimidation points, in the form of rule 23 of the selection scheme, will be removed.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: The allocation of 200 points will cease. The independent research, which included extensive stakeholder engagement, and the Housing Executive's consideration of the options informed the decision. Applicants who have experienced violence or abuse or who are at risk of violence or abuse, whatever the motivation and whomever the perpetrator, will continue to be assessed and provided with emergency assistance under the homelessness legislation. The removal of intimidation points will not alter the Housing Executive's duty to support those who need such emergency assistance and find themselves unable to remain in their home. The provision of emergency temporary accommodation will remain under the homelessness legislation. Indeed, the Housing Executive will continue to facilitate specialist tailored support for customers who are impacted on by violence, abuse or trauma.

My decision today is focused on the housing selection scheme, which operates separately from the provision of temporary emergency accommodation under the homelessness legislation. The housing selection scheme is the mechanism for assessing objective housing need in order to make an allocation of a permanent social home. Going forward, the points for violence or the threat of violence in the scheme will not exclude any victim of abuse, violence or trauma. Regardless of causation, victims will be assessed using the same criteria that are in the housing selection scheme. It is an important step forward that all those who are victims of violence, harassment or trauma for any reason, including domestic abuse, will be able to access the same categories of points in the scheme. I have tasked the Housing Executive with removing rule 23 by the end of this financial year.

There will be transitional protection. Applicants who have alleged intimidation and whose circumstances are being considered under rule 23 prior to its removal will be investigated in line with the existing policies and procedures. Applicants who have already been awarded 200 points under rule 23 will retain those points until they are rehoused or until they refuse two reasonable offers of accommodation. Those are transitional arrangements to protect those who have already been awarded points and those whose application is in train.

Work on the fundamental review of the scheme is making progress, with nine of the 20 proposals implemented already. Work continues on the remaining proposals. I want to use the opportunity to do more, so I have asked the Housing Executive to take forward work to review the primary social needs criteria and points for all victims of violence, abuse and trauma as soon as possible and to engage with stakeholders to inform what the prospective changes will look like. I will also consider the impact on the emergency grant. As it stands, if access to the grant were widened to all victims of violence, it would have substantial cost implications. Therefore, I will urgently consider how that support to victims may continue without there being an unsustainable impact on the budget. I assure Members that I will carefully consider the way forward, including any advice or recommendation that is received from the Housing Executive.

I have taken the decision to ensure that the points for violence or threat of violence in the scheme will not exclude any victim of abuse, violence or trauma. That will level the playing field and enable the Housing Executive to award primary social needs points based on the impact on victims, regardless of the cause. As I have said, I want to do more. I want to go beyond removal, and I have asked the Housing Executive to review the primary social needs criteria and points in the scheme and to bring forward those proposals as part of the fundamental review. This decision will ultimately support the Executive’s focus on ending violence against women and girls as set out in the draft Programme for Government. I commend the statement to the House.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for the statement.

Mr Durkan: We welcome the ongoing efforts to amend a housing allocation scheme that abuses many people and is abused by some. It is shameful and sad that it is victims of domestic abuse who have to uproot their lives and leave their properties, and it is appropriate that they should be served equally by the system to other victims of threat, fear and abuse. However, they should be served equally well not equally badly, and we will have to reserve judgement on that until we see the review of primary social needs points. How does the Minister explain his decision to remove intimidation points altogether, given the previous Minister's commitment not to do so? What steps will be taken to avoid the uneven and unfair system beyond transition where victims up to a certain point will have received 200 points and after the new date will not?

Mr Lyons: First, I agree with the Member that it is a horrendous situation that the innocent victims of domestic abuse are often the ones who have their lives most uprooted. That should not be the case, but we have to deal with the applicants as they come to us, and that is why I want to make sure that there is that level playing field right across Northern Ireland in regard to the points.

I cannot comment on the actions of the previous Minister, but, from my point of view, I have always said that I am a Minister who wants to get things done, to move forward and to make sure that we are delivering for people in Northern Ireland. That is what we are doing today. I received the research and the recommendations, and I considered what the housing associations and what many Members across the House have said to me. I have taken that on board, and I have taken action.

The Member also raised issues in relation to a transition phase. Obviously, we want to move to that next phase, and we want to do that as quickly as possible. However, I want to be fair to those who have already gone through the process, and that is why those who have already been awarded points will retain those points until they turn down two reasonable offers of accommodation or find a suitable home.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, can you put a time frame on the Housing Executive's proposed review of rule 43, which is on primary social needs, given that we need to understand how that change will still be able to adequately prioritise people in imminent and serious danger and people with trauma, including victims of domestic abuse, and protect people from eviction?

Mr Lyons: That is an important review that will need to take place. We should make sure that we get it right, because it will have a huge impact on the allocation and on the lists. That will take time. I do not expect that to be done this year. I think that it will be later on into next year before that is completed. We want that done as quickly as possible, but, obviously, we want it to be as comprehensive as possible as well.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Minister. I very much welcome the announcement, particularly because we are now putting victims first for the first time. That is so fundamental to this change. You said that the date for the removal of intimidation points is by the end of the financial year, but, Minister, can you give a definite date for when intimidation points will be removed?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for her comments, and I welcome her interest in the issue. She has raised it with me on a number of occasions, and I know that she will be pleased with the outcome and with the impact that this will have, as she rightly said, on victims in Northern Ireland. I am committed to doing this as quickly as possible. I think that that is what Members across the Chamber want to see happen. I believe that that will be done by the end of this financial year. Obviously, we need to work in coordination with the Housing Executive on that. I have to say that I have a very good relationship with the Housing Executive and with Grainia Long, who is doing a very good job in her role as chief executive. We will be working together to do this as soon as possible, and it is certainly our intention to have this done by the end of the financial year.

Ms K Armstrong: Today is an important step in our peacebuilding process when we see that Northern Ireland has the opportunity to remove intimidation points and not give paramilitaries the opportunity to threaten people and create a society that only they control. I thank the Minister for that and for addressing some of the frustrations that many of us know. I also appreciate that this decision reflects on many of the responses that were received by the Housing Executive from Homeless Connect and bodies like that, and I thank the Minister for that too.

In the review of primary social needs, there are still gaps. For example, it does not talk about the victims of human trafficking. I would welcome a review of that. Is it the Minister's intention that the primary social needs points will replace intimidation points? If so, will the police be required to verify applications?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for her kind words, which are reflective of where many in the Chamber are: they have seen the issues that these intimidation points have caused in the past. They will be removed, and primary social needs will be looked at. That review will take place. The Member mentioned in particular some issues around human trafficking, and all that can form part of where we go from here.

In relation to — sorry, what was the Member's other question?

Ms K Armstrong: It was about the police.

Mr Lyons: Yes, sorry: the police and verification. There are existing systems in place using the PSNI and voluntary and community sector organisations and others. That will continue, but I also expect it to be reviewed, because we need to make sure that the system is as robust as possible. I understand that concerns have been expressed about that, but I hope that we will be able to get a system in place that everybody has confidence in.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we move on, I remind Members again that questions should be concise. The more concise your question, the better the chance that your Assembly colleagues will have of their question being reached.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his statement. I do not think that anybody in the House will deny that intimidation and, indeed, paramilitary intimidation still happens in our communities, irrespective of the 200-point award. Can the Minister advise the House what steps the Executive have taken collectively to eradicate paramilitarism?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right to raise that issue, because I think, and I hope, that it is the ambition of everybody in the Chamber to see an end to paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that there was ever justification for paramilitary activity, and I certainly do not believe that there is justification for paramilitary activity today. I will work with the Justice Minister and others to end paramilitary activity and the coercive control that can come from it. Today is an important step in making sure that, regardless of the cause of violence, we have a level playing field to protect victims, because that should be our main responsibility and focus.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

Will funding be provided to support the NIHE's front-line staff involved in housing allocations to undergo trauma training in order to minimise any potential re-traumatisation of clients during the assessment process following the review of primary social needs points and to remove barriers to sustainable engagement?

Mr Lyons: That is an operational matter for the Housing Executive. I am always happy to talk to the Housing Executive if additional resource is required, but that is not something that has been raised specifically with me by the Housing Executive, as it has control over its budget and how it is allocated. As always, I will be happy to discuss this further with the Member or with the Housing Executive if it is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed.

Mr Martin: I join colleagues in welcoming this statement this morning. It will be incredibly positive for a whole range of people across Northern Ireland. I will focus on domestic abuse and ask the Minister if he can give us more details about what these changes will specifically mean for survivors of domestic abuse in Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: First and foremost, it levels the playing field. I have heard from housing associations and from Members across the House about the unfairness of people being treated differently because of the cause of violence. I hope that this sends a strong message that we do not believe that domestic violence is any less worthy a reason for people getting the support that they need. I do not believe that it should ever be seen that way. It is an exceptionally serious issue that devastates lives and has generational impacts. I hope that the statement sends a clear message across Northern Ireland that it is not acceptable and that we will support the victims on a level playing field with everyone else.

Ms Egan: Minister, I welcome the fact that victims of domestic abuse will be assessed and provided with emergency assistance, and that the process is to become fairer and more transparent. Will you provide a copy of the assessment process that establishes how specialised, tailored support for those who are impacted on by violence, abuse or trauma will be assessed?

Mr Lyons: I am certainly happy to make that available to the Member and the entire House.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much, Minister. Under the housing selection scheme that you mentioned in your statement, the succession of tenancy policy has seen an increase in evictions and homelessness, particularly in the Belfast area, in recent times. A recent High Court case actually ruled in favour of a tenant whom the Housing Executive was trying to evict. In light of those incidents, will the Minister urgently review that policy and its application?

Mr Lyons: We always keep those issues under review. It is clear that there is a balance to be struck to ensure that we always have the right homes for the right people who need them, with the right adaptations or whatever else it might be. At the same time, we understand the importance of succession, especially when families have been established and people have been living in those homes. If the Member has a particular case that she wants to raise with me, I will be happy to look at that.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his welcome statement about being fair to all victims of violence. How can he ensure, as part of the ongoing review, that the primary social needs criteria and points are appropriate and fair to all?

Mr Lyons: That is an important question. We will take time to examine properly the entirety of the issue and ensure that we get it right. We will welcome input from the Member and others as we seek to ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose and reflects accurately the existing need.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I am conscious of the concerns that have been raised by Housing Rights. What engagement was there with stakeholders? Who will oversee implementation of the removal of rule 23?

Mr Lyons: The Housing Executive will oversee implementation of the removal of rule 23. The proposal was consulted on widely. In 2017, there was an extensive public consultation. A comprehensive communications and media plan was drawn up. Five public events were held across Northern Ireland, and 13 further targeted stakeholder events took place. A mailshot was issued to all applicants on the waiting list. A total of 185 responses were received from a wide range of stakeholders. My decision has been welcomed broadly. It will be welcomed by stakeholders outside the Chamber, and, judging from the comments that we have heard so far, it has been widely welcomed in the Chamber.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement and especially for putting victims at the centre of his decision. It is a powerful day for victims, whose voices have been heard. The announcement and the move to help them to escape violence will certainly save lives.

Minister, concern about intimidation points has been an issue for many years. Why has it taken so long to resolve?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member not only for her question and support but for the work that she has done on the issue for many years. The issue is close to the hearts of many Members around the Chamber. We have all met victims of domestic abuse. We want to do everything that we can to help.

The issue has been going on for many years. Back in 2016, there were debates in the House about the need to remove intimidation points. My party and I have supported that for a long time. There has been a number of reviews. Recommendations have been brought forward along with reports. I am glad that we are in a position today to do it. I cannot comment on what has happened and the responsibilities of those who came before me, but I have always said that, during my time in office, I will get things done to the benefit and betterment of people in Northern Ireland. This decision is another example of that.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, your Department was the lead for Fresh Start work stream two:

Where a tenant engages in threatening, violent or abusive behaviour towards another household, what will you do to ensure that it is that tenant rather than the tenant from the other household who loses their tenancy?

Mr Lyons: I am glad that the Member has raised the issue, because it is another one that he will see action on soon. There has been a joint consultation with the Department of Justice on antisocial behaviour. We need to make better use of the antisocial behaviour powers that we have, and we also need to increase them. It is inappropriate — I am sure that we all have examples from our constituencies — for those who are, essentially, the troublemakers to be treated better than their victims. In line with what I have set out today, Members will see the change in approach that I am bringing forward: we will always put the victim first.

Mr Brett: Minister, it is a good day for fairness and a great day for equality. The people of North Belfast are sick to the back teeth of languishing on waiting lists while they see those who engage in anti-community activity rushed to the top of the housing selection scheme, particularly when a new social housing allocation —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Ask your question.

Mr Brett: — is about to be awarded. Minister, other parties in the Chamber talk the talk about ensuring fairness and equality. Do you agree that that shows that this party walks the walk?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his support, which is often vocal, from the Back Benches. I know that the issue concerns him. I have made it clear that I want to get things done while I hold this office. I hope that, when it comes to housing, we see action being taken. For a long time, people have wanted to see action on the removal of intimidation points; we have taken action. People want to see a housing supply strategy; I have brought one forward. People wanted to see a stand-alone outcome for housing in the Programme for Government; we delivered that as well. I will continue to deliver, whether that is on antisocial behaviour, on cheaper rent through the intermediate rent scheme, through more innovative use of financial transactions capital or by making it easier to build more affordable homes. We are in a crisis situation in Northern Ireland. I will not sit back. I will do what I can to make sure that we improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you so much, Minister, for your statement. A lot of single men who are under threat and kept in temporary accommodation stay there for a long time. If intimidation points are taken away, what support will be given to such men, given that we know that it is difficult for a single male in the system? Similarly, there are male victims of domestic violence who have custody of their children but cannot get extra space. Will support be offered to them?

Mr Lyons: First and foremost, it is about making sure that everybody is on a level playing field and that it does not matter whether a victim of domestic violence or abuse or of intimidation of any kind is female or male. We need to see more homes in the first place, which is why we have the housing supply strategy. With the allocations that I made before Christmas, I provided additional help for those who found themselves homeless. There were also increases for the Supporting People programme, so those who are in a vulnerable situation and need help also have that support. If the Member wishes to raise specific instances with me, I am happy for her to do so. The Housing Executive is committed to doing everything that it can to help those in need, but she raises an important issue, and I have taken it on board.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the removal of points and the review of primary social needs criteria as part of the overall review. My question is about the review of the emergency grant. In North Belfast, housing is a major stressor, and I am sure that Members' constituency staff will be pleased to hear the statement and will look forward to working with the Housing Executive in the transition period. Minister, how will you ensure that, in the review of the emergency grant, equity will be considered so that those who are most immediately affected are supported?

Mr Lyons: That is absolutely what we want to do through the emergency grant. That is why we will review it. It is currently set at £754, and we pay out about £120,000 a year in grants.

As I said in my statement, there is the potential for a significant cost implication, but that will be looked at. I hope that people can see it from what I have said today, but we want to put fairness at the heart of everything that we do. That includes the emergency grant. We must make sure that we get help to those who need it.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement. I am sure that it will be welcomed across Northern Ireland, as the issue has been a bone of contention in many areas. The immediate costs of implementing the change are expected to be minimal. The long-term financial impact as a result of the increased demand for housing assistance may be a factor, however. What additional resources are being allocated for that purpose?

Mr Lyons: There is no doubt that we face a housing crisis, and that is why I have taken the steps that I have taken, whether by providing additional resources to tackle some of the acute homelessness issues that we face or by providing additional financial transactions capital to find new ways to ensure that we have adequate housing supply in Northern Ireland. We also need to ensure that we have a housing supply strategy in place so that we can increase the overall number of homes. I do not believe that today's announcement, as the Member rightly stated, will have a significant financial impact, but I am determined to do everything that I can to make sure that we have a housing system that is fit for purpose. I will ask Executive colleagues, who have also made that commitment, to make sure that the funding is in place so that we can succeed.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for his statement today. Has he any plans to mainstream the social inclusion model developed through the shared housing programme to empower residents to be resilient to paramilitary influence and to encourage social mixing?

Mr Lyons: It is not specifically part of today's announcement, but we want to do everything that we can to reduce and, I hope, eliminate the control and power that paramilitaries have, and, to achieve that, we will look at all the options.

Mr Crawford: In his statement, the Minister highlighted primary social needs criteria and points for all victims of violence. Will he therefore advise, given that violence is already covered under the primary social needs criteria, whether he foresees a new category being added? Will it include increasing the number of points, which is currently 20 for each primary social needs criterion, to a maximum of 40 points?

Mr Lyons: That will all form part of the review that will take place over the next year. If the Member has particular views on what we should do, I will be happy to hear from him.

Mr Carroll: I am really concerned about the announcement. I fear that it will put people at risk, and I say that with no exaggeration. For people who are the victim of a paramilitary, racist or domestic violence attack, the announcement effectively says that they cannot quickly get the 200 points required to get out of the house, meaning that they will have to stay there. I am concerned that the announcement is not victim-centred and pits victims of domestic violence against victims of racist violence and other types of violence.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question.

Mr Carroll: The Minister could have increased the threshold for victims of domestic violence, but, under today's announcement, everyone will lose out, so it is very concerning.

Mr Lyons: No. The Member is absolutely wrong. First, the rules on emergency accommodation will stay the same. Nobody will be forced to stay in their home. If somebody is at risk, is fearful or needs to leave their home, the same rules will apply for accessing emergency temporary accommodation if their life is at risk.

I strongly disagree with what the Member said about pitting people against one another. It was a disgraceful comment. That is not what the announcement is about. It is about making sure that everybody is treated in the same fashion. It is about levelling the playing field. [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: No. I find it odd that the Member says that he has a problem with making sure that everybody is treated in the same way. Does he really expect me to say that I believe that certain victims should be treated differently from other victims on the basis of the causation of the violence or the threat? Absolutely not. We will treat everybody equally. It is not about pitting people against one another, and it is terrible that the Member has taken that attitude.

Ms Sugden: Minister, beyond levelling the playing field, I will advocate for the victims of domestic abuse, given that people with children have been waiting in temporary accommodation for a year and a half. Domestic abuse is one of the most prevalent crimes across Northern Ireland, and we need to improve our housing system for victims. The review will give rise to conversations about that, but I urge the Minister to do more, given that there are waiting lists for women's refuges.

Mr Lyons: I am happy to take the Member's comment on board. I want to make sure that I do everything that I can to help those in need, regardless of the source of the threat or the violence. That is why it is important that, for those who are in immediate need, there has been no change to the rules for ensuring that people have temporary accommodation. However, please be assured that I do not believe that it is acceptable, in any way, that people live in temporary accommodation. It is terrible for children, their outcomes, their mental health and their education. That is why we are doing everything that we can to address it. I recently allocated additional resource to help people move on from temporary accommodation. The challenge is huge, but we are taking action to ensure that we deal with it. Today is another positive step.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for Communities, Mr Gordon Lyons, to move the Consideration Stage of the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments, detailing the single amendment for debate. The single amendment inserting a new clause into the Bill will be debated under the group headed, "Report on effects of regulations." I remind Members that, once the debate on the group has been completed, the Questions on the amendment and clauses stand part will be taken. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We now come to the single amendment for debate.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I beg to move the following amendment:

As Chair of the Committee, I rise to speak in support of the amendment. The stated purpose of the Bill is to implement reforms to automatic enrolment in workplace pensions by introducing a power to make regulations to reduce the lower age limit at which otherwise eligible workers must be automatically enrolled into a pension scheme by their employers. The policy intent is to use the power to make regulations to reduce the lower age limit from 22 to 18 and reduce the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band or repeal the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band, so that contributions are calculated from the first pound earned.

The Bill is small, with only two clauses, but, as I have just outlined, it has potentially far-reaching implications, particularly for young people of working age. During the Committee Stage, members of the Committee asked officials about the plans that the Department had to evaluate the changes once the Bill was in operation. Members were informed that the Department would use tools such as labour market surveys and impact assessments. While those were seen as useful measures, members impressed upon officials the need to be proactive in their evaluation to ensure that unintended consequences, such as those that we heard from the University of Stirling on the clawback of increased costs by employers, would not occur.

The Committee then discussed the possibility of an amendment that would place an obligation on the Department to ensure that a review of the impacts of the legislation was carried out within three years of the powers being used. The Committee asked the departmental officials if they would be prepared to accept that proposed amendment and bring it forward at Consideration Stage. The Minister responded that he did not think that the amendment was required and that the Department could consider providing the Committee with a review of the impact of the implementation of the measures in the Bill three years after introduction based on the monitoring of automatic enrolment that it currently carries out via the annual survey of hours and earnings (ASHE) and any other statistics available at that time.

The Committee was somewhat disappointed and felt that the commitment to produce the report was not strong enough, as a future Minister may not follow up on that commitment and, indeed, a future Committee may not necessarily recollect that such a commitment had been made and therefore may not give it the appropriate prioritisation in terms of post-legislative scrutiny that, the Committee felt, would be required. The Committee therefore decided to table its own amendment, which is before us today. We understand the argument that this is a parity Bill and that such a measure does not exist in the corresponding British legislation. However, just because it is a parity Bill does not mean that we cannot amend and tailor it to ensure that we have a report on how the legislation works in practice here.

The Youth Assembly's engagement with the Committee also underlined how interested young people are in understanding and contributing to decisions made here that will affect them for many years. The impact of the change is important for younger workers, and it is important that we in this place review whether it has the impact that was sought.

The Committee agreed that this was not a major ask of the Department given that, as it said, it already uses certain measures, such as ASHE and other available statistics, so we hope that pulling together a report should not be an unduly onerous task.

I commend the amendment to the House, and I welcome and look forward to the Minister's comments on it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As no other Member has indicated a wish to speak, I call the Minister for Communities to respond.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Before I address the technical amendment that the Chairperson of the Committee for Communities has tabled, I thank the Assembly and the Executive for supporting the progress of the Bill through the House. I also offer my thanks to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) for its rapid yet thorough advice on each stage of the Bill's progress so far. Additionally, I thank the Committee for Communities for its assistance in progressing this short but important Bill to Consideration Stage. The Committee's scrutiny has been robust and diligent.

As you will be aware, the proposals to extend automatic enrolment are intended to continue to normalise pension saving among workers, helping lower earners to build resilience for retirement; support individuals in multiple part-time jobs; and simplify automatic enrolment for employers. The amendment would require the Department to review, report and lay with the Assembly a report setting out its assessment of the impacts of any changes at least 36 months and not more than 42 months after the first regulations come into operation.

The amendment was proposed to me quite late in the Committee Stage. Initially, I did not consider that the amendment was required, as the Bill and the subsequent implementation of the proposals by statutory rule would be parity measures. As an alternative, I proposed that my Department provide the Committee with such a review on the same timescale based on the monitoring of automatic enrolment currently carried out via the annual survey of hours and earnings and other statistics that will be available at that time. However, Committee members decided that a departmental commitment to produce a review was not strong enough, as a future Minister could, when faced with competing priorities, decide against completing a review. On balance, I can see that a review of the initial implementation of the measures may prove useful. Therefore, I am content to support the Committee's amendment.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Sorry, there is no time to give way because the Minister has finished speaking.

Thank you, Minister, for that. I call the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Communities to make a winding-up speech.

Ms Ferguson (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for taking the time to listen to the reasoning of the Committee members and the rationale for the Committee's amendment.

At Committee Stage, the Committee had a majority view that this was a significant request, and we thought that it would help keep a necessary focus on post-legislative scrutiny for the next Committee. We are pleased to note the Minister's change in position and remain keen to take a proactive approach to our post-legislative scrutiny role.

I welcome the contribution that the Minister made today and urge Members to support the Committee amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The next item of business is a motion to affirm a statutory rule.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): 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 Lyons: The order was laid before the Assembly on 13 January and is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The order is made under the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. I thank the Communities Committee for its scrutiny of the policy and the order.

The Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order increases the maximum permitted stakes and prizes for playing bingo at a bingo club and for playing adult-only gaming machines at those premises where they are allowed. The increases were agreed in principle during the previous Assembly mandate. I understand that agreement then was on the condition that the parent legislation — the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 — was amended to ensure that limits could be set at different levels for different premises; for example, at a lower level for premises where alcohol is being sold. That amendment to the primary legislation was made at the end of the previous mandate. The previously agreed increases for gaming and bingo clubs, and for machine gaming in permitted locations, is now reflected in the order. It is important to note that the increases will apply only to higher-limit gaming — in short, gaming in which only people aged 18 and over are permitted to take part.

I will describe each of the increases in turn. I will begin with non-machine gaming at bingo clubs. The order, if affirmed, will increase the maximum amount that may be paid by any one person for any one chance to win a bingo prize from 50p to £1; increase the maximum total amount of sales that a club may take in any game from £120 to £500; increase the maximum single money prize that can be paid or offered to any winner from £25 to £100; and increase the maximum total amount or value of the prizes allowed in any one game from £120 to £500.

If the order is affirmed, it will increase the maximum permitted charge for playing one game on a gaming machine at a registered club from 50p to £2. It will increase the maximum charge for playing any one game on a gaming machine that is installed in a licensed premises — for example, a pub — from 30p to £2, and it will increase the maximum charge for playing any one game on a gaming machine installed at a bingo club premises, licensed office, which is a bookie's office, or a premises that has an amusement permit in force, which is an amusement arcade, from 30p to £2. It will increase the maximum pay-out prize in any one game played on a gaming machine in a premises that is licensed to sell alcohol from £25 to £100, and it will increase the maximum pay-out prize in any one game played on a gaming machine in a bingo club premises, licensed office or premises that have an amusement permit in force from £25 to £500.

The only previously agreed provision that is not included in the order is the proposal to increase the maximum pay-out prize in any one game that is played on a gaming machine in a registered club. During the previous mandate, it was agreed in principle that the present prize limit should be raised from £250 to £400. That increase can only be made by regulation, and it is subject to the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore, should the Assembly affirm the order today, I will immediately arrange to make and lay a regulation to allow that change to take place.

The increases that the Assembly is being asked to affirm today deliver on the intention of the previous Assembly, which did not have time available to do this during its mandate. They bring Northern Ireland land-based gaming stakes and prize limits into line with those in the rest of the UK. In Great Britain, those land-based limits have been in place for six years. Their introduction was welcomed at the time by those on all sides of the gambling debates, and, so far, there has been no turning back on that. I believe that that will be the case in Northern Ireland as well.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I support the introduction of the Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order (NI) 2025. The statutory rule represents a step in modernising our gaming and betting regulations. It ensures that they remain fit for purpose while aligning the framework here with comparable provisions in Britain. The purpose and context of the order, as the Minister set out, is that it will amend articles 77(1), 106(3), 108(6) and 108(8) of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (NI) Order 1985.

By increasing the limits on charges and prizes for various forms of gaming, the order seeks to reflect inflationary changes and evolving industry standards. Specifically, the updates will apply to bingo clubs, gaming machines in registered clubs and machines that are installed in licensed premises or premises that operate under amusement permits. It is worth noting that some of the limits that are currently in place date back to the 1990s. The order seeks to address those outdated thresholds to better reflect today's economic realities and to ensure parity with regulations across the water. However, it is clear that many Committee members and other Members of the Assembly remain deeply concerned about the broader issue of gambling-related harm across the North. The Committee is committed to examining the wider regulatory landscape to ensure that the appropriate protections are in place.

The Minister has kindly and comprehensively set out the major changes, so I will not repeat those. I will turn to consultation and oversight. The order has not been introduced without due diligence. The Committee was told about the Department's public consultation that took place between December 2019 and February 2020. A clear majority of respondents supported increasing monetary limits for stakes and prizes in line with more up-to-date practices.

Additionally, during Committee discussions on 21 November 2024, members sought assurances in relation to the potential for any adverse impacts. Members asked officials about any possible adverse impacts that may arise from the proposed increase in the maximum amounts for stakes and prizes. Officials said that, from the evidence available, they do not anticipate that the changes, which align with levels in Britain, will lead to higher levels of gambling-related harm. Officials also highlighted that, as the maximum amounts can be changed by delegated legislation, the amounts could be reviewed in the future. Officials advised the Committee that the gambling prevalence survey, as well as information that was provided by the Department of Health and the Department of Education, would be used to monitor whether there is any adverse impact.

The Committee is cognisant of the fact that, in some ways, the order is about catching up with other places. While the Committee was agreed on the approval of the order, members remain concerned about the overall impact of gambling-related harm in our communities. As recently as our last Committee meeting, the Committee agreed to look further at the regulatory landscape. Should any concerns arise in the future, further delegated legislation would allow for prompt review and adjustment of the voluntary limits. As mentioned, the changes proposed in the order will bring us into alignment with Britain, ensuring consistency across jurisdictions.

The Committee understands that this order is a necessary update to gambling legislation here, balancing the need for economic modernisation with the safeguarding of public welfare. It ensures that our gaming sector remains competitive and aligned with broader standards, while maintaining oversight mechanisms to monitor and address potential impacts. However, I reiterate that Committee members remain vigilant about addressing gambling-related harm and are committed to exploring further measures to enhance the regulatory framework in this area. The Committee recognises that this is a step towards a more balanced and responsible approach but is keen to ensure that that is not the end of the conversation.

On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I recommend that the Assembly approve the Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025.

Mr O'Toole: I rise to speak about what is a modest change to the law to increase stakes in bingo halls and other premises where gambling takes place. It is worth saying that I am not opposed to gambling and gaming. In fact, over the Christmas break, I won a few quid on the King George VI Chase, the big race that happens on Boxing Day or St Stephen's Day. I put a couple of quid on a horse, and I won. I come from Downpatrick, which is a town that is proud to have one of the two racecourses in the North. I think that it can be a fun and entirely legitimate way for people to enjoy themselves, and particularly to enjoy sports, and for community organisations and sports clubs to raise necessary funding. It is critical for sports clubs, including GAA clubs, and community groups to raise funding through bingo or local lotteries.

I understand why these measures are being taken, but it is important to say that this debate is happening in the context of a motion on gambling-related harm that we will debate later today. When we had a Bill in the previous Assembly mandate, we were told by the then Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, that there would be more ambition in tackling gambling-related harm. The motion that we will debate later is all-party. The official Opposition and the four Executive parties have all signed up to the text of that motion, which talks specifically about gambling-related harm being a public health crisis.

I do not think that modest increases — although they are fourfold or fivefold in some cases — to potential winnings for people playing bingo or gaming in a community context will be the end of the world. It is not necessarily the root of the problem of gambling-related harm, which is often done on people's phones and is particularly a problem for young and middle-aged men — people about the age of me and the Minister. He might not like me describing him as that.

Mr Lyons: I am a little younger than you.

Mr O'Toole: Yes, perhaps he is a little younger than me. It is important to make that distinction.

The important point is that people with addictions are waking up in the middle of the night and gambling away their life savings on devices. It is causing marital break-ups, suicide and desperation. There are Members in the Chamber who have personal experience of it and have talked convincingly about it. At times, there is a mismatch in our ambition in this place. Three and a half years ago, we debated the previous substantive legislation on gambling, and one of the biggest things that it did was to open bookie shops on a Sunday. In a sense, that was fine, because, again, it brought us into line with England and Wales.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member giving way, and I agree with some of the points that he has made. Does he accept that this was part of a larger package of reforms back in 2021? As a result of that legislation, a code of practice applying to gaming machine operators will come in in a way that it has not before. It will be an offence to cause, invite or, in any way, permit a person under 18 to play a high-stakes game. There will also be a new offence of cheating, fixing machines or attempting to cheat. We have to take this in the round, as well as some other things that I will come to later — I know that our interventions cannot be too long. It has to be seen in the round of the agreement that was made at that time. We have measures in place that will make a difference.

Mr O'Toole: I am not seeking to attack the Minister on this. That is not what this is about for me. I know that we are the Opposition, but I believe that there is a disjoint in the Chamber. I have made this point consistently, and I made it yesterday when we were debating certain matters: the public want to know what we are doing to deliver on their priorities. Later, they will see us debate an all-party motion on gambling-related harm, in which we call it a public health crisis. Earlier on the same day, our related legislative intervention is to increase some of the payments that can be made. The fact that our rhetoric often does not match the legislative action invites the public to question how serious and joined-up we are.

I acknowledge that, as the Minister said, some of this was agreed to in 2021, but it is also the case that, when the then Minister, his predecessor, introduced that Bill — I have looked at it in Hansard — she said that it was not sufficient. She acknowledged that more needed to be done. That was three and a half years ago. In those three and a half years, lives have been lost, marriages have broken up and families have been pushed into destitution and desperation by what the motion to be debated later today calls a public health crisis.

As legislators, the legitimate question that we should be asking ourselves is this: "What are we doing?". All-party motions are an important statement of intent, but infinitely more important than passing a motion with statements of intent and aspiration is legislative action to, for example, as the Minister mentioned, align with the position in GB. South of the border, in the other part of this island, it is illegal to have gaming machines in pubs. That is not illegal in the North, so there is one alignment that could be brought into force. That is something to consider. I am not saying that that is definitely the right course of action, but it is one potential legislative action that is open to us.

There is a range of regulatory measures that, because gambling is devolved — that is why we are debating it today — we have the power to introduce. Some of the issues that touch on gambling, such as advertising and broadcasting, are reserved matters, but not all of them. I will simply put it this way: there are perfectly good arguments in favour of what is happening today in this secondary legislation and I acknowledge that the Minister is, in many ways, following through on commitments that were made by his predecessor and were agreed to. I do not think that we are necessarily adding to the crisis of problem gambling by increasing the potential payouts in certain community contexts, but it is the case that we are not yet taking visible legislative action to go further, which is what we were told in 2021 that we would do. Later today, we will debate a motion, signed by all five parties in the Chamber, that says that there is a public health crisis. Let us get real.

Mr O'Toole: I will briefly give way to the Minister.

Mr Lyons: I want to challenge that, because action is being taken. Let us look at what is happening. The code of practice will be brought forward and will be in place shortly, and work is being done around the levy.

I absolutely agree with the Member that there are very serious concerns around gambling. However, this legislation was subject to health impact screening. This package of measures was agreed, and there are positive implications in issues to do with fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs). That brings clarity in the law on that, which I will go into further in my speech. It is unfair, however, to say that action has not been taken.

Mr Speaker: I remind the Member not to mix the next debate into this one. Let us focus on the issue here, and the Member can expand further at the next opportunity.

Mr Lyons: The Member will get an extra five minutes.

Mr O'Toole: Indeed, I get only five minutes on this legislation. I appreciate the Speaker's intervention, and he is right that we should focus on the matters at hand.

My point is to draw the public's attention to the disparity between what we are doing in legislative terms and what we are doing through motions, and I think that they are increasingly drawing that distinction. The Minister has made some legitimate arguments, and I acknowledge that he is engaged in the issue, but it is really important that we take legislative action and not simply pass motions, legitimate as they are. The public will start to become cynical if they simply hear warm words but see no legislative action, which is, after all, what we are here to deliver.

As you said earlier, Mr Speaker, when you talked about your correspondence to all Members, we are in this place to be legislators and to change the law. We are not a school debating society. We should take seriously the responsibilities that have been given to us. We have the power to change the law and to create criminal offences. We authorise billions of pounds of spending and can levy taxation that is a mandatory charge on the Northern Ireland public. Let us take our responsibilities seriously. That is the simple point that I wanted to make today on the two items of business on gaming that are in front of us.

Mr McGuigan: I find it difficult to disagree with a lot of what Mr O'Toole said. He talked about people waking up during the night and gambling on their phone and about the protections in legislation that are needed to prevent them from doing so. Unfortunately, many studies have shown that, for many, gaming machines are the gateway to much more serious types of gambling harm, so it is important that we get the legislation right.

I understand that the amending order is an attempt to align regulations on gaming machine stake and prize limits with those in Britain. FOBTs used to be classified as B2 gaming machines in Britain. Following the maximum stake reduction in 2019 from £100 to £2, they were reclassified as B3 gaming machines.

There is, unfortunately, lots of evidence of the widespread unlawful operation of electronic gaming machines, including fixed-odds betting terminals, in the North. There have been two decades of illegal use of electronic gaming machines that offer stakes and prizes, while the number of gaming machines has well exceeded what is allowed under the 1985 Order. A PSNI Assistant Chief Constable, in a letter sent to me on 31 March 2022, acknowledged:

We therefore have evidence that the previous legislation was being abused by some who operate gaming machines.

For Members' information, the maximum stake and prize limits for electronic gaming machines legally operated on licensed premises in the North are currently significantly lower than those in Britain. The maximum stake here, as the Minister outlined, is 30p. The prize limit is set at £25, with a maximum of two gaming machines per premises permitted. Under the order, those stake and prize limits for gaming machines operated in bookies will tomorrow, if the motion is agreed, increase to £2 and £500 respectively. The number of gaming machines permitted, however, will remain at two.

The order is a tacit acknowledgement by the Department that some members of the NI Turf Guardians' Association (NITGA), which represents bookmakers, are, unfortunately, operating outside our gambling laws. That is backed up by evidence in an investigation report by FACT, a leading due diligence provider, that was commissioned by law firm Lewis Silkin. Dated 1 August 2024, the report revealed that licensed bookmaker premises in Newry, Ballymena, Belfast and elsewhere were operating up to four electronic gaming machines that offered a maximum stake of £2 and a maximum prize of £500, which is well above what was permitted. The advice of departmental officials to the Committee for Communities was that the order will not increase the current levels of gambling harm, and that may be correct. It is clear, however, that certain historical and current levels of gambling harm would have been lower had the 1985 Order been enforced.

Recent research from the University of Glasgow has shown that there was a strong association between the total consumption of gambling products and the level of harm in our population. The evidence suggests that continuous forms of gambling, with high degrees of concentration of consumption, create the greatest risk of gambling harm. Research that GambleAware commissioned analysed the harms associated with different gambling products. It found gaming machines to be the most harmful group of products, with 76% of people who used only gaming machines experiencing gambling-related harm. That is supported by the most recent gambling survey, which found that people who play casino games on a machine or a terminal were five and a half times more likely to experience gambling harm than the average gambler.

The Department's consultation on regulating this form of gambling was carried out between December 2019 and February 2020. A more up-to-date consultation might have been more useful. Information disclosed on electronic gaming content on such machines may have changed since then, although it may not have.

The Westminster all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on gambling reform recently conducted an investigation that highlighted the fact that stakes in excess of £2 per spin are being facilitated by game-within-game and premium-play features on electronic gaming machines that are classified as B3 machines by Britain's Gambling Commission. Whilst we may be moving towards having similar legislation, we need to keep our eye on enforcement. That is vital. The APPG's letter to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) explained that those aspects were a breach of the Gambling Act 2005 in Britain. We need to ensure that, when we set legislation, we look carefully at all the arguments and not just those that are being made by, and in favour of, the gambling industry. We need to equate the public harm to, or even elevate it above, the profit, and I will touch on that in greater detail during this afternoon's debate.

If we reward the unlawful activities of licensed bookmakers in the North, how will we effectively enforce new laws that cover the much more challenging environment of online gambling, which is currently unregulated in our jurisdiction, and protect our population from gambling harm? Enforcement and regulation are key to that, Minister. You touched on the code of practice: you will be aware that, whilst I am speaking as an individual, the all-party group on reducing harm related to gambling has submitted a response to the consultation on the code of practice that says similar things: regulation and enforcement must be key to ensuring the safety of our population.

I have a few questions for the Minister on today's proposal. I want the Minister to provide assurance on who will be responsible for enforcing the new regulations. What role will the PSNI have to play? Will the PSNI just be reactive and act only when it receives a complaint from a member of the public, or will the Department or other statutory agencies be proactive in ensuring that the regulations and the legislation are being followed? The new regulations could increase the risk of harm that is caused by gambling. We need to know who will minimise that risk by safeguarding people and ensuring that some bookmakers do not continue to break the law.

Mr Gaston: I am shocked that the regulations have been brought to the Assembly. I am equally shocked that the Executive agreed to sign off on them, regardless of when that happened. Since the return of Stormont, a growing number of intelligent voices have questioned whether we have the competence to govern. I am deeply concerned that the regulations will give credence to those who suggest that we do not. Although there is a sensible way forward, which I will set out, it is only possible to engage sensibly with the proposed provisions, which increase stakes and prizes, by standing back to ask this question: knowing what we know about Northern Ireland today, is increasing stakes and prizes an appropriate step?

In 2016, the Department for Communities conducted the only comprehensive problem gambling prevalence survey that, to my knowledge, it has ever undertaken. The survey results demonstrated a problem gambling rate here that was not just twice, three times or even four times that in England. Members, it was five times that of England. In other words, the people of Northern Ireland — our constituents — were five times more likely to suffer from gambling harm than people in England. Since that time, the UK Government have conducted a further problem gambling prevalence survey that demonstrates that the situation with problem gambling in England has deteriorated further. In that context, if we are to act responsibly, we must adopt a precautionary position and assume that things have similarly deteriorated here in Northern Ireland, unless and until we have robust data to the contrary.

What will the proposed provisions do? Today, you have the opportunity to go into a bingo hall or a licensed amusement premises and spend 30p on a gaming machine to play the game once, with the enticement that you might win £25. It was in that context that our problem gambling prevalence figures were five times worse than those of England.

Today, however, we are being asked to sweep that away so that vulnerable people in our constituencies can go into a bingo club or licensed premises and spend £2 to play a gaming machine once with the enticement of winning £500. Therefore, the amount that can be paid increases by a factor of well over six, while the enticement to play increases by a factor of over 20. That is revolutionary, and it is not a far-off event.

Article 1 states:

In plain English, that means that, if we vote for the changes today, they will come into effect tomorrow. By Friday, you may find yourself confronting the socially destructive implications of permitting a dramatic increase in stakes and prizes. Members will do so against the backdrop of the knowledge that, the last time the Department looked at the issue, we found that our problem gambling figures — remember that this was on the basis of the old stakes and prizes, not the new ones — were five times those of England. Let us not forget that research demonstrates that gambling machines are 10 times more likely to be located in deprived areas. Other Members may be happy to go to bed tonight having voted for that, but I certainly am not.

Of course, I know that the Minister's justification is that the Department conducted a consultation to which consultees responded that stakes and prizes here should be brought into line with those in Great Britain. Some might ask whether it is not odd that I, as a unionist, oppose that. Members, if we are to have competent government, we are required to have regard for more than one thing at a time, and there are two additional considerations that we need to keep in mind when coming to a proper view on the regulations.

First, it is important to remember that Northern Ireland is unlike Great Britain in that it does not have a dedicated gambling commission and that the levels of protection afforded to people in Northern Ireland are much lower. In that context, it makes no sense to expose the people of Northern Ireland to higher risk than the people of GB when the people of Northern Ireland are not afforded the same protections.

Secondly, those who responded to the consultation did not just say that the stakes and prizes should be in line with those in Great Britain; they said that the gambling industry should pay a levy to help those who suffer from gambling harm. It is striking that, at 65%, support for increased stakes and prizes was lower than support for a gambling levy, which was 84%. On 5 April, the Great Britain Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 will come into effect, taking moneys from the gambling industry to pay for the socially destructive implications of gambling. Thus, while the GB rates applied in the regulations will be provided in the context of the protection afforded by the Gambling Commission and the gambling levy, bringing in between £90 million and £100 million per annum, the same will not be the case for Northern Ireland.

Before someone interrupts me to tell me about section 15 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which makes provision for such a levy, let me remind the House of two critical limitations. First, no levy has yet been introduced in Northern Ireland, because the Minister has not commenced the power, let alone sought to use it. Section 17(3) of the 2022 Act states:

To date, the Department has not by order appointed the day on which section 15 will come into operation, let alone produced regulations on the basis of it.

Secondly, the section 15 levy is completely unlike the GB levy, because it pertains only to certain forms of terrestrial gambling and does not engage with online gambling at all. If we aspire to govern competently, we must recognise that we cannot blindly seek to bring the risks that face those in Northern Ireland who are vulnerable to gambling harm into line with the risks experienced in Great Britain, knowing full well that the people of Northern Ireland do not enjoy the same protections. Not only that but the people of Northern Ireland will have fewer protections from 5 April 2025 on account of the GB gambling levy. Some might like to stick their head in the sand and pretend that the only relevant point of comparison is stakes and prizes, but the public know that that is not true.

What are we going to do about it? I propose that, at the very least, rather than voting to expose some of the most vulnerable people in our society to greater vulnerability tomorrow — we have reason to believe that they are already five times more vulnerable than those in England — we should not pass the legislation today. I propose that we keep it back, and, if it is to pass, that should only be at a time when we can be sure that the people of Northern Ireland are afforded at least the same levels of protection as those of GB. At the very least, we should wait until the Minister has commenced section 15 of the 2022 Act and developed the regulations to give effect to our gambling levy. He could then return to the House with these regulations and the gambling levy regulations on the same day. Until that time, it would be grossly irresponsible for the House to vote on these regulations, let alone approve them.

Mr Carroll: I do not know whether this is a declaration of interest, but I occasionally engage in gambling responsibly. I also recognise that gambling is a pastime for people but that it has wrecked the lives of people in working-class communities, in particular, and of people in this Building who have spoken about it before.

I will say more on the next point later, but I am concerned at the prevalence of gambling companies and their profiteering. Many sports organisations and football and other teams have gambling companies' names emblazoned on their jerseys. I am concerned about that. I certainly do not support a prohibitionist approach to the issue, but I support one that focuses on supporting people who are addicted and have come to harm through gambling.

I am curious: the Minister mentioned something about a health review — I think that he used the words "health screening" — before the order was carried out. Will he expand on that? I am not sure how those who are addicted to gambling are protected by the order. If the Minister can expand on that to allay some of the fears that I and, I am sure, others have, that would be helpful.

Mr Lyons: I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate for the points that they have raised, and I want to address those.

First, it is important to put on record again the fact that this is an overall package of measures that the Assembly agreed in 2021 when the debates first took place. Considerable progress has been made in dealing with the concerns that many people have expressed. It is important to note that we now have an offence in law. It is an offence to cause, invite or in any way permit a person under 18 to play a high-stakes gaming machine.

There will be a new code of practice. That, as Mr McGuigan stated, has been consulted on. That will apply to gaming machine operators. Of course, there will be a new offence in regard to cheating and fixing machines or attempting to cheat. Those, together with the legal certainty that the order brings, will be beneficial, because there is some concern in regard to the legal position around the fixed odds betting terminals that are currently in place. There is concern about what their maximum stakes and prizes are. There is an understanding, I believe, that it is a voluntary practice that those are reduced. However, there is additional clarity now that we have advice from the Departmental Solicitor's Office. We have the Supreme Court decision as well, which will limit that to a maximum stake of £2.

I will pick up first on some of the issues that Philip McGuigan addressed. One of the issues that he raised related to illegal machines. That feeds into the broader issues that he raised in relation to enforcement and responsibility. It is absolutely right that we make sure that there is a proper framework in place. I believe that that is what we have done now. Enforcement will be up to the PSNI. I want to make sure that the limits that we see are enforced and that, if illegal machines exist and are in places where they are not allowed to be by law, action is taken by the police. Certainly, if we, as the Department, receive any information about behaviour that is against the law, we have a responsibility to make sure that that is reported. We absolutely will keep an eye on enforcement. The really important point that was raised today is that we need to make sure that we enforce the laws that are in place. It is important that that is on record.

It is also important to note that the biggest problem that we have with gambling relates to online gambling. That is where so much of the concern is right now. That feeds into some of the points that were raised by Mr Gaston, in particular, about the levy. I am absolutely committed to progressing the land-based levy in Northern Ireland. That is a commitment that is on me and something that I enthusiastically support. It is important that we get that funding. That funding can be used only to tackle the health-related impacts of gambling. That is why work is ongoing with my officials. The Department of Health will have work to do as well to make sure that that is progressed. We are doing everything that we can to make sure that that is taken forward. Obviously, there are different rules in place when it comes to levies in regard to online gambling because of the way in which that is regulated. The Health Minister, the Education Minister and I have been very clear that we want to see Northern Ireland get its fair share.

I understand the other concerns that Mr Gaston raised. They were well debated during the passage of the last Bill. Moving into line and having consistency helps us as we attempt to tackle the issue. In fact, it was the Member's predecessor, Mr Allister, who advocated what we are talking about today. He asked during the debate:

I agree, and I am pleased that that is what the regulation will do. We will have that maximum stake, and there will be no ambiguity. That should be welcomed.

I understand the concerns that have been expressed. We need to take into consideration the wider package of measures that are in place and my commitment to the levy, the code of practice and the other issues that have previously been debated. I hope that that reassures Members about the action that I am taking.

I say in response to Mr Carroll that a health impact screening was carried out. The proposals were included in a health impact screening of the overall legislative programme initiated in 2022. The screening concluded that, if taken together with the provisions included in the 2022 Bill, any health impacts were unlikely. I hope that that gives the Member some comfort.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will finish, because time is tight before lunchtime.

I hope that that gives Members some comfort. This is just the start of the work that we have to do to tackle the issue. It will be debated further later today, but, in the meantime, I ask Members to consider and support the regulations.

Mr Speaker: We will now suspend for lunch, as the Business Committee will meet at 1.00 pm. The next item of business will be Question Time, which will commence at 2.00 pm.

Dr Archibald (The Minister of Finance): With the Speaker's permission, I will answer questions 1 and 10 together.

The Department of Health was provided with a resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) budget of £7·7 billion in 2024-25. The Department received a further £479 million during in-year exercises. The 2025-26 draft Budget proposes a resource budget of £8·4 billion for the Department of Health. That is an increase of £672 million or 8·7% compared with the 2024-25 non-ring-fenced resource DEL opening baseline. The financial package that accompanied the restoration of the Executive included £34 million specifically for health waiting lists in 2024-25. That was provided as a ring-fenced allocation. Similar funding was not provided by the financial package for 2025-26. To provide the Health Minister with the maximum flexibility in managing his budget, I have not proposed further ring-fencing of funding for waiting lists or care packages in 2024-25 or 2025-26. Whilst that could be considered as part of the final Budget following the consultation exercise, it would require ring-fencing part of the current budget proposed for the Department of Health, reducing the flexibility available to the Health Minister or reducing other Departments' budget allocations.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for her response. She will be aware, however, that the most recent allocation of £7 million in January monitoring fell short even of the allocation needed to deliver pay parity for our health workers. Does the Minister accept that there is an inconsistency in the Executive's seemingly prioritising tackling waiting lists in the Programme for Government whilst actively deciding not to even partially meet the waiting list initiative bids that were submitted in 2024-25?

Dr Archibald: In the January monitoring round, the Department of Health made a bid of £1·5 million in relation to waiting lists. As the Member will very likely be aware, we only had £15 million resource DEL to allocate in the January monitoring round, and some of that had to go to pressures in other Departments. The allocation that was made to the Health Minister was for pay, waiting lists and other pressures. It is for the Health Minister to make decisions on how he wants to spend his budget, as he is best placed to do. I do not feel that it is a contradiction in terms for the Executive to have a set of priorities on which we are collectively committed to deliver. It will be for each Minister in their Department to take decisions to prioritise against those objectives and for us, as an Executive collectively, to agree our Budget and try to ensure that it is done through the lens of the Programme for Government. It is also for individual Ministers in their Departments to prioritise the items in the Programme for Government.

Mr McGrath: This is becoming ridiculous. We are told that to save our health service we have to transform, yet we have a Health Minister who says that he does not have enough money to do his day-to-day business never mind undertake transformation. You are the Finance Minister: what are you going to do about it? Are we going to leave people to languish on waiting lists for a generation?

Dr Archibald: As an Executive collectively, we have set priorities and objectives, but individual Ministers have responsibilities for delivering on those as well. I am quite sure that every Minister in the Executive, if they were talking about their budget, would say that they are not in a position to deliver everything that they would want to deliver day-to-day while balancing that against transformation. That is one of the reasons why I continue to make the case for the Executive to be properly funded according to their level of need. I continue to make the case that we need to revisit our level of need so that we, as an Executive, have the maximum funding available to us. Undoubtedly, there are decisions that individual Ministers and the Executive collectively, working with all Members in the Chamber, will have to take on transformation and on improving productivity and efficiency in each and every Department. I can certainly say that, collectively, as an Executive, we are committed to doing that.

Ms Kimmins: Despite what others may say, it is very clear that Health has been prioritised at every opportunity. Can the Minister describe how it will be prioritised in this draft Budget, particularly given that that will lead to other Departments not getting what they want?

Dr Archibald: There is no doubt that our health service is under immense pressure. Every single one of us will be aware of the implications of that through our constituency offices. It is important that we all recognise the incredible job that our health workers are doing in the most challenging circumstances.

I agree with the Member that the Executive have prioritised Health, and that is reflected in the fact that the Department of Health receives over 50% of the total resource DEL funding available. The draft 2025-26 Budget provides just under £8·4 billion for the Health non-ring-fenced resource DEL baseline, which, as I indicated, is an increase of £672 million, or 8·7%, compared with the 2024-25 opening baseline. I recognise that, even with that additional funding, it will still be challenging, but it is also important to cite the many other areas that we need to invest in, including childcare, homelessness, education and justice initiatives, all of which have a role to play in health outcomes as well. As the Health Minister has himself recognised, there are many competing challenges, and we have a finite amount of funding available to us. Increasing funding for Health means less funding for other services that also contribute to health.

It is also important to reflect on the budget that has been allocated to Health over the past number of years. It has grown slowly and inexorably over time. The draft 2025-26 Budget outcome represents an increase in its resource DEL baseline of over £2·6 billion since 2020-21, which is equivalent to 45·7%. That is very difficult to sustain in the longer term, particularly when outcomes have not been improving in tandem with that increase. Allocations are agreed by Executive members —.

Mr Speaker: Minister, your time is gone.

Dr Archibald: I have met the AERA Minister on several occasions since becoming Finance Minister to discuss funding for his Department, including in respect of the issues at Lough Neagh. In addition, the Executive have met collectively to discuss Budget challenges, including in November 2024, prior to agreeing the draft 2025-26 Budget, when all Ministers had an opportunity to highlight their key budgetary pressures.

Minister Muir also shared the Lough Neagh action plan with the Executive in July, and it was discussed and agreed at that point. The protection of Lough Neagh and the surrounding environment is a key priority, as reflected in the draft Programme for Government. I was pleased that, despite significant financial challenges, the Executive agreed to allocate to DAERA £1·5 million resource DEL and £1·6 million capital DEL in June monitoring to support actions relating to Lough Neagh, and an earmarked capital allocation of £12·7 million has been made to DAERA to support a just transition as part of the draft 2025-26 Budget. I understand that among the projects that this will support will be one relating to the sustainable use of livestock slurry. That project aims to reduce the excess nutrients, particularly phosphorus, entering the agri-food system.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagra.

What collaboration or coordination is going on between the Departments and, indeed, the Executive to help to rectify issues emanating from Department for Infrastructure sewage disposal works? What support has been given to that Department to attempt to address those major issues?

Dr Archibald: I can assure the Member that those engagements are ongoing between individual Ministers and in the Executive as a whole. As for supporting the actions that relate to, for example, NI Water, additional funding has been made available to the Department for Infrastructure. From the perspective of investing in waste water infrastructure and from an environmental perspective, there is a collective understanding of the need to provide that additional funding. I do not have the figures in front of me for the allocations, but I assure the Member that the Executive take the matter incredibly seriously.

Mr Buckley: When we talk about Lough Neagh in this place, it is often through an environmental lens. Although that is important, it is often used as a stick with which to beat the rural, farming community. For many years, many farmers in my constituency of Upper Bann have had their land destroyed by flooding that is associated with Lough Neagh, largely as a result of Department for Infrastructure dredging issues. When any additional funding is allocated to Lough Neagh, will the Minister ensure that value for money is taken into account and that farming is included in the wider discussion?

Dr Archibald: I assure the Member that the Executive are alive to the need to balance the interests and to recognise the importance of the faming and agriculture community in dealing with some of the challenges, as well as the really important role that that community plays in supporting action to protect our environment. Farming has therefore formed part of our discussions. We have the Lough Neagh action plan, which has been agreed by the Executive. A number of initiatives will be taken forward under that plan. Balancing the interests will be key, however. It is important that we reflect on the role that our farming and agri-food community plays, particularly in our economy.

Miss Brogan: Will the Minister detail how the 2025-26 Budget will support agriculture funding?

Dr Archibald: As all Members will be aware, Treasury removed the ring fence around our agri-food and farming funding in 2025-26 as part of the spending review. I was keen to see appropriate funding be provided to farming communities. I therefore recommended that an earmarked allocation of £332·5 million be provided to DAERA for farming and fisheries support payments. I hope that that important support will continue to be earmarked in future Budget exercises in order to ensure that appropriate funding is provided to that important sector. The Executive supported that collectively. I also proposed a capital allocation of £12·3 million for just transition to provide further support to the farming sector.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, you referred to NI Water and the fact that waste water infrastructure contributes to the blue-green algae that we see on Lough Neagh. Do you share the Minister for Infrastructure's assessment that the funding model for NI Water is sustainable and fit for purpose?

Dr Archibald: The Infrastructure Minister is well on record as saying that. Yesterday, I listened to him respond in the Chamber to a number of questions about NI Water's funding model. I have to say that I concur with his perspective of wanting to ensure that NI Water is kept in public ownership and that no domestic water charges are introduced. Unfortunately, other funding models do not support that particular perspective.

Dr Archibald: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 3 and 14 together. I have been engaging with businesses from a wide range of sectors, including businesses in the hospitality sector, and have heard about the cost pressures that they are facing. I, too, am concerned about the planned changes to National Insurance contributions that are coming in April and have written to the British Government on the need for support or mitigations to ease their impact.

I have also commissioned the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre (UUEPC) to carry out an independent sectoral study on the cost of doing business here. Terms of reference for the research have been published on my Department's website. That research, which will include an assessment of the impact across sectors, will allow me to present as strong a case as possible to the British Treasury on the matter.

In addition, my Department, through Land and Property Services (LPS), offers a wide range of support schemes. Those schemes provide £275 million of support to business ratepayers, alongside offering alternative payment options to assist those who need them because of rating debt. Some 65% of the hospitality industry as a whole is in receipt of support via the small business rate relief scheme.

I have also written to Executive colleagues to encourage them to ensure that their Departments and arm's-length bodies are doing everything that they can to improve performance on prompt payment to businesses. Rest assured that I will do all that I can to press for the needs of the hospitality industry to be addressed.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her answer. Recent reports have indicated that, according to insolvency specialists, there has been a record jump in the number of UK businesses in critical financial stress. Businesses are in dire need of support and feel that they are being taxed to death. When will the report be completed and published, and, most important, when will we see proactive steps to support our business community?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. One thing that I was exercised about when I commissioned the research was that we would have it in a timely manner. It is really important that we have the evidence base to inform the spending review, which is scheduled for June. The research will be concluded in a report to me by the end of March. I encourage anybody who is affected and wants to participate in the research to do so. The links and the contact information will be on the Department of Finance website.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her answer. I welcome the research and the review of small business rate relief, but it will take time for them to reach their conclusion, and, for some, it will be too little, too late. What further assurances can the Minister provide to business owners in my constituency who have had to lay off staff, and what support can be provided? Will the Minister accept my recent invitation to meet members of the hospitality sector in my constituency?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question and for the invitation, which is being considered by officials. I have received representations on the issues facing businesses from representative bodies and individual businesses. There is clearly a lot of pressure from the cost-of-doing-business crisis, with inflationary increases across a range of things from insurance to energy and the cost of goods and services. There are a lot of pressures on businesses. It is important that we understand what those pressures are and any impacts that businesses in the North are feeling that differentiate them from those in Britain or in the South and that we are in a position to make a case that is specific to here and perhaps even to individual sectors here.

I met the hospitality sector last week. A key issue that they raised was VAT and the increased differential between North and South that there will be in the coming months, which will make the North less competitive for some businesses. I have committed to engaging with the British Treasury on that.

Mr Delargy: Minister, what steps have you taken to lobby the British Chancellor to support businesses that have been impacted on by the increases in National Insurance contributions?

Dr Archibald: I have written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about employers' National Insurance contributions. As I indicated to other Members, I have received significant representation on that issue from businesses and from the community and voluntary sector. In the public sector, we will face particular pressures from that. It is not within the ability of the Executive to mitigate such a significant decision of the British Government on a reserved taxation measure. I have therefore made the case to the Treasury that it must meet the full cost to the public sector and should put in place mitigations for the community and voluntary sector, our small businesses and, in particular, those in the community and voluntary sector who deliver public services on behalf of or in partnership with the public sector.

Mr Crawford: Minister, my question may have been partially answered, but, in light of calls from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) to support our economy, what proposals do you have for reducing the burden on our SME sector?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. The key initiative has been commissioning the research so that we have a full understanding of the impacts and that any interventions that we make to support businesses are fully informed by that. More important, however, we will be able to make a case to the British Treasury about the impact that its decisions will have on our small and medium-sized businesses. We are a small business economy, and we know how many people are employed by small businesses in all our constituencies. The impact of those decisions will be hugely significant.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Minister give an update on the strategic review of rates? When can businesses expect to see changes to the non-domestic rates coming through?

Dr Archibald: I made an announcement before Christmas, and we are looking not only at the domestic rating measures but at the non-domestic rating measures. The consultation on the domestic rating measures will be announced imminently. On the non-domestic rating measures, this year, we have said that we will look at small business rate relief. That is particularly timely, given the conversations that we are having here today. We will also look at the rate relief for vacant properties, and I am keen to look at regeneration and whether, if changes are to be made to the vacant property rating relief, we can do those two things together. There is merit in doing that. The work to inform those two consultations is ongoing, and we will launch them after the start of the financial year.

Dr Archibald: The draft Budget for 2025-26 was agreed by the Executive on 19 December, with a 12-week public consultation launched on the same day. The public spending position, as the Member will know, remains very challenging for 2025-26 for resource and capital spending. Despite the challenges facing us, the draft Budget demonstrates the Executive's commitment to doing what matters most. It will deliver and prioritise additional investment in our public services and an economy that supports businesses to improve the lives of workers, families and communities. I encourage people to have their say and contribute to my Department's overarching consultation, which ends on 13 March.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, in the answer to the previous question, you said that a consultation on rates would begin in the new financial year, but it has not been said clearly enough in the Chamber that there will be a 3% increase in the regional rate for businesses in the 2025-26 Budget. Is it not a bit disingenuous for us to come in here and talk about the seriousness of the issues facing business while slipping through a regional rate increase in the non-domestic rate? Has that been agreed by your Executive colleagues?

Dr Archibald: I would not characterise it as slipping it through, because it was clearly stated in the ministerial statement that was published on 19 December and all the Budget documentation thereafter. It said that the draft Budget for 2025-26 is predicated on those rate increases. What we have tried to do and what we tried to do this year is to look at inflation and stay some way in line with that. I am very conscious of the pressures on businesses, and the Member will be aware of the 5% that was proposed for domestic properties. The differential was in recognition of the particular challenges and the representations that have been made to us in respect of the cost of doing business.

The Member will be aware, as will everybody in the Chamber, of the huge pressure that is on the Executive's Budget and our ability to deliver public services, as many have mentioned during this Question Time. There is an expectation that the public services will be good quality for all the people whom we represent, and the balance that we are trying to achieve is between that Budget and where the burden falls. I am trying as best I can to ensure that it falls on the shoulders of those who are most able to meet it.

Mrs Mason: Minister, despite the pressures that you face, I welcome the support and the priority that you have given to childcare, which has allowed the development of the very much-needed first steps that we have seen. Will you outline how the 2025-26 Budget will also support childcare?

Dr Archibald: This year, 2024-25, the Executive had allocated £25 million for proposals brought forward by the childcare affordability task and finish group. The draft Budget 2025-26 proposes that £50 million is earmarked for childcare. That doubles the funding provided in 2024-25. The Executive also agreed, as part of the draft Budget, that a further £5 million would be provided for childcare in the first in-year monitoring round for 2025-26, and that will meet the Education Minister's full request for £55 million.

In the light of the significant financial pressures facing the Executive, those allocations clearly demonstrate our commitment to supporting hard-working families. Childcare is one of the priorities in the draft Programme for Government, so it clearly contributes to that as well.

Dr Archibald: The General Register Office in my Department provides guidance to registrars in looking for the signs of possible forced marriage and reporting those to the appropriate authorities. That is part of a multi-agency approach to the prevention of forced marriage that operates across all sectors and involves agencies both within and outside government, including the PSNI, the courts, health trusts, schools and others. Action to prevent forced marriages is coordinated by the Forced Marriage Unit, a joint Home Office- and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office-sponsored body.

My Department has previously inputted on legislative change to combat forced marriage and has worked with colleagues in the Department of Justice and others on this important issue through, for example, the development of guidance. During 2024, my Department developed policy on raising the minimum age of marriage from 16 to 18. That is in recognition that some child marriages can be forced.

The Executive have agreed to include provisions in the forthcoming marriage and civil partnership Bill that will extend the offence of forced marriage to anyone attempting to arrange the marriage of a person aged under 18. I hope to bring that Bill to the Assembly for consideration in the coming months, and I believe that the relevant provisions will provide another important protection against forced marriage.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, I am really pleased to hear that. As you know, in its annual statement, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission talked about bringing that legislation forward. I have nothing to add other than to say that I look forward to that.

Mr Speaker: That is not really a question.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, can you outline how the Budget supports ending violence against women and girls?

Dr Archibald: All of us realise what an important issue that is. Ending all forms of violence, abuse and harm against women and girls is one of the most pressing issues facing our society today. The Executive are committed to tackling that important issue.

In March 2021, the Executive acknowledged the need for a departmental, cross-cutting, government-wide approach to tackle the issue of violence against women and girls. The Executive Office has subsequently been developing a strategic framework to achieve the society-wide transformation that is needed to achieve that Executive priority. The draft Budget for 2025-26 includes an earmarked allocation of £2 million to TEO towards the implementation of phase 1 of its delivery plan. In addition to that earmarked allocation for TEO, it has set aside £1·2 million from its baseline to fund an ending violence against women and girls change fund for community and voluntary sector organisations in partnership with local councils. As part of that wider change fund, a regional change fund initiative was announced on 21 January by the First Minister and deputy First Minister aimed at tackling violence against women and girls.

In response to Paula Bradshaw, I say that the legislation that we are bringing forward is an important part of the effort to challenge violence against women and girls and to bring it to an end.

Dr Archibald: I am keen to see the scheme taken forward as quickly as possible to give bereaved families the opportunity to have formal recognition of their loss. I want all parents and families who have suffered the devastating loss of a baby to feel that their grief is recognised.

Primary legislation is currently being drafted that will be the start of the process to establish a scheme here. I hope to introduce the deaths, stillbirths and baby loss Bill in the Assembly in the next number of weeks. We will continue to work with the Department of Health to specify the detail of this important initiative, to make sure that it meets the needs and expectations of the bereaved families and to scope delivery options.

My officials continue to progress work on this at pace, and a more detailed schedule will be made available when this legislation has been considered by the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: We have no time for follow-up questions, so we move to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for the question. I know that he will be aware that one of the things that we committed to in the Budget sustainability plan was that, when there are multi-year spending reviews, we will also do multi-year Budgets alongside that. He will also be aware that the legislation precludes us from doing a multi-year Budget outside of those circumstances.

We are expecting a spending review in June, which will be for two years, and we have the preparations in place to respond and do likewise and to have a two-year Budget in the first instance. The Labour Government have said that they intend to review that every two years and look forward on a three-year basis. That is the basis on which I am planning, and I am very keen that the work that is being undertaken in respect of the departmental plans will help inform that budgeting process and give us the ability to take that slightly longer-term look at things.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I welcome the fact that you are looking at this, but I am concerned that we look as though we are being imprisoned by the strict legal limitations that are imposed on us by London. You and I want a new constitutional future. If we listen to what the Treasury says, we will not be planning for that future. Even if the legislation prevents you from providing a legal Budget, it does not stop you and the Executive providing a five-year indicative Budget for what will be needed to deliver the public services for the population that we will have in 2028-29 and beyond. Can we have that Budget, even if it is just indicative?

Dr Archibald: The departmental plans will have a forecast of the departmental needs, and that will help us inform the budgeting process. In that respect, we will be able to take that longer-term look at things, but, in terms of actually having an understanding of what our funding envelope is and being able to align that with our priorities, we are, unfortunately, tied to those spending review periods. However, it is really important that that work is done so that we are able to plan to deliver high-quality public services and to support a strong and thriving economy where everybody can prosper.

Dr Archibald: I had the opportunity to speak with the Secretary of State on Saturday, and we discussed the impact that the storm is still having. As you quite rightly said, a lot of people are still without power and water, and we are very conscious of that and of the hardship that many continue to face. We continue to engage with partners to do everything possible to rectify that. It is important that we all put on record our gratitude to our front-line workers, including those who worked through the storm and those who are now responding to it. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister met the Prime Minister and senior British Ministers on Saturday as well to ask for that assistance and for mutual aid to support people affected by the storm. Departments have begun to indicate that there is a potential need for financial support, and work has been commissioned to scope what recovery efforts are expected to look like and what should be included in any specific ask that is made in relation to financial support.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for her clarification that there have been asks to the Government. I suppose that, in the days and weeks ahead, we will see an actual figure in relation to that. Like her, I put on record my thanks to the front-line workers. I am aware that local businesses are counting the cost as a result of loss of food and things like that, so will there be any financial support for the likes of those local businesses that are counting the cost of the storm?

Dr Archibald: We are beginning to receive more and more representations about the impact that is being felt, especially as power stays off for a longer time. Again, it is about trying to get an understanding of what those impacts are. Concerns have been raised with me about the likelihood, or otherwise, of insurance covering some of the impacts. We need to have a full understanding of all of that. We will make representations, once we have a full understanding of what the financial costs are going to be. I will be engaging with the Secretary of State again later today, and I have been in correspondence with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on the issue.

Dr Archibald: We have set out our intention to look at every rate relief measure over a 10-year period so that we ensure that everything that we are spending money on is still delivering on its policy objective and is still fit for purpose. On those that we are looking at this year, representations have been made to us regarding banded rate reliefs and other, I suppose, sectoral rate reliefs among the rate relief measures that we have currently. There are limitations on the type of rate relief support that we can put in place. The Member will understand that we levy two taxes in one in our rating system: the regional rate and the local council rate. There are, therefore, challenges in what we can do, but we are going to look at all of those things as part of the review.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for her detailed answer. I am thinking a little bit ahead. Earlier, the Minister talked about the cost of doing business research that is being carried out by the university. Could that research look at a banded rating system as a potential opportunity to help our small businesses in the long term?

Dr Archibald: The research that we commissioned was a response to the representations that were made in respect of the British Chancellor's autumn statement and some of the measures in it. I anticipate that we will get a lot of useful information. When we were commissioning that research, the Department for the Economy was particularly interested due to some of the strategic objectives in its economic vision. I know that it is looking at the potential for research on initiatives that could support businesses. That would be follow-up research to what is being undertaken currently.

Dr Archibald: As the Member will know, the interim fiscal framework provides new funding arrangements based on a new needs-based factor of 124%. That has resulted in an additional £431·4 million in funding through the Barnett formula for the Executive over this financial year and the next. In addition to helping to stabilise our funding, my Department recently published the Executive's Budget sustainability plan and established the interim public-sector transformation board to assess proposals for the £235 million of ring-fenced transformation funding.

Other commitments to be met in the near term include agreeing the mechanism of how the 124% needs-based factor will operate; agreeing the relative funding per head methodology; and developing an evidence base for a higher level of need than 124%. My officials are in discussions with the British Treasury on the relative funding per head methodology and the mechanisms for needs-based funding. The funding mechanism must, as a minimum, be implemented in a way that ensures that the North is funded at our level of need. In my view, it would be unjustifiable for the British Government to recognise that the North has a level of need and then provide funding below that level.

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

What work has been done to develop an evidence base for negotiating a higher need level?

Dr Archibald: My Department is working to develop the evidence base to demonstrate that the level of need is higher than 124%, and to have that evidence base in place to support the upcoming spending review for 2026-27. I am pleased that the highly respected Professor Gerry Holtham, who led the Holtham commission in Wales, has agreed to conduct an independent review of the North's level of need. Professor Holtham is a renowned expert in the field of public finances. He chaired the Independent Commission on Funding and Finance for Wales, otherwise known as the Holtham commission, which devised the Holtham approach to needs-based funding for Wales. His unique experience and technical expertise in that field mean that he is one of a limited number of individuals who would be able to carry out that work.

Officials are also working closely with colleagues in the Department of Justice and the Department of Health to inform the evidence. The Department of Justice officials are engaging with independent experts to inform their evidence. It is a difficult task, and the final product will need to bring all those strands of work together to provide a coherent argument for why our level of need could be higher. As I said, it is essential that the Executive be funded to enable them to deliver sustainable public services. To do that, we need to be funded to at least our appropriate level of need.

Dr Archibald: Since the publication of the Executive's Budget sustainability plan at the beginning of October, my officials have continued to progress the work to deliver the key commitments contained in the plan. When it comes to public finances, our aim is to secure and maintain long-term fiscal sustainability alongside the efficient and transparent allocation of resources. We will do that by improving our budgetary processes and developing comprehensive, longer-term departmental sustainability plans. I have published a Budget improvement plan road map that puts in place a series of measures to improve the overall Budget process and sets out short-term actions and areas that are to be developed in the longer term. It includes actions to more closely link Budgets with the Programme for Government and to undertake a strategic review of income generation measures. I also recently published a road map that covers short-term actions and key activities over the medium term that will facilitate Departments in progressing the development of their five-year financial sustainability plans, with the intention that those will be in place in this calendar year.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.

I know that there is disagreement between our Executive and the British Government on the target of £113 million from revenue raising. Will you provide an outline of how you plan to meet that target without putting further pressure on working families and local small businesses?

Dr Archibald: The Member is quite right: the £113 million is a condition of the financial package and relates to the write-off of £559 million of overspends that were accrued while the Executive were being underfunded. It is our view, therefore, that there should not have been any conditions.

Income generation, in my view, must be done in a way that fosters economic growth and minimises negative impacts on our society. Getting that right is a careful balance, as I discussed earlier in connection with rates, for example. It is about sustaining our public finances and growing income in a way that limits any potential negative impact on households and businesses but also protects the most vulnerable.

The time frame in which to achieve the £113 million target meant that there would not have been time to progress the development and agreement of new income generation policies and associated legislation through the Assembly to meet the deadline. Given the limited fiscal levers available to the Executive, the alternative would have meant raising rates for households and businesses by 15%. That was absolutely not acceptable to me. It is important to emphasise that, under my approach, the latest forecast is that income generation will be £129·7 million, the target being £113 million.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. I hosted a banking round-table event on 20 November, and a wide range of stakeholders was there, including representatives from Cash Access UK, the banking industry, trade unions, business bodies, community and voluntary organisations and the Consumer Council. The chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) was also there.

The meeting was a really useful platform for discussing the key issues and developments around access to cash and banking services that are having an impact on communities here.

I encourage local communities and individuals, if they have access-to-cash concerns in their local area, to consider making access-to-cash requests directly to LINK under its community requests scheme. The details can be found on the LINK website. Community requests have resulted in the opening of five banking hubs in the North, with a further one announced for Ballynahinch. I intend to visit the Warrenpoint banking hub next month in order to better understand the services that are on offer and how well the hub is working for the local community.

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

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

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

Mr Muir: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this draft Order to the House. The background to and operation of the UK emissions trading scheme (ETS) has been set out in detail previously, so I do not propose to repeat it. I refer Members to my opening remarks on 26 November 2024, when I brought the then draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024 to the House.

MLAs, particularly the members of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, have engaged positively with my Department on the emissions trading scheme, and I know that there is a good understanding throughout the Chamber of the importance of the UK-wide decarbonisation scheme to meeting our climate targets. I am, however, happy to address any clarification questions that Members may have.

The proposals that are contained in the Order before us today were subject to a UK-wide UK ETS free allocation review consultation that took place between December 2023 and March 2024. It focused on altering free allocation methodology for stationary sectors to better target those most at risk of carbon leakage. On 28 November 2024, alongside my counterparts in England, Wales and Scotland, I agreed the content and to the subsequent publication of an initial Government response to that consultation, which included commitments to make two technical and operational changes to the UK ETS that relate specifically to the treatment and definition of stationary installations that permanently cease to undertake an activity that is regulated by the scheme. The response to other elements of that consultation is still under consideration by the UK Emissions Trading Scheme Authority (UKETSA).

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025 was laid in draft format in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 3 December 2024 under the Climate Change Act 2008, which requires that Orders be laid and debated in each legislature in which they are to have effect. The Order was debated and approved by the Scottish Parliament on 14 January 2025, by the Welsh Senedd on 21 January 2025 and yesterday by both Houses of Parliament.

This amending Order is quite short and, if approved, will make the following technical changes to the UK ETS. First, it will adapt the treatment and calculation of free allowances in the final year of operation for installations that permanently cease activity in order to eliminate the risk of an installation receiving an excess of free allowances in its final year. That involves a change to the scheme rules, whereby installations that permanently cease activity will have to submit an activity-level report in the year following cessation in order for regulators to recalculate free allocation based on actual final-year activity levels. That approach is in line with that taken by the EU ETS and will ensure that installations do not receive an excess of allowances that they could sell for profit, as that would absolutely not be in line with the scheme's policy intent. Essentially, the Order will reduce the misuse of final-year free allowances.

The Order will also update the definition of "permanent cessation" to remove from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 the phrase:

as that is deemed to be ambiguous.

The definition will instead refer to the permanent cessation of activity, thus providing greater clarity for all. Those are the main elements of the Order. The Order does not extend the scope of the scheme to additional industrial sectors. As members of the AERA Committee will be aware, DAERA is considering further development and expansion of the scheme along with other UK Administrations as part of a series of ongoing UK-wide consultation exercises.

In conclusion, the Order will make two technical and operational changes to the UK ETS that relate to the treatment and definition of stationary installations that permanently cease to undertake an activity that is regulated by the scheme. The amendment will help to ensure that the scheme continues to play its part in incentivising greenhouse gas emissions reduction in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. Accordingly, I commend the Order to the House.

Mr McAleer: Minister, the ETS is important to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and enabling us to achieve net zero in accordance with the Climate Change Act. As such, our party supports the ETS, but it is important to point out that we do so whilst recognising that it is a result of having to move out of the EU ETS, which is another unfortunate consequence of Brexit. We recognise that there is no practical alternative, and we support it for that reason.

It is important that the ETS aligns as closely as possible with the EU ETS. I think that we have a situation whereby our electricity, because it operates on all-island basis, remains within the EU ETS, whilst other businesses and industries are part of the UK ETS. I imagine that that will only create difficulty in getting a joined-up approach, and I would like the Minister to shed some light on the potential impact of any divergence between the two schemes on our ability to achieve net zero and have a joined-up approach here to reducing our emissions. We support the motion.

Mr McGlone: Today, we have the opportunity to approve the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, which is a small but important step forward in our commitment to tackling climate change and securing a sustainable future for the North.

We should support the Order because it addresses two pressing challenges: reducing carbon leakage and accelerating our progress towards achieving net zero emissions. By expanding the scope of the ETS to include process emissions from CO2 venting in the upstream oil and gas sectors, we ensure that polluters across industries are held accountable. The Order strengthens the integrity of the trading scheme and prevents companies from seeking loopholes that would undermine our climate commitment goals. It sends an important message that all emissions, regardless of source, must be managed responsibly. Furthermore, the legislation introduces valuable reforms around reserve allowances, which provide certainty for our industries while ensuring that the system remains robust as we transition to a lower-carbon economy.

We must recognise, however, the consequences of the Assembly's past inactivity. Due to the absence of a sitting Assembly, the number of allowances auctioned in 2024 was reduced. That reduction was necessary to align with the net zero cap under the Climate Change Act 2008. While that decision was necessary, it highlights how the absence of a functioning Assembly can impact on progress on addressing key challenges.

Approving the Order will allow Northern Ireland to align fully with the UK ETS framework. It maintains our commitment to playing a proactive role in reducing emissions, protecting our environment and supporting a fair transition for all sectors of our economy.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Mr Speaker, I apologise for being a minute late to the debate. The irony is that I read your statement from this morning about being on time and being well dressed, so I made sure that I had a tie on as I was running down the stairs. I could not help but wonder what a young Edwin Poots would think of the older Edwin Poots with his statements, but I thank you for your indulgence.

Mr Speaker: I am glad that your wife bought you some ties for Christmas. [Laughter.]

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the stuff that you are interested in.

The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has devoted considerable time to increasing its knowledge of the UK greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, otherwise known at the UK ETS. The Committee received its first oral briefing from DAERA officials on the operation of the UK ETS on 18 April 2024. We heard that the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 provided the legislative basis for the UK ETS. Committee members were told that the UK ETS, which was established in January 2021, is an effective decarbonisation scheme, with the aim of promoting carbon emissions reductions and incentivising investment in clean, low-carbon technologies.

Members were keen to understand the operation and governance of the scheme by the UK ETS Authority, including some of the specifics to Northern Ireland. More recently, at its meeting on 12 December, the Committee received an oral briefing on the ETS common framework. It noted that the aim of the UK-wide system was to create a larger carbon market with greater liquidity and a consistent carbon price across the UK, and that that increased the opportunity for emissions reductions and the cost-effectiveness of emissions trading.

The history of the SI with the AERA Committee is as follows. At its meeting on 28 November, the Committee considered correspondence from DAERA, dated 19 November, that gave us notification of the publication of the UK ETS Authority's response to a consultation on the free allocation of UK ETS allowances — the free allocation review, otherwise known as FAR 2 — which addresses two permanent cessation proposals that are planned for implementation in the 2025 scheme. The Minister mentioned the proposals, but I will put them on record. They are to eliminate the perverse incentive whereby an operator can receive an excess of free allowances in their final year of operation, which they could then sell on the market to their benefit; and to address challenges that regulators face in interpreting and applying the permanent cessation definitions, with the UK ETS regulator in Northern Ireland being the chief inspector of the Northern Ireland Environmental Agency (NIEA). The Committee noted that no wider market impacts or risks were considered likely as a result of the two proposed technical changes.

At our meeting on 12 December, Committee members considered further correspondence from DAERA, dated 20 November, advising that Minister Muir had given consent for the two proposed amendments that would address the permanent cessation proposals to be enacted through draft legislation amending the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Training Scheme Order 2020. The Committee noted that the draft SI introduces those two technical changes, which relate to the treatment and definition of stationary installations that permanently cease to undertake an activity that was once regulated by the scheme.

The Committee considered the detail of both technical changes. Technical change 1, which is on the treatment of permanent cessations, will allow the UK ETS Authority to consider, when the closure of an installation is due to significant decarbonisation investment, whether that full free allocation entitlement could be retained for the purpose of supporting decarbonisation. With technical change 2, the definition of permanent cessations is to be updated to remove the reference to a situation in which it is "technically impossible to resume operation", which can be difficult for regulators to determine — and for me to say. Instead, it refers to the permanent cessation of activity.

Members noted that, on 2 December, the SI was simultaneously laid under the affirmative resolution procedure in each House of the UK Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd under schedule 3 to the Climate Change Act 2008 as an Order in Council for approval in each legislature. The Committee was content to note that, subject to the outcomes of debates that are to be held in all other UK legislatures, the SI will come into force on 1 March.

The Committee agrees to the recommendation that the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025 be approved by the Assembly.

Mr Muir: I thank the Committee Chair and the Members who contributed to the debate. To summarise, the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025 will implement two technical and operational changes to the UK ETS that relate specifically to the treatment and definition of stationary installations that permanently cease to undertake an activity that is regulated by the scheme. The amendments will not impact on Northern Ireland electricity-generating installations, which continue to participate in the EU scheme under the Windsor framework in order to maintain the single electricity market. The Order will eliminate the risk of an installation's receiving an excess of free allowances in its final year of operation and will amend and clarify the definition of "permanent cessation". In addition, and to reiterate my opening remarks, the Order does not extend the scope of the scheme to additional industrial sectors at this time. Further amendments to expand the scope of the UK ETS to other industrial sectors, such as waste incineration and domestic maritime, to increase the effectiveness of the scheme and further contribute to the UK and devolved Administrations' net zero climate objectives are the subject of ongoing and future UK-wide consultation exercises. In order that we in Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the UK, can continue with our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the effective implementation of the UK ETS, we need to approve the Order.

Declan McAleer asked about the EU ETS and UK ETS working together on the issues, whether by alignment or by joining the schemes together. That can only be beneficial not just for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom but for the European Union. We need to reduce friction and additional confusion or work that businesses have to do, because we need to deliver green growth in the UK economy and more broadly. I continue to raise with the UK Government the need to look at alignment and at working more in partnership as part of that reset with the European Union.

I hope that I have addressed all the Members' queries. I have just one query for the Speaker. Mr Speaker, I have not yet read your guidance, but I will read it today. I hope that your direction on ties does not exclude my bow ties. That would hopefully not be your desire.

Mr Speaker: I consider bow ties to be smart dress, but that is fine.

Mr McGuigan: I beg to move

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

Mr McGuigan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I propose the motion as the chair of the all-party group on reducing harm related to gambling. I begin by thanking the members of the all-party group. It is absolutely a cross-party group, whose membership works in an extremely collegial way, along with the effective and supportive secretariat services provided by Chambré Public Affairs. Collectively, the APG members work to highlight the extent of gambling harm in the North. We carry out inquiries and publish reports on certain aspects of gambling. Ultimately, we make policy proposals that, in our view, will help to address the level of harm to our citizens.

From December 2022 to January 2024, the all-party group conducted an inquiry into public health approaches to tackling gambling-related harm in the North. Over 30 witnesses gave oral evidence across 13 sessions, and 45 individuals and organisations submitted written evidence to the APG. The overwhelming weight of the evidence was that gambling is a significant public health issue here. The APG's inquiry report produced 57 recommendations, chief of which was that gambling should be officially recognised as a public health issue in the North.

People might ask, "What is a public health approach, and how could it be applied to gambling-related harm?". Adopting a public health approach simply means treating gambling in a similar way to the way in which the Government here treat alcohol and tobacco, with policies focusing not just on the harm caused to individuals but on population-based approaches that prioritise harm prevention. That is because, as with other legal addictive products, such as tobacco and alcohol, the whole population of the North is vulnerable to gambling addiction and harm.

What is the extent of the problem here? According to the 2016 gambling prevalence survey, 2·3% of the North's population experiences gambling harm. That equates to 40,000 people. I am pretty certain that, were any other illness to affect 40,000 individuals in our population, we would be looking at it from a health perspective and rightly so. It is likely that that figure is an underestimation of the number of problem gamblers in the North at that time, but it is still more than four times that recorded in Britain and almost three times higher than in the South.

Recent data from other parts of these islands suggests that the situation is getting much worse. A 2023 study from the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) in Dublin found that 3·3% of adults in the South experienced gambling harm, and new data from the Gambling Commission shows that 2·5% of the adult population in Britain have a gambling problem, which is eight times higher than was previously thought.

We also know from the young persons' behaviour and attitudes survey that 30% of 11- to 16-year-olds in the North have gambled in one form or another in the past 12 months. Despite the fact that the North has a relatively high rate of harm associated with gambling, there are no statutory treatment services for people with gambling disorders here, and the regulations are falling further and further behind the increasingly sophisticated gambling industry.

It is important to note and for me to point out that our all-party group in no way seeks to prohibit gambling; rather, it recognises that serious gambling-related harms can and do occur in our communities and that a better coordinated system of regulation, education, treatment and prevention is required to address that reality. That is why the APG argues that regulation should be proportionate to risk. The more harmful and addictive gambling activities should be subject to tighter rules. That system is already in place in other jurisdictions such as New Zealand, and New Zealand's approach is considered to be the gold standard among public health approaches to tackling gambling-related harm. There, the Ministry of Health is consulted by the Ministry for Regulation regarding the harm caused by various products or industry practices, so that public health can be factored into regulation. The Ministry of Health also has a say on the size of New Zealand's levy on gambling operators, which is calculated on the basis of the profitability and the risk of gambling harms of gambling products.

Our APG recognises that gambling legislation in the North is in need of a complete overhaul. Since the Oireachtas in the South passed the landmark Gambling Regulation Act last year, the North is the only jurisdiction in these islands without updated gambling legislation since the advent of the internet. Online gambling continues to be unregulated here.

The Minister for Communities has been clear that there is insufficient legislative time in the current Assembly mandate to take forward a comprehensive gambling Bill, and we accept that. However, there are important steps that could protect our population from gambling harms that can be taken in the remainder of this mandate without the need for primary legislation. The APG recommends that an integrated, regional public health-focused strategy to prevent and reduce gambling harms should be developed and implemented by the Department of Health in collaboration with other relevant Departments, such as Communities, Education and Justice. The aim should be to end the disjointed Executive approach where one Department promotes an activity as a wealth generator, while other Departments must deal with the attendant health, justice and socio-economic costs.

In 2021, my colleague Deirdre Hargey, as Minister for Communities, set up a cross-departmental working group on preventing and treating gambling-related harm in the community. We welcome the whole-Executive approach, which is absolutely necessary, if we are to comprehensively tackle gambling harms. We also recommend that gambling addiction is fully integrated into all relevant strategies, including mental health and suicide prevention. International research suggests that individuals with gambling disorders have a suicide rate 15 times higher than the general population. We need robust measures to tackle the stigma and shame surrounding gambling addiction and to foster an environment of empathy and support for those affected, thus enabling early intervention and preventing further harm.

I have spoken about my gambling addiction. Despite being an elected representative, I consider myself quite a private person, so I wrestled long and hard with the decision to go public. Ultimately, I decided that, if my experience of knowing and understanding the pain and depths of despair that an addicted gambler experiences could help even one person, it would be worth it. I am contacted by gamblers, but mostly, I have to say, I am contacted by their desperate family members, stricken by the helplessness that they feel as they watch their loved ones suffer. Thankfully, I have been able to help and direct men and women on how and where to seek help as a result of my experience with the illness.

The likes of Gamblers Anonymous, the Dunlewey Addiction Services, Extern and individual addiction counsellors are all invaluable to recovery. Those groups do excellent and life-saving work, but that is not enough to deal with the problem. We have inadequate services to offer those experiencing gambling harm in the North. When I needed help and treatment, I had to go to the White Oaks Addiction Treatment Centre in Donegal. I will be for ever grateful to that centre and to those counsellors, who helped me on the path to recovery. As part of the public health approach, we need appropriate and funded treatment centres in the North.

Many public figures, including adored sporting heroes, have talked publicly about their harmful experience of gambling, using their experiences to help to break down the stigma attached to addiction and, more important, allow sufferers out there to know that they are not alone and, vitally, that recovery is possible. I am a bit disappointed when I see a headline to a story in which I talk about my gambling experiences or other public figures talk about theirs that reduces it to the amount of money lost. I understand why that happens — it grabs attention — but people who suffer with a gambling addiction will lose much more than money. Gambling addiction is a deadly illness. It strips away self-respect, self-worth and self-esteem. It affects and, in some cases, destroys employment, friendships and relationships, and, all the while, the illness progresses and the desperation deepens. In some cases, people find themselves before the courts and lose their freedom. Ultimately, for some, the hole that they are in seems too deep. Too many people afflicted with gambling addiction take their own life as a result of the illness, yet we do not treat that killer illness as a public health issue. That needs to change.

Mr Donnelly: As friends and colleagues can attest, I have little interest in sport, and I had little experience of gambling until I attended the all-party group on reducing harm related to gambling, which was an eye-opening experience. We have seen evidence of the damage done to people's finances, relationships and health by gambling, and we have heard from families who have lost loved ones to suicide as a result of gambling. It has been heartbreaking at times. Gambling is causing a high level of harm in our communities. As Philip said, 2·3% of the population is at risk, which is 40,000 people. That is a staggering figure. It is clear that we need to act.

There are no commissioned treatment services for gambling addiction in our healthcare service. That means that people suffering from gambling disorders here have no access to specialised treatment. Furthermore, capacity in psychiatry and psychology services in general is extremely limited. The Royal College of Psychiatrists told the APG that we were in the midst of a psychiatry workforce crisis. There has been no increase in psychiatry training places in Northern Ireland since 2007, and there are currently only two addiction psychologists across all five healthcare trusts. By contrast, since 2008, NHS England has established 15 specialised gambling clinics, with seven new clinics having opened in the past year as the demand for their services continues to grow.

The Minister must address the current unmet need in the healthcare system in Northern Ireland. In the absence of capacity here, the Minister should investigate the possibility of our health service commissioning NHS England to treat people with problem gambling here. NHS England now regularly uses remote treatment. Recent academic research has found that, while it is not as effective as face-to-face treatment, remote treatment for gambling disorders works and may help to circumvent the practical and psychological barriers associated with face-to-face intervention, such as monetary costs, distance, the lack of flexibility, a desire for secrecy, embarrassment and the fear of stigma.

Several sources, including the voluntary and community sector, have told the APG that, due to insufficient training, questions related to gambling are not being asked of people who present to addiction services in the healthcare system or the voluntary sector. That means that people with gambling disorders are not being diagnosed correctly and not receiving the support that they need. The Minister should prioritise making training available to GPs, emergency services, social care services and other Health and Social Care (HSC) professionals on issues pertaining to gambling, allowing them to more effectively diagnose, signpost and treat patients presenting with a gambling disorder. Furthermore, screening programmes should be introduced across all Health and Social Care services in Northern Ireland to help to identify and assist problem gamblers who are reluctant to seek support. Members may be aware that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines now recommend that GPs and healthcare professionals in England look for gambling-related harms, including to health, finances and people around the patient, such as their family and local community, so that that patient can be identified and offered treatment.

Given the financial pressures on the healthcare system here, lack of funding remains a significant obstacle to providing treatment. An immediate step that could be taken to fund the specific services for gambling disorders, as well as the much-needed research and prevention measures, is the introduction of a levy on gambling operators.

Such a model is already being introduced in GB, where a statutory levy is to be introduced from April 2025, with 50% of the resulting funds being specifically directed to the purpose of commissioning treatment and support services. I commend the Health Minister for the recent representations that he made, alongside the Minister for Communities and the Minister of Education, to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, asking that Northern Ireland receive a share of that statutory levy. The levy is expected to raise £100 million for research and the prevention and treatment of gambling harms. Currently, it will cover England, Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland. It is our view that the UK Government have a duty of care to individuals and communities here, who are exposed to marketing by online gambling operators licensed by the Gambling Commission in Britain. We need treatment centres for gambling harms here in Northern Ireland.

Mr Butler: Before I start my speech, I want to recognise the hard work of the Members who are part of the APG and are regular and faithful attendees. The work that has been completed there is exceptional. It has a devoted core of members, but I pay tribute to Philip in particular for expressing today some of his personal testimony of the impact that gambling can have on individuals and their families. I also want to read into the record our thanks to Peter and Sadie Keogh in particular. We have had numerous testimonies, to be fair, but, almost without fear of being contradicted, I think that Peter and Sadie have attended every APG meeting, and they have certainly attended all of our events.

I want to speak about the availability and accessibility of gambling products. The rise of online gambling has given people 24-hour access to gambling products. The APG has heard from those involved in the treatment of gambling disorder, who noted that the greater the availability and accessibility of gambling and the more that it is advertised, the higher the consumption and the greater the harm. Whilst that sounds quite obvious, it is important —.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Absolutely.

Mr O'Toole: I pay tribute to the Member and other Members for the amount of work that they have done on the APG. I do not sit on the APG, but I know that it is really important. Does he think that there is a slight disjunction between our debating this motion today and the fact that, earlier, the Assembly passed a regulation that, effectively, increased the availability of gambling? The motion is perfectly reasonable and important, and we will vote for it, but should we not also be looking at legislation to beef up regulation?

Mr Butler: The Member's points are really well made, but, in trying to understand the complexity of gambling, I have a personal fear that going for the easy-to-get pieces, such as the land-based gambling institutions, perhaps, and making it harder for them to provide a service, would drive more people towards under-regulated online provision. It is a good point, and legislation in all Houses is needed.

We heard from the Royal Society for Public Health that people with online gambling problems are more likely to place bets between the hours of midnight and 4.00 am and that sleep deprivation makes people pursue bigger risks and give less consideration to negative consequences. That can have a cyclical effect: people at greatest risk of harm are more likely to stay up late, and, as a result, they are sleep-deprived and likely to gamble even more. Therefore, the APG has recommended that the Executive consider restricting access to remote gambling sites between the hours of 12.00 am and 5.00 am, which is in line with the land-based sector and with restrictions on the sale of alcohol. That goes back to my previous point: if we just restrict the land-based institutions, which can have eyes on people who want to gamble, we further expand the online sector, which is exploding in front of our eyes.

We have also been told about so-called covert marketing whereby electronic and continuous forms of gambling — those are highly addictive, amongst the most harmful and are embedded in sports gambling — are cross-sold from lower-risk forms of gambling. Future gambling policy here should not focus solely on treating the individuals who have experienced harm but on regulating the availability and accessibility of the products at the root of that harm.

I am not sure whether Members have experienced the same thing as I have. At Christmas, I bought someone a present of a ticket from one of our local firms that offers prizes of houses, villas in Spain, a quarter of a million pounds and £300,000. I will be honest: I am not an abolitionist, and I bought a ticket. Since I bought that ticket, every single day, my phone has been hammered with text messages and emails. I am not against gambling, but we need to get ahead of this curve. That is why, when we are having these debates, we need to remember that the leader of the Opposition was absolutely right: debates such as the earlier debate and this one need to be better linked. We need to get serious about this. There is stuff that we can do in the House and there is stuff that needs to be done at Westminster.

Studies have shown that the large gambling operators have substantial numbers of followers — unfortunately I have inadvertently found myself to be one of them through buying something as a present — and that they engage in regular activity on social media accounts. One study found that the largest betting operators in the UK — Betfred, Bet365, Coral, Flutter, Paddy Power, Ladbrokes and a group called Entain — posted almost 20,000 tweets in eight months in 2019, which is an average of 80 a day. Elon Musk is giving them a run for their money. I had never heard of Entain, so I googled it to see what it is and what it had done. In 2022, it was fined £17 million. If it could be fined £17 million, I suggest that that fine was probably a small percentage of what it was making off the back of people across the UK. To me, that is indicative of the harm that is being inflicted on people who suffer with a gambling addiction.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Absolutely.

Mr Donnelly: I have had a similar experience since becoming part of the APG. My timelines are now flooded with tweets and things about free spins. Does the Member agree that free spins seem to be an incredibly harmful thing to offer online? If we were handing out free shots of alcohol to alcoholics or free cigarettes to smokers in public, nobody would consider that to be acceptable.

Mr Butler: I do indeed. We have touched on something that is really important to get right. I agree that free spins are being deliberately pushed. The software in our phones is incredibly intuitive. It will spot the person who is looking at things for a wee bit longer, and I think that that is called microtargeting. For our land-based organisations, we can more easily monitor that. That is why we need to get the balance right in all the legislative approaches that are taken, whether in this House or in Westminster. The worst thing that we can do is to drive gambling underground, where it will be done in the dark, in the middle of the night, at a time that people will be at greatest risk.

Mr Durkan: I also commend the work of the APG, of which I am a member. My attendance at its meetings has not been great lately. Justin McNulty does the lion's share of our work on it. Justin cannot be here today, as he is caught up with constituents who are still without power. I commend Mr McGuigan again on airing his own experience. It is indeed valuable. If any of us can put anything out there that can help someone else, it is important that we do so.

I will particularly address the use of electronic gaming machines, also known as fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs). Those machines, which offer a variety of games, including roulette, are highly addictive and often described as the crack cocaine of gambling. Evidence from the most recent inquiry, as well as that from previous inquiries, strongly suggests that the risk of gambling harm is significantly influenced by the characteristics of the gambling products themselves, with several witnesses highlighting how the public health implications of harm stem from gaming machines specifically. Clinical experts told the inquiry that gambling products that offer continuous play, which is characterised by high speed of play and a short time between wagers and outcomes, as is the case with electronic gaming machines and online gambling games, carry a much higher risk of addiction and related harms. That impresses on us the need to regulate the characteristics, as well as the availability and accessibility, of the products at the root of the harm.

Earlier in today's business, in reference to the initial gambling code of practice, the Minister for Communities said to my party colleague the leader of the Opposition that there are measures in place that will make a difference. From a public health perspective, however, it is disappointing that the draft initial code of practice that was consulted on recently makes no reference to gaming machines, particularly given their high risk of addiction and related harms, as I have outlined. It is timely and urgent that we address the risks associated with electronic gaming machines, given that, earlier today, regulations to raise significantly the maximum stake and prize limits for gaming were approved by the Assembly. In light of the new regulations and a growing body of evidence that highlights gaming machines as being the most harmful group of products, it is imperative that we have clarity over who has responsibility for enforcement. The question of enforcement is particularly important, given that there is evidence that the previous regulations setting maximum stake and prize limits for gaming machines were not being routinely enforced here. I ask the Minister to seek assurances from the Minister for Communities that there will be robust oversight and enforcement of the new regulations.

It is important to emphasise, as others have, that the APG is not anti-gambling. However, whilst gambling operators here are making significant profits, thousands of people and thousands more families in our communities are suffering from gambling harms. It is only fair therefore that gambling operators pay their fair share to help to prevent and treat that harm through a levy, as provided for in the legislation that we debated at length and voted through in the previous mandate. We were frustrated that that legislation did not go far enough. Many Members expressed that frustration. At the time, we were told by the then Minister that it was due to a truncated mandate. There was a promise that full legislation would come forward in the next mandate that would deal with all the ills. However, here we are again, with a Minister telling us — as he was quoted by Mr McGuigan — that because, again, we have a short mandate, there is not the time to bring forward the all-singing, all-dancing and all-protecting legislation that is required. Therefore, rather than shrugging their shoulders and saying that more needs to be done, some parties need to hold their hands up and say that their actions when they were out of Government, when they were preventing the formation of a Government, and their inaction when they have been in Government have prevented more being done to mitigate gambling-related harms.

I am glad that the Minister of Health is here. I ask him to ensure that there is a close working relationship between his Department, the Department for Communities and all other Departments and agencies with responsibility for the issue.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the APG on reducing harm related to gambling for tabling the cross-party motion. I will speak in my capacity as a Sinn Féin MLA. Some of my remarks will be informed by my role as Chair of the Committee for Communities.

As the proposer of the motion set out in his remarks, the North has a higher prevalence of problem gambling than any other jurisdiction on these islands. As the chair of the APG said, the most recent gambling prevalence survey showed that 2·3% of the population — 40,000 people — were impacted on. Given that that survey was nine years ago, we can assume that the figure now is worse.

The motion calls for gambling to be treated as a health issue, similar to alcohol and tobacco, as it is in New Zealand and various other countries. A public health approach is vital if we are to make any serious impact on reducing the harm that is related to gambling. Many of us in the Chamber will know someone who has suffered harm as a result of problem gambling. Addiction to gambling can push victims into serious financial difficulty, debt or bankruptcy. It can cause relationships to break down and employment to be terminated. It is also directly linked to a host of physical and health conditions, including depression and anxiety.

As well as treating gambling-related harm as a public health issue, the regulatory framework around the gambling industry needs a complete overhaul. Our current gambling laws are outdated and no longer fit for purpose. The current legislation dates back to the 1980s and takes no account of online gambling, which is the most common form of gambling today. We need to ensure that the North has an appropriate and effective regulatory framework around our gambling laws.

Often, it is said that overhauling our gambling laws would involve passing the largest piece of legislation ever seen in the Assembly and would require a full mandate to get passed. That is all the more reason to ensure that the necessary preparatory work is being carried out now, so that an incoming Minister, whoever that is, will be in a position to hit the ground running with legislation early in the next mandate. I have to say, speaking with insight from my role as Chair of the Communities Committee, that I was slightly concerned during a recent evidence session with Department for Communities officials to hear them say that two or three people in the Department are working in the area of gambling reform. Clearly, a Bill of such magnitude would require a fully staffed and dedicated team. It is important that the correct resources are in place to carry out that vital piece of work now in readiness to move quickly at the start of the next mandate.

In addition to proper staffing, there are other things that the Minister could, and should, progress in this mandate, such as a levy on the gambling industry. Recently, the British Government announced that they plan to introduce a levy on gambling companies in England, with the revenue generated being directed towards research, education and treatment of gambling-related harms.

It seems only fair that companies that perpetuate gambling-related harm against vulnerable people take some responsibility for enabling the care and treatment of those who are adversely affected and for reducing that harm.

The online gambling industry has been aptly described as the Wild West, in that there appears to be little, if any, effective regulation. The North remains the only region on these islands without an independent regulator to hold gambling companies to account. There remains a degree of confusion about what, if any, jurisdiction the Gambling Commission in Britain has over the North, given that online telecommunications are a reserved matter. It is a concern that, in the absence of an independent regulator here, up-to-date data and information on the actual levels of harm are not being gathered and reported on more frequently.

As other Members mentioned, those harms and their prevention need to be tackled across government, including by Health in supporting treatment of addictions, by Education in prevention and by Communities in regulation. It is incumbent on us in the House to do better to join together in support of those in our communities who are affected by gambling-related harms. Once again, I thank the members of the APG for tabling the motion.

Ms Mulholland: I support the motion, and I welcome the report of the all-party group on reducing the harm that is related to gambling. I pay tribute to the chair of the APG, Philip McGuigan, who has been so generous with his lived experience. I am sure that that is not a comfortable space to be in, so, thank you, Philip.

The report provides a vital road map for addressing gambling as a public health crisis. I will focus on the impact on children and young people. Gambling should absolutely be officially recognised as a public health issue. Similar to other forms of addiction, the harms of gambling extend far beyond the individuals who are involved to their families and communities. A comprehensive public health approach that focuses on the strands of prevention, education, regulation and treatment is essential in mitigating the harm before it escalates to crisis point.

The impact of gambling on children and young people is particularly concerning. For example, recent data from the young persons' behaviour and attitudes survey that others have spoken about reveals that 30% of 11-to-17-year-olds have gambled in the past year. Even more troubling is the fact that the most prevalent forms of gambling among that age cohort are those that carry the highest addiction risks, that is, online gambling and fruit and slot machines. The digital age has transformed gambling accessibility, which is exceptionally worrying, given that the legislation governing gambling was introduced in the year that I was born and, as we heard, has not been fully overhauled since.

As the APG noted, you do not need to walk into a betting shop any more. You can gamble anonymously and endlessly from your bedroom. Whilst smartphones are often given to children for safety, protection and connectivity, they inadvertently provide easy access to gambling platforms. I have seen it with my children, who, when they have used my tablet, have been given access to games that promote gambling, even when the downloaded apps are classified as age three and over or age five and over. The loot boxes —.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes, of course.

Mr Carroll: I applaud the Member for specifically referring to that. Is she also concerned about the games? With games such as 'Fortnite' and others — I am not familiar with them — you can purchase elements inside the game. Sorry if you were going to raise it down the line, but it is concerning, because the games are for kids, but there is also a financial element to them.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Member. My next point is on loot boxes. The loot boxes that are in video games such as 'Fortnite' and 'Minecraft' have further complicated the issue. Whilst they are not legally classified as gambling, those features share similar psychological mechanisms and have been strongly linked to gambling harm. Several countries have taken action, with Belgium and the Netherlands ruling that certain loot box sales constitute gambling, while China requires gaming companies to disclose their reward probabilities. There is a fine line between gaming and gambling.

The consequences of gambling harm extend far beyond financial losses. Research that was published in the 'Lancet Public Health' showed that adults experiencing escalating gambling harm are 2·74 times more likely to attempt suicide. That emphasises the need for routine screening in the healthcare and social services sphere. Education has to play a central role in addressing the crisis, and schools should implement age-appropriate, evidence-based programmes that challenge societal norms, explain addiction and teach critical skills, such as understanding probability. I wonder whether we could see a multi-departmental approach, potentially invoking some of the work of the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. It is something that has young people at its heart, and we need a multi-departmental approach to the issue.

A notable omission in the report was the education of parents and guardians. Parents need support to recognise the harm of gambling and to foster open conversations with their children, particularly about the risks of loot boxes and online gambling through gaming platforms. That could be a useful sphere. However, education alone is not sufficient, and the prevention measures must adapt to the digital age. Online gambling platforms implementing stringent age verification processes and facing penalties for breaches would be useful, but, as we have heard, regulation of online gambling remains a significant challenge, particularly in Northern Ireland.

We must address the current lack of statutory services for gambling addiction in Northern Ireland. The Minister has heard that before, but he should consider the commissioning of dedicated support services to ensure that treatment is accessible to all, regardless of age, background and postcode. It should not depend on the trust area that you live in. It is not optional; it is an imperative.

The harm caused by gambling is preventable, but prevention requires decisive action, particularly for our children and young people. The issue persists because the system currently fails to protect young people, and they are particularly vulnerable because of their impulsivity and developing brains. Therefore, to safeguard their future, we have to implement a comprehensive education programme, strengthen the regulations via the Department for Communities and establish accessible treatment options. We need a multi-departmental approach to create a safer environment for future generations.

Mr Chambers: One of the perks of reaching my stage of life is that you have earned the privilege of freely using the phrase, "Back in the day". Back in the day, the opportunity to put a few bob on a horse meant a journey to the local bookies, and every town had at least one. The punter could gamble only the meagre hard cash that they had in their pocket. Now, placing a bet is as easy as pushing a few buttons on a keyboard. Your phone can be your local bookmaker. The electronic devices in the home are your 24/7 access to placing a bet, and the funds to do so are not just the few coins in the bottom of your pocket.

One of the realities of life is that casinos and online gambling sites, along with high street bookmakers, do not exist to make punters rich. The addiction to trying to beat the bookie can wreck marriages and families, and it can lead to the loss of a home. The local papers regularly report court cases of formerly upright citizens having stolen money from employers to feed their habit and having attracted a life-changing criminal record. That can all come with mental stress that turns into a serious mental health issue. Many victims need help beyond what commendable charities may be able to offer.

It requires three fronts to be opened up: education for our young people is vital; mental health services need to be adjusted to help addicts fight their demons; and online and TV gambling sites, as my colleague said, need to have their hours of operation curtailed. I support the general thrust of the motion.

Mr O'Toole: I will speak to the motion because I spoke on the order earlier on changing some of the stakes and payouts for certain types of gambling. Given that I remarked on the interaction between the order and motion, it is important that I speak in the debate. I want to be constructive, because the APG does very important work. Although I am not a member of the APG, I have paid some attention to the issue, and, as my colleague Mark Durkan said, our party is represented on the all-party group. Robbie Butler spoke very well about the work of the APG. Philip McGuigan, as always, shared his experience in a very heartfelt and insightful way.

I, like other people, have taken the time to say that I am certainly not opposed to gambling. In the past, I have had, and still occasionally have, a flutter on the horses. I come from a town where horse racing is very important because it is one of two places in Northern Ireland with a racecourse. One of my first paid occupations — I probably should not say this: I will get someone into trouble — was working behind a bar, phoning through bets. That was 20-odd years ago, when most people did not have phones and did not have online betting. That was a thing that people did in country pubs in rural areas. Therefore, I do not take a puritanical or abolitionist approach to gambling. Enjoying a bit of sports betting is something that can be a bit of craic, and it can also support community, social and sporting endeavours and groups, GAA clubs and, by all means, I am sure, other community groups and all the rest of it.

As Alan Chambers said, however, we have entered into a different technological age. We are talking about something entirely different from someone putting a fiver on a horse at the racecourse or in a bookies. Whatever people's theoretical, moral views about the rights or wrongs of gambling, it is fundamentally a different thing to have to find an open bookies, with a fiver, or whatever, in your pocket, go in and place the bet, write it down and understand all the details. It is totally different from having a phone on which you can gamble away your life's savings at any given moment.

The reason that I draw that distinction is that we are here in the Assembly as legislators who have the power to legislate and change that. In 2021, when we debated the previous gambling legislation in the Assembly, I was here and made the point that I thought that it did not go anywhere near far enough. I thought it strange that we were talking about gambling harm but were, effectively, liberalising gambling, which is what we did earlier, when we passed the secondary legislation. At that time, the then Minister, Deirdre Hargey, said, and I quote from Hansard:

which is now an Act —

We have lost some of this mandate, but that was back in 2021, three and a half years ago. The Chair of the Communities Committee, Mr Gildernew, remarked that a new Bill would have to go into the next mandate, so that is from 2027 onwards. The previous Minister said, in 2021, that we needed new legislation to deal with all the gambling harm. It will be another decade, apparently before we get that legislation.

This motion is very important. It is well intended, and I do not trivialise it at all. It is hugely important. However, we are legislators. As you told us today in a letter, Mr Speaker, we are legislators. We are not a school debating society and did not come in here to wring our hands and say, "Jeez, boys, isn't this bad? Isn't it awful? Something must be done." We are here to do something. That is why we have been sent here. We have the power to legislate and pass laws. We could do that.

The Minister of Health is just one Minister. A lot of the stuff that we are talking about is not directly his responsibility. However, I ask whether he agrees that the Executive should go away and look at the draft Programme for Government (PFG), and see whether they can find the scope to put in at least the beginning of work to produce a comprehensive Bill on regulating gambling, including online harms. There will be challenges: a lot of that area is reserved. It will require resources. However, I would welcome it if the Health Minister could bring that back from today's debate and see whether it could be put in the final PFG.

We all agreed, effectively, in 2021 that it was for the next mandate. Lo and behold, we have a PFG, and there is no mention of gambling. We are all here, on a cross-party motion, talking about how awful gambling harm is — and, my God, it is. Since we debated it in 2021, lives and homes will have been lost. Families will have been broken up. People will have been pushed into desperation and suicide.

If we are serious about it, we will do more than simply agree this motion — well-meaning and thoughtful as it is — we will legislate. Let us get that from today's motion. Let us get a commitment to do all that we can to get something on the statute books by the end of the mandate.

Mr Gaston: I cannot quite believe that we are here, debating this motion, just after the House, before lunch, voted to increase the gambling stakes and prizes of gambling machines, without even introducing any balancing protections.

People will smell more than a whiff of hypocrisy as they consider our actions today, just as they will be forced to question our competence. On 5 April, the Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 will come into effect in GB and are expected to raise between £90 million and £100 million per annum to help those experiencing gambling harm in GB.

Why are we not demonstrating the same commitment to hold the gambling industry to account? It damages our constituents, as demonstrated by GB. That is a pressing question because, as I have said before, the only really thorough assessment of gambling harm in Northern Ireland was the Department for Communities' problem gambling survey of 2016, which demonstrated that the problem gambling rate here is five times that in England.

The Minister has the power to introduce a levy, but he has not used his powers under section 17(3) of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 to commence the regulation-making power. Even if he did that, we would still have a problem, because the section 15 levy engages only certain forms of terrestrial gambling. That is a huge problem for two reasons. First, today, gambling is done more online. More than half of gross gambling yield comes from online gambling. Secondly, the problem-gambling prevalence figures associated with online gambling are significantly higher than those associated with terrestrial gambling. If you look at the GB Gambling Levy Regulations — I have a copy here — you will see that they expressly apply to both terrestrial and online gambling and that the levy is charged at a significantly higher rate on online gambling firms.

The reason why Northern Ireland is not covered by the new legislation is supposedly that gambling is a devolved matter. In truth, however, while there is no Assembly legislation covering online gambling, there is Westminster legislation that engages with it. Section 5 of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 protects Northern Ireland consumers from exposure to online gambling websites that do not have Gambling Commission licences — the same as in Great Britain. Thus, in practice, the Gambling Commission is more the regulator of online gambling in Northern Ireland than anyone else.

In that context, it would make more sense to ask the UK Government to amend the regulation-making power that has given rise to the Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 and to collect the part of the levy pertaining to online gambling in Northern Ireland. If we do not do that, we must move immediately to pass primary legislation to introduce a Northern Ireland levy that engages with online as well as terrestrial gambling. In doing so, however, we must be mindful of the need to provide comparable help to those suffering from gambling harm in Northern Ireland as quickly as possible. With that in mind, I question whether it is really practical and efficient for the smallest part of the UK to engage with the online gambling providers. I suspect that it would be better dealt with by the Gambling Commission. Obviously, it would require a change in UK legislation, but, if we do not have the capacity to deal with online gambling ourselves, we need to be honest about that.

We also need to have a conversation with the UK Government, because, on 7 January, they said that they cannot guarantee that someone who self-excludes under the multi-operator self-exclusion mechanism to help those experiencing gambling harm in an online context will be excluded in Northern Ireland. The Government said that they can still self-exclude but that, unlike in GB, they cannot guarantee that self-exclusion will always be honoured in Northern Ireland. That leaves the part of the UK with the highest problem gambling prevalence figures as the least protected in relation to the form of gambling associated with generating the greatest difficulty.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member who moved the motion for speaking out. I also thank the members of the APG for their work.

There are clear winners and losers in the gambling industry. The winners are the multinational corporations that rake in the profits. The losers are the punters whose mental and physical health is destroyed by gambling addiction and their loved ones. As we have heard, the rate of problem gambling is consistently higher in the North than it is in the South or in Great Britain. There are at least four times as many people with a gambling problem here than there are in Britain. There are the same number of people experiencing gambling-related harm in the Six Counties as there are in the Twenty-six Counties combined, which is hugely worrying. Despite that, the North is, as we have heard, a Wild West where gambling reform is falling behind that in the rest of the islands.

Gambling harm affects people differently. Rates of prevalence seem to be higher amongst men and boys, though women face specific pressures and challenges when it comes to gambling addiction and recovery. People living in poverty and those with mental health issues are much more likely to gamble, and they are much more at risk of gambling harm.

The figures and stats that we have heard today only scratch the surface. For every person with a gambling problem, between five and 10 other people are indirectly harmed by it. There is a lack of data on gambling-related suicide. Figures suggest — some estimate — that between 4% and 11% of suicides are likely to be gambling-related, but I suspect that the percentage is probably higher. The financial impacts are also devastating. While families who are harmed by gambling fall into debt and destitution, the gambling industry is raking it in. It is literally profiteering from other people's misery. In the UK, the gambling industry is worth over £15 billion. Its insatiable thirst for profit leaves people suffering in its wake.

It is also worth mentioning that Bet365 and William Hill have subsidiaries in tax havens around the world, so they are avoiding taxes as well, and we must mention that the names of gambling companies are emblazoned on sports tops and stadiums across the board. The industry's goal is to exploit as many people as possible, especially in our most deprived communities, and to extract as much wealth as it can from the pockets of working-class people at any cost.

It is an industry that also spends £1·5 billion a year on advertising in the UK. That is a total waste of money, but it also causes severe harm. The way in which operators target their ads at people who are most at risk of harm is absolutely ruthless. Massive amounts of data are harvested about players, including the types of marketing to which people are more susceptible. On the basis of what they respond to, ads are then hyper-targeted at users. Some 60% of gambling companies' profits come from just 5% of users: that is terrifying.

Gambling companies do not see people with a gambling addiction as vulnerable people who are in need of support; they are just high-value customers. It is predatory capitalism at it finest. While trying to suck as much money out of people as possible, betting companies warn people by saying, "Gamble responsibly" and, "When the fun stops, stop", as though it is as simple as that for a person with an addiction to turn off the switch. Research shows that those warning messages have absolutely no effect.

It is clear that a public health approach to tackling gambling will not come from Westminster. The gambling industry and its lobbyists enjoy a cosy relationship with Labour and the Tories. Westminster has been a trailblazer when it comes to regulating gambling but in all the wrong ways. It has exported light-touch regulation and messaging about responsible gambling around the world. An industry as powerful and profitable as the gambling industry will never regulate itself. There is an opportunity for us to take a completely different approach to gambling harm in the North, and I urge the Executive to do so. That begins with recognising gambling as a public health issue similar to alcohol and tobacco, as Members have said. Rather than framing gambling as an issue rooted in individual attitudes and behaviours, a public health approach would recognise the wider impact of gambling on the well-being of the whole community. The Department of Health should work alongside the Department for Communities, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice to reduce and prevent gambling harm.

I pay tribute to the many volunteers, including those in my constituency, who help others with gambling issues. They do so in their own time, off their own back and from the goodness of their heart. There is Gambling with Lives, but there are also groups in my constituency that meet in Twin Spires and Coláiste Feirste. The situation is not sustainable, however, because they report to me that they are getting early morning calls — at 2.00 am and 3.00 am — from people who are suicidal because of gambling-related issues. It should be treated as a public health issue, and appropriate funding should flow from that. We also need a dedicated gambling treatment service. As we have heard, England has 15 such clinics: we have zero. A financial levy should also be applied to gambling operators in the North to fund research, prevention and treatment.

I support the motion, and I urge the Executive to act on this matter of public health.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I thank all the Members who have spoken in the debate. I pay particular thanks to members of the all-party group, not just for the work that they have done on the latest inquiry into public health approaches to tackling gambling but for all the work that they have done since the APG was formed. Previous inquiry reports, numerous evidence sessions and an all-round determination to tackle the harms have been of much support and interest to my Department and to me personally.

The first thing that you need to do, if you want to address a problem, is to name it, whether it is cancer, suicide or gambling harms. As other Members have done, I commend Mr McGuigan, because he has named it and so publicly owned his experience.

It is clear from the evidence available that problem gambling and gambling addiction are harmful to health. Those harms can be widespread, and they manifest in a number of ways, including mental health issues, substance use, addiction, financial problems, relationship issues, emotional or psychological distress or, indeed, criminal activity. I note the stark findings in Public Health England's 'Gambling-related harms evidence
review' in 2021, which said:

While evidence demonstrates a clear link between problem gambling and mental ill health, the relationship can be complex, with studies showing that gambling can be a coping response to pre-existing mental health problems.

At this point, I thank the Minister for Communities and his officials for their efforts thus far and their continued work on legislative reform in Northern Ireland. It is widely documented that gambling legislation here is outdated and does not effectively address the growing issue of the online market. My officials remain engaged with and supportive of their DFC colleagues as that work progresses.

That said, the deficit in up-to-date data and evidence on gambling prevalence and associated harms here is well documented. My Department continues to work collaboratively with cross-departmental colleagues to address that. The questions on gambling that were included for the first time in the young person's behaviour and attitudes survey and the Northern Ireland health survey will help, and the results of the latter are expected imminently. I have been informed that the Department for Communities has commissioned an updated gambling prevalence survey, the first of its kind since 2016. I hope that those results and the ongoing programme of work will help us to fully understand the extent of gambling in our population and the harms associated with it. That will allow us to make informed decisions about potential policy progression and/or treatments in that area.

Our approach to gambling-related harm must continue to be collaborative, departmentally and across the sector, and to engage key stakeholders to ensure that, moving forward, our decision and policymaking will have the right outcomes for those who need them most. My officials will continue to do that, facilitated by the cross-departmental working group on tackling gambling harms, and they will remain engaged.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I thank the Members who tabled the motion and, more widely, the members of the APG for their recent inquiry report and its recommendations, which I welcome. My officials carried out scoping work following the recommendations contained in the first inquiry report, 'The Future Regulation of Gambling in Northern Ireland'. We intend to review policy options following the latest inquiry's recommendations. I hope that that work, alongside the updated data and evidence work that is being undertaken, will put us in a position where my cross-departmental colleagues and I can make decisions that will lead to the start of real progress in the area, learning from previous approaches taken in similar areas where there is harm to health, such as tobacco and alcohol, as mentioned in the motion.

I note the issue that the motion raises about gambling-related marketing. As Members know, the regulation of gambling advertising is a reserved matter. I feel, however, that we must continue to address the correlation between advertising and gambling-related harms. Therefore, last September, the Minister for Communities, the Minister of Education and I sent a joint letter to the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. We noted the lack of a recommendation in the published UK Government White Paper of an outright ban on gambling advertising. We further sought engagement and involvement in any potential consideration of a change of direction in that approach following the general election. We are keen to have closer and stronger collaboration on enforcing gambling advertising regulation between, first, the relevant statutory bodies in Northern Ireland and, secondly, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Gambling Commission in GB. In the letter, we also raised a concern about Northern Ireland's exclusion from a share of the funds raised through the proposed statutory GB levy, to which many Members have referred.

Following a response from Baroness Twycross, the Minister for Gambling, we were assured that any actions taken would consider the implications for Northern Ireland, including engagement with Ministers as necessary. Cross-departmental officials have recently engaged with relevant colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to further discuss and explore the issues, including the levy, and how collaborative working between the nations can be maximised with a view to improving outcomes for those who need them.

On the motion and the current lack of statutory services that are dedicated to supporting those with problem gambling or gambling addiction needs, while I would like to say that support may be available through existing pathways for those with coexisting substance use or mental health needs, I note that we have some way to go to match the current gambling-specific treatment models that are available in some neighbouring jurisdictions. I also note the support that is offered through our community and voluntary sector to which our statutory service will signpost. That valuable work does not go unnoticed and it is greatly appreciated.

That said, if we are adopting a public health approach to gambling, my Department will have a role in the commissioning of gambling support and treatment services in Northern Ireland. In line with the usual process for commissioning services, any decision to commission bespoke gambling treatment services will need to be based on an assessment of the level of demand for services in order to create a fuller understanding of the population need here and in the context of future budget availability. I am hopeful that the work that was discussed earlier in that space will allow us to review that from a more informed position.

It is clear that funding for new services that are aimed at the prevention and/or treatment of gambling harm must not come from core health and social care funding. Mental health and addiction services are already challenged by the adequacy of the resources that are available to respond to the needs of the population. As Members will be aware, significant reductions will be required in my Department to contain existing resource expenditure, and funding pressures will need to be considered and prioritised alongside other demand pressures for available funding.

Funding for gambling harm services should be clearly seen as new or additional funding that does not, in any way, disadvantage core mental health and addiction services and their service users. As part of the scoping work, my officials have had some sight of potential high-level indicative treatment models for Northern Ireland that could be considered, taking into consideration the issues that I have outlined as well as training requirements for those who may be delivering the services. I am also grateful for the support that has been offered by the APG members and experts from other jurisdictions on what those services could look like.

I finish my formal remarks by reiterating my acknowledgement that gambling can, indeed, be harmful to health and that there is work to be done in Northern Ireland to understand the prevalence, the implications and the population needs in relation to that. My Department would have a key role to play in adopting a public health approach to gambling. If that approach is taken, however, in order to be truly successful in tackling harms and to deliver what is needed, it is vital that such an approach is cross-departmental and collaborative. My Department will closely consider the recommendations in the APG report as part of any policy development and will continue to engage with the relevant colleagues and stakeholders as required, including members of the all-party group.

Finally, there was a direct plea from the leader of the Opposition to insert something in the Programme for Government. I say to the Member, respectfully, that it is not for me to adapt the draft Programme for Government. Rather, any changes should be as a result of the analysis of the responses to the consultation on the draft Programme for Government. On that basis, I ask whether the SDLP has responded to the consultation in the terms that the Member outlined. If he can do that in 10 seconds, he is in.

Mr O'Toole: We have certainly responded to the draft PFG. If we have not specifically included this matter, we will respond again. [Interruption.]

I trust that we will have the support of everyone in the Chamber on that.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for that frank response.

Mr Speaker: I call Paul Frew to make his winding-up speech on the motion. You have 10 minutes, Mr Frew.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am taking part in the debate as a member of the APG on reducing harm related to gambling. First, I commend and pay tribute to my North Antrim MLA colleague Philip McGuigan for his candour today and in the past. I have no doubt that Philip McGuigan's actions in that regard have saved lives and helped people who have a gambling disorder and their families. The House should commend Philip McGuigan for that, because it is not easy. We are public figures, but we also want to claim some privacy, so what Philip has done is to be commended. I believe that he has done it to save lives and to protect families and the loved ones of people who are afflicted with this disorder.

The motion speaks of:

I will focus my comments on that marketing. I am a Spurs fan —

A Member: I feel sorry for you, Paul. [Laughter.]

Mr Frew: — and there is probably not a surer bet in the world at this time than a bet on Spurs to lose. That is not a tip; it is a cry of desperation [Laughter.]

You cannot fail, however, to acknowledge and see the massive amount of advertising and pressure that you get before a match, when the blood is up; during half-time, when the blood is up; and after the event, when the blood is down and you are in despair. Maybe at that point you are trying to reclaim some of your money. The advertising and pressure are targeted, and they are dangerous.

Evidence that the APG received shows that gambling marketing has become ubiquitous over the past number of years. The gambling industry in the UK spends in excess of £1·5 billion a year on advertising. It knows that it is on to a winner. Six in 10 consumers report seeing gambling advertising at least once a week. We should be extremely concerned about the pervasiveness of gambling marketing, especially considering the impact that it is having on children and young people.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way and for his absolute and very honest interest in the subject. On the matter that the Member is speaking about, does he agree that it is really disappointing to see comedians and some of our richest sports stars, among them former Liverpool and Spurs players, contributing to advertising schemes? That just plays to the younger generation, which is looking at those really successful people and thinking that perhaps gambling is the way to get there.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his contribution, and I will add to it by including even film stars and people who we would have watched on TV when growing up. It is pervasive and dangerous. Of course, there is money involved. It is a very powerful lobby, so that entices those people to go on TV to advertise their wares.

A recent joint report by Ulster University and Maynooth University found that young people on the island of Ireland are constantly exposed to gambling marketing through sports consumption on their mobile phones, on television and in their towns and villages. That is changing young people's attitudes towards gambling, with researchers finding that young people believe that there is a natural relationship between sport and gambling. Meanwhile, it found that young people are largely unaware of the range of gambling harms beyond financial losses. That is bad enough. It also found that certain sports programmes are absolutely saturated with gambling marketing. Separate research from the University of Bristol last year identified almost 30,000 gambling messages over the opening weekend of the Premier League season. That was a threefold increase on the previous year, so you can see how such marketing is being escalated.

During the APG's inquiry, we heard that there is a growing body of evidence that shows a strong correlation between advertising and marketing on the one hand and the gambling behaviour of those who are most vulnerable to gambling addiction on the other. According to Gambling Commission research, gambling marketing prompts unplanned spend in around one third of sports betters and emerging adults. Also, most of those with gambling problems said that marketing prompted unplanned spend. The draft initial gambling code of practice, which the Department for Communities recently consulted on, prohibits gambling marketing that is particularly appealing to children. Therefore, we urge the Executive to amend existing legislation to ban gambling advertising at local sporting events that are likely to be attended by children, such as Northern Ireland Football League matches.

Some 80% of all gambling marketing activity is now on the internet. That is a massive challenge. Companies are spending five times more online than on television. They know where their marketplace is. In Northern Ireland, print advertising is regulated under the 1985 Order, but online marketing is a regulatory grey area. While online gambling operators licensed by the Gambling Commission can freely advertise in Northern Ireland, because online and broadcast advertising is a reserved matter, our population is afforded no protection by the regulator in GB, as other Members mentioned.

The draft initial gambling code of practice recommends that gambling operators comply with relevant codes administered by the Advertising Standards Authority. The ASA relies on the Gambling Commission to take enforcement action against gambling operators who persistently breach their codes in GB. However, if an online gambling operator uses social media channels to target people in Northern Ireland and, in doing so, breaches the codes on multiple occasions, the Gambling Commission is unable to take enforcement action due to its lack of jurisdiction here. In short, it is powerless when it comes to code breaches that occur in Northern Ireland.

Legislation that was passed last year in the Republic of Ireland introduced significant restrictions on gambling marketing. The restrictions included the introduction of a watershed for gambling advertising on television and radio between 5.30 am and 9.00 pm and a ban on advertising gambling content on social media unless the recipient is following a gambling company's social media account. If a jurisdiction nearby is legislating well or better than we are, we should take notice. The legislation also prohibits advertising that is likely to portray gambling as attractive to children and includes a ban on the sale of branded clothing or merchandise intended to be worn by children or at events that may be attended by them. That is an important step, given the extremely high levels of gambling marketing to which children are exposed through televised sports programmes.

The Minister mentioned that he, the Communities Minister and the Education Minister wrote to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. She has the power, under existing laws, to introduce similar marketing restrictions and should do as a matter of urgency. I ask the Health Minister and his Executive colleagues to write again to the Westminster Government, calling on them to take positive steps to restrict the promotion of gambling and to act on their general election manifesto commitment to reduce gambling-related harm.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr O'Toole: I will be brief. I do not disagree with anything that the Member has said. He is right that advertising is a reserved matter, but the Executive can take action. Does the Member agree that there should be legislation before the end of the mandate and that it should be in the PFG?

Mr Frew: The Member raises a valid point. I, who served on the previous Committee for Communities, was deeply frustrated at the legislation that came before us. We all recognised that we could have and probably should have done so much more. The work should not cease because we are in a shortened mandate. Work can continue. Even if we do not see the blue pages of a Bill in this mandate, it should be oven-ready to go ahead immediately in the next mandate.

We should look at this as a public health matter. I stress that to the Health Minister. The Member opposite said that it could be a decade before legislation is passed, but there is an opportunity even this year. The Minister did a consultation on what he called a public health Bill. I do not see much about it that relates to public health. He talked about lockdowns, but they increase problem gambling. The Minister has an opportunity to use the public health Bill to bring in measures —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Frew: — to reduce the harm of gambling.

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

Mr Gaston: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and a further 10 minutes to wind up the debate. All other Members will have five minutes.

Before I invite the Member to open the debate on the motion, I wish to advise that there will be no Assembly Commission response. While the Commission would ordinarily wish to respond to a debate, there is a long-standing position that, to avoid the perception of political interference, Commission members do not get involved in deciding or reviewing individual claims by Members or parties. Assembly Commission members had no role in the review, which is the subject of the debate, and, therefore, it has been agreed that it would be inappropriate for a member of the Assembly Commission to respond.

Mr Gaston, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. All Members received a copy of the report of the review into the Sinn Féin scandal, and pinned to the front of the report was a letter from the Chief Executive of the Assembly. The letter sets the tone for how the powers that be in this Building would like the review to be viewed. It is claimed that, while there has been commentary and speculation on these issues, it was important that these matters were considered in a robust way, which followed due process and examined the evidence.

Clearly, the review report is designed to be the last word on this scandal, after which we can all move on, but is that the case? I contend that it is indisputable that this review fails on its own terms. It did not consider the matter in a robust way, it did not follow due process, and it did not examine the evidence. That, sadly, is par for the course when it comes to Stormont. Nothing that I say in this debate should be viewed as personal criticism of the Chief Executive or the review report's author, the Assembly's head of Legal Services. The desire of everyone in this Building to prioritise the process over the proper use of public money and, indeed, child protection has been obvious.

Why do I say that it does not consider the matters in a robust way? Because, as acknowledged in paragraph 81 of the review report:

Why was it a purely paper-based exercise? Why were the key figures in the affair not brought in and interviewed? I see nothing in the terms of reference to limit the head of Legal Services to approaching his task in that way. Frankly, appointing an insider from the Assembly system was the wrong call — assuming, of course, that one wanted to get to the truth of the matter. The mindset underlying everything in the review is spelled out clearly in paragraph 117:

The review report's author might as well have added, "And who am I to question her integrity now or make a finding against her?". The truth is that there was plenty of evidence to lead one to conclude that Sinn Féin, including Ms O'Neill, was using public funds meant for constituency offices in order to fund its press operation. When Ms O'Neill addressed the House on 7 October, reading from a prepared statement, she said:

Given the level of controversy and press attention that the matter attracted, one would imagine that every word in that statement was carefully chosen, yet, in paragraph 81, the review report claims:

Given the wonderful character reference for Ms O'Neill from the head of Legal Services, one would think that an appearance by her in the House in which she described Mr McGinley as a press officer would be the end of the matter, but no. The review report's author cannot avoid the fact that one of the individuals described by the First Minister as a press officer — Mr McGinley — was employed via a fund that was intended to cover constituency office costs. That flies in the face of the part of the 'Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2016' dealing with office and staffing costs and allowances. It states:

From the review report, it is clear that Mr McGinley and Mr McMonagle were employed not through the financial assistance to political parties scheme but by Members of the House. Mr McGinley was employed by Declan McAleer from 2018 to 2024, as detailed in paragraphs 86 to 96 of the review report. Mr McMonagle was employed by the MP for West Tyrone, Ms Begley; the now First Minister, Ms O'Neill; and the Sinn Féin press offices. He was supposedly working a staggering 75 hours a week.

In his strongest criticism in the review, in paragraph 113, the head of Legal Services tells us that it "strains credibility" to suggest that Sinn Féin was unaware of the situation. He goes on to claim that the fault lay with McMonagle, who had been referred to the PSNI. I carry no candle for Mr McMonagle, but to conduct a review of his conduct and have findings against him that result in a police complaint without so much as contacting him or either of the other two press officers named in the review report in order to get their side of the story does not — to use the Chief Executive's phrase — follow due process.

The review did not consider the matters in a robust way either. At no point did the author of the review report ask whether McMonagle and McGinley worked out of the Sinn Féin press office in Stormont or out of an MLA's room. At no point did he pick up on the fact that one of McMonagle's supposed duties for Ms O'Neill, according to the job description reproduced in paragraph 105 of the report, was:

Members, at no point during her employment of McMonagle could Ms O'Neill even table Assembly questions.

Finally, the review did not examine the evidence. The head of Legal Services dismisses Ms O'Neill's description of Mr McMonagle as a "press officer". He even manages to gloss over the fact that Sinn Féin's in-house newspaper, 'Republican News', describes him as such. However, I want to take us to one of the most startling paragraphs in the report, paragraph 82:

We know that, in that respect, the report is wrong. I say that definitively because of the article by Sam McBride that was published in the 'Belfast Telegraph' on Saturday18 January, in which he cites the Sinn Féin press office Christmas rota for 2020, issued on 22 December 2020. Over a 13-day period, McMonagle covers three days, the same number of days as Mr McGinley and, indeed, as the head of Sinn Féin press operations in the United Kingdom. The report is so desperate to escape the inescapable conclusion to which the evidence points: money that MLAs should have been using to provide a service to their constituents was being funnelled into Sinn Féin press operations.

Now that the system employed by Sinn Féin has, to an extent, been exposed in the report, paragraph 70's contention that such a gross abuse of public money would not be picked up by a more extensive process of audit is an insult to auditors. There is no reason why the questions obviously ignored by the report — the public statements that McMonagle and McGinley were press officers; the published articles in which McMonagle was described as a press officer; whether McMonagle even worked out of an MLA's office and not a party office in this Building etc — could feature as part of such an audit to prevent a repeat of this scandal in future.

Public perception of this place has been trashed. We have an opportunity today to back the motion, relook at how public moneys are spent in this place and put in place an extensive audit that will make sure that such a scandal never reoccurs. I trust that, because of the public money involved and the perceptions that the report has caused, Members will support the motion.

Mr McGuigan: I welcome the completion of the report on the review conducted by the Assembly Commission. It contained some positive recommendations that could further improve processes and provide greater clarity for Members when employing staff. It is important to state clearly that Members of the Assembly Commission had no role, input or involvement in the independent review.

It is incumbent on every Member of the Assembly to acknowledge the work of the Assembly staff, who acted with unquestionable integrity and independence in conducting the review. Mr Gaston might not like the outcome — that is his prerogative — but his description of the report as "a whitewash" is insulting and offensive and should be withdrawn.

Mrs Dodds: First, let me stress the obvious: it is absolutely right that public money allocated to Members to pay allowances and provide central party research support is held to the highest standards of propriety, transparency and accountability. The DUP will engage constructively with the Assembly Commission and other parties on the recommendations of the review. In particular, no party and no Member should fear regular and robust auditing.

The facts of the case are well known and have been trailed through the media on many occasions.

Central to the motion today is the fact that Michael McMonagle carried out work that amounted to up to 80 hours a week and was likely to have been the subject of three separate contracts of employment in a three-month period between 2 March 2020 and 31 May 2020. Sinn Féin has legitimate questions to answer. How, when we are told that Sinn Féin had a central HR team responsible for recruitment, was that even possible? Are we really expected to believe that Michelle O'Neill, as the leader of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, was not across the detail of who was employed by the party and by her during that period?

There have been separate criticisms of the report. As other Members have said, that is not a reflection on the Assembly official who conducted the review in difficult circumstances. The review was conducted largely as a paper-based exercise, however. Why was that so? Why was no attempt made to engage Michael McMonagle in order to hear his side of the story? Why was undue credence given to the Sinn Féin side of the story, particularly when we know that members of the media have documentary evidence attesting to Mr McMonagle's position?

I want to focus my remarks on this part of the debate. While all those concerns are legitimate, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. Sinn Féin has still not explained the full detail of its cover-up, the role of its former HR adviser in facilitating references for Michael McMonagle or the flagrant disregard for basic safeguarding practices that that involved. Indeed, Sinn Féin's response — the varying accounts of what happened and the inability to see people in the Great Hall — gives a sense of a party struggling to defend the indefensible or, more likely, of a party implementing the republican code of omertà in response to any questioning of its actions.

Ultimately, how Michael McMonagle was paid is only one aspect of the Sinn Féin safeguarding scandal. We will continue to throw a spotlight on the failings, because it is the right thing to do and because, without a step change, history will repeat itself. In all walks of life, there are rotten apples. The test of any political party, however, is how it deals with those circumstances when they come to light. It is clear that, in Sinn Féin, a cultural change needs to take place in order to promote and elevate the rights of the most vulnerable above any warped sense of loyalty to the party, its members or its employees.

The motion implies that audits are not currently conducted under the 2016 determination: that is not the case. A robust audit schedule is in place for payments to Members and political parties. Ernst and Young (EY) randomly samples 25% of Members as part of an annual internal audit review process. The Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) also reviews the costs incurred by Members as part of its overall audit of the Commission. That is right and proper. The DUP will continue —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is almost up.

Mrs Dodds: — to defend that level of scrutiny.

Mr Tennyson: I intend to be relatively brief, given that many of the issues that we are discussing today are matters of public record and have been discussed many times, including the contents of the review report. It is, however, important to say that issues pertaining to the use of public money must be treated with the utmost seriousness, propriety and transparency. The review of certain allowances under the 2016 determination raises matters of serious concern. It highlights the bizarre situation in which, for three months, Michael McMonagle was employed full-time by both Michelle O'Neill and the Sinn Féin MP Órfhlaith Begley for 75 hours, in addition to working an additional eight to 11 hours for the party. No competent employer could fail to notice an employee working two full-time jobs and a part-time job simultaneously, not least when all three of those positions relate to one political party and the Member in question is part of its leadership team. That stretches credibility to its elastic limit. The information provided to the review also seemingly contradicts statements that were made by the First Minister at Question Time on 7 October.

The motion points to a number of limitations pertaining to the review, and it is fair to say that there are limitations. However, it is possible to comment on the conclusion of the review and its limitations without unfairly impugning the integrity and impartiality of the Assembly officials who conducted it in incredibly trying and difficult circumstances. Indeed, we must also recognise that the Assembly Commission's powers are limited. This is not a police inquiry or a judicial inquiry but an inquiry conducted within the limited powers that the Assembly Commission has. It is important that we recognise that. Mr Gaston said that the powers that be want this to be the last word, and I note that he is always keen to find conspiracy. The report has been passed on to the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Department of Finance, which will have their own respective roles on the issue.

The motion calls for regular audits of how money is spent under the determination, and, of course, all of us in the Chamber ought to support that. However, that already happens, as Diane Dodds helpfully outlined. The question is how we ensure that further work is done whereby information can be more appropriately shared between legislatures. We must also recommit to progressing all of the recommendations in the review, including the updating of employment contracts, record-keeping and the revision of job descriptions.

This whole sorry affair has wrecked public confidence not just in the Members concerned but in all Members and in these institutions. We all ought to reflect on that and commit ourselves now to repairing the damage and progressing the recommendations.

Mr Butler: I rise to speak to this important motion and to recognise and encourage the wider Assembly's ongoing commitment to transparency and accountability. The review of allowances became an essential and critical step in trying to restore public confidence in how taxpayers' money is spent by this institution. Let us be honest: given that we were not here for five years out of eight, we have a job on our hands. Whilst I agree with most of the elements of the motion, as a former and recent Commission member, I must also highlight areas where clarity is needed and where progress has already been made.

The motion suggests a lack of audits under the determination and the financial assistance for political parties scheme, otherwise known as "FAPP". That part of the motion is slightly misleading, because a robust audit schedule is in place, with regular reviews that monitor compliance. To claim otherwise would undermine the hard work that is already carried out by the Assembly Commission and the independent auditing teams that provide that service. That said, we should always strive to strengthen those processes when such issues arise, as evidenced by what has transpired and the need for the debate. In that context, I welcome the fact that Mr Gaston has tabled the motion, and I think that some good will come of it.

I welcome aspects of the Commission's review and recommendations, particularly those focused on increasing accountability: no one should be afraid of that. Proposals such as keeping detailed records of party political activity by Members' employees, revising job descriptions and requiring declarations of other publicly funded employment are necessary measures and will provide greater oversight and transparency. Those steps are essential in helping to rebuild the public trust that I alluded to and ensuring that allowances are used solely for the purposes for which they are intended.

The review's findings, however, raise questions about whether enough has been done to fully investigate potential breaches and ensure that lessons are learned. I urge the Assembly Commission to provide an update on the reports made to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the PSNI under the Commission's fraud prevention and anti-bribery policy. The public have a right to know the outcomes of those investigations, as do Members who play by the rules. Furthermore, the motion highlights discrepancies between media reporting and the conclusions of the review regarding Michael McMonagle's case. That is a particularly serious matter. If the report's findings are accurate, there is arguably an onus on the First Minister to correct the Assembly record, because transparency demands no less.

I cannot ignore the irony of Sinn Féin's approach to the early activities in and genesis of the story, which was initially on a safeguarding issue regarding young people. That leads us to this very moment. Advice from Sinn Féin was given to the British Heart Foundation on its responsibility to carry out pre-employment checks, yet similar due diligence appears to be lacking on Sinn Féin's part. Is it a case of, "Do as we say, not as we do"?

While progress has been made, the debate reminds us that systems of monitoring and compliance must evolve continuously. Let us learn from the review, strengthen processes and deliver the accountability that the public rightly expect.

Mr O'Toole: I will speak relatively briefly on the motion, which we will support, should it go to a Division. It is important to acknowledge the gravity of the issues that we are discussing and the importance of us all taking seriously our responsibilities in the proper discharge of our duties on spending public money, using it properly and being accountable for how we use it as resource.

It is clear that the practices that came to light are bizarre, to say the very least. It strains credulity way beyond breaking point that the First Minister was not aware of the employment status of that person. If she was not aware, that calls her competence into question, given that she is head of the Government here. It is simply surreal that an individual — this is before you even get on to the specific issues around that individual — was contracted to work for 80 hours a week by multiple Members of the Assembly and by Sinn Féin directly.

A reasonable observation is made in the report commissioned by the Assembly Commission that there is "no bright line" between party political activities or between political activities and legislative and constituency duties. We are all politicians, and we all know that there is a difference between the FAPP scheme and constituency allowances. We also know that there is a difference between people who are employed to work for a political party and are perceived to work directly for that party as either press officers or direct central policy staff and people who work for individual MLAs, even if, at times, they do work that is communications-based or policy research. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is absurd and insulting to people's intelligence to pretend that there is not some distinction between people who are centrally employed to be press officers for a political party and people who work individually and are contracted to work individually for Members. That insults people's intelligence a little bit.

I understand the limitations that were placed on those who authored the report, and I do not in any way impugn their motives, because they were operating within limitations. However, specific questions are raised by the matter. It is important that we all take seriously our responsibilities when we sign off every individual claim. Whether it is for a paper clip or for the employment of a staff member, we are making a very important legal undertaking that the money is being properly discharged. We need to provide the public with full confidence.

I think that people who are reading the details of this will not have full confidence that that money has been properly discharged. The challenge is that the matter goes yet again on to the pile of things that have damaged confidence in our politics and these institutions. Although there are, of course, lessons for all of us to learn in how we discharge our duties, there are clearly specific practices that have been long and well rehearsed in Sinn Féin on centralising resources and structures and how that is managed that have contributed to the findings of the report. They are concerning, and they are specific and distinct to that party. Therefore, it is for that party to address those and to build confidence in the public that public moneys are being discharged properly.

It is important to say, as others have done, that an audit mechanism is already in place. That is true. It is also the case that the repeated collapses of this institution and scandals such as this one simply serve to damage the public's perception of us.

We cannot continue to inflict damage on people's perception of us.

Yes: it is important that there are "regular and robust audits" of what people do. Obviously, that should not be around simply dancing on the head of a pin, because, occasionally, in constituency casework, people will draw attention to the fact that Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionists or the Alliance Party has a particular view on a particular constituency issue. That is not a problem and should not be conflated with what was discovered in the report, which was a concerning centralisation of resources and management and an absurd lack of control, including from the head of Government in this place. I hope that, in future, we do much better. When I say "we", I mean one political party specifically.

Mr Carroll: Every MLA, Minister and political party has a duty to act with transparency and accountability in how they use public money. It is stating the obvious, but that includes being clear about who is employed for party political and constituency work. It should also include, as the motion calls for:

The motion also, rightly, highlights several issues with the review, including the fact that the report's author failed to speak to members of the media who could have given critical evidence.

I want to use the opportunity to talk about Stormont's long record of using public money in inefficient, ineffective and improper ways. Some Ministers and Assembly Commission staff have taken an excessive number of long-haul business class flights for events and conferences that seem to be nothing more than talking shops. In the past three years, travel costs for just one senior member of Assembly staff have totalled more than £18,000 — an eye-watering sum. Clearly, that is a questionable use of public money, to put it mildly, lacking in accountability and transparency while ordinary people struggle.

I support the motion, but it is also important to acknowledge the hypocrisy of some unionist MLAs who talk about the proper use of public funds. For years, DUP MLAs have been employing family members for Assembly and party jobs. Many people would see that as clear-cut nepotism and certainly not proper use of public money. During the RHI scandal, it emerged that DUP Ministers hired publicly paid spads from among the party membership despite signing papers to the contrary. The DUP has no authority to lecture anyone about transparency and accountability, given that its former MP for North Antrim failed to declare not one but two luxury holidays that were paid for by the Sri Lankan Government.

Finally, I want to speak about issues with the FAPP scheme. Changes that were made to the scheme last year effectively amounted to a dramatic carve-up of public money, all to the benefit of the largest parties and the Opposition party. The DUP saw its fat budget increase by 63%. Sinn Féin saw its budget increase by 72%. My party, the TUV and the UUP have had our budgets capped. Clearly, that disadvantages smaller parties and privileges larger ones. At best, it is an unfair way in which to allocate public money. At worst, it is a deliberate attempt to stifle the voices and limit the resources of smaller parties that are not in a formal opposition role. I strongly suggest that it is the latter.

Executive parties on the Commission had an opportunity to challenge that or accept an alternative calculation. They refused to do so and ran that policy through. As I understand it, at least one alternative proposal — maybe more — was put to the Commission that would have seen smaller parties' payments effectively double, but those parties voted that down. Commission members voted that down. That is another stitch-up by the bigger parties that leaves the smaller parties and independents behind — I include independents — and going without. That is totally unacceptable. It needs to be reviewed. I urge Commission members to go back and address that serious gap in the FAPP scheme.

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

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate.

Time and time again, the Assembly has failed to face up to the issues that are supposedly addressed in the review report. Attempts to raise matters that relate to that scandal have been shut down in the Chamber and in Committee. Frankly, many in the Chamber are terrified of upsetting the consensus, and the lack of names on the speaking list is testament to the fact that most Members simply want the issue to go away.

That having been said, it appears that parties have decided that they cannot be seen to vote against the motion. I welcome the fact that, at long last, the Assembly has displayed some willingness to tackle the issues. I remind Members that, now that they have been forced to debate the motion and forced to calculate that they cannot be seen to vote against it, there is an onus on them to take action. For all the talk of some people during elections about being the only ones with the ability to confront Sinn Féin, it took a single TUV member to bring the matter to the Floor.

The suggestion contained in the review report that it is impossible to distinguish between party political work and constituency work needs to be knocked on the head. In 2012, the independent financial review panel ruled specifically that constituency funding was not to be used for party political purposes because:

Tellingly, a former member of the independent financial review panel described as astonishing the review's conclusion that it was difficult or even impossible to distinguish between political and constituency work. We also learned from that panel member that the head of Legal Services made no attempt to clear up the confusion in his mind by contacting members of the panel to ask how they had drawn a distinction that he felt was impossible. As Sam McBride observed, the review, if accepted, opens up the potential for a £10 million pot of public money to seep into political parties. That cannot be right; it cannot be allowed to happen.

Other issues raised by the McMonagle scandal remain live. A fact that has received relatively little attention is that, because Sinn Féin, specifically North Antrim MLA Philip McGuigan, its sole contributor to the debate, failed to cancel Michael McMonagle's Assembly pass, he could come and go as he pleased at Parliament Buildings. In order to probe that issue, I asked the Assembly Commission:

The Commission told me that it had absolutely no idea. Profoundly serious child protection issues are involved here that should not be ignored merely because the political and media establishment believes that the rotten institutions of the Belfast Agreement are more important than child safety.

Given the reluctance of Members to flood the speaking list for today's debate, I suspect that there will not be a rush to do as I say, but I remind Members that this scandal and the disgraceful slurs thrown at the British Heart Foundation by Ms O'Neill and Minister Murphy prompted me to table a motion of no confidence in both Ministers. Members, you are still welcome to sign that; it is in the Business Office. Since the motion was tabled, Ms O'Neill has provided ample evidence of her unfitness for office, none more so than her attendance at IRA commemorations.

The Assembly has damaged its reputation in seeking to evade the issues related to the scandal. The credibility of the Committee system is in tatters. The confidence of the public in Stormont's ability to properly manage money is through the floor. That comes, importantly, at a point at which public finances are under pressure as never before.

When the motion is agreed, there will be an onus on the Assembly Commission to go back to the drawing board on the issue: to get in someone who is serious about getting to the truth rather than someone who approached the issue from the premise that MLAs are to be taken at their word, regardless of where the evidence leads; and to put on pressure and put measures in place to ensure that money does not flow from constituency needs to party political operations.

I remind Members that, if they do not force a Division on the motion, they accept either that the First Minister misled the House when she described Mr McGinley and Mr McMonagle as press officers or that her party, and she, as an individual who employed Michael McMonagle as a constituency worker, misused public money. In any Assembly or Parliament worthy of the name, that would be a resigning matter. Any party with dignity and respect for democratic norms would refuse to partner in Government with people who have abused public money in such a blatant fashion, but democratic norms do not apply to Northern Ireland. Members have shown a remarkable ability to overlook the IRA's ill-gotten gains from the Northern Bank, the murder of Paul Quinn, the abuse of Máiría Cahill and the continued role of the IRA army council in overseeing Sinn Féin and its retention —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, will you return to the terms of the motion, please?

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

There was also the Assembly expenses scandal surrounding Sinn Féin 11 years ago, when the BBC 'Spotlight' programme lifted the lid on Research Services Ireland.

I will go through some of the contributions to the debate. As I said, Mr McGuigan was Sinn Féin's sole contributor. He is the man who did not cancel the pass. Here, today, there was no response to the points that were made.

The DUP's Diane Dodds highlighted that questions still exist, having gone unanswered to this day. Yes, I am aware that audits exist, but my problem is that the existing audits did not pick up on the scandal. We need to go back to the drawing board to make the audits more robust and ensure that this does not happen again.

Alliance's Eóin Tennyson said that the matter raised serious concern. Unfortunately, it was an Alliance Member who shielded the First Minister when she came to the Committee. The Committee Chair, who is from your party, shielded Michelle O'Neill from answering the questions that were put directly to her by Committee members.

Mr Butler, from the Ulster Unionist Party, reminded the House of the scandal's unfortunate links to the British Heart Foundation and the fact that it involved that organisation when it really did not need to. A shameful slur was put on the British Heart Foundation by Ms O'Neill and Mr Murphy.

The SDLP's Mr O'Toole, the leader of the Opposition, called into question the competence of the First Minister. I agree with his comment that it is:

to suggest that we cannot tell the difference between party and constituency work. Every MLA who spoke in the debate, apart from the Sinn Féin Member, accepted that the First Minister has questions to answer.

Mr Carroll attempted to table an amendment to deal with the FAPP scheme, and I am glad that he brought that up today. He reminded the House that, in the past, many MLAs paid family members and that we had the RHI scandal. The House has been tainted by scandals from mandate to mandate and from year to year. I agree with Mr Carroll that the FAPP scheme was a carve-up for the bigger parties, namely the DUP, Sinn Féin and Alliance. My goodness, they do not like the voice of opposition here in the corner. There are not very many of us, but we take the opportunity to hold them to account where possible. The SDLP talks about constructive opposition. It is about time that the SDLP took off the gloves, because the Executive need to be held to account.

It is sad that it took one MLA to bring this matter to the attention of the House and put it in the Order Paper, but that is what I have done. I trust that all parties, including Sinn Féin, will support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease for a moment before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Cara Hunter to raise the matter of the potential closure of the Riverside Theatre at Ulster University, Coleraine. I call Cara Hunter, who has up to 15 minutes.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to speak on this important issue, which matters so much to me and my constituents. We all feel strongly that the Riverside Theatre in Coleraine is a huge part of who we are and of our experience growing up on the north coast.

For many of us, the Riverside Theatre is the place where we first stepped on stage, sang in a choir, danced in a musical and learnt about the importance of theatre and the arts in our lives and in our community. For many actors in our community, it was where they first knew that they wanted to step into the world of acting, music and dance. Many from the north coast whose names are recognisable stepped on to the stage of the Riverside Theatre, including Jimmy Nesbitt. That shows that the Riverside Theatre is a huge part of our home that is worth defending. That is why I am here today. This issue is really worth political attention, and it means so much to our constituents, so I welcome the fact that a number of representatives are here to speak to it.

I have spoken with staff at the university and understand the range and complexity of the challenges that they face. Of course, Ulster University has a three-campus approach, while other universities have only one. We recognise that the Riverside Theatre is over 50 years old and in dire need of investment, regeneration and, frankly, wholesale renovation.

Joined by cross-party colleagues, I make the case that we need to rescue the Riverside Theatre, and I highlight the fact that the wider Coleraine campus needs attention and investment from the Department for the Economy and the Department for Communities. We must ensure and secure the future of the Riverside Theatre. We cannot sacrifice the arts. We must recognise the importance of the arts in our society and community, and the Riverside Theatre is at the very heart of that. We know that the theatre's future is "under review". It is said to be quite old and that it requires a lot of capital infrastructure to improve it. We know that assurances cannot be given by Ulster University that the theatre will remain open, which is why we are here today. There is so much concern. My inbox is piling up with correspondence from people contacting their local representative because, rightfully, they are concerned.

I want to see the Riverside Theatre remain open. I have been contacted by secondary-school students, university students, pensioners and parents. The closure of the theatre would impact on us all. It has brought so many people together over its lifespan. It really is a hub of our community, and it cannot close. Closing the theatre cannot be seen as acceptable, and it demands the investment that is necessary for it to remain open.

The arts are the heartbeat of any community, and the Riverside Theatre is more than just a venue. It is a sanctuary for creativity and connection. Theatre is not just about entertainment but about education, empathy and empowerment. The Riverside Theatre has inspired generations, fostering imagination and providing a platform for voices that might otherwise have gone unheard. The theatre is where we come to understand ourselves and, of course, one another, and the Riverside Theatre has long been a cornerstone of Coleraine's identity. Its closure would be an immeasurable loss to our community and its future. I know that the Minister has ties to Coleraine, so I hope that we will hear more about that in his response.

In a world that is increasingly becoming dominated by screens and by isolation, spaces such as the Riverside Theatre offer a rare and essential opportunity for face-to-face connection, shared experience, a sense of communal joy and storytelling. We live in a post-conflict society, and the arts are a really strong and valued way in which to bring together people from all different backgrounds and beliefs.

Over the past decade, the Arts Council of Northern Ireland's budget has been slashed by a staggering 63%. In Northern Ireland, we now invest a mere £5·07 per person in the arts. Compare that with Wales, where investment stands at £10·51 per capita, or down South, where it has soared to the equivalent of over £21 per person. The recent announcement of the Arts Council in Ireland's budget rising to €134 million, which is its highest level to date, shows that the gap between the North and the South when it comes to the arts is truly stark.

For me, this is not just about numbers. The debate on the closure of a theatre is about the wider issue of how we view the arts and how we as a society want to be. The arts are not a luxury but a necessity. They drive economic growth, improve mental and physical well-being, foster social cohesion and, again, help heal any divisions in a society that is still grappling with its past.

In Northern Ireland, from Oscar-winning film-makers to Turner Prize-winning artists and from theatre companies tackling difficult social issues to community projects working with the most vulnerable, we are international leaders in demonstrating how the arts can transform lives, yet that extraordinary potential is being choked by financial constraints. At a time when the South is making historic investments in its culture sector, here in the North, we are going in the opposite direction. That is not just unfair but self-defeating. It sends a damaging message to those in our creative community that their work is not valued, which is forcing talent to seek opportunities elsewhere. We cannot afford to let that happen.

Over the years, we have seen how Northern Ireland has been a place where the acting sector and film-making can thrive. We saw that with 'Game of Thrones'. We have seen it at Titanic Studios. We have Kneecap, who are doing so well and are prospering. There are so many, certainly in the north-west, who are doing so well, and, for many young people, that all starts in their local community theatre.

Minister, I therefore call on you to work closely with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council and the Minister for the Economy and to work with urgency across the wider Executive to find the funding that is so desperately needed to enable a much-loved facility to remain open. If possible, I would like you to detail in your response what discussions you have had to date about the Riverside Theatre and any solutions that you think are possible. I cannot reiterate enough how passionate people are about the Riverside Theatre. Many young people who aspire to be involved in the arts have reached out to me and spoken about their love for theatre and for the Riverside Theatre itself and about just how much it means to them. It is the first place that so many people fall in love with music, art and dance, and it is so important that we continue to inspire future generations. The best way in which to do that, Minister, is to keep the Riverside Theatre open. I have said my piece.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): All other Members who wish to speak will have approximately eight minutes.

Mr Bradley: I welcome this evening's Adjournment debate, and I thank the Member for bringing the topic to the House.

The Riverside Theatre, located at Ulster University's Coleraine campus, is Northern Ireland's oldest operating professional theatre outside Belfast. Established in 1976, it has become a cultural hub for the university community and the wider Causeway Coast and Glens region. The theatre boasts an intimate auditorium with a seating capacity that ranges from 278 to 350, depending on the configuration. That versatile space has allowed for a diverse array of performances, including comedy, dance, music, drama and lectures.

I thank the Member for raising this important topic. The theatre has been in use since 1976. It is tired, dated and in need of some sort of repair or refurbishment. Six options were presented to me on Thursday, when I met the university officials. Only one was for closure; the other five were diverse but achievable. There are health and safety issues at the theatre, which may manifest themselves in the not-too-distant future, so Ulster University is looking at all the options.

The principle of a rural university for Northern Ireland was established in the 1960s, when Coleraine was chosen ahead of Armagh and Londonderry, in that order. While I am glad that the Member has raised this important topic, it leads to important questions about the three-campus model and the interrelationships between the campuses. The multi-campus model has cost the Ulster University almost £15 million over the past five years. That is an unequal footing compared with other universities. Over the past five years, Ulster University has spent almost £231 million on its Belfast/Jordanstown campus, over £14 million at Magee and just over £4·5 million in Coleraine. At the same time, Ulster University spent £7·5 million on Studio Ulster in one year — 2023-24. Some members of the Executive need to take heed of that spend. While millions have been allocated to the expansion of Magee Coleraine received a modest spend under the guise of regional imbalance. I question the imbalance in university funding.

As of January 2025, discussions have emerged concerning the long-term future of the Riverside Theatre. The theatre is considered a cultural institution in the area. Community members and stakeholders are actively engaging in conversations to ensure its continued operation and significance in the region's cultural landscape. I urge the Minister for the Economy and the Minister for Communities to actively engage with Ulster University. Surely Members are not seeking to build up one university campus while actively seeking to destroy another through a lack of funding or willingness to engage with the university and the Causeway Coast and Glens councillors.

I urge Members to ensure that the Riverside Theatre and the Coleraine campus of Ulster University thrive. I ask Members to pay particular heed to that when they laud the expansion at Magee and forget about the Coleraine campus.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate my constituency colleague Cara Hunter bringing the issue to the attention of the House. It is appropriate and useful that we are discussing the issue at this level, not just for the people of Coleraine but for the tourists whom we try to attract with such facilities. It is also appropriate that we discuss the wider issues to which Mr Bradley referred. I will speak to those later in my contribution.

The issue is not about Riverside Theatre on its own. Maurice will know, from our time in council, that it was talked about years ago. Similar issues were raised then regarding investment in the theatre and its viability. I appreciate that we need to ensure that we have ongoing investment in such things so that they continue, but my concern is that we do not get that investment. We have never had that investment. Those are the questions that we have to ask. What is the long-term intention with the Coleraine campus? The issue does not begin or end with the Riverside Theatre: there has been gradual erosion of courses at the Coleraine campus that we have seen going to other campuses across Northern Ireland. That is a critical part of today's discussion.

We can talk about the politics of 50 years ago — I was not around then; thankfully, in some respects — but all I can talk to is where we are now and the infrastructure, opportunities and everything else that is built up around our constituency. If we pull down those structures, we are essentially pulling the rug from under a lot of what happens there. When we have these conversations about the future of Coleraine and attached facilities such as the Riverside Theatre, we have to be mindful of the fact that it is not just about the politics; it is about the infrastructure, the economy and people's lives. It is not about righting the wrongs of the past in isolation. It is very much about recognising the future and what we can do to ensure that everybody is served in it.

The Riverside Theatre has been part of the community for nearly 50 years. It is the only professional theatre in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area. I think that I am correct in saying that its potential closure would leave it as the only council area without a professional venue of that kind. Given that we often sell the north coast as the premier tourist destination of Northern Ireland — other MLAs from across Northern Ireland might disagree with that, but, realistically, it is — we cannot remove those facilities, or it will undermine that offer. I appreciate that the Minister, who previously held the role of Minister for the Economy, will recognise the value of having and strengthening venues such as the Riverside Theatre. We do not have good weather, so, when a wet-weather facility is needed, people tend to go to places such as the Riverside Theatre.

The theatre is not just for professional performances. The Ballywillan Drama Group has just finished a run of 16 sold-out performances of 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'. People talk to me about the theatre not being utilised and how it is just empty, but that has been proven to be incorrect in the past number of weeks. I could not get tickets for that show in the end. That demonstrates how important the theatre is for people who go to see the shows, the local community and the amateur theatre groups that put on those performances.

Cara spoke of the theatre being a launch pad for James Nesbitt. That is absolutely the case. Other people have gone on to great success after learning their craft at the Riverside Theatre. That is the key issue, and it is the point about the arts. People are not discovered when they are walking down the street; they hone their craft in places such as the Riverside Theatre and in amateur theatre groups. Such groups are award-winning. You have only to look at the awards that a lot of our local groups get to see that performing is not just something that people do as a hobby; it is a commitment. People have to take time off work to perform in some of those things.

As Maurice said, we need to look at the matter in the context of the future of the Coleraine campus. I am entirely sympathetic to Ulster University and the predicament that it finds itself in. It is struggling to fund a three-campus model in Northern Ireland. Realistically, if we are going to build up the Magee campus — I have no difficulty with that; it is in the second city in Northern Ireland, which should surely be given consideration — we will have to take courses from elsewhere. That is exactly what has been happening at Coleraine. That is what we are doing in order to build up Magee. Maybe we have to have an honest conversation about tuition fees and how we fund our universities in Northern Ireland.

People want to come to the Coleraine campus. There is a reason why it has not closed: it is a destination unlike any other across the United Kingdom and even Ireland. It has a very specific offer. I give full credit to the vice chancellor, who recently announced a new veterinary nursing course. I would like us to go full circle and bring a veterinary degree to Northern Ireland, because we have a practical need for it. That degree would be well served in Coleraine because of its rural location and its proximity to the Department. We need to start looking at the reasons why we should do that and stop looking back to 50 years ago, because that serves no one.

I will turn specifically to the ask of the Minister. That is probably part of a wider conversation about the arts and how we invest in them. As Cara said — it is absolutely a valid point — we are a post-conflict society, and art is how we express ourselves when other ways are not necessarily possible. There is great opportunity in that, be it through the Riverside Theatre or opportunities for other forms of cultural expression. It is really key. The conversation today is about how, certainly for my constituents and me, that begins with the Riverside Theatre. If we remove it, what are we saying to the people who are not sporty or do not do the things that tend to get more investment than the arts in Northern Ireland? It is really important for our generation and for future generations that we continue to invest in the arts, not least the Riverside Theatre, which is well established. It is a great facility, and it would be a real shame to lose it. If the Minister can do anything alongside the Economy Minister, we should look at that.

Ms Mulholland: I wonder whether, given that the Minister has previously alluded to treading the boards, he maybe has a personal connection to Riverside. If so, I hope that there is some footage.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): No, there is not.

Ms Mulholland: No?

While the Riverside Theatre is not in my constituency of North Antrim, I am so much closer to it than to any other theatre. Over the years, I have been to so many plays, speeches and really interesting talks there as well as all sorts of artistic events. The panto is my family's firm favourite — I think that we saw 'Snow White' there. Riverside's accessibility, family-friendly nature and openness make it such an important venue.

As the chair of the all-party group on the arts, I am acutely aware of the importance of having arts venues with accessible pricing structures for the events that they put on. For a lot of people, especially those living in the north coast area, the Riverside is their first interaction with the arts, regardless of the art form that they are going to see, because its events are so varied. In a world where creativity and cultural expression are so often overlooked, it is crucial that we recognise and celebrate the profound impact that places such as Riverside and the arts have on our communities, our economy and our collective well-being.

As others have mentioned, the cultural heritage and legacy of Riverside is undeniable. It is Northern Ireland's oldest performing theatre outside Belfast, which is an incredible achievement, and I know that it has immense cultural significance for people on the north coast. I really valued Maurice Bradley's contribution about regional imbalance. We see that across the board, whether that is to do with our economy or our investment, and there is a regional imbalance in our arts infrastructure. The Riverside is an irreplaceable part of Northern Ireland's arts infrastructure.

As part of the University of Ulster's Coleraine campus — I am sorry; I was a UU graduate, and it will never be Ulster University to me — the theatre plays a vital role in arts education and creative industries training. It is that open space where you can get real time on a stage, working behind the scenes and getting hands-on experience of industry skills. As well as that, as others have mentioned, it is a venue for schools and youth theatre productions. I did not get tickets for Ballywillan Drama Group's brilliant production of 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' either, so I feel your pain, Claire. Is it not amazing that an amateur dramatic production can sell out such a huge run in a theatre that is so accessible? That is wonderful, and that is the joy of community arts in particular and venues such as Riverside. If it reduces its provision or closes, there will be no replacement of that nature. Limavady has the Roe Valley Arts and Cultural Centre, Ballymena has The Braid and Coleraine has the brilliant Flowerfield Arts Centre, but those are not of the same size and nature, and the Riverside is a very different venue.

Any closure or reduction in provision would have a real impact on the local economy. In the years before I lived on the north coast, I travelled up, and, if a show was on, we would go out to dinner and make an evening of it. I am not the only one who did that. There are shows that bring people out of the Causeway Coast and Glens into the area, and that cannot be denied. The hospitality businesses benefit from the theatre audiences. For me, however, Riverside is not just a theatre but a community hub, whether for talks, community presentations or for screenings of important plays or consultations.

My colleagues on Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council have tabled a motion that will, hopefully, be heard next month. It will ask the council to reaffirm its position that the theatre should remain in operation as a valuable cultural asset in the borough and to agree to write to the university's vice chancellor and the Minister for the Economy to affirm its position and to seek urgent clarity. Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council and, before that, Coleraine Borough Council were supporting the theatre with a grant of up to £100,000. Technically speaking, that was to help with programme development and a third of its running costs. That shows that there was an investment from local government until 2021, when the vice chancellor stopped requesting the funding from Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, which precipitated my colleague, Yvonne Boyle asking whether the university was still committed to the Riverside. That led us to the realisation that the vice chancellor was not reaffirming where the theatre's future was going to lie in the UU campus.

I really appreciate, Maurice, your feedback on the options that were put to you. I was going to suggest, if all Members were agreeable, a cross-party delegation, because we are so much stronger when we come together and when, as a group, we are united in our support for the arts. I would appreciate that, if other Members are interested.

I ask that the Minister for Communities considers what support he can give to the theatre. I know only too well that his budget is finite, much as we might wish that he had a blank chequebook, particularly when it comes to the arts. There is a limited offer there, so my ask would be primarily for the Minister for the Economy to engage with the university. In response to my question for written answer, he said that he had had no engagement with the vice chancellor up to that point. It is important that there is a cross-departmental approach because the Department for the Economy has a strong input to and oversight of the campus, whereas the arts offer, obviously, sits with you, Minister.

As a cross-party delegation of people who are passionate about the arts and that particular arts infrastructure, we need to do all that we can to protect such a vital asset to the arts community but also to the Causeway coast and glens area. However, I am grateful to the Member for giving us this chance to talk about it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you to all Members who spoke. I call the Minister for Communities to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for East Londonderry for bringing the debate to the House. I thank her for her passionate contribution, despite her disgraceful attempt to exploit my family connections to the area to try to get me to take some action. In response to Ms Mulholland, I can confirm that I never did tread the boards in the Riverside Theatre. That was at other locations on the north coast. However, I would not be surprised if others in this place had had that experience. There are certainly plenty here with experience of amateur dramatics from what we have seen over past months.

Members will be aware of the importance and value that I place on the arts, so I understand and appreciate Members' concerns about arts funding and infrastructure and the honest and welcome desire to protect, support and grow what we have in Northern Ireland. I welcome it, too, that the debate has touched on issues beyond the core point of the Riverside Theatre, and I want to address as many of the points that were raised as I can.

To begin with, it is important to emphasise the facts about the position of Riverside Theatre as I understand them to stand. The theatre has been a feature of the Coleraine and north coast landscape and part of the cultural life of the area for more than a generation. Also, as was alluded to, it is hosting a popular run of 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory', which I do not think has been mentioned so many times in a debate. It is important to mention that because we need to take care not to give the impression that the theatre is not open for business or is on the verge of closure.

Members are aware that the theatre is owned and operated by Ulster University on its Coleraine campus. It does not receive funding from the Arts Council or the local council. In addition, my Department has no role in the funding or oversight of the university. I understand that, as part of its ongoing campus programme, the university is considering various developments at Coleraine, and one of those projects is a review of possible options for the Riverside Theatre, as Mr Bradley pointed out, having met the university. I understand that the review has not yet been established, that a start date has not been decided and that no outcome has been predetermined. Such a review is a matter for the university authorities, and they will, of course, be aware of the role of the theatre and its place in the local community.

It is important to make clear that the university has not yet made any decision on the future of the Riverside Theatre and certainly no decision to close it. However, while my Department and the Arts Council have no role in the management or funding of Riverside Theatre, that is not to say that we have no interest in the potential options arising from the proposed review.

I am confident that the university's considerations will take account of the role that a venue such as the Riverside Theatre plays in the cultural and social life of its hinterland. To that end, I can say that the Arts Council will be happy to provide its insight and advice on arts provision generally and, along with other stakeholders, on the arts ecology in the area. I am happy to write to the chancellor following the debate to highlight the issues that have been raised and the concerns that Members have expressed in the Chamber. I thank Members for raising the issue and for contributing to the debate.

The debate has allowed Members to raise issues of funding and future plans. I will say something on both. To Members who think that the arts budget is not enough and who have said so this afternoon, I say that I agree. To Members who think that the work and contribution of the people who make up our arts sector are not understood or valued by me or my Department, I say that that is far from the truth. Every day, the arts and the creativity of our people play an important and practical role across a range of Executive policies and priorities. As Ms Sugden said, they make Northern Ireland a magnet for tourism. They feed our entertainment, leisure and night-time economy. They are the catalyst for the design and creativity that develop products, transform processes, improve productivity and drive our digital, screen and other industries. Across health and well-being, they add real value in prevention, mitigation and treatment. Our education, childcare and youth work would be unrecognisable without them.

As I have said before, the arts do not get the level of funding that is merited or required. I will continue working to increase funding, because I know the impact that the arts have across Northern Ireland in all the areas of policy that I mentioned and on the quality of life of everyone here. For those reasons, I argue that funding for the arts is an investment in and for the people of Northern Ireland. While the financial climate remains challenging, however, it would be unrealistic and limiting to reach the point of relying solely on public funding to provide support and investment for the arts sector. I am committed to continuing to fund the arts and to highlighting to Executive colleagues the benefits of doing so properly, but the opportunity exists to look for other opportunities to complement government funding.

How government supports the arts is a central theme of the work being undertaken to develop a new arts policy under the heritage, culture and creativity programme that I announced in July last year. The programme will also see new policies developed for museums, public libraries and Northern Ireland's historical environment. The policy vacuum that existed is being filled, and the programme will be an important step forward in articulating the benefits that the arts deliver and the potential to do more and go even further.

The approach taken in the work will include a focus on the contribution that each sector can make to equality of access and opportunity across socio-economic grouping, age, geography and so on. I want to encourage greater participation, particularly by people and communities who may feel that the arts are not for them or that their cultural and artistic activities and traditions do not quite fit. I want to explore the potential to encourage new and deeper collaborations and partnerships, supporting greater financial sustainability across the sectors and identifying approaches and opportunities that maximise the value of such important assets and their potential. In all that work, I will continue to advocate for the arts and make the case for more, well-targeted investment.

I want to raise one other issue, which relates to the university more widely. I add my voice to those who mentioned the importance of Ulster University's Coleraine campus. I understand the role that it plays; its importance to local people and the local economy; and the investment that is needed, which Mr Bradley rightly highlighted. He invited me to Coleraine in my previous role. I will continue to support the university and advocate for the funding that is required to make sure that it does everything that it can do and fulfils its potential.

I am grateful to Members for their contributions on the Riverside Theatre's position and on broader issues. I will close by noting that, in my role as Minister, I have had the opportunity to speak to many people working in, supporting or simply enjoying the arts. Despite the challenges that are often a fact of everyday life for many individuals and organisations across the sector, I have been met only with positivity and a willingness to help or offer constructive advice. I have also, of course, been left in no doubt about the challenges to the sector and the risks being faced. In light of those, I intend that the development of a new policy for the arts will bring a new focus on the fundamental strategic needs of the sector and on the measures that the Government and other stakeholders might take to bring the sort of change that everyone wants.

I am grateful to the Member for securing this evening's Adjournment debate. It has been useful. The points have been noted, and I will ensure that they are passed on. I am grateful to all Members for their contributions. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I thank the Minister for his response.