Official Report: Tuesday 04 February 2025

Mr Speaker: I wish to advise Members that, yesterday, I received correspondence from the nominating officer for Sinn Féin informing me that the following Members have resigned their positions with immediate effect: Philip McGuigan, Chair of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee; Carál Ní Chuilín, Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges; Sinéad Ennis, Deputy Chair of the Committee on Procedures; Declan McAleer, Deputy Chair of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee; and Ciara Ferguson, Deputy Chair of the Committee for Communities.

The nominating officer also advised of the following nominations: Philip McGuigan as Chair of the Committee for Health; Ciara Ferguson as Chair of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee; Cathy Mason as Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges; Órlaithí Flynn as Deputy Chair of the Committee on Procedures; Pat Sheehan as Deputy Chair of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee; and Nicola Brogan as Deputy Chair of the Committee for Communities.

All those Members have accepted their nominations and taken up their roles. I wish them every success.

Mr Gildernew: I wish to acknowledge the work of the Youth Assembly. It is one of the really interesting developments over the past number of years. The Youth Assembly was initiated under your predecessor, Alex Maskey, in 2021, and I know that you have continued that work. The Youth Assembly, to its credit, shadows the structures here, in that it has 90 Members, and those young people have identified a range of interests that they want to pursue through that format. They have three Committees, and, to the Members' credit, they have identified health, education and rights and equality as their key issues.

I have had the experience of working with the Youth Assembly on several occasions, in my work as a member of the Committee for Communities and at the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, last week, Youth Assembly Members were involved on two separate occasions. One was the pensions regulations, which we discussed last week, and several Youth Assembly Members gave evidence to the PAC on skills and their perceptions of that subject. I want to thank individually the Members of the Youth Assembly who attended and gave evidence at that session: we had Bláthnaid, Rory, Harrison and Paige. I am always hugely impressed by the diligence that they bring to that work. They are always well prepared, give the subject extensive consideration and bring their unique experience, knowledge and perspective. I therefore encourage Members, in any of their work in Committee, to consider the Youth Assembly. Its Members have important perspectives that they bring to the Youth Assembly on behalf of the people whom they represent, and every time that I engage with them, it reinforces my determination that we will see, as soon as possible, the voting age reduced to 16. Those young people have a voice, and their perspective is important, so I would like to see the voting age lowered to 16 across the island.

Mrs Cameron: I take the opportunity to raise an issue that affects the residents of Monkstown Mews in my constituency of South Antrim. At the outset, I pay tribute to my party colleagues for their work on the issue before the constituency boundaries changed.

The houses in Monkstown Mews were built almost 20 years ago. It is a quiet residential area with roads that are still unadopted, meaning that services are limited and that those who own their home find it difficult to sell their property owing to the complications arising from the lack of adoption. We all expect that, when we buy a house, the road that it sits on will, in the near future or within a reasonable time, be brought up to a standard that leads to its official adoption, and with official adoption come the basic services of working street lights, road and footway maintenance etc.

For the residents of Monkstown Mews, that is not the case, and they are more than frustrated at the ongoing stalemate, with some forced to rent out their property because, as a result of the sale of their home falling through, they cannot move to another. The situation is not just an inconvenience but a barrier to property ownership, investment and community development, and it is unacceptable that our constituents find themselves living in such uncertainty, deprived of basic amenities that should accompany living in a residential area. More must be done to address the issue of unadopted roads in order to ensure that all residents have access to the infrastructure and services that they deserve.

I express my gratitude to my party colleague Deborah Erskine and welcome her intention to introduce a private Member's Bill to address the problem. Legislation is essential in order to make sure that homeowners in Monkstown Mews and across Northern Ireland can get a resolution to a serious problem that is not of their making. I will keep my constituents informed of the private Member's Bill's progress, and I am delighted to hear that it will be going out to consultation in the near future. I also put on record that I have written to the Minister for Infrastructure on the issue.

Mr Dickson: I raise an issue that is central to our commitments under section 75(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, specifically the concept of "good relations", which is a term that, despite its frequent use, lacks a statutory definition. The omission has created ambiguity over and practical implications for policy development and community cohesion in Northern Ireland. Section 75(2) mandates that public authorities must promote good relations amongst people of:

Despite nearly 30 years of policy development in the area, however, the term remains undefined, and, frankly, its interpretation is woolly and varied. That has led to concerns and given opportunity for misuse by sidestepping equality obligations under the guise of fostering good relations, especially in situations involving racial violence against our black and minority ethnic communities.

In 2014, the Equality Coalition stated in a report that Northern Ireland's framework for good relations, at best, diverges from the principles of human rights and equality and, at worst, runs counter to them. Unlike those areas, good relations lacks any minimum standard or benchmark, which leaves its implementation ambiguous and subjective to interpretation. Failure to provide a definition has allowed section 75 duties that were intended to promote equality and non-discrimination to be turned into what the Equality Coalition has termed a "subjective political veto" over contentious policy. That is a far cry from their original intent, which ultimately undermines their effectiveness.

In 2017, the Council of Europe's Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities recommended:

It is now 2025, and Northern Ireland remains without such legislation.

The Executive Office's handling of the good relations strategy has been, at best, slow and ineffective.

Necessary updates to strategies and policies like Together: Building a United Community have been criticised for being lacklustre, and any pressing of the clear need for a legal definition of good relations continues to be ignored. The Equality Commission, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition have acknowledged those issues. Alliance supports calls to deliver a statutory definition of good relations, including amendments to the Northern Ireland Act. A statutory definition of good relations would align us with best practice in other jurisdictions across the United Kingdom, but also deliver the promises of the Good Friday Agreement.

In conclusion, defining good relations is not merely about addressing a legislative gap. It is about clearly stating our values and ensuring that our commitments to peace and prosperity are comprehensive and actionable. Let us give good relations a legal definition and a genuine meaning to deliver a more inclusive Northern Ireland.

Dr Aiken: It is with some sadness that I rise to report the passing yesterday of our well-liked ex-mayor, councillor and UUP association chair, Jim Montgomery. Jim was a prominent political figure in South Antrim, particularly the town of Antrim — a town that he was immensely proud to represent and with which he had a strong affinity. Everyone knew him as "Gentleman Jim".

Jim was an Ulster Unionist Party councillor for several years, representing Antrim on Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council. However, it was during COVID, when he was our mayor, that Jim's immense empathy and compassion was shown to all people of the borough. Working within the restrictions, he reached out to all of the most vulnerable members of our community, using his office to support those most in need and using his voice for the benefit of all. Jim was a local politician for everyone, and condolences have been expressed by all political parties. That is more than testament to the great regard that he was held in by all our communities.

I worked closely with Jim on many other issues, including his help for the blue-light services. He was heavily involved through his civilian role in policing and he provided support for serving and retired members of the PSNI. His role in supporting police pensioners was widely recognised by all members of the policing family as being pivotal to their welfare. The sense of loss and shock that we have in our party is mirrored in the PSNI and the Policing Board. However, it is as a stalwart member of our party that we miss him most. It was only on Friday, at our South Antrim AGM in Ballyclare, that we elected him, unopposed, as the chair of our association.

Above all, to me, he was a friend and confidante, and he always had a very ready sense of humour, as those of us who knew him know. All our party's thoughts are with his family, especially Gordon, Stephen and Nigel. Jim, safe into the night. You are in our prayers; you will be missed.

Ms Flynn: I will highlight a meeting that Sinn Féin representatives held recently with ME Support NI to hear about the invaluable support that it is providing to ME patients. ME, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, is a long-term chronic and painful neurological illness. Over 7,000 people in the North are living with ME, with many so severely affected that they are unable to leave their homes or even their beds. This disease of the central nervous system can have a debilitating impact on people's lives.

A few weeks ago, the Sinn Féin health group MLAs met volunteers from ME Support NI. The people in the support group, who set up the charity, have direct experience of living with this awful disease. They are doing amazing work in supporting people — young and old — who are living with ME, many of whom are living without a diagnosis or a treatment plan and, sadly, feel stigmatised, ignored and not believed when they end up in hospital as a result of that debilitating disease. I sincerely hope that we can make more progress to support the work of ME Support NI to help secure better services, receive proper diagnoses and, generally, raise more awareness of what the disease is and how it affects people.

Patients who suffer from ME deserve to have access to appropriate and quality healthcare. People should not have to travel to hotel rooms to have specialists from overseas diagnose them, which is the situation currently. I will continue to work and speak up for those who are suffering from ME and, hopefully, do all that I can, along with colleagues, to bring about positive change for patients.

ME Support NI is a fantastic charity that does fantastic work for people who are often at their lowest point when they have been struck down by this relatively unknown illness. The charity was originally founded by a brave mother from west Belfast who found herself in the terrible position of having a very sick young child with no diagnosis, no answers, no care pathway and nowhere to turn. Her efforts and perseverance gave rise to a group of people that now provides invaluable support to everyone who lives with ME. I commend that mother, Antoinette, and her son David from west Belfast. They run the charity alongside other board members. Keep up the great work, and, hopefully, we will soon see the appointment of a specialist in this healthcare field.

Ms Forsythe: On Sunday 2 February 2025, the Shore Road at Rostrevor in my constituency of South Down was finally reopened to two lanes of traffic, having had one lane blocked and temporary traffic measures in place for the past 15 months and a couple of days since the storm in October/November 2023. Some in the Chamber may be sick of hearing me talk about it, but I have been relentless in tabling questions for oral and written answer and securing an Adjournment debate on the roads in South Down before Christmas. Thank goodness the road is now open.

Many questions, however, are now pouring in, as the work to move the blocks placed in the middle of the road to block one lane for over a year to the edge of the road at the bottom of the cliff took just one and a half days this weekend. If such short minor works were required, why did it take over 15 months to do them? Why were the people of South Down left behind and forgotten for so long? What did it cost the Department for Infrastructure to run temporary traffic management on the road for the past 15 months? I have asked that question before and been told that the information was commercially sensitive, but I ask it again, because my constituents deserve to know how much it cost to restrict them to one lane of traffic on that main road for over a year. It caused huge delays and inconvenience and hindered business transportation through the area.

I have an evidenced record of consistently fighting on the issue, but I have felt alone. Our local people were failed by our Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister on it. Where was the South Down MP? He has been as absent on the ground as he has been from his seat at Westminster. Where were the two Sinn Féin MLAs? What about our councillors? I heard no support on the matter from our Sinn Féin-run Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, which pushed through a rates increase last night despite an absolute and ongoing failure to deliver things that are as basic as emptying the bins in the area every week.

In South Down, we have been very much left behind and failed time and time again. I stand alone as the only unionist MLA for South Down. Our DUP team of councillors is hugely in the minority, with only five out of 41 councillors, but we will always stand up and fight for our constituents. The DUP councillors on Newry, Mourne and Down District Council were the only ones to vote against the rates increase last night. We will not sit idly by and watch as our constituents are failed. However, there is a long, hard fight for everything that we do. Anyone who has watched me work hard for my constituents can see that, but we will continue to do it. We are in the minority, but we are proud to always punch above our weight and represent our constituents.

Mr McMurray: I acknowledge the 10th anniversary of the Castlewellan parkrun, which takes place every Saturday at 9.30 am in the grounds of Castlewellan Forest Park. Admittedly, I do not partake in parkrun as often as I should like, but it is a fantastic event that takes place in the town. There are also events in Rostrevor and Downpatrick, as well as one that is just outside my constituency in the Montalto estate, Ballynahinch. I am sure that there is one in which every MLA could partake. That said, I know that Members are actively involved in parkrun as participants or volunteers, which further demonstrates its reach and impact.

The events exemplify community in action and reflect the values that we aim to uphold as representatives of the Assembly. Indeed, Northern Ireland is now home to 41 parkrun events and 13 junior parkruns, which represents a remarkable growth since the first event at the Waterworks in Belfast. Across the region, over 50,000 people are registered parkrunners, and around 6,000 individuals take part weekly by running, walking or volunteering. In the number of people participating, NI punches well above our weight. In the rest of the UK, there is one participant per 347 of the population; in the Republic of Ireland, it is one participant per 333 of the population; but, in NI, it is one participant per 285 of the population.

It has become a shining example of community resilience, inclusivity and well-being across Northern Ireland with its focus on cross-community engagement and its ability to positively impact on physical and mental health. Parkrun is a beacon of hope and unity in our society. It has grown into a vital community initiative that promotes health, well-being and inclusivity across Northern Ireland. As a free, weekly 5K event, parkrun welcomes participants of all ages, backgrounds and fitness levels to run, jog or walk and has a unique ability to bring people together regardless of community or creed. From public parks, such as Victoria Park and Ormeau Park in Belfast, to the Peace Bridge in Derry and through to the Lower Drummans event at Magilligan prison, parkrun connects communities in a way that transcends barriers. As Members of the Assembly, let us continue to celebrate and support parkrun for the incredible benefits that it brings to people in Northern Ireland.

Mr Sheehan: Ó fógraíodh an sos cogaidh in Gaza an 19 Eanáir, tá Iosrael ag cur lena chuid ionsaithe ar Phalaistínigh sa Bhruach Thiar, sin dar leis an ghrúpa Iosraelach ar son chearta an duine, B’Tselem. Is beag má bhí an sos cogaidh fógartha go raibh sráidbhailte, bailte móra agus gach cathair sa Bhruach Thiar faoi léigear ag arm Iosrael. An seanphort céanna arís, a Cheann Comhairle: Iosrael ag déanamh léigear ar Phalaistínigh agus ag cur isteach ar shaol an gháthPhalaistínigh, ach sa Bhruach Thiar an iarraidh seo. Níl scoláirí in ann dul ar scoil nó ar ollscoil; níl othair in ann cóir leighis a fháil; agus níl oibrithe in ann dul ar obair. Mar a deir an grúpa Iosraelach, B’Tselem: más sos cogaidh é, ní cosúil.

Ní cosúil le sos cogaidh é, a Cheann Comhairle, nuair atá níos mó ná deichniúr Palaistíneach marbh ag arm Iosrael le coicís anuas agus Palaistínigh gafa ina scórtha ag arm Iosrael sa Bhruach Thiar. Tá arm Iosrael ar theann a ndíchill i gcoinne na bPalaistíneach ach, má tá féin, ní chuireann siad isteach ná amach ar na coilínigh atá i mbun foréigin sa Bhruach Thiar. Seasann siad siar de réir mar a théann na coilínigh ag ionsaí pobail Phalaistíneacha, ag iarraidh tithe a chur trí thine agus na daoine go fóill iontu, agus ag scriosadh carranna. Ó thosaigh an sos cogaidh, tá coilínigh ag cur staiceanna i mbéal bóithre ar fud an Bhruaigh Thiar go n-ionsaíonn siad Palaistínigh a bhíonn ag gabháil an bóthar.

Dar le B’Tselem go bhfuil Iosrael ag teacht i dtír ar an sos cogaidh le cur leis an chos ar bolg atá siad a dhéanamh ar mhuintir na Palaistíne sa Bhruach Thiar. Ní sos cogaidh ach spré cogaidh sin, a Cheann Comhairle. Más léir don ghrúpa Iosraelach B’Tselem an méid sin, tá an t-am dearg ag an phobal idirnáisiúnta drochbhearta Iosrael a aithint agus a cháineadh.

Ms Nicholl: This week is National Apprenticeship Week. I will be honest and say that, before joining the Economy Committee, I did not know much about apprenticeships, but the reality is that they are a game changer. They help to grow our economy, tackle poverty and inequality and fill crucial skills gaps. They offer a practical strategic way to boost productivity and develop a workforce that meets our long-term economic needs. That said, we still have a problem: every time we talk about education and skills, the conversation seems to default to academic routes — university, degrees and traditional qualifications. Why is that? Why do we still have an ingrained bias that university is the best option for success?

National Apprenticeship Week is all about changing that mindset and raising awareness of the opportunities that apprenticeships bring. Of course, we know that both academic and vocational pathways are valuable, but we need to shift our thinking. Our focus should be on finding the best opportunities for our young people and not just pushing them down one particular route.

Apprenticeships strike a brilliant balance of earning while learning and gaining qualifications while getting real-world experience. We recently had representations from apprentices at the Committee, and I wish that I had known more about apprenticeships as an option when I was at school. In fact, when it comes to making them more accessible, that is first on my list of things to look at for taking action. Careers advice in schools needs a serious rethink. Work is already happening across Education and Economy, but we also need to make sure that our apprenticeships are properly promoted. A thriving apprenticeship system depends on a strong further education sector, and there are serious concerns about the challenges facing that sector right now.

We also need to reform and devolve the apprenticeship levy, which I have spoken about before, so that we have more control over how the money that businesses pay out is spent. We have to shift the cultural perception of vocational routes so that they are seen as equally valuable, not just as a second choice. We need to support small businesses and mircobusinesses so that they have the confidence and capacity to take on more apprenticeships. We know that more want to do that; they just do not have the capacity to do it.

We are making progress, but we need to go further and faster. Apprenticeships can help us close crucial skills gaps, especially in green industries where we need trained workers to meet our net zero commitments. That is why I, as chair of the all-party group on skills, am really excited that our next inquiry will focus on green skills. Apprenticeships will be so key to making that happen.

Alliance will keep pushing for more apprenticeship opportunities and better support for both apprentices and employers. It is about giving people of all ages the best possible start and helping businesses find the skilled workers that they need to thrive. Happy Apprenticeship Week. There are so many events going on, all of which are detailed on the Economy Department's website. I am hopeful that we can continue to drive change in that area.

Ms Brownlee: Yesterday evening, along with party colleagues and members of the greater Shankill policing subgroup, I attended a fantastic Protestant/unionist/loyalist (PUL) reference, engagement and listening (REal) event at the Spectrum Centre on the Shankill Road, where we met the Chief Constable, the Deputy Chief Constable and staff from the PSNI. There was an important and open discussion, with clear acknowledgment of the concerns around two-tier policing. Crucially, the Chief Constable committed that, under his leadership, all voices will be heard equally and everyone will be treated the same under the law.

The event also provided an opportunity to discuss the barriers to recruitment and what more can be done to ensure that those in working-class areas can equally access career opportunities in the PSNI. I commend the community organisers for their role in making the engagement possible, bringing together the PUL community from across Northern Ireland and creating a space for constructive and positive dialogue.

The Chief Constable made it clear that the police are there to police and that everyone will be policed equally. That is all we have ever asked for, and it is what that community will continue to demand. May it only be the start of more positive engagement with the PSNI in Northern Ireland.

Ms McLaughlin: Yesterday, the Minister of Education came to the House to make a ministerial statement on controlled schools and on the announcement of £710,000 in funding for a new football pitch at Lisneal College. I want to be clear: Lisneal College is a fantastic school. It has made huge strides in recent years, thanks, in no small way, to the dedication of an excellent leadership team. Whilst I welcome any funding that comes into my constituency, I cannot ignore the wider context. That is why I am still calling for full transparency around how the decision was made, what criteria were used, how Lisneal compares with the schools that were rejected, and, crucially, what steps will be taken to ensure that other schools in Derry and elsewhere get the funding that they so desperately need. In addition, there must be greater clarity on what is considered a major project compared with a minor one. The Minister indicated that the Department's website was wrong and that a minor capital project is now up to £1 million. When was that 100% inflation rate made, and how did it get to that figure?

Since the announcement, the Education Authority has had to clarify that the football pitch in question is still in use, despite saying that, due to a failed health and safety check, it has been out of use since 2019. Again, I fully support investment in school facilities, but there needs to be clear and transparent decision-making when it comes to such funding allocations.

When I asked those questions yesterday, the Minister said to me:

I really am hurt and angry that there is any suggestion that I have a sectarian modus operandi against any constituent in Foyle or anywhere.

It is just not in the fibre of my being. I reject what was said on the Floor of the House.

Mr Brett: The King's Award for Voluntary Service is the highest accolade that can be awarded by the monarch to community and voluntary organisations in the United Kingdom. I was absolutely delighted that the amazing Queens Park Women's Group was announced as a recipient of that award this year.

Forged just 15 years ago by two formidable and amazing women, that community group has gone from strength to strength. First formed to tackle antisocial behaviour in Glengormley, the group has expanded to work with older people, invest in skills and ensure that no person in Queen's Park and, indeed, the wider Glengormley area is left behind. Those two formidable ladies, Sharon and Ena McTaggart, have given freely of their time for the past 15 years to make Glengormley the best place that it can be. Often, the awards are given to large community and voluntary organisations that have huge backers and, indeed, a huge funding pot. Day and daily, those women fundraise the money that they need to support their community on their own. Those women give freely of their time, after working during the day, to ensure that every person who calls Glengormley "home" has a community outlet to enjoy.

The community of Queen's Park is a proud working-class community. Never in its wildest dreams did it think that it would be recognised at the heights of Buckingham Palace. However, through the work and dedication of those ladies and their countless volunteers, the community will finally get the recognition that it deserves. It is fitting that I take the opportunity on the Floor of the Assembly to congratulate them on that.

It is also an exciting year for the group because we have just secured new premises to ensure that it can have the resources and facilities to continue its amazing work. I take the opportunity to say, "Well done, ladies".

Mr Speaker: Members may take their ease for a moment before we move to the next item of business.

Miss McAllister: I beg to move

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

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I move the motion on behalf of the Assembly Commission to make a technical addition to the Assembly Commission's functions, which is consistent with decisions previously made by the Assembly. I will briefly set out some background for the benefit of Members.

Members may recall that the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 established the independent financial review panel (IFRP) with powers to make determinations in relation to Members' salaries, allowances and pensions. The panel last exercised that power to make the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2016. After the panel left office in 2016, the Assembly Commission decided that it was appropriate to review the existing arrangements and legislation. Political developments after 2016 meant that the Assembly Commission did not believe that it was appropriate to treat the matter as a priority when the Assembly was not sitting.

On 18 March 2020, the Assembly Commission decided that, while it would introduce legislation to appoint a new independent body to continue to determine Members' salaries and pensions, it would resume the function of determining the allowances paid to Members. Consequently, on 30 June 2024, the Assembly passed a resolution to confer power on the Assembly Commission to make determinations on Members' allowances. That resolution was passed in accordance with section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which provides for payments to be made to current Members of the Assembly, including payments of allowances.

Subsequently, the Assembly Commission made the 2020 determination, which amended certain allowances provisions in the 2016 determination, notably those relating to Members' employees. However, the resolution made by the Assembly in June 2020 did not confer functions on the Assembly Commission in relation to section 48 of the 1998 Act, which provides for payments to be made to former Members. That was not problematic at the time, as the 2020 determination was not concerned with issues related to former Members. However, going forward, today's motion will provide the authority for the Commission to determine allowances to former Members, most notably winding-up and resettlement allowances. Therefore, the motion will provide consistency for the Assembly Commission to make determinations for the full range of allowances payable to Members and former Members.

The motion in itself introduces no changes to allowances to Members or former Members; that will require the Assembly Commission to subsequently publish a determination. Therefore, the motion has no financial implications. The House will also be aware that allowances paid to former Members do not form a significant proportion of the Assembly Commission's overall expenditure, and that is unlikely to change.

Members will note that the debate on the motion has been scheduled to coincide with the introduction of the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill. That Bill is the formal mechanism under which the power to determine allowances is separated from the power to determine salaries and pensions, although, in practical terms, that occurred in 2020. The Bill ensures that the salaries and pensions of Members will continue to be determined by an independent body. Today's motion, together with that passed by the Assembly in June 2020 and the introduction of the Bill, will provide coherent arrangements for the salaries, pensions and allowances payable to Members and former Members. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Butler: I will find the right words. I have come down without paper.

As has been said, the motion is technical in nature but is consistent with previous Assembly decisions. It would not introduce any changes to Members' or former Members' allowances; such changes would require a subsequent determination by the Assembly Commission. That is in line with previous decisions taken by the House, as the proposer of the motion outlined.

The motion will ensure that the Assembly Commission has the authority to determine allowances for former Members, in particular winding-up and resettlement allowances. That was not done in the June 2020 determination process, which made no changes relating to former Members, so this is about redressing the imbalance.

The motion has no financial implications, as it does not alter the allowances that are paid. As a former member of the Commission, I commend it and the audit team for the work that they do. However, it is a reality that it is up to us, as individual Members with responsibilities, to ensure that we operate within the confines, rules and regulations of that which is laid down.

The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the Commission motion.

Mr Gaston: The motion begins by noting:

Really? It does that in a context where the briefing to assist the Audit Committee's scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2025-26 said:

I make it clear that I do not believe that MLAs should receive a pay rise of one penny, never mind £19,000.

While the briefing did not note this, I urge any independent body reviewing MLA pay to link it to our performance in the House; to consider the fact that we are Members of a legislative Assembly that seldom legislates; to consider that MLAs sit on scrutiny Committees that do not scrutinise; and to remember that MLAs, when asked whether they would like to have a say on laws that govern our economy, voted to hand power to those in a foreign Parliament. Is that the track record of an Assembly whose Members deserve a £19,000 pay hike? I think not, and I trust that the remuneration board will take those indisputable facts into account.

A similar move is afoot in local councils, In the 2025-26 rate-setting process, councils are preparing for a £7,000 increase in councillors' salaries along with generous back pay. Many councils are building in between £250,000 and £500,000 to cover the costs to flow from the announcement expected from Minister Lyons before the summer.

As with the council increase, the motion is an attempt by the parties represented on the Commission to give cover for the awarding of a pay rise to MLAs. I do not believe that we are worth it and will therefore vote against the proposal. Anyone who thinks similarly can join me in the No Lobby.

Mr Carroll: I oppose the motion, which is a clear attempt to move the dial on a familiar conversation: MLA pay and allowances. The motion reminds us that MLA salaries and pensions are determined by an independent body, effectively laying the groundwork for an inevitable and substantial salary increase for MLAs under the guise of independence and objectivity. Straight after the debate, the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill will be introduced in the Assembly. When a board is being set up, we all know what it will recommend. There is a clear direction of travel.

In a briefing to the Audit Committee, the Assembly Commission noted that MLA salaries had not been reviewed since 2016 and that the current salary for MLAs is, as we heard, £19,000 less than members of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. The Assembly Commission concluded:

I say this to those who tabled the motion: do not insult our intelligence; do not insult the intelligence of people looking at this debate. If MLA salaries were increased in line with Scotland and Wales, that would mean a 28% — 28% — pay increase for politicians. That would be a kick in the teeth for every worker who stood on a picket line and fought for pay increases that barely kept pace with inflation. Imagine if teachers got a 28% pay increase, health workers got a 28% pay increase or workers in this Building got a 28% pay increase. Remuneration boards for our public-sector workers are not so generous.

Last year, a UK pay review body recommended a 5·5% increase for Health and Social Care workers. It took months of lobbying and the prospect of industrial action for the Health Minister to finally accept that recommendation. In no other job would a 28% pay increase be considered reasonable or affordable.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Clarke: I understand the Member's point about comparisons with the public sector, and he cites the 5·5% for one year. We are working on the presumption that MLAs will get a pay rise, but the fact is that the Commission is asking an independent body to do that work. You are deciding what that body will do. Do you not agree that, whilst some workers got 5·5% for one year, the cumulative effect from 2015, when the pay was last adjusted, will be much more than the 28% that you suggest? Do you not believe in fairness for all workers?

Also, will you join me in calling for the Commission, when an Ad Hoc Committee is set up to review this —.

Mr Carroll: That is a long intervention.

Mr Clarke: I am still on my feet. The Speaker will call me to order.

Would you support —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me —

Mr Clarke: Would you support —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. You need to resume your seat. The Member indicated that he would take an intervention. Interventions are meant to be brief, however. The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Interventions are meant to be brief, and the Member's was a bit long. He may have let the cat out of the bag when he said that we are working on the presumption that there will be a pay increase for MLAs. I do not know whether he has more to reveal on the subject. He can speak after me if he wants to.

In no other job would a 28% pay increase be considered reasonable or affordable. Why should MLAs be treated differently from any other worker? The Member fails to grasp that point, when he should.

The motion reminds us that, in 2020, the Assembly Commission was granted powers to determine Members' allowances. It is worth noting that allowances include not just expenses but staff salaries and office rents, yet powers for MLAs to determine their own allowances were granted despite a litany of examples showing that some MLAs cannot be trusted to control the purse strings. A DUP MLA claimed over £4,000 in heating oil in just one year. Mileage expenses of £19,000 were claimed on behalf of a Sinn Féin MLA who did not drive. For 10 years, Sinn Féin MLAs claimed £700,000 of expenses for a research company, Research Services Ireland, that did not exist. Remember that?

Westminster and the Welsh Senedd make use of independent boards to set allowances. There are very few legitimate reasons for MLAs to insist on setting their own allowances, especially when parties here have a track record of misusing public money. We cannot, on the one hand, claim that an independent body is objective enough to set MLAs' salaries while, on the other hand, claim that it cannot be trusted to determine their allowances and expenses. That is completely incoherent.

The motion goes even further. It states that MLAs should set resettlement and winding-up allowances for former MLAs and that those determinations can be applied retrospectively. It is a scheme that is ripe for exploitation. Other workers do not get to set their own expenses and allowances, never mind those of former workers. Again, I ask this: why should MLAs be treated any differently?

It is long past time to have a completely different conversation on pay and allowances, one that asks how MLAs can credibly claim to represent their constituents when their salary is £20,000 more than the average wage. Some would accept its being £40,000 more. The next time that we talk about our pay and expenses, I hope that that is the main topic of conversation. I oppose the motion and urge other parties, including the Opposition, to do the same.

Mr Clarke: I will address some of the comments that have been made. I was not down on the list to speak, but, even though my intervention was considered long, I probably needed a few more seconds to cover all my points. The previous Member to speak put things on the record, so I will put on record the fact that I let no cat out of the bag. It was the Member himself who indicated that our pay is 28% behind that in Scotland and Wales. There is a danger that we are calling into question the independence of an independent panel. Members have not decided anything. Indeed, Members agree with many of the points made about why we should not set our salaries. That was agreed many years ago, hence the need for an independent panel to set them.

Given what I heard from the two Members who seem to oppose the motion — even though nothing has been decided — consideration should be given to Members' being able to opt out. If a pay rise is coming, and they do not want it, include an opt-out option. If they are very principled, they should not take a pay rise, if there is one.

I remind Mr Gaston that his predecessor did not sit on any Committees, because he opted not to do so. If we are to measure people by performance, let us look at performance. Many Members from all parties sit on multiple Committees. If we are going to base pay on performance, those who decide not to sit on Committees, or who decide to sit on only one, should get less, as the Member for North Antrim suggested. What I suggest is that we leave the matter to an independent panel to determine.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. MLAs' pay is obviously a prickly subject, and one that will pique the public's interest. As a former member of the Commission, I am happy to put on record the fact that, on multiple occasions, the Commission decided not to move on something that would have been difficult for us to debate. Furthermore, the Commission has been operating outside its vires. The legislative provision meant that we should have had a panel in place years ago to address the matter. The Commission chose not to do that because it understood the sensitivities involved. The allegations that have been thrown around today are absolutely baseless. I am happy to support the Commission in that regard.

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

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, I distance myself and the current membership from the misuse of public moneys. There was an issue in the past, and that was recognised, hence the establishment of the independent panel, the purpose of which was to fix some of those things. The recommendations were designed to do just that. We are talking, in passing —.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Clarke: I will allow you a very short intervention. Of course I will.

Mr Carroll: I will not be as long as you were.

The Member said that a decision has not been made on a pay increase. Will he confirm that, if there is to be a 28% pay increase for MLAs, he and his party will advocate at the Commission for a 28% pay increase for workers in the Building?

Mr Clarke: First, I will advocate for only myself — no one else — because I cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues. Of course, I encourage the Commission to take note of the opt-out option — I have already indicated that at the Commission — which could be used if some Members do not want to take the increase. Whether you take it would then be up you, Mr Carroll. I cannot advocate for something on behalf of my colleagues.

What I will say, for those who did not hear me the first time, is that you are talking about 5% for one year. You are also using the 28% figure. If you take the cumulative figure for an increase of 5% a year from 2015 until 2025, I imagine that it will be much more than 28%.

The other thing that you talked about was workers' rights. I am probably at the upper end when it comes to the age of Members; there are many younger Members who have young families to keep. Why should their pay not stay in kilter with that of their counterparts in other places? I am happy to let you in, if you want in on that.

Mr Carroll: As someone who has a young family and does not take the full wage, I do not see how you can use that as justification for supporting a pay increase of 28% for MLAs. That does not stand up.

Mr Clarke: Sorry, it does not stand up in your mind, but it stands up in the minds of others. Whilst you do not take the full wage, which is your choice, other Members have young families —

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Clarke: I will.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving way. The resolution conferred the function of allowances to the Assembly Commission. That enabled Members to take maternity leave, which is something that the independent body had not provided for. I am proud that the Assembly Commission moved on that to support those in the Building with young families.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for putting that on the record. As a Member whose family is grown-up, I have no need for that provision.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Clarke: However, it is, of course, important that, when looking at workers' rights, we look at their rights across the board.

I will give way.

Mr Gaston: I would like to give the Member the opportunity, in the remaining seconds that he has, to correct the record. He said that Mr Allister did not take up his position on a scrutiny Committee. He wanted to be on the EU scrutiny Committee, but the big parties kept him out of it. [Interruption.]

You have to take some responsibility for that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, please take your seat. [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston. Take your seat.

Mr Gaston: That is why you kept him off it.

Mr Clarke: So —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston and Mr Clarke, if you do not mind, will you please return to the subject?

Mr Clarke: I need to address that comment, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I did not call out Mr Allister incorrectly. I said that Mr Allister refused to take his place on a Committee. Committee membership is allocated by d'Hondt. That is how the allocations are made. No Member has the right to pick the Committee that they want. Committee membership is allocated on the strength of a party's membership. If Mr Gaston wants to rewrite the rules for his media story, that is fine, but the reality is that Committee membership is picked on the basis of party strength, and because he did not get the Committee that he wanted, Mr Allister ran away. So, based on performance, Mr Allister did not deserve his salary. [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up.

Mr Clarke: — I commend the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That is marvellous.

I call Colin McGrath to make a winding-up speech.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. What a lovely, edifying debate to wake us all up on a Tuesday morning.

As stated by Nuala McAllister at the beginning of the debate, the motion essentially addresses a straightforward, technical matter. The motion is consistent with the resolution that the Assembly made in June 2020. Taken together, the motion and the resolution will allow the Assembly Commission to determine the allowances that are payable to Members and, especially, former Members whose allowances cannot be set by anybody in any great term at this stage. It is a bit of a housekeeping exercise to bring that together. The resolution of the Assembly in 2020, today's motion and the Bill that will be introduced later today — later today — will bring clarity to the legislative arrangements for the determination of Members' salaries and allowances.

I will briefly reflect on some points. If there is a question about the level that MLAs should be paid, maybe they should be paid in a way that is commensurate with their ability to read what a motion is actually about, interpret what a debate is about and then have a debate about that as opposed to having a debate about something completely different. If they have checked their emails — something that I hope that a consummate MLA would do — they will have seen that there is a revised Order Paper with new indicative timings for today, which means that the next item of business might be the issue that some have spent the majority of their time discussing.

I hope that [Interruption.]

I do not wish to have to teach people the parliamentary process, but that item is the First Stage of a Bill. [Interruption.]

You will get plenty of opportunity in the Second Stage of the Bill, but allowances — as in, a little bit of goodwill — will be made for Members who are yet to understand the parliamentary process.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Colin, will you take your seat, please? Mr Gaston and others, while this is obviously amusing for some, it is a very serious subject. I ask Members to refrain from shouting from a sedentary position. Continue, Colin.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Of course, you correctly, at regular times, try to keep Members on the subject matter. Some seem to stray completely. A basic of parliamentary process is being able to stick to the matter at hand.

The scrutiny of the Bill in the weeks ahead will allow further debate on those matters through the different approaches that have been taken. However, it is welcome that those developments have been brought forward with the agreement of the five parties that are represented on the Assembly Commission so that those technical matters on allowances that were not addressed in 2020 can be addressed. I commend the motion to the House.

Ms Ennis: I beg to introduce the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill [NIA Bill 09/22-27], which is a Bill to amend the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to make provision about the name, functions and membership of the Independent Financial Review Panel; and for connected purposes.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call on Robbie Butler, Chair of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and to move the motion. At the Committee meeting on 28 November, officials briefed the Committee on statutory rule (SR) 2024/211, which is the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. Officials stated that the SR will remove provisions that were made under two previous SRs.

First, the SR removes the provision in SR 2022/240, which is the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022, that removed the automatic application of intentional penalties to certain repeated non-compliances for the purposes of nationally funded area-based schemes. That meant that such breaches were regarded as negligent only, and penalties on repetition were kept, at that stage, at 15%. Secondly, the officials advised us that the SR also removes the provision SR 20233/210, which is the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2023.

The Committee noted that the environmental farming scheme drew down EU funds from the rural development programme (RDP) and was subject to EU rules until the completion of the EU spending in 2023. The application of penalties for the environmental farming scheme and other former development programme schemes were aligned with direct payments through SR 2023/210 from 1 January 2024.

We also considered that regulation 4 of SR 2023/210 removed the requirement to increase the number of on-the-spot checks for any act or standard revealing a significant degree of non-compliance. Officials highlighted the need for the SR that we are considering today as being connected to water quality and environmental concerns and the fact that the Minister, having considered the current environmental conditions and protections in place, considered it appropriate to revert to the original penalty regime as a detriment to those who do not comply with cross-compliance verifiable standards on a recurring basis.

After the briefing by the DAERA officials, there was a robust question-and-answer session, and Committee members expressed a range of views. Those views ranged from the majority of members feeling that a return to the previous penalty regime was too draconian, given the challenges now faced by farmers, to a member expressing the need for increased penalties if we are to be serious about tackling environmental challenges. Some Committee members raised concerns that the SR would increase penalties for minor breaches and that penalties were currently enough, given the many challenges facing family farmers and farmers across Northern Ireland. Concerns were expressed about the definition of breaches and how and when any repetitions of minor breaches became classed as "intentional" breaches. However, support was also voiced for higher penalties for intentional or repeated careless environmental breaches, and it is important to highlight that.

The majority of members did not support the SR, but there was no consensus. A vote was taken on DAERA proceeding with the SR. The Committee divided, resulting in Ayes 1, Noes 6, and one abstention.

The Committee then considered the SR at its meeting on 16 January 2025, and many members were concerned that there had been no changes to the policy content since the SL1 briefing in November. Those issues were repeatedly highlighted by members. Only the title had been amended from "(Revocation) Regulations" to "(Amendment) Regulations". Many members again discussed the regulation and expressed a range of views similar to those discussed on 28 November. However, many Committee members now expressed concern that the Minister had not reflected on the issues that the Committee had raised at the meeting on 28 November or reconsidered any aspect of the SR. Some members stated that the Department should have reflected on what was said at the Committee on 28 November and come back with a proposal for amendments to provide a more tiered system of penalties specifically relating to climate and the environment. Some members contended that there are already substantial penalties in place for breaches and that there was no need to segregate minor and major breaches. The view was also expressed that there is a need for harsher fines for environmental and food security breaches.

The majority of the Committee did not support the SR in its current form, and the Committee divided on the rule, resulting in Ayes 1 and Noes 7, with no abstentions.

For completion, at the meeting of 30 January, members considered the thirtieth report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR), which included the SR. The Committee noted that the ESR had not drawn special attention to the SR.

In concluding my remarks as the Committee Chair, I point out that the majority of members present at the Committee meeting on 16 January agreed to put down a prayer of annulment, but there was no consensus.

I will now speak on behalf of my party and as an MLA. The Ulster Unionist Party understands the current relentless pressures that family farmers face across Northern Ireland. I will reiterate the words that I regularly hear from them: "We want to be green, but we cannot be green if we are in the red".

I believe that, in every deliberation that the AERA Committee had with departmental officials, we demonstrated a desire to work with the Minister and his Department and that, if the Department was serious about tackling climate change and about environmental protections in regard to cross-compliance issues — I do not diminish the Minister's desire to combat climate change and protect the environment — work could have been done to amend certain areas specific to environmental and climate breaches rather than have a broad-brush request.

I remind the House that the change should be considered against the backdrop of the major challenges faced by farmers in regard to inheritance tax changes, the un-ring-fencing of the agri-food budget and the imminent and likely significant challenges that farmers will need to meet for us to achieve our environmental targets without clear pound-for-pound support from the Department. That is still unknown.

I will give the Assembly one example from the many that I have received on what the change does on those cross-compliance matters. It is from a young female farmer, and she relates a story where her dad was fined 5% of a single farm payment for a breach of two cattle out of 380. One had a fully intact tag and one broken tag, and the second had one fully intact tag. The notification of the tag inspection came through on a Friday at 4.00 pm. She said that the closest place that could print tags was 35 minutes away, and it could not be done before closing. In that family's case, the grandfather passed away on the Sunday. Monday was a bank holiday, and the funeral was on the Tuesday. The tag inspection was at 9.00 am on the Wednesday. They failed the inspection, and, even after handing in the grandfather's death certificate and all other evidence, they were still penalised on cross-compliance matters. That has nothing to do with the environment or the climate, and it is exactly what the SR would do.

That is just one example of the many that I have received since taking the Chair of the AERA Committee, and it is evidence of why the move by the Department does not do what it says in the tin. Perhaps the Minister and the Department will accept the offer made by the Committee —.

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: One second, please.

Perhaps the Minister and the Department will accept the offer that has been made by my Committee since I have taken the Chair and its willingness to engage proactively on matters relating to cross-compliance failures, particularly in relation to environment and climate harm.

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for giving way. A moment or two ago, the Member referenced his acceptance and acknowledgement of the Minister's intention to clean up our environment and tackle climate change. If he does not my mind my asking him directly, does he agree with those aims and will his speech reflect that before he finishes and before we vote?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his intervention, which is useful. I will be honest: in my time as Chair, I have not detected that any member of the Committee has demonstrated to me that they do not share the Minister's ambition. We all need to reflect that we passed the Climate Change Act in the previous dispensation. I am facing in that direction as the Chair of the Agriculture Committee and as someone who voted for that legislation, but, in reality, I refer the Member to what I said: farmers and the agriculture sector want to be green, but they cannot be green if they are in the red. The Minister and his Department could have segregated the environmental and climate matters out of the regulations, and that would have put the Committee in a position where it could have supported them.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. He has read into the record a touching example of the challenges that many farming families face, and I would never diminish that. There are farming families who work incredibly hard under real pressure. However, will he acknowledge that he cited a 5% subsidy? By voting against the regulations, he would be offering protection not to the families in that circumstance but to those who engage in more severe, repeated breaches.

Mr Butler: We do not need to play high politics with this. The Member is absolutely right: the problem is that, if we pass the SR, farmers such as that would be exposed to 100% of the fine, which is an increase. At the moment, we have derogation on those fines, and that is what has been achieved here. We need to move into getting absolutely serious about environmental and climate breaches, but, in reality, while I do not have the number of instances when the Department has acted in that manner, I do not think that that manner could be described as draconian. It is something that happened and could still happen. It might be a reduced fine, but it should not happen anyway. There are operational issues.

Given the fiscal environment in which farmers and others in the agriculture sector are working, we are desperately trying to build their trust. They will be trusted stakeholders as we face into the climate crisis and the targets that we have to meet. In this instance, a simple fix would be for the Minister and the Department to segregate the environmental and climate matters and allow us to look at the other issues in the round.

In bringing my remarks to a close, I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Miss McIlveen: I often hear the comment, particularly from the Opposition, that there is a lack of legislation being discussed and passed by the Assembly. While that may be true of primary legislation — not all legislation is good legislation — there is plenty of secondary legislation regularly going through our Committees, and this is one such piece of legislation. I do not know whether it is a result of periods of suspension or the hastily rushed-through COVID rules, but my experience in Committees and during my time as a Minister was that Committees carried out a vital role of scrutiny and holding Ministers and officials to account.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. I am probably a bit premature in coming in, but you touch on an important point. The Infrastructure Committee, like the Agriculture Committee, has an important role in looking at legislation that is coming. Tomorrow, we will scrutinise the Department's budget, but we do not yet have evidence on that in our packs. That is coming from officials. Scrutiny is needed, but we need to have the information to do the scrutiny in a timely way.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for her intervention.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. She has highlighted the important role of Committees and their work on regulations, and I agree with her. Does she therefore agree that it was shameful that the previous Minister introduced a cap and made secondary legislation when the Assembly was down and there was no Committee in place to scrutinise that?

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Member for his intervention. Obviously, that was the process that we worked with at that time.

Subordinate or secondary legislation is hugely important as a delivery mechanism for a range of measures that are permitted under primary legislation. Such measures can be delivered and changed quickly without the need for new primary legislation. Given that, however — I accept what the Member said — there is a real onus on the Committee and the Department to be open in working on this type of legislation. That is the only mechanism that we have for scrutiny of the legislation, and the relevant Committee has a perfectly viable role to play in that. Recently, however, in relation to another SR, the Minister had the audacity to ask the Committee to consider legislation in private session. I find that deeply strange, coming from a party that persistently calls for openness and transparency. It is almost as if that is a slogan, rather than party policy. The Committee's role is to provide challenge and scrutiny, and, while we will all work constructively with the Minister and the Department, it is vital that we perform that role openly and effectively.

The secondary legislation that we are debating today is hugely significant. When officials came to the Committee, it was hugely informative. The Minister would have us believe that the legislation is needed to tackle the problems in Lough Neagh and that failure to pass the legislation would be failure to address those problems. His colleague who sits on the Committee will, no doubt, castigate the rest of us for being anti-environment, which is not true. The legislation gives the Department power to treat as intentional cases in which there are more than three incidents of negligent breaches by farm businesses. That gives the Department power to reduce a farmer's subsidy by up to 100%. I asked the officials a series of questions about how many farms that would have affected and was advised that it would have affected about 613 farms in 2023, which is about 5·7%. I then asked, if we set this in the context of Lough Neagh, how many cases would have related to the protection of waters: the answer was three.

The officials were clear that the Minister wanted the legislation to apply to all compliance cases, not just those that related to environmental protection. That would have included cases of animals that had lost their ear tags. The Chair gave a real example of that. This is a clear choice by the Minister. He had the option to address compliance as it would directly affect the environment. He says that it is about protecting Lough Neagh, but that is not what the legislation is really about. The Minister's colleague on the Committee made the point that we have not reduced fines for any other polluters. However, this legislation applies only to farm businesses. Those farm businesses are also subject to investigation and prosecution by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). Other polluters are subject only to investigation and prosecution by the NIEA. With this legislation, the Minister seeks, in effect, to make farmers potentially doubly liable for negligence rather than intentional actions.

It comes at a time when the Assembly has recognised the pressures faced by farmers: the inheritance tax raid by the Labour Government; the impact of weather conditions; the targets set by the Assembly under the Climate Change Act, which need to be met from within existing budgets; the failure of subsidies to keep pace with inflation over the past 10 years; the failure to address bovine TB; the risks around maedi visna (MV), bluetongue and disease control; and the constraints of the Department's ammonia policy in stymieing the modernisation of farm buildings.

Farmers do not need to be beaten by a bigger stick. The legislation seeks to reimpose what was a flawed and problematic scheme that was in place previously. The Assembly should not be gaslighted into believing that the purpose of the legislation is to address the problems in Lough Neagh. By that logic, we will punish 613 farms for the sins of three. I support the motion.

Mr Blair: There has been some predicting of what I am about to say. Nevertheless, I hope that I will bring a different perspective and additional information. I rise, as a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and as the Alliance AERA spokesperson, to state clearly that we do not support the prayer of annulment. I am still in shock, if I am honest, that the AERA Committee has failed to support strengthening penalties for those who repeatedly breach regulations on polluting waterways and other matters in order to reverse a 2022 decision that relaxed those rules under —

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. There is no doubting the Member's passion for protecting the environment and on climate issues. However, will the Member confirm that, in reality, I have said nothing that could be contradicted? In the meetings that we had with the Department, it was very clear from anything that the other members and I said that we are serious about the climate and environmental protections and — I am pretty sure that these words will be in Hansard — that the Committee would have looked at segregating those matters. If you do not accept that, I am not sure that we were at the same meetings.

Mr Blair: I do not deliberately correct the Chair of the Committee on this, but it is not a passion; it is a prerequisite and an absolute must, if we are to save our natural environment and reverse the state of the waterways.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: I will give way, and then I must make some progress.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member. I am not on the Committee, as he knows. Can the Member confirm whether the Committee has had any correspondence from companies such as Moy Park regarding this prayer of annulment or the issue more generally?

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for his intervention. I can confirm that I am not aware of any such correspondence.

If Members permit, I will now make progress.

As I said, this is returning to a position that existed in 2022. We must understand the purpose of the regulations. They were established not as punitive measures but as essential guidelines to ensure that farmers adhere to standards that protect our environment and maintain the integrity of our food systems. By establishing clear compliance requirements, we encourage our farmers to adopt practices that enhance soil health, improve water quality and promote biodiversity. It is crucial to recognise that those standards benefit farmers and the environment. We also need to recognise that the measures proposed by the Minister are not new or draconian. The Minister's proposals simply take us back to where we were before the relaxation in 2022 of penalties for repeated breaches.

These matters relate directly to the environmental reputation of this place and its products. No attempt to suggest otherwise should be accepted. The parties advocating for the annulment regularly claim, in the Chamber and outside, to protect the environment. For example, they call on the AERA Minister to save Lough Neagh, yet, when it comes to voting on policies that prevent pollution entering Lough Neagh and harming it, they oppose those measures, arguing that they would be too burdensome for farmers. That is absolutely ridiculous and, frankly, shameful. Let us be clear: farmers who conduct good practice — there are many of them — deserve our support, and I hope that they have it, but those who pollute, from all sectors, need to face penalties.

Perhaps surprisingly, given the context of today's debate, in May 2024, all parties on Belfast City Council excluding, in fairness, the DUP, backed a motion advocating for stricter penalties for recurring instances of agricultural pollution. There you have it: in a debating chamber just down the road, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin criticised the reduction in penalties by the previous Minister, but, in this place and on the AERA Committee, it appears that they do not want to do anything about it.

It is also a matter of major concern to me that the Committee has sought to minimise and trivialise potential penalties relating to late or non-returned paperwork, as well as tags for livestock and cattle. Those are no trivialities. They are serious matters that relate to food security and traceability. Parties opposing these measures must now justify their change in stance on environmental protection to their constituents and to the global community, which is becoming increasingly concerned about the impacts of climate change and pollution. Parties have publicly pledged to tackle the persistent environmental crisis, which remains unresolved. The decision by the Committee is — I will repeat it — shameful, and Committee members ought to feel embarrassed. It is perfectly clear that, on this occasion, only Alliance is asserting that enough is enough.

These penalties should never have been relaxed in 2022. It was a poor decision by the previous Minister, who showed, on that occasion, a lack of concern for the future. As Minister Muir continues to work towards addressing past mistakes, it is clear that only Alliance is committed to tackling the environmental challenges for real and tackling those that will impact on future generations, perhaps very negatively. Allowing non-compliance to go unchecked could lead to increased pollution of our waterways, detrimental effects on public health and irreparable damage to our ecosystems. There is no point in prioritising short-term gains that may harm our environment and jeopardise our long-term agricultural viability. Indeed, we must support a vision for farming that respects and preserves our natural resources for future generations.

Therefore, as I have made clear, I am utterly dismayed that we are here discussing a prayer of annulment. You would have to be living under a rock not to recognise the extent and urgency of environmental issues. It is vital that every possible measure be taken to reverse the decline of our waterways, our natural environment and biodiversity. As with the measure that we are debating today, our actions will determine the health of our environment for years to come. I urge all Members to reconsider their positions and reflect on the far-reaching implication of these decisions. We have the opportunity today to support a framework that promotes responsible agricultural practices and paves the way for a sustainable future, and I hope that we take that opportunity.

Mr McGlone: I welcome all the contributions today. They have been useful. Indeed, I sat through the Committee meeting and heard the views of other members, who are amply able to articulate those themselves, and I think that John has been in a different place, to be honest with you. I will deal with that.

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Sorry, John. [Laughter.]

I have only just started.

Mr Blair: So had I.

Mr McGlone: So had you. Well, that is grand. You can start away.

Cross-compliance has ultimately proven ineffective in addressing pollution problems. Three cases of breaches have been brought forward. Each year, as little as 1% of farms are inspected, with the majority of breaches associated with improper record-keeping. Even before the previous Minister changed the penalty regime, it was clear that cross-compliance was failing to address some of the biggest challenges resulting from agriculture production. To hang your hat entirely on that as something that will address pollution problems is entirely wrong.

That is not me saying that. In the 20 years since the inception of cross-compliance, there has been little evidence that it has actually worked, and the Minister will know that. Why? Those are the findings of the European Court of Auditors, the European Environment Agency and the Institute for European Environmental Policy. They looked at this to see whether it actually works. We need a system of farm regulation that helps to uphold environmental health and animal welfare standards while bringing farmers on a journey to improve compliance, but cross-compliance, as I have outlined and as the experts have said, is not working.

Rather than debate the minutiae of a failed penalty regime that has delivered little for the environment while putting farmers' backs up, we need to move to a new system and bring forward proposals. In fact, I sat through this at the Committee, and those of us who are acquainted with the issues — the Minister had the opportunity to look at this on a couple of occasions — suggested a tiered approach whereby those involved in flagrant breaches of environmental, food or animal welfare standards would be penalised. There was absolutely no doubt about that. It was suggested that, in the interim, if it insists on continuing with cross-compliance, the Department at least look at taking a tiered approach to penalties. Issues were, however, raised about people being opposed to the measures and taking an anti-environment approach. We have said it here and debated the matter ad nauseam: when will we have an independent environmental protection agency, as agreed in 'New Decade, New Approach'?

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: I will let you in in a moment, John.

The Minister claims to be making polluters pay — water quality and Lough Neagh have been referred to already — but we are yet to see key plans for cleaning up our waterways. The river basin management plan and the nutrient action plan are years late. I am not laying the blame for all of that at the Minister's door. People crashed the Assembly on a number of occasions, so the responsibility lies with them. Those plans are years late, however. As it stands, the Minister's agriculture portfolio will include introducing a new set of farm sustainability standards, but we have yet to see what they will look like. We need more detail. To what extent will the standards be enforced? How will they help the Department improve compliance? I say advisedly, Minister, that we could learn lessons from what has been implemented in Scotland, where a well-resourced, advice-led approach has improved rates of compliance with farming rules and regulations. There has been broadscale support and buy-in from the farming community, while, here, we are fiddling with a system that has never worked.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned Scotland. Does the Member not recognise that Northern Ireland is an outlier on the issue that we are debating? The changes, which were made in the absence of a sitting Assembly, do not apply in Scotland, nor do they apply in Wales or in any EU member state. Is it not about time that Northern Ireland got back in line with the way in which other places are moving on the issues?

Mr McGlone: I hear what the Minister says, and I hope that he was listening earlier. With the best will in the world, I was giving him advice on these matters. I thank him for his intervention.

John, you wanted to intervene.

Mr Blair: I am grateful to the Member for taking my intervention. I hope that he can clarify the situation. We have shared space at Lough Neagh rallies. I am puzzled that his colleagues on Belfast City Council, just down the road, called on:

I quote that directly from the text of a Belfast City Council motion. Does the Member therefore think that his colleagues there were wrong? Did he agree with the motion then? Does he agree with it now? Furthermore, if he is such a keen advocate for an independent environmental protection agency, why, when I proposed its establishment in an amendment to the then Climate Change Bill, did he and his colleagues not show up to vote for it?

Mr McGlone: Sorry, but I sat for numerous hours in the Chamber debating the Climate Change Bill, and I voted for it.

On the point that the Member raised about my colleagues on Belfast City Council, that is not incompatible with what was proposed at the Committee, where it was proposed that people who are potentially in serious breach of environmental, food or animal welfare standards should face penalties. If the Member does not hear that, I will repeat it: it is not incompatible with what others are suggesting. Those who are in breach of animal welfare, food or environmental standards should face the wrath of the penalties associated with those breaches. Members might not get that, but that is what was discussed in Committee. I have said it twice now.

In conclusion, we have a flawed system that has failed farmers and, crucially, the environment. Instead of propping up ineffective regulations, we need to take a meaningful, well-resourced approach that ensures compliance, improves environmental outcomes and supports farming communities in a sustainable way and in a way that protects the environment.

I have said it before in this place, and I have to say it again: the majority of farming community members are custodians of the environment. They are custodians of the land, which has been with them for and handed down to them over generations. I would not like to think that anyone is suggesting in any way that all farmers are wrong or have breached the standards. I do not want the message to go out from this place that we are being down on farmers instead of supporting and encouraging them to adopt fresh environmental thinking and standards. Indeed, most of them already do that in practice on their land.

Mr Tennyson: In an uncharacteristic gesture, I give some credit to the DUP for consistency, because the DUP has been honest about its environmental credentials. It opposed the Climate Change Act, and it consistently stands up against environmental and climate action. However, what we have heard from other parties in the Chamber today has been a lesson in rank hypocrisy. We need not have been surprised by that. The Ulster Unionist Party, despite talking about the environment, joined the DUP in railing against the Climate Change Act; Sinn Féin was the architect of the Going for Growth strategy, which walked us to the position that we are in with Lough Neagh; and the SDLP delivered sand dredging in the bed of Lough Neagh.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: No, we have heard enough from the Member. Thank you, but I want to respond to some of the points that were raised.

What we have heard today is shameful. The hypocrisy and inertia on the issues affecting our environment are eroding trust in these institutions. Just over a year ago, party leaders were out on boats, talking about the ecological crisis and its impact on water quality. They complained about their constituents having to drink mouldy water, yet today, when we have an opportunity to do the bare minimum through legislation, their parties fall at the first hurdle.

I agree with Mr McGlone that cross-compliance penalties alone will not solve the crisis in Lough Neagh. He is right, but they are a starting point whilst we do a wider review of fines and penalties. The Opposition often talk about the fact that they want to see —

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: No, I will not. Mr McGlone always talks about the need to see legislation being debated on the Floor of the Assembly, but, when it comes, his party prays against it. Non-binding motions in Belfast City Council are one thing, but it is this Chamber that makes legislation. We need to hear some consistency from parties in their approach to these issues.

Mr Butler raised a very important example of a one-off breach that resulted in a cross-compliance penalty. That case would be unaffected by the provisions in the SR. It is about repeated negligent breaches. It also does not follow that every breach will carry a severe fine, but the SR gives the Department the ability to look at the severity of the breach and apply a fine appropriately.

What we have heard today is absolutely outrageous, but I pay tribute to the farmers who comply with regulations, because the vast majority of them are good custodians of our environment. It is a shame that Members seem to be more on the side of polluters and those who breach the rules than those farmers who comply with regulations day in, day out, as they go about their work. I ask Members to reflect on the promises that they made to their constituents and on their public pronouncements about the need for action to tackle water quality issues in Lough Neagh and to put their money where their mouths are by stepping up, acting and supporting a Minister who, for once, can be trusted to protect our environment, rather than doing what the SDLP and Sinn Féin have done today —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Tennyson: — in aligning themselves with the Poots penalties.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given a lot of flexibility and latitude, but I ask the Member to return to the prayer of annulment, please.

Mr Tennyson: With respect, Principal Deputy Speaker, I will speak to the prayer of annulment, but it is about regulations that pertain to water quality and agricultural standards, and those issues are relevant.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. With respect, I know what the prayer of annulment is. I ask you to return to it. Thank you.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.

The SR is the least that we can do. I appeal to all parties to reflect on their supposed environmental credentials, step up and take the action that is necessary. It is not the ceiling of our ambition, but it is a starting point. When we make promises to our electorate, we ought to honour them in the Chamber.

Mr Carroll: Quite often, with regard to climate issues or the environment, I am critical of the Minister and the Executive for not acting swiftly enough or for having the strategy of trying to merge the interests of agri-food businesses with those of environmentalists. Quite often, with that strategy, the latter and the environment will lose out, and that is without mentioning the disastrous Lough Neagh response. Having said that, the fact that MLAs want to reduce fines on polluters is absolutely mind-boggling. I do not understand that. If you litter in the street, you are obviously fined for littering, but going by what they are saying today, some Members want to whitewash, excuse and allow people to get away with pollution. It is bizarre that Members talk about protecting and supporting farmers. I suggest that, at times, they are more interested in protecting industrial farming and corporations, such as Moy Park. They get industrial derating, which is a corporate handout from the Department of Finance through the rates system.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Butler: Just on the point that the Member raised, to clarify and answer his question, there was no communication from any big industry, such as Moy Park. In fact, there was very little lobbying from stakeholders except farmers, who will be impacted on by the SR.

Let me put this on the record: the Member for Upper Bann is absolutely right. Most of our farmers are actually making great strides with regard to the environmental impact — [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. When a Member gives way and then rises again, it is courtesy that the Member who asked for the intervention sits down.

Mr Carroll: Thank you for the clarity. There have been a couple of long interventions. [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, excuse me a minute. Sorry. Robbie Butler did not hear you. That is the second time that that has happened and that you have done that today, which you are perfectly entitled to do. I am asking that you show courtesy to the Member who asked you for the intervention, to let them know that you are done. Is that fair enough?

Mr Carroll: Yes. Sorry, say that again. Interventions are meant to be short, and neither was short.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Listen. We know that. It is just that the Member was not aware that you were on your feet. He did not hear you, and he cannot see you, because you are sitting behind him. It is just to let you know.

Mr Carroll: The wider point about Moy Park is that there is still a cosy relationship with it. If it did not correspond with the Committee, that is fair enough. That question was worthy of asking, because there is a consensus that there is a hands-off approach to Moy Park. The industrial derating scheme is one example of many.

Members have said that they are against penalties for farmers and, basically, against fining farmers and the Minister's current position. Implicitly, they are essentially saying that all farmers are polluters, which I do not believe that they are. If they do not support the Minister's position but choose to go for the prayer of annulment, they are basically saying that most farmers are polluters and that many of them will be fined. Therefore, they cannot back that position.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not believe that it is that simple. From listening to the debate and, indeed, the evidence, it seems that, in recent times, over 600 cases of cross-compliance were brought and only three were for pollution. It did not stack up that non-compliance was effectively addressing pollution. It actually proves that what we continually see now from the Minister, and particularly his colleagues in the Alliance Party, is more farmer-bashing rather than an attempt to work with farmers to ensure that they can play their role for a sustainable environment while having a viable farming business for the future.

Mr Carroll: I am not a member of the Committee. Enforcement is an element of the SR, and I assume that a lack of an independent EPA is part of that, which, if I am right, the Member's party is also opposed to. I will just repeat the point that I previously made. If you are saying that you are against repeated polluters being fined, essentially, you are saying that you think that most farmers are guilty of pollution.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I have given way and have been quite flexible, so I would rather not, thanks.

The real polluters are corporate farmers, dumping sewage and waste into the likes of Lough Neagh and elsewhere. I do not believe that small farmers are to blame.

The Minister can speak for himself in response to what the Member for Upper Bann said about his party being anti-farmer. There is an incorrect attempt to pit the interests of small farmers, many of whom are living in poverty, against the interests of big, industrial farmers. That attempt was what some of the protests in the past few weeks here and in Britain were about: you cannot say that big, industrial farmers have the same interests as small farmers when they absolutely do not.

I am against the prayer of annulment. Some of the issues should be addressed and added to the debate.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir, will respond to the debate.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate on the prayer of annulment. In responding, I will set out the context to explain why my Department has laid the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024.

The cross-compliance regime has been in place since 2005, through the implementation of the EU common agricultural policy. Cross-compliance is the set of minimum standards to which all farmers who receive public subsidy should adhere. Those cover environmental protection, as well as standards concerning animal health and welfare. The regime helps to protect our precious habitats and waterways and the animal traceability systems that are vital for trade, disease control and human health. The standards are not intended to be excessive or onerous and reflect the responsible stewardship shown by the vast majority of our farmers.

Where the standards are breached, a financial penalty is applied to the payment received by the farmer concerned. Those are not fines; they are penalties applied to public subsidy. The penalties are applied according to a published scale and are dependent on several factors, including the severity or impact of the breach and whether the breach is intentional or negligent. Negligent breaches attract lower penalties than intentional breaches, as the regime accepts that even good farmers make mistakes. Negligent breaches typically attract penalties of 1%, 3% or 5%, depending on the severity of the breach. Where a breach is repeated, the penalty is doubled. Intentional breaches attract penalties of between 15% and 100%, again, depending on the severity.

Since 2005, EU regulations required member states to regard repeated negligent breaches of the same requirement as automatically intentional, with higher penalties applying. In 2022, in the absence of a sitting Assembly to scrutinise or vote against that, my predecessor decided to remove the requirement, and repeated negligent breaches were no longer treated as intentional. Penalties for repeated negligence were effectively capped at 15%. Those changes were made in 2022 to schemes that were nationally funded and were extended to all schemes in 2023 following the cessation of EU funding.

As Minister, I simply cannot stand over that regime. Farmers who have their penalties capped at 15% have breached the same specific requirement at least three times within three years. Some of those breaches, including water pollution, are of high-level severity. I do not think that it is fair that penalties are reduced for repeated breaches of environmental and animal health standards. I do not think that that is fair to the public or the vast majority of our farmers who play by the rules.

Mr Irwin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I am happy to give way.

Mr Irwin: Does the Minister accept that a 15% penalty can equate to many thousands, or tens of thousands, of pounds for a farmer? Never mind his regime; what he wants to do is bring us back to draconian measures from the European Union. That is the situation, and many, even in his Department, accept that privately.

Mr Muir: I want to bring us into line with the European Union and with Scotland and Wales. Cross-compliance has been entirely abolished in England, and it is moving towards a very different set-up. That is what I am trying to do. We are not an outlier.

Mr Irwin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I will continue. We are not an outlier in relation to animal health, traceability or environmental standards. We cannot afford to do that.

I instructed officials in my Department to begin the process of reversing those changes.

On 14 August 2024, my officials commenced an eight-week, focused consultation with 21 key stakeholders, including the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Rural Community Network and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The four organisations that responded to the consultation supported my intention to reverse the changes. Following that, on 20 November 2024, officials from my Department provided an oral briefing to the AERA Committee. Members expressed some concern about the impact on farmers who breach environmental or animal welfare and traceability standards: I respectfully disagree.

We are all aware of the huge public concern about the condition of our environment, particularly water quality, and the health and welfare of animals. I therefore instructed my officials to proceed to make the regulations, which took effect on 1 January 2025. The regulations are an important means to encourage responsible stewardship, deter wrongdoing and protect our environment when farmers continually disregard the standards that are required.

If you are genuinely serious about wanting to improve water quality and our environment and, importantly, support our critical agri-food industry and farm-to-fork traceability, you cannot, in all conscience, vote for the motion.

Mr Butler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I will continue.

Many talk the talk: you need to walk the walk and join me as I go through the Noes Lobby.

I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Committee.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for giving way. I think that most Committee members are here. Was the Minister made aware — I am sure that he was — of the Committee's form of words, which was to look at a tiered, segregated response that would take out all the pertinent points that relate to climate and the environment? I will give you another example as to why that should happen. A County Tyrone farmer received fines twice, in 2022 and 2023, of £2,500 for ordering too many tags. That is nothing to do with the environment or climate.

Mr Muir: I received no formal correspondence from the Committee on this. Each week, I watch the Committee's proceedings. It is an important Committee. You analyse and consider the issues, and I like to think that I have respectful relationships with Committee members. The gist that I got of that Committee meeting was that we should change the SR and focus only on environmental and water quality breaches: that entirely undervalues the importance of farm-to-fork traceability and animal health and disease.

I am responding to the motion feeling despondent and depressed. I get criticised and told that we need to do more on the environment and water quality, support our agri-food industry and assure customers about the fantastic, quality food that we have in Northern Ireland, and I work really hard to do that. However, when I present a concrete proposal to the Committee and the Assembly, people scatter.

Mr Butler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I will continue. Politics is about leadership and taking difficult decisions. The Secretary of State has talked about that today. We need to do that. When we come to the vote —

Mr McGlone: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: — we cannot vote for the prayer of annulment because it is an abdication of responsibility.

I am happy to give way to Patsy.

Mr McGlone: Thank you, Minister. For the purposes of accuracy in the debate, it is, in fact, in the Committee minutes that the key issues that were highlighted at the Committee were — yes, environmental issues — environmental standards, food standards and animal welfare. Those were the three principal issues that were highlighted. They are included in the Committee minutes.

Mr Muir: I understand that, Mr McGlone, but that is exactly what the SR seeks to do. I have a lot of respect for you and a very good relationship, but the past year, with the SDLP being the official Opposition, has been difficult because there have been many moments of rank hypocrisy. You have the leader of the Opposition berating me to take action while your party has shown an abject abdication of responsibility through its opposition to this. You cannot criticise the situation at Lough Neagh, want to support the agri-food industry and vote against the SR. You cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot do that. [Interruption.]

You have to vote for the SR.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Excuse me.

Mr Muir: I am going to wind up on this.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Take your seat, Minister.

This is a political arena, and political points will be made, but the debate is about a prayer of annulment. I respectfully ask the Minister to return to the prayer of annulment. Thank you.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

It is important that we focus on what this is. The SR is simply about bringing us back to the cross-compliance standards that applied before October 2022 and apply in every other EU member state and Scotland and Wales. It is important that we get ourselves back to that. What happened in October 2022, in the absence of the Assembly, was wrong, and I am seeking to rectify that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister, that is much appreciated.

I call Declan McAleer to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr McAleer: Before I make my winding-up speech, I wish to make a few comments as Sinn Féin's agriculture spokesperson.

Sinn Féin supports the motion to annul SR 2024/211, the Direct Payments to Farmers (Cross-Compliance) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 2024. As MLAs, it is our duty to ensure that the policies that we put in place are fair, reasonable and effective for those whom they affect. In this case, we feel that the proposed regulations do not address the significant concerns raised by the AERA Committee.

First and foremost, the Committee's discussion on 28 November 2024 highlighted issues regarding penalties for minor breaches. The regulations propose penalties for even smaller, unintentional mistakes that could have severe consequences for farmers; indeed, the Committee Chair described a number of those. We feel that that approach is disproportionate and does not reflect the reality of farming operations. We feel that it is unfair to apply to minor breaches the same penalties as are applied for repeated and intentional non-compliance. We must have a system that differentiates clearly between minor and major infractions.

Furthermore, despite the concerns that were raised in the Committee, it does not appear that the Department has considered those issues or adjusted the regulations. That is concerning, particularly given the significant impact that the penalties could have on our farming community. Many of us believe that we need a more tiered system of penalties that better aligns with the severity of the breach. We have already established substantial penalties for breaches, and additional punitive measures may serve only to harm farmers without addressing the root causes of non-compliance. I urge colleagues to support the annulment of the regulations and call for a more thoughtful and balanced approach that considers the realities faced by farmers.

I will turn to my winding-up remarks in my role as Deputy Chair of the Committee. The Committee Chair, Robbie, mentioned the Committee's discussion on 28 November and highlighted the fact that, when officials briefed us, they linked the matter to water quality and environmental concerns. There was a robust discussion and Q&A at the Committee, and a range of views were expressed. Some felt that the measures were draconian, while others — one member in particular — felt that that was not the case.

My writing is not very good. You were all talking too fast. [Laughter.]

The majority of Committee members did not support the SR, and the Committee divided by one vote against six. The matter was considered again on 16 January, but we felt that no changes had been made to reflect the Committee's concerns. The Committee divided again by one vote against seven, and the majority of the Committee agreed to seek the annulment of the SR.

In his capacity as UUP agriculture spokesperson, Robbie said that he understood the pressures facing farmers and referenced, for example, the inheritance tax changes and the Budget. He said that farmers:

and he felt that the Department should have amended the SR and not taken a broad-brush approach. He gave the example of a farmer who was fined 5% due to a tag issue despite the extenuating circumstances of a death in the family.

Michelle McIlveen of the DUP highlighted the important role of the Committee in scrutinising secondary legislation. A lot of legislation is going through the Committee, and it is important that the Committee fulfils that vital scrutiny role. There is an onus on the Committee to do that in an open and effective manner. She said that the SR gave the Department the power to reduce a farmer's subsidy by up to 100% and that farms are also regulated by NIEA. Michelle also highlighted the additional pressures on farmers, citing the examples of bovine TB, bluetongue, ammonia, the Budget and, obviously, climate change legislation.

John Blair of the Alliance Party said that there was a predictability about the debate. He said that there were regulations for farmers to adhere to standards on soil health, water quality and biodiversity and that the SR would return us to the pre-2022 position. He finds it hypocritical of some parties to say that they support saving Lough Neagh whilst opposing the measures, which could contribute to saving it. He feels that the Committee's decision was shameful and that the penalty should never have been relaxed. He urged Members to reconsider.

Patsy McGlone of the SDLP said that the cross-compliance system fails farmers and the environment. He said that it delivers little for the environment whilst getting farmers' backs up. He highlighted the SDLP's preference for a tiered approach and the importance of having an independent EPA. He said that we needed to see plans to clear up waterways and mentioned that the decision was brought in during a period of Assembly collapse. He highlighted the fact that farmers are the custodians of the countryside and that we do not want to send a message from the Chamber that we are down on or against farmers because the overwhelming majority of farmers are environmentalists and good custodians of the countryside.

Eóin Tennyson of the Alliance Party said that we have an opportunity today to do the bare minimum but we are failing. He said that we need consistency from parties in the Chamber. He said that the SR focuses on repeated negligent breaches, that the vast majority of farmers are good custodians of the environment and that we all need to step up and take the necessary action.

Gerry Carroll said that he agrees with the Minister. He, too, is against the prayer of annulment, which, he says, suggests that most farmers are polluters. He made the point that small farmers are not to blame and that it is big industrial farmers who do most of the damage to the countryside.

The Minister said that the cross-compliance regime had been in place since 2005 to set minimum standards on the environment and animal health and welfare that are vital for trade, disease control and human health. The Minister said that breaches result in a penalty. He highlighted the regime of negligence penalties as 1%, 3% and 5%, which double if the breach is repeated. He said that, in 2022, when there was no Assembly in place, the cap was set at 15%. He said that some breaches are of high-level severity and that it is not fair on the public and all the farmers who play by the rules.

The Minister said that he watches the Committee. It is good that we have the Minister watching proceedings every week. The Minister said that he began the public consultation process in August and briefed the Committee in November, and that the SR is important to protect the environment and encourage responsible stewardship and for traceability and animal health. He said that we could not have our cake, which is saving Lough Neagh, and eat it, which is going against the SR through the prayer of annulment.

That is the best summary that I can give.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease until the next item of business.

Mrs Mason: I beg to move

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

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

In order for our young people to thrive, we must ensure that they are in an environment that harnesses their full potential. Young people should be free to choose the path that they feel best fits their interests and abilities. Our education system should not inhibit that. When I speak to school leaders, teachers and principals, it is clear that our current per-pupil funding model is restricting their ability to meet the needs of every one of their pupils. Budget constraints often dictate course offerings rather than courses being offered to meet students' needs.

Schools work incredibly hard to offer a broad and balanced curriculum. Despite the pressures that are facing principals and teachers, they deserve credit for going above and beyond to develop acute subject choices and deliver the best career pathways for their pupils. However, the lack of flexibility in school budgets forces principals to make rigid decisions that may not have the best interests of pupils at heart. That is disadvantageous to many children who simply cannot access the pathway of their choice due to circumstances that are beyond their control.

The school funding system must be fair, sustainable and centred around the needs of our young people. Let us ensure that every young person has the opportunity to reach their full potential, no matter what path they wish to take. It is important that we enhance cooperation between sixth forms and further education colleges to broaden subject options. The Minister must improve accessibility for all young people to ensure that every student can fulfil their potential, whether they pursue an academic role, a vocational path or a blended pathway.

Every child must have the very best opportunities to reach their full educational potential. Young people should be afforded the opportunity to explore a comprehensive and diverse selection of subjects and career paths. I urge all Members to support an education system that meets the hopes and aspirations of all our young people. The school funding system must be fair, sustainable and centred around the needs of our young people. Let us ensure that every young person has the opportunity to reach their full potential, no matter what path they wish to take.

Mr Martin: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1.

Mr Martin: I fully welcome the debate. I thank the proposers of the motion for tabling it. As you will note, our amendment accepts over half the original motion. My colleagues will pick up on that point in their speeches. The original motion misses a key aspect that is important when we look at those areas, and that is the role of the Department for the Economy.

When I speak to some of the key aspects of our amendment, it may be worth laying out how schools are funded and the mechanisms for delivering that. The Member opposite touched on that in her speech. Grant-aided schools are funded using the common funding scheme (CFS), which is more commonly known as the common funding formula (CFF). That is the Department's mechanism for allocating school budgets across the system. In effect, the mechanism distributes a quantum of money, and some of the factors that it considers are the overall enrolment and pupils' needs.

Post-primary education, which we are examining today, is made up of a whole range of factors — there are some 17 — and those are fairly detailed and complex. The CFF distributes the money that sits in what we call the aggregated schools budget. There is also — I am sure that it will be talked about today — the age-weighted pupil unit (AWPU), and that factor distributes the most significant portion of what we know as the delegated budget to schools. We also know that, in the use of that formula, a sixth-form pupil attracts more funding than a pupil in years 8 to 10. Therefore, it naturally follows that schools want to keep pupils where they can.

I am sure that the Members opposite will address this in their speeches. I feel that the original motion is a little vague. The motion:

When I read that, I was not completely clear whether those who tabled it wanted DE funding to be reduced to incentivise pupils to go to FE, whether they wanted it to be raised to place more funding into sixth forms in schools or, possibly, whether they wanted funding reconfigured out of Education and into Economy, which also holds some responsibility for careers. Equally, to be fair to them, it might just be that the motion is suggesting that the CFF be revised.

To a degree, as we look at sixth-form centres and their competitors, such as colleges around the country, the economic theory of what we call competitive advantage comes into play. That simply means that, whether you are a country, a business or an individual, you are best to focus on the things that you do best and leave others to do the things that they do best. In operative terms, that means, in the area that we are looking at today, that, for example, where there is a local college offering a level 3 extended diploma in music technology and it has a state-of-the-art suite to support that qualification, it makes little sense for a school to try to replicate that qualification within its offering. Conversely, if sixth forms are offering a wide range of A levels, as most of them do, it does not make very much sense to me for colleges to offer the same, other than picking up some students who are repeating their A levels. To be fair, the Alliance amendment touches quite comprehensively on the point that, as we look at how careers are configured and who stays in school, who goes off to college and who goes to work, a pupil-centred approach is needed and also that, at that age range, there is a range of qualifications that pupils can study and where they go is where the best offering that can be provided is. I accept that, for some students, that is in school and that, for others, that might be at their local college.

Returning to our amendment, we cannot have a conversation about, as the motion puts it, "career pathways" without having input from the Department for the Economy. That is not referenced in the original motion, and I admit that I found that a little surprising.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way, and I will clarify some of his points. We made the motion intentionally narrow because we feel that there are several stages to the broader careers conversation. The intention of this is to change the funding model so that, with the specific element that currently lies with schools, a more collaborative approach is taken. We see this as a necessary prerequisite to the broader conversation around careers moving forward on a collaborative approach.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member opposite for that very useful intervention. I agree with him, as, I think, everyone in the House will, that we want the best for children. We also want them to be studying in the right environment that gives the right opportunities for their career in the future.

The Department for the Economy holds a pivotal role with the careers services that it provides, and that is reflected in our amendment. For example, it hosts a careers service for 11- to 19-year-olds, including a separate section on year 10 career choices. I happen to have someone in year 10, and they are considering their options, mainly under the guidance of their mother. A careers service offering has to include Economy. I agree with the Member opposite: it is collaborative work and both Departments have a role to play.

The thrust of the motion is sixth-formers and sixth-form colleges, which, I accept, the Member clarified. That is a little narrow and a little late, however, considering that the Department for the Economy already provides careers guidance to students in year 10 — third form in old money — on the subjects that they should take for GCSE and on the degree, apprenticeship or career that they might embark on. We have to look at that at an earlier stage.

Our amendment seeks to address that — I will, keeping an eye on the time, quote from it — as it:

That is really important. The Department for the Economy holds supply information on where the jobs will be in five to 10 years' time. Economy knows that. Our macroeconomy is always changing, and jobs are always changing, but, hopefully, the collaborative piece that is reflected in our amendment addresses that. Economy knows where we will need future apprentices and future degrees as part of a changing, dynamic workforce.

We ask the Minister of Education:

I know that, if additional funding —

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. The motion and the DUP amendment speak to the need for some form of review of how we fund that. Does the Member agree that delivery of the 14-19 framework is also vital? The gateway review of it in 2024 was not favourable. You can provide as much funding as you want, but we need the overarching strategy to interlock with that.

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

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. I concur with the Chair of the Education Committee that the 14-19 framework is important, and it was useful to include that in his party's amendment. How am I doing? Twenty seconds.

If additional funding is provided to the Minister of Education, we can look at flexibility for the CFF. I encourage and support that. We want to get the maximum money directly into schools, and I ask Members to support our amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Done in 20 seconds, Mr Martin. Thank you.

The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will resume after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Michelle Guy to move amendment No 2.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Before I commence my answer, I want, one year since taking up office as Minister, to thank the officials in my Department who have supported me over the last 12 months and the officials in the Assembly who organise the business here. I approach each Question Time with trepidation. Apparently, that is the way it should be. It is an important moment for Assembly Members to scrutinise Ministers, and I value that opportunity.

On Sinéad McLaughlin's question, it is important to note that Executive approval for the environmental improvement plan or EIP — another acronym in my Department — was obtained just three months before the end of 2024. It is public knowledge that I tabled the EIP for Executive approval in March last year, public knowledge because the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) opened an investigation because of the delays in getting approval.

Approval was, however, obtained, and the EIP was laid before the Assembly on 27 September 2024. While it has enabled us to move our collective focus towards implementation and monitoring delivery, Members will understand that time has been limited since the EIP was finalised for relevant Departments to take forward the actions in the plan. However, I am pleased to advise that 11 actions with target dates of 2024 plus a further three actions in the environmental improvement plan have been delivered. That includes the significant achievement of setting Northern Ireland's first three carbon budgets, which was done at the end of last year. I thank my Executive colleagues and MLAs for their support in reaching that milestone. Their support will be required over the time ahead as we continue to deliver on the environmental improvement plan.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I understand that you experienced significant frustration in trying to get the plan approved.

I am concerned about the environmental deterioration of the Mobuoy site and the pollution of the River Foyle in the absence of proper interventions. Are you confident that the plan will deliver the change that we need? What steps is your Department taking to ensure that you do not miss targets?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. It took a while to get the EIP agreed, but I am a runner and I do marathons. What you do is train harder and work hard at it. That is what I do with my Executive colleagues, and that is how we get progress in this place as part of a power-sharing Executive.

I share the Member's concerns about Mobuoy. I visited the site last year, and it is concerning to see what occurred there. I have received a submission from officials about a consultation on the remediation options for Mobuoy. I have agreed that we should proceed with that. It will start in spring. It is important that people feed into the consultation and give us their views about that. It is important that we move to that next stage on this important issue.

Mr Muir: My officials have regular engagement with many of our local authorities that are leading the way in some of their innovative local climate initiatives. I am aware of and have read Belfast City Council's important work through the development of the report, 'Segregation and the Environment: Breaking Down Barriers'. Later this month, I will be meeting the authors of the report. The report outlines the environmental impact caused by duplication of services and reduced access to environmental projects. It highlights the need not just in Belfast but across Northern Ireland to tackle those barriers in order to hit our statutory emission reduction targets and achieve a just and fair transition to a net zero society by 2050.

The impacts of climate change do not discriminate. They will affect all of us. Climate change is a shared problem and needs a collective action solution. Segregation hampers communities' abilities to work together collectively, whether the segregation is physical or psychological. In the transformation to net zero, we need to be aware of our unique history and the challenges that we face but also the opportunities, and the council's report recognises that.

Divided communities and the fear of violence and antisocial behaviour can lead not just to reduced connectivity but to poverty, poor physical and mental health, unemployment and educational underachievement. Dealing with climate change positively and working together will provide co-benefits that will help address those issues. If we, across the Assembly, can lead the transition to net zero, making use of green growth, creating good local jobs, improving the environment we live in and reducing climate impact, we will see opportunities for better lives ahead.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. You mentioned the duplication of services: could you give an assessment of your understanding of how that duplication increases the carbon footprint?

Mr Muir: The council's 'Segregation and the Environment' report highlights the issues that we face with duplication of services: lack of connectivity between people and communities; parallel services and buildings that all need to become climate-resilient; and additional costs that we therefore bear, both financially and in terms of a greater carbon footprint at city level. Other cities and regions do not face a legacy of segregation and duplication of services in their climate journey. We know that segregation can lead to divisions; the duplication of public services, like separate bus routes; and additional travel, which increases traffic, emissions and costs. Therefore, Belfast may have to do more than other cities to achieve the same results.

In designing our climate policies across all Departments, we need to think about the unique circumstances that we face in Northern Ireland. Duplication of services compounds division, adds to a lack of contact, leads to mistrust and can decrease connectivity. However, that is where we can join up our policies. Reducing our carbon footprint, adapting to the effects of climate change, improving our environment and increasing biodiversity can really help the communities that are most disadvantaged. Improved good relations and working together on the shared climate challenge can increase cohesion and resilience and bring communities together.

We need to deal with the division in our society. It affects our environment. It is one of the climate change issues. There are key opportunities for change. I declare that I am on the board of governors of Rathmore Primary School. There are things that we can do, as MLAs and Ministers, to address division in our society. We can promote, encourage and facilitate integrated education. We can deliver shared housing. It should be a collective endeavour.

Mr Buckley: How does the Minister propose to break down barriers and address division between him and the farming community in Northern Ireland? At a recent public meeting attended by thousands of farmers, the loudest cheer of the night was when they said, "Tell the Minister to get the boot off the farmer". What will the Minister do to reduce regulation and stop swamping farmers with bureaucracy in order to ensure that they have a viable farming future for generations to come?

Mr Muir: I am working hard to deliver for farmers in Northern Ireland. I am proud of that. I have delivered key successes in the draft Budget. We are the only region of the UK to get ring-fenced funding for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development not just for the next financial year but for future years. Other regions of the UK have not achieved that. I have achieved a just transition fund for agriculture. Being able to put that in place and support farmers is absolutely key. That is what I am doing.

I am also being honest. The Member mentioned reducing regulation: have you seen the situation in Lough Neagh, Mr Buckley? [Interruption.]

Yes. I stand here in this role to serve all constituents in Northern Ireland fairly. That is what I am doing, and that is what leadership is about.

Mr Muir: I am committed to assisting local councils to transform kerbside recycling and household recycling centre infrastructure and services to help meet our recycling targets and deliver a circular economy in Northern Ireland through my Department's £23 million household waste recycling collaborative change programme. That is a bit of a mouthful. The programme supports capital projects that improve both the quantity and quality of household recycling collected, which is vital in helping to keep our valuable resources in use for longer and reducing consumption of virgin materials. Reducing the quantity of residual waste will also reduce reliance on landfill and recovery.

Funding of up to 50% of eligible costs is available to local councils. Since the programme's launch in June 2019, £8·26 million has been allocated to seven councils for 12 projects. Allocations of funding under the programme must be made by 31 March 2026. Further information on the fund and application process can be found on the DAERA website.

In addition, my Department provides funding to the waste and resources action programme to provide essential local council support, including specialist technical guidance, as well as delivering key national and regional behaviour change campaigns. My Department has been engaging frequently with all 11 local councils to ensure that Northern Ireland is best placed to meet the ambitious recycling targets set by the House in legislation, including the 70% recycling target set out in the Climate Change Act.

Mr Brett: The Minister may be aware that the North Belfast constituency is covered by two local government authorities: Belfast City Council and Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council. Despite being only streets apart, the quality of service offered to ratepayers in the two jurisdictions is miles apart. The rates of recycling in the Antrim and Newtownabbey end far exceed those in the Belfast City Council end. Has the Minister given any consideration to trying to encourage a uniformity of policy across all councils in Northern Ireland so that, regardless of postcode, people have access to the same service? Ultimately, the ratepayers pay the same bill.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Brett. The Member raises an important issue, in that one of the other issues that relate to this is how we can create better public understanding of what can and cannot be recycled and which bins to use. Sometimes, there is confusion around that. Last year, my officials undertook a consultation around recycling. We have been working through the outcome of that consultation. We will engage with the Committee on that, of course. Part of that will be issuing a bit more guidance to councils about what can be done regarding household recycling and having a bit more uniformity around the issues. The Member raises important issues.

Mr Blair: Successful and increasing recycling and a circular economy are very closely related. Will the Minister give us an idea of his thinking on what benefit there will be to individuals from a circular economy?

Mr Muir: There will be significant benefits. My officials have been working closely with the Department for the Economy — I congratulate Caoimhe Archibald on her appointment as Minister for the Economy — on the development of a circular economy strategy to support the ambition of delivering a low-carbon circular economy. The draft circular economy strategy for Northern Ireland identifies the benefits of a circular economy to individuals. It states that, for example:

Mr Butler: Anaerobic digestion (AD) is often an overlooked aspect in the recycling of household waste, including food and garden waste. Will the Minister provide an update on where he sees that fitting into the circular green economy that he is talking about? Is any action being taken with councils to encourage greater use of AD?

Mr Muir: The Member talks about an issue that I am quite excited about. It is a positive development in farming. There is so much good work in farming, and some of it has been highlighted today.

The role of anaerobic digestion is growing, and we need to make sure that we do it in a coordinated fashion. I engage with the Economy Minister on it, because there are new opportunities from it. We see it take place in farming. We also have to consider where the planning process sits around it. I have been having discussions on that with the Infrastructure Minister, and I will take forward discussions with the Economy Minister, because there is an overlap with energy production. Quite a lot of work on the issue is under way.

I am also conscious of the developments in the South. If you read the 'Irish Farmers Journal', you will see where it is going. Some of this is in its infancy. I want to be able to make more firm announcements on how we can coordinate across Departments on the issue over the year ahead.

Mr McNulty: On recycling, has the Department considered imposing levies on companies such as Amazon, whose packaging of deliveries takes up a significant proportion of people's bins? I am sure that we all agree that the goods are over-packaged.

Mr Muir: Part of the consultation that was undertaken last year, which I have talked about, related to businesses and waste. I will announce a way forward on that over the time ahead. There are already laws in place around the issue of businesses and packaging. I am happy to write to the Member to outline the situation and the requirements placed on them.

Mr Muir: I thank Mr Buchanan for his question. The question is about rural communities and rural halls, so I record my thanks to the rural communities across Northern Ireland for the support that they have given to so many people who were affected by the recent storm. As I have said a number of times, I am very grateful for the work that farmers in particular have undertaken in the aftermath of the storm to help clear roads and support local communities. It is important that I put that on record.

During the storm, a lot of people in rural communities used their rural hall. The Member has been a good advocate for rural halls. I will answer the question, but I have heard some of the representations that he has made on the issue. It is important that he understand that I have been listening, and I will see what my Department can do.

As the Member has rightly said previously, the rural halls refurbishment scheme concluded in January 2024. It was a rural policy framework pilot initiative that provided capacity building, training and grants up to a maximum of £40,000 for rural community and voluntary sector organisations to deliver capital works for rural halls, with the aim of keeping those community facilities viable and sustainable, and, in many cases, enabling them to offer additional services.

In 2024, I established a new rural policy unit, which was tasked with developing future rural policy for Northern Ireland. As part of that work, previous rural policy initiatives and interventions, including the rural halls refurbishment scheme, are being reviewed and evaluated. The findings, lessons learned and recommendations will be considered in full and factored into the development of any new rural policy proposals. My Department's 2024-25 business plan has committed to developing for consultation a new evidence-based rural policy. It is my intention that draft proposals will be consulted on this year.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I appreciate your response about the new rural policy unit's reviewing and evaluating the rural halls refurbishment scheme. We have seen the work that rural communities have done over the past few weeks to help keep Northern Ireland moving. Will you commit to ensuring that the scheme is included in the new rural policy?

Mr Muir: We are giving active consideration to how we can support rural halls in the context of the new policy. Initial discussion took place with officials last week about that. It is something that I want to tease out a bit more, however. I understand why many people have made representations to me about the importance of rural halls, and their importance was demonstrated in the aftermath of the recent storm. The scheme's inclusion is being given active consideration. I am happy to meet the Member in the time ahead. He may wish to put in a request to my private office to discuss the matter further.

Mr McAleer: I associate myself with what the Minister has said. Last week, rural halls and the farming community performed admirably during the storm crisis. It was former Minister Poots who introduced the pilot scheme for rural halls —

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr McAleer: — in the previous mandate. I support what has been said and underline the importance of rural halls and basic services as part of any future replacement rural development programme.

Mr Speaker: Well said, that man.

Mr Muir: I assure the Member that we are giving active consideration to that. The previous Minister, who is in the Chair today — I am not looking for any extra time as a result of my saying this — introduced the scheme as a pilot initiative. We have to consider where that fits into our new policy and provide a bit of sustainability. We want to assure people that it is not just a pilot scheme but that we are able to continue with it. We need to compile business cases and follow the proper governance processes, but proper consideration is being given to it.

The rural development programme delivered strong benefits for rural communities. We are giving consideration to the impact of its having been withdrawn and to what we can do together on the issue. The Member kindly welcomed me to Loughmacrory on New Year's Eve. I was able to see the facilities there that he and the community have been involved in delivering. They are fantastic facilities, and the rural development programme helped deliver them. Let us see what we can do in the time ahead to support rural communities across Northern Ireland.

Mr McGlone: Minister, do you agree that, since the removal of EU rural support, much of the aid to our rural communities has diminished?

Mr Muir: One thing that has perhaps been overlooked is the impact of Brexit on the rural development programme. It is something that I see every day in my Ministry. When I visited Loughmacrory, I saw the facilities that had been supported there, but funding was not available thereafter. Brexit was a really bad idea for not just Northern Ireland but the rest of the UK. It has flatlined our economy and failed our rural communities. Let us collectively come together, however. [Interruption.]

Mr Muir: I am engaging with the new Finance Minister on the issues. Yes, we have dual market access, about which the leader of the Opposition is chuntering from a sedentary position. I have promoted that quite often. In general, however, Brexit has not worked out very well for the UK, particularly for rural communities.

Mr Carroll: Minister, have you given any consideration to whether it would be suitable to use rural halls to help tackle the housing and homelessness crisis across our communities?

Mr Muir: The Member makes an interesting point. I am happy to take it up with the Minister for Communities to see what opportunities might arise from it.

Mr Muir: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 5 and 6.

I confirm that my Department is advancing preparations to introduce a version of Lucy's law for Northern Ireland. In the coming weeks, I intend to launch a full public consultation on mandatory CCTV in abattoirs. I am also actively considering my animal welfare priorities for the remainder of the mandate to ensure that the most pressing needs are addressed. I have engaged in a series of meetings with stakeholders to outline my proposed priorities and listen to their feedback. Those priorities include a prohibition on the use of aversive training devices, such as electric shock collars, which are really wrong, folks; the mandatory microchipping of pet cats; and the strengthening of dog microchipping requirements by making it an offence not to update records. Work has also commenced to provide me with advice on the appointment of an expert group that will review dog breeding regulations to provide an assessment of the need for regulation of canine fertility services. I note that that was warmly welcomed by stakeholders, because it is important that we look at how we can address the issue comprehensively.

When it comes to a licensing framework for animal welfare establishments, many of those are already subject to a licensing regime, including pet shops and riding, animal boarding and zoological establishments. In addition, the licensing of dog breeding by councils includes an inspection of premises. The Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 already contains powers for councils to establish and maintain dog pounds. Consequently, their operation is a matter for councils, and I do not consider a stand-alone licensing regime to be necessary.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. I welcome your commitment to animal welfare. Will you join me on a visit to Assisi Animal Sanctuary in our constituency of North Down?

Mr Muir: I would be delighted to do so. It is really important that I record my appreciation of and support for the many animal welfare organisations that operate in Northern Ireland, including Assisi and many more, such as Cats Protection, Dogs Trust and the Ulster Society for the Prevention Cruelty to Animals (USPCA). Those organisations play a valuable role, and it is important that we support them. If the Member sends correspondence to my private office, I will be delighted to arrange a visit to Assisi in Conlig.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer to my colleague's question and to mine. I want to be clear on something, because I was not sure from his answer. Is he saying that he will not introduce a licensing framework for animal welfare establishments in this mandate?

Mr Muir: When it comes to the current licensing regime for establishments, legislation allows my Department to license four distinct animal businesses. I am, however, acutely aware of the fact that those laws have their origins in 1972. There are potentially much better ways of doing things, and other animal-related businesses may warrant licensing. For example, in other parts of the UK, legislation has evolved to deal with home boarding and pet day care, while licences are required for activities such as mobile animal exhibits. I am also aware that the Scottish Government have consulted on the potential to extend licensing to dog grooming and dog walking.

I remain keen to overhaul the regulations for the licensing of animal welfare establishments, but in order to deliver change in areas such as boarding and pet selling, I would need to repeal existing primary legislation. Doing so in this mandate would be a challenge. That having been said, however, I have already set out a range of priorities for the remainder of the Assembly mandate, which includes a commitment to review dog breeding and the operation of canine fertility clinics as well as potential regulation of the rescue and rehoming sector. It also remains the case that all protected animals in any setting continue to be protected by the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which provides enforcement agencies with substantial powers to act in situations where an animal is subject to unnecessary suffering. My engagement with stakeholders on that issue is not complete, and I have not taken any final decisions.

There is a lot to do around animal welfare. We lost two years of the mandate, because this place did not sit for two years. That has constrained our ability to introduce legislation. I will continue to engage with stakeholders, and I will announce an animal welfare pathway in the time ahead. I will ensure that all Members get a copy of that and that I engage with Committee on it.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you said last year that the creation of an all-island animal cruelty register was "untenable". I think that that was the word that you used. Is that still your position? Have you done any more thinking on that matter?

Mr Muir: I do plenty of thinking, Matthew. I took the issue forward and met my then counterpart, Minister Charlie McConalogue. Martin Heydon has now taken over, and I had a really good conversation with him last week. We discussed whether the South plans to bring forward a register of that nature, and I was informed that it does not. With regard to the animal welfare pathway, we are exploring further methods that we could offer to different organisations to deal with some of their concerns about animal welfare, and Access NI may be involved. We will announce the way forward on that as part of the animal welfare pathway.

Mr Beattie: It is an important issue. Minister, do you intend to review the destruction of healthy dogs if they have been seized and held in a council pound for a time, which I think is something like five or seven days?

Mr Muir: That is a very broad question. I am very conscious that legislation is in place, including the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. If the Member has any concerns, I ask him to raise them with the council, as councils are primarily the enforcement authority for that matter.

Mr Muir: The emergence of foot-and-mouth disease in Germany is of significant concern not only for our livestock owners but for agriculture sectors across the UK, Ireland and the European Union. I assure Members that my Department has robust contingency plans in place to manage the risk of the disease in order to protect our livestock, farmers and the wider industry. Those were set out in my written ministerial statement to the Assembly on 17 January.

On notification of the outbreak in Germany, in a herd of water buffalo in Brandenburg, north of Berlin, my officials immediately carried out a tracing exercise. That was to identify whether any susceptible species, germ plasm or products of animal origin had been imported to Northern Ireland from Germany within an established risk window. To protect Northern Ireland, there are also strict import controls in place restricting the movement of animals and animal products from foot-and-mouth disease-affected areas. That means that all susceptible species and their products from the disease control zones in Germany are restricted from moving to Northern Ireland.

The foot-and-mouth disease web page on the DAERA website has also been updated in light of the situation in Germany. The web page contains important information on foot-and-mouth disease, including details on clinical signs and the steps that livestock keepers should take to protect their animals in order to prevent the introduction and spread of this devastating disease. My officials have met industry stakeholders to update them on the situation in Germany and to stress the need for vigilance. Communications reminding livestock keepers of the necessity of adhering to the highest levels of biosecurity are being disseminated regularly by my Department. In addition, veterinary practitioners and livestock keepers have been urged to remain alert to any unusual symptoms and to report them immediately to a veterinarian or directly to DAERA. I urge all Members to continue to play their part in disseminating those key messages.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, can we some more details of a response plan should foot-and-mouth disease come to Northern Ireland? We can all recall when it came back in 2001 and the devastation that it caused, particularly to the economy. Does he have any plans to deal with that, particularly for compensation, should we find ourselves in a similar position?

Mr Muir: This is a matter of concern for me, because it was devastating when it arrived. That is why I have spoken to my colleague across the border, Martin Heydon, and previously to Charlie McConalogue. I have also spoken to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Baroness Hayman from DEFRA. There has been significant engagement on the matter, because we need to work together to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of Northern Ireland.

I have a long answer here on the contingency methods, and I will write to the Member about them. To reassure all Members, let me say that we consider this matter to be very serious. My concern is that we abide by the rules on animal movements, and the message has to come very clearly from us all that it is important that we take every step that is necessary to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of Northern Ireland.

Mr Irwin: My question is a bit wider and is about the DAERA application for nitrates. Farmers and form-fillers have brought to my attention today the fact that they cannot access the website for their nitrates application. The deadline is 1 March, and, as yet, they have not been able to access the website. It was supposed to open on 1 January. Will the Minister extend the time frame for getting those applications in?

Mr Muir: That is slightly unrelated to the question, but it is an important issue. I will ask my private office to contact your constituency office today to get a bit more understanding of the issues and see how we can resolve them.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mr Speaker: I think that we have got the question, Mr McGlone.

Mr McGlone: What collaboration is or is likely to be ongoing with other Departments to get an audit of how things happened and how best to approach the issues, particularly in rural areas?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy, for your question. You highlight an important issue: the people most affected by the storm were vulnerable people in rural communities. Many have been without electricity, water and broadband, which is key to day-to-day life, particularly for those working from home. They have been without those services for a long time. What did I, as Minister, do? I engaged with my Executive colleagues, and we had a number of Executive meetings on the matter. I have been in regular contact with Kate Clifford, director of the Rural Community Network. I have been in personal contact with Kate. I have also been in regular contact with the president of the Ulster Farmers' Union to understand the issues in that area and pass those on to my Executive colleagues. Important issues were raised.

There are lessons to be learnt from the storm. We have a register of vulnerable people, and Northern Ireland Electricity is tasked with trying to reconnect those people as soon as possible. The issue is how we ensure that we can reach out to the people who are not on the register, such as older people living on their own, and are left without heat or power if such a storm occurs again, which may, unfortunately, happen. Hopefully, the Executive and officials can discuss that to see what more we can do.

In closing, I pay tribute to the community effort. A lot of people rallied around and supported so many people. I saw so many examples of that. We should be proud of Northern Ireland, our communities and how we support one another. Yes, we can do better, but what would it have been like after the storm without a Government or an Assembly in place? I know that the Executive are not perfect — you are sometimes the first to highlight that, which is fair enough; that is your job as the Opposition — but at least we have a Government in place who can respond to the issues. It is important to remember that.

Mr McGlone: Ah, sure, you are great, Minister.

Mr Muir: Put that on a leaflet. [Laughter.]

Mr Blair: I will remember that, Patsy.

Mr McGlone: Not after what your colleague said about me earlier.

It has been referred to the Executive. Can we have a plan of action to identify the weaknesses and the problems and how things can be done better? I do not particularly care who takes the initiative so long as that is done and so long as we hear back. Those living in isolation, those living with health problems and, now, those living without communications must be uppermost in our thoughts and actions.

Mr Muir: You make a good point. It is important that we do that in a coordinated fashion. As ever in life, we can learn lessons about what we can do better. If we did not do that, we would not be doing our job properly. You raise important issues about rural communities, and I want to ensure that they are supported in the time ahead.

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. I am satisfied that information signage in respect of deer management practices on my Department's Forest Service estate is effective and complies with public health and safety risk management. In response to the question, if Members have particular concerns, I am happy for those to be raised with me personally to see what more we can do in that area.

Forest Service displays information signage during its deer-culling season from September to April at entrances to the Department's forests with high visitor numbers and large deer populations. The signage is not a public control measure for people's safety; rather, it is intended to inform users exercising their statutory right of pedestrian access that they may encounter authorised personnel in the forest undertaking deer-control activities and to follow the advice.

Where sporting rights, including deer stalking, are exercised in a forest setting, there is no legal requirement for signage to be displayed. However, there is a requirement to meet health and safety obligations. That includes managing any associated risks to the safety of visitors to the forest.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for his answer. Whilst I accept that many people may not like the idea of deer stalking, it is a necessary evil to protect forestation in some areas. As it stands, we have signage up for a period, as opposed to putting signs up on the day that deer stalking takes place, which your officials will not accept. Do you agree, Minister, that it would be safer for people to see the signage on the day when deer stalking takes place, as opposed to seeing it all season, thus preventing the risk of serious accident?

Mr Muir: I am happy to take that issue back, speak to officials and write to you on that. I understand your concern. I will engage with officials and write back to you on that issue, hopefully, in a timely manner.

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for raising the important issue of angling and Inland Fisheries. He has outlined specific concerns about that. I am happy to engage with officials. I am also happy to meet the Member, if he wants to discuss it, to give him a comprehensive response on that really important issue.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for his response and invitation; indeed, I will take him up on that. The crux of it is, Minister, that I want you to commit to carrying out a survey to determine the current stock levels of trout in Lough Neagh to establish how long current levels will last and to avoid the trout stocks reaching a critical level, as pollan and eel stocks in Lough Neagh have done.

Mr Muir: I understand the case that you make. I am particularly aware of the issue of eel stocks in Lough Neagh. I have been engaging with officials and Executive colleagues on that. I will take your comments on those issues and engage with officials. We will also meet to discuss your concerns and what more we can do to protect the stocks in Lough Neagh.

Mr Muir: It is important that we enable councils to plan for the future. I hope to take forward actions on the potential way forward in spring. The consultation has closed. There has been an evaluation of that consultation. I need to engage with councils to show respect towards our partnership arrangement on the issue. We want to move forward with that in the short time ahead.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his answer. In his earlier answer, I think that he was referring, on the issue of resources, to the £23 million household waste recycling collaborative change programme. I looked that up on the internet: it was launched in 2019 with a three-year timescale. Is that still active? If capital expenditure arises from new guidance that is issued by the Department, will support be provided to councils for new purchases that they might require?

Mr Muir: I have been working through the capital budget for the next financial year. We are looking to make an allocation of support within that. Obviously, there will be the comprehensive spending review. We will, hopefully, set a two- or three-year budget around it that will give councils a lot more certainty. Obviously, the level of support that I can give is capped by how much funding I have in the Department to allocate, but I seek to work in partnership with councils on the issue and to incentivise uptake of the new technologies. We are looking to support district councils.

Mr Speaker: Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Mr Muir: I was delighted to announce the sustainable agriculture programme last week on the basis of the commitment that I secured as part of the draft Budget for the earmarking of agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development funding for the next financial year and future years. As I have outlined to the House previously, getting that was a significant achievement. No other part of the UK has been able to obtain that. In that context, I was able to announce the sustainable agriculture programme, which is based on four pillars. It is about improved environmental sustainability, enhanced productivity, stronger resilience and an effective, functioning supply chain. It is a critical intervention to support not just our farming community but our environment and our economy. I was delighted to announce it last week. Communications will be sent out to farmers next month, and there are more details on the DAERA website. This is absolutely key for Northern Ireland as we chart the way forward for financial and environmental sustainability in our agriculture sector.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his answer. Where does 'Going for Growth' fit into his new vision for agriculture?

Mr Muir: I have outlined my vision for agriculture as part of the sustainable agriculture programme. It is a clear and positive vision going forward. I am already on record as saying that I believe that 'Going for Growth' was a mistake, and it does not feature as part of the sustainable agriculture programme, nor my future vision for agriculture. I was therefore rather shocked to receive a letter from Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, addressed to me as Minister, that outlined concerns about the apparent disregard for the previous 'Going for Growth' programmes. It sought clarification of whether there was an opportunity to reinstate the programme. What planet are those councillors living on?

Mr Muir: We are doing good work on nature recovery. The environmental improvement plan for Northern Ireland has a strategic outcome of achieving thriving, resilient and connected nature and wildlife. That includes key targets to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030. The environment fund is one of the mechanisms used to help reach that target, with projects being funded that support nature in every county.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister for his answer. How will the nature recovery fund help to meet the commitments to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Stewart. I was really delighted to announce the nature recovery challenge fund. It was launched recently in recognition of the need for more to be done to improve our nature, and it is the first of its kind. That funding provides a great opportunity to support the work of local organisations that are passionate about improving the environment and delivering practical actions that promote nature recovery. The fund will support projects that will significantly contribute towards our commitments to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030. Those projects will increase areas of wildlife habitat, protect and improve the management of habitats and create nature networks that will enhance habitat connectivity and support higher species populations or greater species diversity. Projects that support the conservation of Lough Neagh are particularly welcome to apply.

Mr Muir: Significant damage has been done to our forest parks across Northern Ireland. That is why I took a trip to Drum Manor near Cookstown to see the widespread damage there. It is apocalyptic and really concerning. Some of the most ancient trees at the arboretum at Castlewellan have been destroyed.

I pay tribute to Forest Service staff for the work that they have been doing in response to this, not only in the forest parks but in helping people to get access to their homes and helping the emergency services to get access to facilities such as transmitting towers and all the rest of it. So much work has been undertaken in that regard. I apologise to the public for the delays in getting access to country parks and forest parks at present. That is being done from a genuinely good place and in the interests of health and safety. We want to make sure that it is safe for people to re-enter those facilities.

Mr K Buchanan: What is the plan and the timeline for that? I appreciate that it is a big task, but a lot of parks are shut, and obviously we have lost a lot of trees. I appreciate that they do not grow overnight, but what is the plan to get them replanted and get the parks open?

Mr Muir: It is being considered on a case-by-case basis. Crawfordsburn Country Park in my constituency has been reopened, and I thank the staff for that. In other places, the timescales are not as advanced because of the scale of the work. Some of that work requires machinery being brought on-site. Hopefully, we will get all the forest and country parks open, but some will open sooner than others.

Recent events highlight the need for us to pay much closer attention to our environment. The impacts that the storm brought have really exposed that.

Mr Speaker: The time for questions has elapsed. Thank you, Minister. We move to the next item of business.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to view the audiovisual recording of the end of the debate on the motion brought by the Assembly Commission in light of Standing Order 27(1)(b), which states:

The recording clearly shows that at least two Members challenged Madam Principal Deputy Speaker's judgement that the motion was carried, and she was, therefore, under an obligation to call a Division. Mr Speaker, having viewed the recording and established what I just said to be correct, there is an onus on you, as the defender of good order in the House, to insist that the Question on the motion be put again, and the previous result nullified.

Mr Speaker: Two Members who spoke in the debate on the Assembly Commission motion indicated that they would vote against it. Only those two Members, as I understand it, shouted No when the Question was put. There were many more Ayes from all parts of the Chamber. The motion required simple majority support, so there was no requirement on the Chair to respond to the dissenting voices.

I welcome the Member raising a point of order and quoting a Standing Order with it

as opposed to the charade that we saw yesterday. Standing Order 26(3) states:

Standing Order 27(1)(a) and (1)(b) state that the Speaker shall call a Division if:

or

Standing Order 1(2) states:

Standing Order 5(3) states:

A Speaker's ruling on 18 January 2016 stated:

I thank the Member for raising the point of order in the manner that he did and for giving me notice. I hope that that clarifies the matter for him and the rest of the House.

I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while we make changes at the Table.

Mrs Guy: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. We have tabled an amendment that broadens the motion's scope and acknowledges that this is another issue that requires Departments to work closely together. This should be an energising debate that focuses on giving young people the best opportunities that we can. We have the chance to do something transformational with learner pathways for our young people. Whilst I appreciate that the scale of transformation needed is unlikely to be completed in this mandate, the Education Minister and the Economy Minister have the chance to set us on that path. That requires vision and action.

The independent review of education made clear recommendations that outlined what that vision could be. It said:

in order to provide a wide range of choices. Some schools already do that, but if done at scale, it would be transformational: it would broaden the experience of all students to ensure that young people could make better-informed decisions on their future post 16 or post 18. The aspiration is to give our young people an awareness of and the option to follow academic, vocational or technical pathways or a mixture of pathways.

The motion references children and young people in general terms, but we should ensure that we acknowledge the specific needs of and challenges faced by young people with special educational needs (SEN). The cliff edge faced by young people with SEN post 19 is one aspect that requires urgent provision. The reforms needed would be challenging to deliver. They would mean changing the funding formula that results in colleges and schools competing for students, not through any fault on their part, I should add, but simply because they operate in a system that embeds that. It would require coordination, collaboration and a serious review of workforce needs but would go a long way to achieving parity of esteem between academic and vocational pathways, which has been spoken about for decades but is still very much lacking in our society, unlike in countries such as Switzerland or Germany.

The world has moved on. Our economy has changed, and employers' needs are different. The academic route will remain the right choice for many and essential for particular roles, but we all know that an academic qualification today in no way guarantees the job or career that someone wants. We need always to reiterate to our young people that a learning pathway that enables them to make a valuable contribution to society and allows them to pursue a life that they want is far more important than where that learning took place.

In this changing world, learning will continue throughout life. Those who responded in the aftermath of the storm last week and continue to do so are a perfect example of that: skilled professionals, some with academic qualifications and others having gone through traineeships and apprenticeships, working in essential roles, without whom the lights would not be on, our water supply would still be off and our roads would be blocked.

To see that transformation, we need action. Although many of the changes that we need were in the 14-19 framework that was published in 2022, little has happened. Take reforming careers advice, or even just one aspect of that: a careers portal. I found a recommendation that dated back to 2013. Twelve years later, from what I understand, the Department is still only scoping what that would look like.

I reiterate our appreciation to those who tabled the motion for giving us an opportunity to speak on the issue. I will highlight a few matters and would appreciate it if the Education Minister would consider them in his response. Is he considering changing the funding formula? Through the curriculum review work, will he make bold changes to ensure that our young people get a greater variety of choice and opportunity? How is he working alongside the Economy Minister so that our schools and colleges work in partnership?

Mr Crawford: In a world that is changing faster than ever, we owe it the next generation to provide them with the tools, opportunities and pathways that they need to succeed. Education and learning are the bedrock of progress. We must ensure that every young person in Northern Ireland has access to the opportunities that they deserve.

Northern Ireland is a place of immense talent, resilience and potential, yet too many of our young people face barriers to achieving their dreams, whether through lack of access to quality education, limited vocational training opportunities or the challenges of transitioning from school to work. We cannot ignore the fact that not every young person is being given a fair chance. The funding gap in schools across the United Kingdom is stark. Spend per pupil in Northern Ireland is barely on a par with that in England and Wales and is significantly lower than that in Scotland. That disparity underscores the need not only for increased funding but for more efficient resource utilisation in order to maximise the impact of every pound that is spent.

We live in a time of rapid technological advancement and economic transformation. The jobs of tomorrow will require new skills and creativity. If we fail to equip our young people with the necessary skills, we risk leaving an entire generation behind. It is not just an economic issue but a social justice one. An Open University (OU) report found that 44% of employers here face a skills shortage.

Last week, I met Members of the Northern Ireland Youth Assembly as they gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. They gave a youth perspective on the skills needs in Northern Ireland. Sadly, many of them were not even aware of the skills gaps in Northern Ireland's workforce. How can we expect young people to make informed decisions about their future career when they are unaware of the future needs of the economy? Northern Ireland has limited natural resources, and there is limited investment in our people's skills. It is therefore key that we stimulate economic growth and improve social equality. Substantial change is required in order to deliver the volume of skills needed now and in the future to support achieving the overarching economic vision for Northern Ireland.

Not every young person wants or needs to follow a traditional academic route. We must invest in high-quality vocational and technical education to ensure that apprenticeships, traineeships and skills-based learning are valued just as highly as university degrees. By partnering with local business and industry, we can create programmes that lead directly to meaningful employment.

Too many young people feel unprepared for the world of work. We need to strengthen career guidance services, provide more work experience opportunities and ensure that our curriculum is aligned with the needs of the modern economy. Let us give our young people the confidence and skills that they need in order to thrive. I say to any young people who may be listening today that their potential is limitless. They are the future leaders, innovators and change makers of this wee place that we call home. We believe in them and are committed to building a society that supports them every step of the way.

Let us remember that investing in our young people is not just an expense but an investment in our future. By supporting learning pathways for all, we can unlock Northern Ireland's potential and build a brighter, more prosperous tomorrow.

Ms Hunter: I support the motion, which, rightly, underscores the crucial role that education plays in shaping the future of our young people, and, by extension, our society and our economy. Education is about more than just academic achievement. It is about equipping our children and young people with the skills, confidence and opportunities that they need in order to thrive in life. It is about ensuring that no child is left behind, regardless of where they come from, their background or their beliefs.

The debate is about the importance of education to our young people, so hopefully the Minister can mention the education maintenance allowance (EMA) in his response. I am mindful of the fact that Wales has moved to increase EMA. The allowance was introduced in 2004, but I do not believe that it has been increased since 2013. It is around £30 at the minute. I know, Minister, that you think that it is important to have our children and young people in education until the age of 18, so we should look at EMA, given that it is an incentive that helps support our young people to deal with the financial pressures that they may face.

We have seen the impact of the cost of living and inflation on our students, particularly during the COVID crisis, so there needs to be a second look at and an increase in the rate of EMA. It would be brilliant if the Minister could detail whether he has had any discussions with the Economy Minister on that.

Education is the foundation of a prosperous and equitable society. It develops talent, nurtures ambition and opens doors to opportunities that might otherwise have remained closed. In the North, we pride ourselves on having a strong education system, but we must acknowledge, as we are doing today, that challenges remain. Our system must not only serve the high achievers but provide meaningful and accessible pathways for all students, academic and vocational alike.

In the North, across our homes and schools, there is often a tendency to lean in and fixate on the idea of university, which neglects the incredible opportunities that different pathways can offer our young people, particularly via apprenticeships. Every child is different. Every student has unique skills, interests and aspirations, and it is our duty to ensure that our education system reflects that diversity. For too long, there has been an overemphasis on traditional academic routes, while vocational and technical education has not been given the recognition or the investment that it so rightfully deserves.

We need an education system that values all forms of learning so that a young person pursuing a technical apprenticeship is given the same respect and support as a young person applying for university. We need a system in which our sixth-form pupils can really prosper. Recently, in my constituency, in Coleraine, we saw the opening of the brand new Northern Regional College building, with its incredible opportunities and resources and its staff, who offer so much to our young people. We really want to see our sixth-form colleges and further education colleges collaborating — working hand in hand rather than competing with each other — to ensure the prosperity of our young people.

On the role of our schools and educators, our teachers and school staff are at the heart of the system and of building up our young people. They work tirelessly to support our students, often going beyond their formal responsibilities to mentor, guide and inspire, but they cannot do that alone. We need proper funding, adequate resources and a fair per-pupil funding model that allows us to support every student, regardless of their need, particularly post-16, when many feel lost and pressured to choose a pathway. The South has a good approach to that dilemma, offering students the option of a transition year to learn by doing and going outside traditional education and into the world to try something new. It is important to include that point in the today's debate.

It is evident that we do not do enough to fund our sixth-form students and we need to do more. It is not just an education issue; it is an economic issue. We face significant skills shortages across key sectors from engineering and construction to digital technology and, of course, healthcare. If we do not address that, we will not only fail our young people but undermine our potential for further economic growth here.

My call to action today is that we must ensure that our education system prepares students for the real world and an evolving job market. That is why we call on the Minister of Education to look further into the funding model. We need a system that adequately supports all learning pathways, including apprenticeships and vocational training, and aligns with our economic needs. With that, we can ensure that every young person has a pathway to success.

Lastly, it is important for border communities that we look North and South to see how our schools can collaborate further, utilise one another's resources, learn from one another and gain new insights.

Mr Delargy: I welcome the support for the motion from the Members who have spoken so far. The motion is about a pupil-first approach. It is about strong opportunities for collaboration and sharing resources better. The motion is about how we can work together.

There has been a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) focus and an Economy focus on the issue. We have all identified that there are skills gaps and that we need to reform the Careers Service careers guidance. However, we have had that conversation for the last 20 years, and we could have it for another 20. The motion is about bringing forward a necessary prerequisite to a broader conversation on careers, which we would welcome very much.

We need to work to find a solution. This is about equity across all sectors. It is about a consistent approach. We have seen sixth-form numbers staying consistent over the last 15 years, but we have seen almost a 50% drop in enrolments in further education. As a teacher by profession, I recognise the work of our school staff and our Careers Service and their commitment to young people. This conversation is particularly pertinent, as budgets are tight in schools. We can all agree that all our Departments are underfunded because of a lack of support from the British Government. That means that schools are not only financially incentivised but are under a financial imperative to keep students in school.

A competitive environment can have benefits, but it also creates duplication in this context. There is clear delineation in the South between education and training boards (ETBs), colleges and schools, and there are clear focuses. For example, many schools here teach construction and motor vehicle studies, but our colleges often have a much greater wealth of equipment and resources than our schools. By fostering a closer working relationship, we can ensure that all students have access to state-of-the-art resources.

I welcome the fact that progress has been made on the 14-to-19 strategy, and, of course, that needs to continue. It is a golden opportunity, and it is one that we cannot miss if we are to ensure that there is collaborative working across all Departments and if we are to show a unified agenda and show that, in word and deed, we are all committed to developing a skills agenda. Our solutions must be caveated by the fact that, in calling for the review, it is imperative that schools, colleges and, most important, students have the most important voice in the room.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member opposite for taking a question. I agree with a lot of what the Member has said, but will he agree that, given the fact that career pathways are mentioned in the motion, having the conversation without direct input from the Department for the Economy devalues the argument and that the Department for the Economy has a key role to play in those career pathways?

Mr Delargy: I was going to respond to both amendments, so I will do that now for clarity.

On the DUP amendment, I recognise the need for collaboration. I implore that, but it is important for us to look at a specific element of the broader careers conversation. While we very much welcome the broader conversation, I will not support the DUP amendment on the basis that the motion is about a specific element that is a necessary prerequisite. I will support the Alliance amendment, because, while we focused on one element, I recognise that it enhances the broader conversation. In this context, the DUP amendment fundamentally shifts the basis of it, but I am happy to have a broader conversation.

There are models across other countries that we can look at to enhance the model that we have here. There are models in Finland, Scotland, Australia and France that look at different national priorities. They focus on need by region, deprivation and other factors, which we do not have here. I mentioned a number of the positive educational elements to this approach, but the economic conversation will have a hugely transformative and positive impact on identifying the broader skills gaps that we have.

This approach is a win for schools, it is a win for colleges but, most important, it is a win for students. Fundamentally, the careers piece cannot move forward without this approach being looked at. It is a necessary prerequisite. I encourage members to support the motion.

Mr Brooks: My colleague Peter Martin has outlined our position on the motion and the amendment. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber would disagree with the lion's share of the motion. There is not a great degree of difference across the Chamber. To paraphrase, the key point is the fundamental importance of education in establishing career pathways and choices for our young people to prepare them to begin those journeys. There is no doubt that the Department of Education has a key role to play in that, but our amendment outlines that it is not in isolation; indeed, the Department for the Economy is key for many of our young people who are aged 16-plus.

Education Committee colleagues will know that cross-departmental collaboration on issues that are so obviously cross-cutting and to the benefit of all is something that all members of the Committee have repeatedly focused on, including with the Department for the Economy on careers. Indeed, last year, we held a concurrent meeting with the Committee for the Economy to look at such issues, and, with the Speaker's blessing, that meeting took place in the Chamber. We will soon do likewise with the Committee for Health around a number of areas of concern. We know that work has been ongoing, and I believe that engagement has already taken place between the Minister of Education and his now former counterpart as Minister for the Economy around post-19 pathways for children with special educational needs, notably pushed up the agenda by, among others, Alma and Caleb from Caleb's Cause and the many supporters whom they have assembled through their worthy campaign.

It goes without saying that our sixth forms do wonderful work. For many, they are the launch pad into third level, particularly but not exclusively university education. A number of times at the Committee, including at the previously mentioned concurrent Committee, I have said that, in the modern era, pupils are and rightly should be more aware of the plethora of choices available to them in education and training. Many career pathways today rely on advanced apprenticeships or other courses delivered at further education colleges. Some involve training courses provided by private industry, with some firms valuing talent going through their specific training and apprenticeships as highly if not more highly than those with an degree.

In my opinion and without in any way denigrating the value of a traditional university education, which I am fortunate enough to have had, having progressed to it in the traditional way of A levels through my school's sixth form, university is a big choice. It comes with significant debt, albeit debt that is different from most and is thought of differently by those who take it on. While university education should retain its standing, it should no longer be seen, as my colleague Cara Hunter said, as more than or better than some of the other available choices. Indeed, the independent review notes that the current imbalance undermines our colleges and is deeply injurious to Northern Ireland's interests. Many of those other choices can equally lead to good careers and excellent salaries and in modern industries that are foundational to today's Northern Ireland economy.

Whilst sixth form is something that very many will and rightly should aspire to, it is not the path for every pupil. Nor should it be the aspiration of every school to have a sixth form. I agree with the independent review that it is understandable for post-primary schools to desire or aspire to a sixth form, but it is not realistic for all, and it is not desirable to have sixth forms that are unsustainable in their numbers or can offer only a limited range of subjects.

The review puts forward options to secure future sustainability. Some have been touched on today, and I am sure that the Minister and greater educational experts than I will review evidence in the round in considering the future in that regard. Pupils should have access to a range of pathways, but we should not be overly prescriptive about where and how.

One thing that I have expressed during Committee discussion on the area is support for the vision of a better balance of collaboration between schools and further education colleges to furnish our pupils with more and better choices to reach their potential, ensuring, I hope, the sustainability of both sixth forms and local colleges. It is not in the interests of our young people or the economy to have school sixth forms and colleges competing with each other as rivals rather than collaborating to deliver a broad choice and an education that is as tailored as possible. Learning on those —.

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

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you to those who tabled the motion. If we are serious about supporting the learning pathways of our children and young people, we have to be clear that there are so many options open to them for their future. The motion is a positive one, but, as our amendment sets out, we think that it would be more comprehensive with a reference to the Department for the Economy. While I was listening to the debate, it struck me that it is odd to be talking about supporting learning pathways for our children while not mentioning academic selection and how the very foundation on which this is built is so unfair.

Our children and young people are not all the same. They are diverse in their talents, skills and aspirations for the future, which is to be championed and celebrated. However, that diversity of aspiration is sometimes overlooked when it comes to the advice that they are given about their future. Academic and vocational pathways are absolutely, categorically of equal importance and must be respected, valued and treated with the parity of esteem that they deserve. That has been reaffirmed in review after review, including in the findings of the landmark independent review of education that were published in December 2023. It is not always the case, however, when it comes to the advice that our young people are given in schools.

In November, the Economy Committee heard evidence from Work+, from teachers and from an apprentice. Patrick English, who is head of careers at Wellington College, was really inspiring and is doing great work in that school to teach young people about their options. Reform and standardisation, so that every child has access to that sort of advice, are central if we are to create the cultural shift that is required to put academic and vocational pathways on an equal footing.

The independent review of education says:

The Department for the Economy absolutely has a role to play in developing learning pathways to support our young people in finding the right career for them and in addressing the significant skills gaps in our economy. The 2022 employer skills survey found that there were about 39,500 job vacancies in our economy and that 35% of them were attributable to the lack of skills, experience or qualifications amongst applicants. Alternative pathways to the academic route are important levers to address those skills shortages, and the Department for the Economy and our further education system must be front and centre in those conversations.

The Audit Office has been clear that limited progress has been made in the implementation of a more strategic approach to education and training through the 14-19 framework. We need to hear from the Minister for the Economy and the Minister of Education what plans they have to address the deficiencies, which include a lack of objectives and limited movement from strategy to implementation.

It is appropriate that the debate is happening during Apprenticeship Week. We would like to have seen apprenticeships mentioned in the motion. Apprenticeships offer a mixed approach and can open up a world of opportunity for so many children and young people, allowing them to gain educational opportunities and qualifications at the same as they build real-world experience in paid employment. That Economy Committee meeting clearly had a huge impact on me, because, at that session, we heard evidence from a young man called Oscar Daly, who is a higher level software engineering apprentice. He said that he was doing his dream job debt-free and gaining invaluable experience. We need to talk about and promote that more.

We know that the previous Economy Minister was engaged in positive work on recruiting more young people into apprenticeships, but more needs to be done to ensure that small businesses and microbusinesses in our economy have the confidence and capacity to take them on. It has to be about supply and demand, ensuring that the opportunities are in the system for our young people to take advantage of.

When it comes to supporting learning pathways, every possible future option should be clearly communicated, openly explored and equally valued in discussion with our young people at home and in schools.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate. I call the Minister of Education to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion, which:

after school. I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the amendments. They all have merit; it is a good example of a matter on which, maybe, MLAs could have got together and produced a motion that did not require amendments. I do not have any real difficulty with the motion or the amendments, and bringing them together would have made for a better motion. It would be strange not to include Economy in the debate, as that would mean its absence when we try to address the issues. The genuine interest in this area is to be welcomed, and hopefully, in future, a motion will be tabled that has that collective approach around this area.

Mr Delargy: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: Yes, I am happy to.

Mr Delargy: Minister, thank you for your response. The collegiate approach is exactly what we want. It is just that, on this specific element, it is the Department of Education. We have touched on this already: we did not want to broaden it out so much, because there needs to be an enabler and a necessary prerequisite to taking this conversation forward. Do you recognise, in that context, that the Department of Education is the primary Department in this specific instance?

Mr Givan: Education has a key role — indeed, a primary role — but to have that discussion in the absence of recognising the overlap with Economy is mistaken. Post-16 provision, further education and higher education colleges are the domain of the Department for the Economy, not the Department of Education. We operate that way between officials and Ministers, and the motion could have reflected that. We have sought to enhance it, and the Alliance amendment similarly. The totality of them coming together probably would have been a better approach.

As I said yesterday, the Member brings forward helpful suggestions when it comes to education. He has met me on a number of occasions. He is not on the Education Committee; maybe that could be part of a wider reshuffle. I would certainly welcome the extra value that he would bring to the Sinn Féin Benches in that Committee — not that I am looking rid of anybody. I hope that Mr Baker's pen has survived from yesterday, because he will need it to write notes at the Committee tomorrow. However, I sincerely thank the Member, because he has a genuine interest in education.

The motion highlights the intrinsic importance of an excellent education, which can unlock opportunity and has the power to transform lives. The onus is on us to provide adequate support and resources to realise that opportunity. It also recognises that, to deliver excellence and equity in the system, we need to provide additional support to our learners who are at greatest risk of educational underachievement. This is how the per-pupil funding scheme works. It provides funding to reflect the characteristics and needs of learners, but the amount per pupil depends on the amount available in the pot. That is the aggregated schools budget. The independent review of education concluded that £155 million was needed annually to address the per-pupil funding gap in Northern Ireland compared with England and Wales. The report cited a figure of £9,000 per equivalent full-time student in our FE colleges. In the same year, the post-primary capita funding was less than £5,000. Clearly, the greatest challenge of the current funding model is the amount of funding per pupil. Michelle Guy spoke to that issue in respect of the common funding formula, and clearly related to investment in our schools is the funding method. I have discussed the funding formula with my officials. We planned to review it, and then COVID came and that process stopped. I am going to initiate a review of the common funding scheme to ensure that it distributes the available funding as effectively as possible for the benefit of all pupils. I am sure that that will be an area we will discuss at the Committee tomorrow.

I agree that post 16 is a critical phase of education and a key decision-making point for learners. However, work on preparing and supporting our learners for a variety of pathways starts earlier in the curriculum. Within our education system, opportunities currently exist for young people to explore a range of pathways from the age of 14. This happens through the curricular offer, work-related learning opportunities, the range of qualifications approved for teaching in our schools and the option for schools to collaborate with other education providers to deliver those courses. Through the entitlement framework, schools provide pupils with access to a minimum of 21 courses at Key Stage 4 and post 16. This means that learners have access to a wide range of courses to meet their interests and career aspirations. A minimum of one third of courses on offer to pupils must be general, and one third must be applied, ensuring that there is breadth and balance in the curricular offer.

What is key to the quality of qualifications available to our learners? They need to be accessible, comparable and fit for purpose. They need to support progression routes into further study, training or employment. I wish to begin a wide-ranging conversation on the future of our qualification system. I have already announced my intention to review the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment's suite of qualifications at Key Stage 4 and post 16. The increased choice of qualifications and pathways available to young people and projections that they will change jobs several times in their careers mean that it is more important than ever for young people to receive high-quality careers education, information, advice and guidance. We need to empower students to embrace and make informed choices about the expanded opportunities that are available to them.

I want to ensure that careers-related learning starts early in the curriculum and that there is consistency in the quality of advice and guidance. I also want to ensure that careers teachers receive appropriate training and, with the support of employers, ensure that there are opportunities for meaningful engagement with the world of work for all our learners, particularly those furthest from opportunity. Through one of the many actions that are being progressed as part of the 14-19 framework, my officials have been working with colleagues in the Department for the Economy to provide a joint careers action plan that will be published in the coming weeks.

We do not have sixth-form colleges in Northern Ireland. Our post-16 provision comprises sixth form in schools, FE colleges and training organisations. Every year, between 20,000 and 24,000 16-year-olds make choices about their next steps: whether to study A levels or applied qualifications, or a mix of both; whether to enter an apprenticeship or to prepare for a trade via a technical qualification; and whether to stay at school, go to a further education college or enter the workplace. It has been suggested that the per-pupil funding model encourages schools with sixth forms to hang on to learners, and our school census data shows that just over 60% of year 12 pupils carry on to post-16 provision in a school. The absolute numbers change because of demographics, but that proportion has been fairly static for a number of years. Learners enrolled in school sixth forms may have some courses delivered through collaborative arrangements with other schools or colleges. That means that, while learners may be registered at school, they may be taking a course in an FE college as part of a broader curriculum.

At this point, I want to reiterate a point that was made in the independent review of education, which is that learners in post-primary schools that do not have sixth forms should have a right of access to sixth-form provision in other schools. The admissions criteria for access to sixth forms should not work against learners transferring from schools that offer education up to age 16, and there are many factors that influence the decision on where to go next, including accessibility of settings, pupil and parental preference, perceptions of FE, the aspirations of learners and the outcomes historically achieved by learners in the respective settings. However, I emphasise that the best interests of learners, not those of the institutions, should be at the core of such decisions.

I can speak to that personally. I left school at the age of 16 and enrolled in an FE college to do mechanical and electrical engineering. After week 1, I realised that I was never going to be a mechanical and electrical engineer, despite having qualified for the EMA, which was what had incentivised me to do it. I thought, "Great. I'll get paid a few quid for going to the college". In late September, I went back to my school, Laurelhill Community College, and pleaded with the vice principal, Dr Crone, "Please take me back. I've made a big mistake. I've taken the wrong course in life". I am sure that all of you in here will say, "Yes, and you still are taking the wrong course". The school and the system were able to accommodate me and say, "That's not what Paul wanted to do. How do we change that?". The school was able to take me back, and I went in and started sixth form at Laurelhill. I was a pupil in the first sixth form at Laurelhill. A frustration that I hear from schools is, "How do we get a sixth form?". At Laurelhill, the number of pupils who created that sixth form was in the mid-teens, and that sixth form is now doing very well. I speak to that personal experience of how important it is that we put the interests of the child first, not those of the institution. That can be in a school, an FE college or a training-type facility, but we need to make sure that it is in the interests of the pupil. I certainly benefited from that approach.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: Mr Honeyford, yes, I will give way.

Mr Honeyford: I was going to say half-jokingly that the sixth form at Laurelhill has never been the same since the Minister was there. I agree with him on quite a bit of what he said about pathways, but we are talking about pathways for a child and how the focus should be on the child and what they are going to do. Our teaching staff do an incredible job, and I am not in any way saying that they do not, but how do the teaching staff in a school keep up to date with the latest jobs in the economy and the shaping of that economy?

What is happening in the Department that will allow staff in our schools to be trained in that area in order to keep them up to date with the latest jobs so that they are able to give the best advice to pupils?

Mr Givan: That leads me on to my next point. The Member is right: pupils have to get the correct advice. The advice at school when I was there was, "Join the police", "Become a teacher" or, "Go into the health profession". It was not the kind of careers advice that we need to be providing to our young people. It is important that we support schools and those who provide that advice. Careers advisers and others should therefore have access to schools to discuss progression pathways with learners. There is an onus on the Careers Service to support learning pathways. I call on the Minister for the Economy to ensure that the service is appropriately resourced to provide up-to-date, relevant and timely advice to our pupils in schools.

It has also been suggested that schools are offering courses that would be better taught in FE colleges. In fact, there are several approval processes in place to ensure that the qualifications being offered in a school are appropriate for that setting. They include the carrying out of checks by the awarding organisations; legislation requiring that qualifications being taught in school be approved by the Department; and, for large-sized qualifications, an application from the school, by exception, to offer that course to particular learners. In providing funding to schools for sixth-form pupils, the Department expects them to support those learners at every stage of their two-year learning journey. Only in very exceptional circumstances should a school end a pupil's sixth-form placement at the end of year 13.

For some time, employers have been expressing concerns about a skills gap, which is the shortfall between what they expect and need from their recruits and the skill set with which those recruits come to them. The broadly based offer in sixth form has a key role to play in addressing the skills gap. In today's fast-changing, interdisciplinary, connected and collaborative world, we need breadth as well as depth: the ability to take learning from one context and apply it to another. The range of subjects on offer to post-16 students, the mix of academic and vocational options and the range of extracurricular choices equip learners with a more rounded set of skills and perspectives that are ideally suited to the flexible, evolving careers that will be inevitable over the next 10 years and beyond.

As our economy develops, the demand for higher levels of skills and knowledge will continue to grow. It is critical that we support as many young people as possible to reach the education and qualification levels that will offer viable and sustainable opportunities in our emerging labour market. If we want an education system in which all children have the chance to make the most of their abilities and become the best version of themselves, we need to invest in their learning. Investing in our schools is an investment in the future of Northern Ireland.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Nick Mathison to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. The Member has up to five minutes.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We could summarise what has happened in the debate by saying that there has been broad agreement in the Chamber, from the signatories to the motion — I thank them for tabling it — to the Members who spoke to the DUP amendment, as well as from the Minister. There is not a lot between everybody's contributions. We probably all want to get to the same place, where we are offering a genuinely broad range of pathways for our young people in order to give them the opportunity to succeed. We are therefore into questions of emphasis at this stage.

I understand from Sinn Féin's motion that it was keen to focus on one particular thing: how we fund provision at sixth-form age to ensure that schools are not incentivised to hang on to pupils, thus closing certain pathways for them. It was proposed as a first step in a process that we need to follow. The DUP amendment expands the motion to look at the Department for the Economy's role, which is absolutely essential.

I suggest that our amendment broadens the motion most fully. The motion and amendment No 1 do not reference the 14-19 framework. There is a real need for collaborative working and to get to grips with the task of how to deliver on the aspirations of the 14-19 framework. The funding model is part, but not all, of that. I therefore hope that our amendment will get support on that basis. We do not have any great desire to divide the House, but, on balance, we will not be supporting the DUP amendment, purely on the basis that we think that ours offers the broadest possible approach to the issue. It has been a refreshing debate. We are all on the same page, which is not something that we can say about every issue.

I will speak to the 14-19 education and training framework specifically, as that is the main focus of our amendment, which broadly aligns with everyone else's views on the other issues. That is crucial if we are going to deliver meaningful progress on offering a diverse range of educational and career pathways for our young people, but I think that everybody here would agree that progress on the delivery of that has been frustratingly slow. If we are going to deliver on it, we really need joint action from Education and Economy.

Looking at some of the objectives that are set out in the framework, we would probably all agree that, as was highlighted in the independent review, we have not delivered progress on them. Some of the key objectives that were set out include the need to address the lack of parity between academic and vocational qualifications; to agree clearly the role and purpose of post-16 provision; to create access to qualifications that facilitate progression; and to have access to quality careers advice, which has been referenced by nearly every contributor. It seems as though we are still struggling to see any real progress in that regard. Schools and FE, as has been referenced, often compete for scarce resource. The post-16 landscape is still, unfortunately, dominated by progression to A levels and university as the preferred pathway, with FE, apprenticeships and other options seen as the poor cousin. That is not a healthy ecosystem in which to find ourselves, or in which to place our young people. We need to ensure that we offer pathways that are right for our young people and our economy. We are not in that space right now.

The gateway review of the 14-19 framework came out in January 2024. Very clear issues were highlighted around ineffective governance, unclear objectives, misalignment between the programme and the stakeholders' objectives, the duplication of effort between Economy and Education, limited management of how we were going to monitor delivery — the list goes on. Things have improved — the situation has shifted from a red rating to an amber one — but we are still very far from where we need to be. The focus on the funding model is important, but that, on its own, is not going to be enough. Our call in our amendment is for the Economy and Education Ministers to take up the challenge together and set out a really clear vision, which the independent review called for, of what we actually want from our post-16 provision. It should be broad and ambitious. It should not be competitive. It should be collaborative. That is the space in which we need to end up. I hope that, on that basis, the House supports our amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Phillip Brett to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. You, too, have five minutes.

Mr Brett: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the signatories to the motion and all Members who have spoken in the debate. It has been a useful discussion, particularly with Apprenticeship Week, which was ably namechecked by Ms Nicholl this morning during Members' statements, beginning yesterday. It is an important opportunity for us to highlight all the career and educational pathways that exist for our young people.

As Members have, rightly, articulated, the economy and education sectors of our world are vastly different and continue to change very quickly. It is vital that government policy keeps up so that we can upskill our young people for the future. Of course, our universities will continue to play a vital role in the economic and educational life of Northern Ireland. We are blessed to have three of the best providers of higher education here in Northern Ireland. However, university education is no guarantee of a successful career. I think that I may be the perfect example of that: I went to university, but many people will say that my career choice was not the most successful. It is important to recognise that choice for our young people is vital. We need to listen to what young people want to do, and think about how we can help them to ensure that they make the best decisions in life. It is not our role as policymakers to shut down or limit the opportunities that are open to our young people; in fact, we should give them the skills and ability to make the best choices.

As I said, there has been useful discussion across the House. I struggle with the justification from the party opposite as to why it does not want to include the Department for the Economy in the discussion. We are talking about reviewing the funding model for post-16 or sixth-form colleges, but what do we mean when we talk about reviewing the funding levels? Are we increasing them? If so, will the Finance Minister award the bids that the Education Minister continually makes for a whole range of sectors in his Department? Are we going to decrease funding levels? If so, why are we decreasing them, and what are we awarding that funding to? If we want to see fewer sixth forms across our schools, does that mean that we need an increase in the funding for our FE colleges? If so, how can we do that without having a discussion with the Department for the Economy?

The Alliance Party's amendment is an important addition. It recognises the important role of the Department for the Economy. As the true progressive party in the Chamber, we will not push our very good amendment to a Division, and we will support the Alliance amendment. That shows that the progressives are really on these Benches.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Brett: I will turn to a few comments that Members made. First, I highlight Michelle Guy's contribution. Michelle represents Lagan Valley, not Strangford. I wrongly besmirched her when I said that last week. She rightly highlighted the vital work that is being done, particularly by Alma White and Caleb's Cause. It is vital that we recognise that in the Chamber.

I disagree with Ms Nicholl's point about her party's aversion to academic selection. I did not want to bring that into the debate, but I proudly stand with grammar schools in North Belfast and with parental choice in Northern Ireland. My party will continue to support young people's right to have that choice. Indeed, my politics teacher at school was an Alliance Party member who was active in East Belfast. When Ms Nicholl's party decided to be against academic selection, that teacher resigned from the party. Maybe that is why I ended up in the DUP. [Laughter.]

The Minister made some important remarks. They showed his commitment to young people across Northern Ireland. As has rightly been highlighted, he is not in charge of FE colleges. From my perspective, I wish that the Minister of Education were in charge of FE colleges. I wish that Members who want to see additional funding in the Department of Education, as suggested in the motions that they continually table, would speak to their Executive colleagues to ensure that my Minister's bids are met, because no Minister makes better use of public funds than the Minister of Education.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Brett: We will support the Alliance amendment, showing the true progressive nature of my party.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Pat Sheehan to conclude and wind on the motion. Pat, you have up to 10 minutes.

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

I do not intend to detain the House for any longer than is necessary, so I will not go over comments that Members made in their contributions to the debate. However, I thank all Members who contributed today.

The discussion has made one thing clear. Our current per-pupil funding model for sixth-form colleges needs to be looked at. Our society and economy would be better served if we could get our young people on to pathways that are suitable for them and where they can learn, upskill, train and, ultimately, reach their full potential. We have heard compelling arguments about the pressures that schools face in trying to offer a broad and balanced curriculum. We need to get to the point where we can match the opportunities that are available to students with their ambitions, talents and potential. At the moment, we have system that is not designed for success. It often limits choice, restricts pathways and, in many cases, prioritises the system's needs over young people's needs.

One of the issues that was not touched on greatly today is careers advice. The Minister mentioned that he sort of took the wrong pathway when he was 16. If he had got the right careers advice, that might not have happened. If he had been made aware of what was actually involved in what he thought that he wanted to do, he might not have taken that route. Similarly, other people want to take certain career pathways, but they do not get the right advice, so they do not necessarily do the right subjects.

That is also an issue.

Having spoken to a lot of young people, as a member of the Education Committee, I find that careers advice has not greatly changed since I was at school, and that was not today or yesterday. It seems to be the case that if a teacher has a few free periods or free time in school, they are often assigned the role of a careers teacher when they are not properly trained and properly informed, and people from the workforce are not being brought in.

Competition between our schools and our further education colleges has been raised as an issue. We have heard, at various events, that further education colleges are not allowed to come into schools to speak to the students. That is competition coming in rather than what should be there, which is collaboration.

We must move towards a funding model that is fair, flexible and future-focused. We have seen from international examples that a better approach is possible: one that ensures that funding goes where the need is, recognises the value of vocational as well as academic pathways and supports collaboration between schools and FE colleges, rather than forcing them into competition. The Chair of the Committee mentioned that the gold standard is still that you go to upper sixth, finish your A levels and then go on to university and get a degree. There are large numbers of young people out there with degrees who do not necessarily get into the careers that they want.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Certainly.

Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that we need a cultural change? We need to acknowledge those young people who do not go on to university in the same way. They should have the same acknowledgement and recognition and the same passing out process, whatever that might be. We need to have something that recognises the hard work that they put in to achieve their potential.

Mr Sheehan: Yes, I absolutely agree with that. The Chair of the Committee used a phrase that I have often used about the relationship between further and higher education: FE is often seen as the "poor cousin" within our education system. That really needs to change.

This is not just about numbers on a balance sheet. It is about real opportunities for young people and about ensuring that a young person, regardless of their background or postcode, can access the subjects and training that will positively shape their future. It is about giving our schools and colleges the resources that they need to do what they do best: educate, motivate, inspire and prepare the next generation. Our education system faces a multitude of challenges, but we cannot ignore this. If we are serious about addressing skills shortages, supporting our educators and giving our young people the best possible start in life, we must act.

The motion calls on the Minister of Education to assess the funding model, as an essential first step towards meaningful reform. I urge all Members to support the motion. Let us send a clear message that we are committed to having an education system that works for everyone, and let us ensure that every young person, whatever their chosen path, has the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, with that declared desire for cooperation still fresh in our minds, before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Phillip Brett to raise the matter of Belfast's night-time economy. I call Phillip Brett, who has up to 15 minutes.

Mr Brett: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. I start by thanking the Members who have come along here this evening and the stakeholders from across Belfast who have been in touch with me about the issue since it appeared in the Order Paper. The genuine interest from across the political spectrum and all sectors of our night-time economy shows the importance in which the issue is held. I genuinely believe that a partnership approach to how we try to secure some important improvements to the night-time economy here in Belfast should be the model that we use moving forward.

This week marks one year since the return of a devolved Government in Northern Ireland. This time last year, I made my maiden speech, in which I said that the Assembly will be judged not on its simple return but on its ability to deliver for our citizens, not just in North Belfast but across our capital city. I want to use this Adjournment debate as an opportunity to highlight some of the important factors in Belfast's night-time economy, recognise the challenges that the sector faces and the ongoing work that it is doing and highlight some of the work that we, as an Assembly and an Executive, can achieve. I have no doubt that the new Minister, whom I congratulate on taking up her post, shares the desire to support the night-time economy in Belfast.

The economic, cultural and social fabric of our city is defined by our night-time economy. It is that unique mix of our people, our product and our place that makes Belfast so special. The night-time economy is a critical driver not just of economic growth but of cultural vibrancy and community cohesion in Belfast. It is about the places where we share food and drink with our friends. It is the warm hospitality shown to our visitors that brings tourists back in their droves. It is the cultural enrichment of our society that breaks down stereotypes and captures the emotions of our people. I am sure that contributions from Members across the Chamber will highlight the fact that we have some amazing pubs, restaurants, arts venues, cultural attractions and retailers that make Belfast what it is today. The impact that they have on the material well-being not just of our economy but of our people must not and should not be underestimated. Official figures published last year show that, across Northern Ireland, the night-time economy accounts for 40,000 employees and that almost 5,000 separate businesses, the length and breadth of the Province, engage in the night-time economy, with an annual value of £3·3 billion.

Across the United Kingdom, unfortunately, the COVID pandemic and rises in National Insurance and in the cost of living have cost the night-time economy a huge amount. That will only be further exacerbated by the decisions taken in the Chancellor's autumn statement that will tax businesses to death. That has already had a negative impact in our capital city: investment plans that were programmed for expansion by businesses have been paused; cultural venues and attractions have been forced to reduce their opening hours, as they can no longer afford to pay staff for full-time employment; and those from our most vulnerable communities who are trying to access work have had limited opportunities. I take this opportunity to thank all those who have invested their time and effort in trying to mitigate some of those impacts.

The Northern Ireland Night-Time Commission, which was created by Hospitality Ulster and the Night Time Industries Association, advocates for businesses and has been to the fore in lobbying the Finance Committee, the Economy Committee and their respective Ministers on some of the local levers that we can and should use. We now need the Department for the Economy, which, a number of months ago, stated its intention to publish research into the value of the night-time economy here in Northern Ireland, to publish that research and produce a list of key recommendations that each Department can take forward.

I pay tribute to those organisations that, across our city, continue to champion the vital importance of our arts and the cultural vibrancy of the night-time economy. The night-time economy is much more than simply pubs and restaurants. In particular, I draw Members' attention to the report that was produced this time last year by Free the Night, the only charitable organisation in the United Kingdom that is dedicated to creating a safe, progressive and culturally rich environment for nightlife. It has made a number of important recommendations to which the Minister should pay attention.

I pay tribute to those who have invested not just their time but their money in transforming our city. People like us, who represent this city, and people from further afield have stepped forward for Belfast. I think of people such as Willie Jack, Niall McKenna and Michael Deane, who have invested their time and money, even in Northern Ireland's most difficult times, to try to transform the city of Belfast that we all love. I also pay tribute to the people who work in the night-time economy. Sometimes they work in the most difficult circumstances, and sometimes they are unseen, but they ensure that our overseas visitors receive a warm welcome when they come here. They include those who ensure that, when we enjoy the night-time economy, we get home safely, and those in the emergency services who support the work of the night-time economy.

Belfast's ambition is clear. It is captured perfectly by the Purple Flag group, which has, once again, secured purple flag status for Belfast. The group, which brings together three of Belfast's business improvement districts along with key stakeholders, has a great mission statement to which I believe all Members can sign up. Its aspiration is for Belfast to have the best night-time economy on these islands. We should all try to match that ambition.

Before moving on to the immediate interventions that I believe that we should take forward, I congratulate the recently appointed night tsar, Mr Michael Stewart, who has been a dedicated champion of Belfast and our capital city's night-time economy for many years. Michael invested in Belfast when others did not. He ensured that Belfast had a nightlife when others tried to stop us from having one. Michael's love for Belfast has been an infectious disease, I will say, in the most positive way in trying to ensure that our capital city gets the investment that it deserves. I would expect nothing less from a good, solid north Belfast man who has never forgotten his roots.

In all the conversations that I have had with stakeholders and representatives, the single biggest issue that I have heard that we, as an Assembly and Executive, must focus on in order to support the growth of the night-time economy is to support late-night public transport in Belfast. For many years, Translink provided the Nightmovers service. It was a huge success, despite operating on only four weekends over a month. Christmas 2024 was its most successful period to date, when 17,000 passengers took advantage of the rail and bus network, coming from all over Northern Ireland to enjoy the night-time economy of Belfast. I am delighted that, thanks to repeated pressure and requests, Translink has now produced and submitted a business case for the creation of a year-round late-night public transport service. That has the potential to have a huge, transformative impact for those who wish to enjoy the night-time economy and, more importantly in some ways, those who work in the night-time economy.

It offers opportunities to expand Belfast city centre's economy in the evening far beyond its seasonal peaks. It provides safety, reassurance and dependability for those wanting to enjoy the night-time economy.

As I become older and greyer in the beard, one of the first things that I think about on a night out is how I will get home. When I first went out to enjoy the capital city, I did not give that a thought, but we clearly need to continue to try to make progress on that. The service is environmentally friendly and provides employment opportunities. It makes the city more accessible and attractive to those from outside the greater Belfast area, ensuring that people from all over Northern Ireland can enjoy all that Belfast has to offer.

Developing that market requires consistency, dependability and building habits. Therefore, in my view, what is needed today is a commitment to providing year-round services rather than simply over four weekends. Offering a standard fare on those services as well as accepting concessionary fares, which have been built into Translink's business case, is also an important step towards removing barriers and rewarding repeat travel. As I said, I am delighted that that business case has been produced. The cost of £600,000 to provide year-round night-time public transport and support the most important sector of the night-time economy in our capital city is not much to ask for out of an annual Budget for this place of £18·6 billion.

We have the opportunity to remove barriers, to invest in the city that, I believe, all representatives in the Chamber love and to support and grow an industry that, for many years and in the darkest times, invested in the city when others would not. I congratulate the Minister again on taking up her post. On her first time answering a debate in the Assembly in her new role, I urge her to recognise how vital the night-time economy is, particularly in the capital city, which is the driver of economic and cultural growth.

Belfast is unrecognisable from the city that I grew up in and is being transformed daily. Now, however, we have the opportunity to step forward to support the most vulnerable and those who pioneered the growth of our economy and to step forward with a settlement that supports the continued growth of Belfast and the wider region.

I thank Members for attending the debate this afternoon.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Brett, for beginning the debate. I inform Members that, because of the number of Members who wish to speak and the time limit on the debate, it is likely that Belfast constituency MLAs will be allocated four minutes and non-Belfast constituency MLAs will be allocated three minutes. Extra time will not be allowed if a Member takes an intervention.

Miss Hargey: I welcome this important conversation. As with our daytime economy, we need to look at the issues in terms of the wider regeneration of our city centre in order to unlock its full potential at night-time and throughout the day. We all want a safe, connected, inclusive and vibrant city centre in which people can live, work and socialise as well as visit. Therefore, collaboration and a joined-up approach are key. We also need the ability to be innovative and to adapt to an ever-changing environment, recognising the increasing role that our night-time economy plays.

Belfast city centre has seen much change and challenge: economic downturns, the Primark fire, COVID, working from home and, indeed, poverty and inequality. Many factors that contribute to the problems can also contribute to the solutions, such as safety in our city, its cleanliness, the public realm, city-centre living and, indeed, increasing overnight stays in the city. There is also historical severance and defensive planning, which is an issue that I raised last week, and whether we can re-stitch those inner-city communities into the city core. I am proud to be a resident and a representative of one of the working-class inner-city communities that form our city centre.

We also need to look at infrastructure and transport, our public realm and wider regeneration, as well as our cultural venues and assets and leisure provision. We have Michael, Belfast's night tsar, who is here today, and we have the night-time commission, which is looking at the night-time economy more broadly. We have public policy through the local development plan (LDP) that looks at the night-time economy from a planning perspective. We have our business improvement districts (BIDs), and, last October, the Department for the Economy launched research into the value and potential of the night-time economy. We have Belfast Chamber, with its asks, and the emerging Belfast Agenda.

All that points to the need for an integrated and connected plan. It is essential, as I said, to address the challenges but also the opportunities. We need Departments other than Economy and Infrastructure to be involved. The Department for Communities, the Department of Justice and the Executive Office also have to make sure that we drive the vision and change that we want to see. We also need to involve the arm's-length bodies associated with each of those Departments. Belfast City Council can play an important role in locality planning and approach through the LDP. There is also, of course, the private sector.

Normally absent from all the conversations on the night-time economy are the inner-city communities that form part of the city centre's rich tapestry. We need to address the democratic deficit of those communities and voices in any conversation on how we develop the city centre and, importantly, the night-time economy. That includes the voices of our culture, arts and leisure sectors.

We will have common ground on the challenges and opportunities, but what we really need is a joined-up, coordinated approach. We need the appropriate data to make informed decisions on the way forward so that we can sustain urban planning, ensure safety and well-being, ensure that we have a balanced economy and take workers' rights into account when we look at economic development. We need to bridge the gaps and re-stitch those inner-city communities in order to create the rich physical, social and economic tapestry that has the potential to be developed further in the city. We need to see the cultural and social renaissance of our city, ensuring that we preserve its identity whilst embracing change.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate. I will focus on the parts of the city centre that are in North Belfast, and my colleague will speak about the wider night-time economy issues.

When I think of North Belfast and the night-time economy, I think immediately, as, I am sure, do many others, of the Cathedral Quarter. When I think of the Cathedral Quarter, I think of the times that I had there. I am not as young as the Member who secured the debate, although I am not that much older. He sometimes likes to think that he is still a student and can party like that, but I mostly do not go out past 9:00 pm these days.

The Belfast city centre night-time economy needs not just to include a transient community such as students — Ulster University is absolutely fantastic for North Belfast, bringing such vibrancy to the area — but to cater for all types. The night-time economy is for those who live in the city centre, for students and for families. When we think of the Cathedral Quarter, we think of the vibrancy of the arts and culture scene in the area. My colleague Sian would not be happy if I did not mention the Oh Yeah music centre. My family and I were there last month for an arcade games night. That was a fantastic opportunity, and we opted to stay in town for dinner, because there is something that caters for everyone. In that area, I think of the MAC, of St Anne's Cathedral with the orchestra and the candlelight festivals and of the LGBT scene.

The wider community, however, is not seen as part of the Belfast night-time economy because of the connectivity issue. I have had many meetings and engagements with the community in Sailortown, which wants to be more connected to North Belfast and to the city centre but is cut off, particularly by the York Street interchange. Such communities are vital if we are to grow the night-time economy, so we need to bridge the connectivity issue. We cannot forget about that.

The Member who secured the debate spoke about public transport. It beggars belief that it took so long for us have night-time buses. I do not understand why that was the case. If people want to go out in Belfast but live further afield than the greater Belfast area or even just the Belfast area, where, at times, it is so difficult to get a taxi, they need to leave at 11.00 pm to get a train: most people do not want to do that. If we are serious about having a thriving night-time economy, we need to be serious about the offer that we have.

We need to ensure that our city centre and wider Belfast is safe. I give a shout-out to Reclaim the Agenda for the Reclaim the Night marches that it organises, which really promote women's safety during evenings and nights out. It is important that everyone can and does feel safe. Other campaigns, such as Ask for Angela, run in Belfast around our pubs during the night. The work that the PSNI and Hospitality Ulster have done on that is massive, and they should be supported.

As the Member who spoke previously said, we need to think about city centre living. We also need to think about the student population, but we need to do that in conjunction with the communities who live close to the city centre. We need an economy that serves everybody — the entire community — and we need to ensure that it is not just about the weekends but about the entire week.

There are solutions. As an Assembly, we need to work with Belfast City Council to ensure that we have a joined-up approach. There is no point in tackling issues in silos, whether that is tackling antisocial behaviour or other issues. The Department for the Economy and Belfast City Council need to work in conjunction with those in the hospitality sector —

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

Miss McAllister: — and with all Departments and agencies.

Mr O'Toole: I am thrilled to speak about the Belfast night-time economy. I would like to claim some personal expertise on the subject, although, unfortunately, not as much these days as, perhaps, I had in the past. Like other people, I am getting older, and having young kids means that I do not get the opportunity to enjoy it as much as I would like, but I do occasionally. I am also a representative of the city, and I spent a significant portion of my earlier working life working in pubs and the hospitality sector. It is something that I have devoted some time to as a politician since I was elected.

First, I will put it context. Belfast's night-time economy is hugely important to Northern Ireland as a whole. It generates over £2 billion. To give it an historic context, in the darkest of days, as Members have said, Belfast city centre and some of the pubs, nightlife and clubs that managed to stay open really were a meeting point for people from different backgrounds, not just those from the traditional green or orange backgrounds. People from LGBT backgrounds, the punk community, the folk community and people in the dance scene got to know one another. They danced, enjoyed music together and had a few drinks in the middle of Belfast at a time when things were very difficult.

We are now beyond that conflict, thank God, but we are still not doing enough to support the amazing night-time economy in Belfast. It is important to say that, in lots of places, parts of the night-time economy are under threat. Some habits are clearly changing post COVID, such as how people consume drink and interact with one another, but that does not mean that people do not want an enthusiastic night out or great spaces in which to enjoy music and come together. It is concerning that, in Belfast and other places, music venues and nightclubs are closing. Some people are facing a bit of a crisis. If you saw my dancing, you would say that there is a crisis there. Not subjecting people to that vision may be a good thing, but the loss of clubs is a serious issue, whether that relates to live music or dance music.

We need to pursue a huge range of policy interventions. There has been some progress with night buses in Belfast, but we need to see more. It is not the Minister's direct responsibility — it is for her new colleague — but, given her old role and given that the Minister's colleague is from the same party, she may be able to nudge that along to get clarity, as Mr Brett said, on rolling, long-term funding for night buses. Until coming to this job, I spent a large part of my adult life in London, where I fell asleep on many night buses. One of the great experiences of night buses in London was falling asleep and finding out where you would wake up. I should probably not say that, because it will be reported by Hansard. One of the most important drivers of the night-time economy is the ability to get home. At the minute, we have a bit of a problem. When I say "a bit of a problem", I mean a major problem. People who go into Belfast city centre for a night out, not just people who come in from Lurgan, Lisburn or Bangor but people who live down the Ormeau Road, up the Antrim Road or on the Falls Road think, "How do I get home tonight? Do I have a taxi? Is there a night bus?".

We need to increase the number of taxis. There is an issue with licences and how we dispense them and make that system work. There is also an issue with getting available and durable night buses.

There are some other issues. It is clear that we have a distinct licensing system, which I have talked about a bit in the Chamber. A review of that is due at some point, but there clearly is not a huge amount of flexibility in it. Hopefully, some proposals will come forward on that.

It is critical —

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

Mr O'Toole: — that we support the sector in every way possible. I look forward to hearing from the Minister —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK.

Mr O'Toole: — about specific policy interventions. Thank you.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will start by saying that there is hope out there. Some of you might be going to bed at 9.00 pm, but, when the kids get older, there is hope. I am of an age where I am going back around again [Laughter.]

I remember the Harp Bar from the first time round, and I know it now since it has reopened. There is life after 9.00 pm, and being 60 does not stop you going out. I am just letting you know that.

Thank you for securing the Adjournment debate, Phillip. It is a very important topic. Deirdre hit on connectivity, and other Members mentioned it. Yes, the daytime and night-time economies are slightly different, but they are connected. I grew up in an area, Carrick Hill, that is right beside the town, and you can walk into and out of town from there. That is quite handy. However, we have certainly overcome the challenges that our city has faced over decades. One of the biggest revolutions that we had was the change in licensing laws. They were archaic and embarrassing. I remember when I was in the Department, and, at times when there were big events, people found a different way to access alcohol — I will just leave that there.

All I am saying is that we need to look at our city centre. As a woman, I feel unsafe in parts of the city. I do not want to pooh-pooh the debate, but that is how I feel. I would feel unsafe walking on my own, and I am sure that fellas would say the same. We need to look at the arterial routes and at lighting, but we also need to look at transport. We mentioned Translink, but we also need to make sure that taxis do not stick the hand in the further that people live outside the centre, because the fares are not regulated. That needs to be sorted out.

Another thing that needs to be sorted out is making sure that our local traders and the people who work in the night-time economy have support. Belfast City Council has the Belfast agenda, which has an ambition to grow the city centre population by 66,000. That is a massive ambition that would mean more people coming into the city. However, people live in the city centre, and they need to be factored into everything. The residents in the Market area, Short Strand, Bridge End, Carrick Hill and Sailortown lived in those places well before there was the current city centre, and I ask that people take that into consideration.

I am glad that there is a night tsar. When you put value on something, it speaks volumes.

We now see acts such as Kneecap who might have auditioned in the Limelight and the 'Belfast Telegraph' building. Kneecap are now getting mentions at the Oscars. Belfast did that. We did it, and we should be proud. The traders and vendors who took the risk of getting in groups such as that can now claim some success. We need to give them all something back.

I am happy to be a part of any development. We need to look at the dereliction in our city centre. It is not down just to the Economy, Infrastructure or Communities Departments to deal with that; it is down to us all. There have been decades of dereliction. Investors have been involved in land banking huge swathes of property. Either they need to invest and move on or that land needs to be taken from them and used to contribute to our economy. Thank you.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to my party colleague for securing the Adjournment debate on this important issue, given that Belfast is our capital city. I am glad that the Minister for the Economy is here.

I will draw on some wider matters of import relating to our night-time economy. Belfast must be able to compete as a tourist destination with cities across the British Isles, Europe and the globe. We certainly do not have the weather as an advantage, so we need to put our best foot forward in other areas and play to our strengths. Our warm, welcoming natures and a strong sense of hospitality, combined with our vibrant social scene, fabulous hotels and quality eateries and produce are up there in making Belfast an attractive place for people to work and live in and to visit.

We must have an eye to tourism but remain focused on our permanent customers, who are our constituents and citizens who love a good night out. As a proud east Belfast girl, I say this: what's not to love? For the enjoyment and employment of our citizenry and for our economy, it is imperative that our capital city has a thriving night-time offering, affording diversity of choice to all consumers. That is all well and good in theory, but it is not easily done. It hinges on other key factors in which we could be better. Transport is certainly one; affordability and offerings are others; but security and safety is absolutely key.

There is no doubt that Belfast is a great place. I commend those entrepreneurs who have started their own businesses, invested their own money and have to make it work to earn a living. The private sector is a really difficult place to be. Employers in Belfast have been hit with, essentially, the perfect storm. Their overheads for rent, rates and utilities, particularly electricity, have soared. Let us look at the cost of produce and the increase in the minimum wage and National Insurance contributions. Those cost increases are in circumstances when people are already struggling to rebuild post COVID, and they are having a dire effect. Businesses, retailers, pubs and restaurants are struggling across the UK. Record numbers of restaurants are closing their doors. Obviously, a great deal of that falls at the feet of the Government. However, there are some things that are most certainly in our gift.

Safety and security is a huge issue. I have hosted meetings between the police and the business community about that. I am under no illusions that we have to adopt a common-sense approach to personal safety, particularly in this time. However, recognising that there are some nefarious, desperate and simply bad people out there at times, having the lowest policing numbers ever places our people at risk. Thankfully, we are the safest place to live in the UK, but those of us who represent Belfast are acutely conscious of the fundamental need for the town to be a safe place to walk, to travel and to be out, especially for women — although I do recognise that men face their own barriers and risks.

Moreover, there is a significant and extant drugs epidemic. We are aware that drugs are being dealt openly, and it is increasingly common to find people in stupors on our streets at all times of the day. In the summer, I met members of the Belfast business community who are tortured by aggressive and repeat shoplifters, who are shameless about it, to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds per year per store. You might think that that does not relate to the night-time economy, but it certainly does, in that there are numerous convenience stores in the city. However, it has a wider impact on the general feel of the place, and, often, the feeling of safety and security can lead to an overall improvement in footfall. Delays in planning is another issue that is turning investors off and may likely be losing Belfast its edge in the next big thing: expansion.

I also point out that the Belfast chamber has often felt that its issues have fallen between the stools, as parts of the city are divided and the city centre is divided across all four Belfast constituencies. That often results in the failure to consider the city as a whole, and we must address that.

Between the Assembly and the City Hall, there is plenty that we can look at and seek to improve. This is an opportune time to commend those who have put the pedal to the metal to make our city what it is. It is also the right time to advocate for the agreed 7,500 police officers whom we are supposed to have to ensure the safety of those who wish to enjoy all that our city has to offer and those who provide it. Without doubt, Belfast has much of which to be proud. In recognising some of our flaws, I say that I fundamentally believe in Belfast and its possibilities. We just need to make sure that it is safe, clean, accessible, affordable and unbeatable.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member who secured the Adjournment debate. There are so many reasons to be proud of Belfast and our evening and night-time economy. As Members have mentioned, it has really transformed in the past decades. I remember that, when we first moved here from Zimbabwe in 2000, the Cathedral Quarter was somewhere you never would have gone — I actually met my husband in the Duke of York pub. When you think of what it was like then, when we first arrived, and then think of nights such as Culture Night and all the restaurants and the bars and the vibrancy, you realise that it really has transformed. There are so many people who have been behind that and have driven that: the people who work in the pubs and the restaurants, the council workers and transport workers and many others who have contributed. It takes a lot of collaboration and connection to build such a successful ecosystem.

The purple flag award that Belfast received in 2024 is clear recognition of the vibrancy and safety of our night-time economy. The appointment of Michael Stewart as night tsar and the establishment of the Northern Ireland Night-Time Commission are positive developments. I am excited to see what work they do through that ongoing collaboration.

Belfast is a destination not just for people across the region but for tourists. The Night Time Industries Association stated:

We should be really proud of that. We have a duty to protect it and build on our successes. One of the things that I have pushed for is a quantification of the value of the night-time economy. In October, I put a question to the Minister about developing an evaluation of the economic value of the late-night economy in Belfast and Northern Ireland more broadly. The Minister's commissioning of research is positive and something that many organisations have called for. I would like a bit more clarity on the remit of the research that will be undertaken, who will undertake it and when it will be completed. We must address the misconceptions and misunderstandings around the night-time economy here, and the provision of a solid evidence base for future investment is important.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way, and giving me the opportunity to put something on the record. Will she agree that it might be helpful if the Minister could look back to her previous Department and suggest to the Finance Minister that the cost of doing business review should look specifically at the burden of rates on hospitality, which includes Belfast city centre?

Ms Nicholl: I absolutely support that, and I will not go into more detail because there are many other areas that I want to touch on.

Transport is an issue. The Chair of the Economy Committee talked well about how Translink had submitted its business case for a year-round Nightmovers service, which will stimulate its customer base and extend the service into future years. The roll-out of public transport is a no-brainer, and the service was successful over the Christmas period and in previous years. We need to build confidence that when you come into the city, you will have a way to get home at the end of the night. I agree with what Carál said, and sometimes getting a taxi from the city centre to where I live in South Belfast can cost £40, which is insane.

I will mention the lack of investment in arts and culture. In Northern Ireland, we invest £5.07 per head compared with £10.51 in Wales and £21.58 in Ireland. Our arts, music and culture bring vibrancy to our city and communities. Belfast without music, theatre or other art forms is unimaginable. It is a unique selling point, and we have to capitalise on it.

There is no point in having an amazing offering of food if it is not safe to go out. The ending violence against women and girls strategy is key. Regeneration and landbanking have to be addressed as well.

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

Ms Nicholl: Thank you.

Mr Kingston: The night-time economy and offering of any city is a vital indicator of its economic, social and cultural wealth. Whether one partakes of the night-time economy rarely or regularly, it is a measure of a thriving and enjoyable city. It is also an important source of employment through bars, restaurants, takeaways, music venues, concert and performance venues, cinemas, theatres and other entertainment venues.

Over the years, there have been many groups dedicated to keeping our streets safe at night, including Belfast Street Pastors, the SOS bus, the PSNI, Belfast City Council's safer neighbourhood officers, Belfast City Centre Management and the three business improvement districts — the Linen Quarter, Belfast One and Destination Cathedral Quarter, and, indeed, the work of our night tsar Michael Stewart. Along with the three other former Belfast Lord Mayors in the Chamber — the others have all spoken — I recognise the groups that were dedicated to making the streets safer during our time in office. I know that other elected representatives have done that as well. That work meant that Belfast city centre received purple flag accreditation in 2020 and again in 2024, which is an international award to recognise a city's commitment to a safe and vibrant night-time economy.

As others have mentioned, a significant addition to city centre living has been the growth of purpose-built student accommodation and the excellent new Ulster University campus in York Street, which has brought literally thousands of young people to live in the city centre, and a thousand more of those units are in the pipeline. That increases the customer base for our city centre economy, including at night time.

A key concern for those using the night-time economy is transport, and as my colleague Phillip Brett said, it is a key issue that we can address. Therefore, whether people use their cars, get a private lift, use a taxi or Translink's train and bus services, how they get home is always a concern. COVID resulted in a reduction in the number of taxi drivers and vehicles. We have all heard about people who cannot get a taxi at night or know a taxi driver who has stopped doing that line of work.

Numbers have picked up a bit since then, but we still have some way to go. We know that the late-night bus service boosts the night-time economy at Christmastime, so I support my colleague's proposal that that should become a year-round service, particularly at weekends. Statutory investment in that public transport will directly support the income, viability and jobs in our night-time economy, so there will be a return to the public purse.

In all our talk about the night-time economy, we should remember that it is not just in the city centre but in other key parts of our city, including Botanic Avenue and local pubs, clubs and venues across the city. Those entertainment venues should not be taken for granted. They all need support. They are also essential to the development of musical talent, and, when we are selling Belfast as a venue to visit or one in which to work, invest or study, the city's nightlife is a crucial consideration and selling point. We all will want for Belfast what we expect when we visit any major modern European capital city, which is that it is a thriving and safe place, day and night.

Mr Brooks: Like colleagues, I have a speech prepared but I will try to paraphrase it and get through the key points. As my colleague from the SDLP said, the night-time economy in Belfast and across Northern Ireland contributes £2 billion to the local economy. It employs thousands of people, from hospitality staff and security personnel to musicians, artists and taxi drivers. The list is endless. However, the night-time economy does face challenges, some of which were outlined by my colleague Joanne Bunting. Sometimes there are increasing concerns around the perception of safety and so on. At times in the social media era, we can be unfair to ourselves relative to other cities. These are challenges that all cities across the globe face, but, nevertheless, I know that work is ongoing in many organisations, some of it outlined by my colleague Mr Brett — the council and others — to try to combat that.

We have a thriving city in terms of its venues. We want to see support for those in the hospitality and entertainment sectors and support for our independent music venues. The Oh Yeah centre has been mentioned. Our music venues, theatres and nightclubs are at the heart of the night-time economy. We have talked about Matthew O'Toole's clubbing years. I have a wide taste in music, but I am very much in the country era. I was going to use that to illustrate the point. Here in Belfast, not only have we had the biggest names at the SSE Arena but there are the traditional names: the Empire, the Limelight and the Ulster Hall. More recently, the Belfast Telegraph Building, having been put to different use, has hosted artists in the past year. We have had emerging talents such as Gareth Hamilton, an artist from Castlederg who has just moved to Belfast's sister city of Nashville. As a city, we should do much more to build upon that link. Others, such as Lainey Wilson and Megan Moroney, may not mean much to people here, but they have played in those venues here in our city in the past year. In the US, they are playing to arenas and stadiums, and I think that there is an appreciation of those private venues where people have invested their own money over the years to build Belfast's name. They are bringing those talents and those experiences to people in Belfast. We should be thankful for that, because Belfast's name and night-time economy is built upon their efforts.

Transport has been mentioned many times. Night buses are a really important intervention. We do need to sort the taxi situation. I am allergic to alcohol, so, quite often, I volunteer to become a taxi driver at the weekends when we are out with friends. Most of my friends, even long before COVID, have complained about the taxi issue, and that is a barrier if you want to attract tourism and visitors to the city to experience everything that we have here. The night buses also allow us to bring the tourists out of the city centre, as has been mentioned, to our main thoroughfares. In the east, I think of Boundary and Bullhouse craft beer venues. I think of Scott's Jazz Club at Ballyhackamore and some of the eateries there as well. I think of Banana Block and CS Lewis Square, which regularly host events. Night buses bring the benefits of tourism to those communities and bring people into the city centre.

I am running short of time. One thing that I really want to mention is the Belfast agenda ambition for 66,000 people to live in the city centre. That would make a cafe culture and some of the other things that we want to see in our city centre viable and sustainable into the future. It is one of the key things that we have to achieve if we want to see change. We can talk about how that message is put across in constituencies, but it is people living in the city centre who will drive politicians' greater interest in the city centre. I welcome the council's ambition, and it will, I think, have a transformative effect.

Like everyone else, I welcome the appointment of the night tsar. That is a really positive intervention —

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

Mr Brooks: — but I will claim him for East Belfast rather than North Belfast, as my colleague mentioned —

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

Mr Brooks: — because he is, I believe, an East Belfast resident.

Ms D Armstrong: I hope that the Member does not mind me making a few brief remarks. As he will understand, I am a strong advocate for the hospitality sector and someone who is not unfamiliar with the Belfast night-time economy. Not wishing to fall foul of your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will focus my remarks on the Belfast night-time economy.

Belfast is Northern Ireland's capital city, its first city and one that we want all our people to be proud of. I commend all the MLAs here who represent Belfast for their obvious passion and ambition for the city, which they have clearly set out. I have enjoyed listening to the debate.

The transformation of the city since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement is astonishing when we think about what Belfast was like in the 1970s and 1980s: derelict, with no tourists and no investment, it was drab and dreary. Then the peace process came, with the Good Friday Agreement. Our former party leader David Trimble was First Minister. From the window of the Waterfront Hall, he pointed and said, "Look at all those cranes. That's progress". He did not mean the yellow Harland and Wolff cranes. Today, we see a city transformed, with sleek new buildings that house world-leading cybersecurity, fintech and many more industries, an expanding hotel sector and the world-famous Titanic building, among others.

When Belfast thrives, Northern Ireland thrives. The expansion of Belfast's night-time economy represents an important element of sustainable growth. The importance of the night-time economy is growing. A vibrant evening and night-time economy can enhance the attractiveness of the city for the local community, visitors and tourists. It can contribute to economic growth through the creation of jobs. Nationally, it is the fifth biggest industry, accounting for at least 8% of the UK's employment, with annual revenue of £66 billion, according to the Night Time Industries Association.

At present in Belfast, however, there are recurring issues: the availability of safe night-time public transport, as referred to by Members; dereliction; homelessness; and evidence of drug use on the streets. Those issues need to be addressed by statutory agencies to provide safe streets and protect vulnerable people.

From an outsider's perspective, I welcome the steps that are being taken to address night-time travel, such as the ambition in Translink's recently announced business case to extend, for a year of weekends, late night-services, including to provincial towns such as mine, Enniskillen. That means that those who live outside Belfast can spend the evening enjoying the hospitality and entertainment attractions and still have a service that enables them to travel home. That is really good news.

I thank the Member for North Belfast and my fellow Economy Committee member for securing the Adjournment debate and supporting growth and expansion to create a 24-hour economy in Belfast.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): There are two minutes left for Deborah Erskine.

Mrs Erskine: Thank you. I had not planned to speak, but I sat in and listened to some of the contributions. Like many in the Chamber, I enjoy the Belfast nightlife — maybe a bit too much. Transport is a fundamental issue for people coming into the city centre. I know that I could not get a bus from Fermanagh to Belfast if I were to go there for a night out. There is another fundamental problem with transport across the city. We need to deal with that and to support our taxi industry by meeting its needs. Accessible travel is an issue for people who are disabled and want to enjoy the Belfast city nightlife. I am speaking as a DUP MLA, not as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, but the Committee has been looking at that.

I thank my colleague for securing the Adjournment debate, which is important for Belfast. It is our capital city for nightlife and the centre of our economy, so it is also important for Northern Ireland as a whole.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for the Economy to respond to the debate. In doing so, Minister, I welcome you to your new role. You have 10 minutes.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

, and thank you for that welcome.

I thank the Member who secured the debate on what is an important issue. As one who lived in Belfast for over a decade and who, like Deborah Erskine, still enjoys a night out in it, I must say that it is a great city in which to go out. It is important that I put that on the record. There is so much to offer: restaurants, bars, music venues and other spaces. There are clearly challenges as well, however.

In 2022, there were 165,000 night-time workers in the North, accounting for around 20% of the workforce, which is a lower proportion than in Britain, where it is at 27%. Between 2019 and 2020, the number of night-time workers declined by almost one third, so there is undoubtedly space to grow our night-time economy. Doing so would create more job opportunities, particularly for young people. It is estimated that around one third of 16- to 24-year-olds in employment work in the night-time economy, which is more than any other age group.

Although the motion is limited to Belfast, this is an opportunity for the whole of the North. Indeed, evidence suggests that night-time work often makes up a higher proportion of employment in rural areas than it does in urban ones.

A thriving night-time economy requires a contribution from various Departments. We need good transport links, clean and safe streets, housing in city and town centres and appropriate licensing laws. For my Department, it is critical to attracting tourists and ensuring a vibrant hospitality sector. The tourism action plan, which was launched in January, provides a road map for the growth of tourism over the next 10 years and aims to increase its value to £2 billion per annum. It covers areas such as marketing, skills, business, tourism, accommodation, sporting events and connectivity.

The policies of the British Government, however, pose a threat to our plans to grow the tourism and hospitality sectors. The electronic travel authorisation (ETA) scheme represents a bureaucratic and cost barrier to international tourists, two thirds of whom come north from Dublin. Increased employers' National Insurance contributions have already been mentioned. Those will further add to the cost of doing business and widen differences between North and South. We continue to lobby the British Government not just on National Insurance but on VAT, where, again, there will be a widening differential, on air passenger duty and on the ETA scheme.

The Department of Finance has commissioned research on the cost of doing business, and that will strengthen the evidence base for our negotiations with London in advance of the spending review. To respond to Mr O'Toole's point, the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre will engage with various business organisations, and there will be opportunities for specific issues to be raised and considered as part of that research.

My Department has also commissioned research, in collaboration with Tourism NI and the three Belfast business improvement districts, on the policy levers that impact on our night-time economy. Kate Nicholl asked what specifically it is looking at: it is looking to put a value on the night-time economy and to get an idea of the importance that it plays for our economy overall. It is anticipated that that research will be completed by May. Belfast will be a key focus of it, along with Derry and, for my Fermanagh and South Tyrone colleagues in the Chamber, Enniskillen.

Given the need for multiple Departments and agencies to work together, many cities throughout Europe have appointed a night tsar. I was pleased to meet Belfast's own night tsar, Michael Stewart, just before the debate. Michael is in the Gallery. I thank him for taking the time to brief me on his work, his priorities and the purple flag accreditation process. Michael's priorities — more late-night transport, tackling violence against women and girls, restoring Culture Night and improving pavement cafe licensing — are all areas in which we can definitely improve through working collaboratively across Departments and with Belfast City Council. I look forward to continuing to work with all partners across the sector, including Michael Stewart, as we build a thriving, safe and diverse night-time economy in Belfast and across the North.

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