Official Report: Tuesday 11 February 2025

Mr Gildernew: Inniu Lá an Idirlín Shábháilte, lá a thugann deis dúinn ár machnamh a dhéanamh ar an tionchar atá ag an idirlíon orainn agus ar na rioscaí atá ann dár sochaí. Tá an t-idirlíon fite fuaite inár saol. Is air a bhíonn muid ag brath go mór i gcúrsaí gach aon lae: is air a dhéanann muid ár gcomhfhreagras; is uaidh a fhaigheann muid ár nuacht; agus is minic gur ar líne a dhéanann muid caidreamh le daoine eile. Ceanglaíonn an t-idirlíon le chéile sinn, ach má cheanglaíonn féin, tá contúirt ann fosta. Tá fás fíochmhar faoin intleacht shaorga, agus, má tá buntáistí móra ag baint léi, is maith is eol dúinne sa tSeomra seo an dochar a thig léi a dhéanamh fosta. Tá na domhainbhrionnuithe, an bhréagnuacht, na camscéimeanna ar líne agus an chibearmhaistíneacht uile ag dul i méid. Is athair beirt bhuachaillí atá sna déaga mé, agus cuireann na forbairtí sin imní orm.

Tá go leor scéimeanna, clár agus tionscnamh ar fáil le gur féidir le gach duine feabhas a chur ar a shlándáil ar líne. Thig linn ciall do na comharthaí contúirte a fhoghlaim agus ciall don dóigh le caidreamh ar líne a dhéanamh le daoine ar bhealach cuí a fhoghlaim lenár gcoinneáil féin sábháilte ar líne. Obair nach bhfuil deireadh léi an obair chéanna, agus tá moladh tuilte acu siúd atá ag foghlaim dúinn an dóigh le fanacht sábháilte ar líne. Cé go bhfuil treoirlínte diana i bhfeidhm leis na rioscaí ar líne a laghdú, is orainne mar úsáideoirí deiridh atá an dualgas muid féin a choinneáil sábháilte agus gan bheith ag gabháil i dteagmháil le hábhar bréige ar cúis ghortaithe agus fuatha é. Fanaigí slán, bígí ar an airdeall, agus, ná bíodh leisce oraibh na cnaipí tuairiscithe a bhrú nuair is gá.

Mr Brett: Across Northern Ireland the marching band scene is at the cultural and social heart of our community. In every quarter and every village and every place that I represent in North Belfast, I am delighted by the work undertaken by our marching bands to preserve our unique history and culture, to bring together people of all ages and genders and to bring together a society in celebration of positive culture.

For many years, our marching band scene did not receive the support that it deserved; indeed, some previous holders of the Department for Communities portfolio stopped funding for our marching bands. My party has a proud record of supporting our marching bands, and I am absolutely delighted that our Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, has once again stepped up to the mark, awarding over £800,000 to 75 bands across Northern Ireland. That impacts not only on the bands, which have thousands of members, but on those who love to listen to our music, those who love to come out to celebrate our culture and those who come together to proudly remember our past. This party will continue to support those bands across Northern Irelan to ensure that they get the support that they deserve. I am particularly delighted that Pride of the Hill Carnmoney, which is marking its 40th anniversary, has received almost £10,000 this year.

As a party, we stand proudly with those bands to help them to secure the funding that they are entitled to. Although the funding may have been very high last year, that is not the limit of our ambition. I make it clear that we will continue to campaign unapologetically for bands across Northern Ireland to continue to receive the support that they need. I look forward to the Communities Minister looking favourably on further applications and ensuring that bands in every part of Northern Ireland and every corner of North Belfast get the support that they deserve.

Mr Honeyford: We hear a lot about dual market access and the advantages that this region has over other parts of the UK and Ireland. New figures released today show that our economic growth is at least resilient, whereas the rest of the UK is contracting. Worryingly, however, business activity is declining. Unfortunately, we do not see a lot of movement from the Department for the Economy to seize the opportunities that dual market access brings. We have all the talent in the world, an entrepreneurial base, a highly skilled workforce and market access, yet the focus seems to be on ourselves rather than on turning outwards to seize the opportunities and use the potential that we have.

When, unfortunately, we left the EU, we lost three fundamental freedoms. The only advantage left for us is in products: we have the ability to export without barriers to either market. The Department does not, however, seem to have a focused vision on bringing forward a manufacturing strategy to grow that part of the economy, giving us more products to export. I have said many times in the Chamber that it is our job to create the platform on which others can flourish, creating the conditions for our economy to grow. The Minister's economic vision listed multiple key industries, but should we not prioritise one, two or three of those in which we have an advantage and drive for growth in them? I call for a definite focus on innovation and advanced manufacturing.

I ask the Minister for the Economy to move on that issue by bringing forward an outward-focused vision for the economy that targets innovation and grows our manufacturing base. We need that in order to increase exports and develop advanced manufacturing across all sectors, to take advantage of dual market access, to grow our economy, to seize opportunities and to provide highly skilled jobs and increased wages in Northern Ireland, thereby bringing growth back to our economy.

Mr Beattie: The Invictus Games were started in 2014 for injured and sick military personnel. This year's Invictus Games are being held in Vancouver and Whistler in Canada and have over 500 participants from 25 nations. This year, for the first time, Team Afghan Unconquered will be represented. That is a team of Afghan military veterans, which is incredibly important. Also of note, however, is the fact that our own Andy Allen is taking part in three events in the Invictus Games: Nordic skiing, rowing and wheelchair rugby.

Andy was only 20 years of age when he lost his legs after stepping on an IED in Afghanistan. I was serving alongside him at the time. I recommend that you all watch the programme 'Wounded', which outlines Andy's fight for life and his fight to recover from the terrible injuries through which he lost his legs and his eyesight was seriously damaged. Andy runs his own charity, he is an effective and incredible constituency MLA, he has an MBE and, now, he is a sportsman. That is stuff that movies are made of.

Sometimes, we do not give credit for what our Members have achieved. Mr Speaker, I hope that you and everybody in the Chamber, regardless of where you sit or what you believe in, will not only congratulate Andy on all that he has achieved but, more so, wish him well as he participates in the games that started yesterday. Hopefully, he can bring us back some success

Dr Aiken: Hear, hear. Well done.

Mr McGrath: I offer congratulations to a group from my constituency, the Downpatrick and County Down Railway, for their double win last weekend at the Heritage Railway Association awards. The railway was nominated in two categories: "Team of the Year, for its core flood-recovery management team; and "Achievement of the Year", for the incredible work achieved by its team of volunteers as part of the flood-recovery process. The floods of autumn 2023 were devastating due to the physical damage that they caused and the fact there was no devolved Assembly in place to support those who were affected.

The railway is Ireland's only full-sized heritage railway with multiple destinations. It hosts a range of family events, from St Patrick's Day right the way through to Christmas, and has a full museum on offer throughout the year. The railway links historical sites throughout County Down. All that is done through the sterling efforts of its team of dedicated volunteers. It is community spirit at its finest, and it is something that we should all be immensely proud of and celebrate.

It is also an example of a grassroots organisation that should be consulted when specific legislation is being proposed. For example, the railway stands to be negatively impacted on by the Martyn's law Bill that is progressing through the House of Commons. Unless the Home Office is willing to make concessions in that for heritage railways, there could be an impact. Therefore, it is essential that this place stands with our heritage railway and offers it the support and advocacy that we can. Most importantly, may we never again leave it without locally elected Ministers in its time of need.

Congratulations to the Downpatrick and County Down Railway group. The awards were richly deserved, and I wish it well in its future endeavours.

Ms Sheerin: An issue that has been brought to my attention by a number of my constituents is the consultation on the employment support scheme. That scheme could be aptly described as "small but mighty". It supports 249 people with complex disabilities across the North, enabling them to work in society. The scheme closed to new applicants in 2006, which means that the 249 people have been in the scheme for a number of years and are comfortable in their roles and enjoy them.

Our party has submitted a response to the consultation. We urge the Department to retain the scheme, given the value that it brings to people and the fact that it allows those with complex disabilities to remain in work, something that is recognised as their right by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Ms Brownlee: I congratulate Carrickfergus Academy on its being awarded the British Council's International School Award. That prestigious recognition highlights the school's outstanding commitment to global connections and to promoting international education. Carrickfergus Academy continues to make a significant and positive impact on our local community, not only by providing high-quality education but by ensuring that young people develop cultural awareness and the skills that are needed to thrive in an increasingly interconnected world.

The academy's dedication to embedding international learning into the curriculum is commendable. A special thanks must go to Miss Fotheringham and her team, who have worked hard and whose passion played a vital role in securing the award. Their efforts to enrich the educational experience of our students and young people have helped to shape globally aware, forward-thinking people.

Once again, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Carrickfergus Academy. The achievement is a testament to the school's dedication to excellence in education. I look forward to seeing the continued success of the staff and students as they build on their fantastic accomplishment.

Ms Bradshaw: I rise to talk about an ongoing issue that remains too prevalent in Northern Ireland and that continues to undermine the peace, stability and progress of our communities. That issue is paramilitarism, its intergenerational impact and the urgent need for a coordinated response to eradicate it from our communities once and for all. One of the recommendations in the annual statement of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission calls on the Executive Office and the UK Government to keep their eyes on the issue and ensure the allocation of:

and organised crime and to establish monitoring:

Beyond that, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission stressed the importance for the Executive Office, working alongside other Departments and the PSNI, to tackle the growing links between paramilitarism and the rising incidents of racism, xenophobia and coercive control in our communities. In recent years, we have seen evidence of those links to such crimes in Northern Ireland, and that cannot go unaddressed.

For the first time, the true extent of childhood trauma and its impact on the people of Northern Ireland has been documented. Last week, at the launch of a groundbreaking study commissioned by the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, Justice Minister, Naomi Long, shared the stark findings of the research. The study revealed the significant levels of trauma that continue to impact on our communities across the generations. The report emphasised that 60% of Northern Ireland's adult population reported at least one traumatic childhood event, with nearly one in five experiencing four or more.

Of particular concern is the finding that 30% of respondents reported conflict-specific adversities, which highlights the continued long-term impact of the Troubles. Importantly, the research underlines the need for trauma-informed approaches, particularly in socially and economically disadvantaged communities, where those challenges are most concentrated. The research provides us with crucial evidence that childhood trauma, including paramilitary-linked trauma, continues to negatively impact on individuals across their lifetime.

It is about time that we saw the full dismantling of our so-called armed groups. It is about transforming attitudes, structures and relationships by taking the findings of the study and ensuring that paramilitary groups no longer have any influence over our communities.

Mr Martin: The Orchardville Society is an organisation in my constituency that has been providing essential services and support for people with learning disabilities and autism for more than 40 years. Annually, it assists over 600 people from across the country, but, most recently, in December, it launched an extended and expanded service in North Down. Recently, I was delighted to meet the staff and users in their new North Down centre, where I saw at first hand the outstanding work that is being done to transform the lives of those with autism or learning disabilities.

The centre in Bangor has quickly become a thriving hub for its participants, welcoming over 100 users every week and projecting an impressive 10,800 attendances annually. Orchardville supports its participants in a range of ways, such as through employability and skills. The team encourages participants to overcome individual barriers to employment and assists them in developing skills to achieve accredited qualifications so that they can pursue secure and paid employment. The organisation is very community-orientated and works to ensure that all its service users are integrated into their local community and forge new friendships through social clubs and weekend activities. It also provides well-being support to participants with problems, such as anxiety, to help them cope better.

Despite the amazing efforts of Orchardville in supporting its clients, it has come under increasing financial pressure very recently. Most notably, the rise in National Insurance contributions, amalgamated with a higher minimum wage threshold, means that Orchardville will now have to find £75,000 to meet the increased costs that those changes will have. It is indefensible to expect it to choose between staff wages and funding. In tandem with the impact of NIC, it has been affected by the reduced funding allocation from the Shared Prosperity Fund, leaving staff unsure about the future due to financial pressures. One-off programmes for Orchardville are simply not sustainable as it is assisting people with disabilities, and many of those people require ongoing support for their employment and skills. It is imperative, therefore, that a long-term financial plan is designed to help and support social enterprises such as Orchardville to carry on the fantastic work that it does, helping some of the most vulnerable in our society. Therefore, I ask the Health Minister to look at measures that will place its funding on a more secure footing and underpin the incredible work that it does.

Mr Carroll: Two weeks ago, I rose in the House to talk about the ceasefire deal in Palestine. I raised my concern about the plaudits lauded onto Donald Trump as some tried to give him credit for the deal. If anyone was ever under any doubt about what Donald Trump really represents or how he views Palestinians, look at what he recently said while standing next to Netanyahu in Washington, a man who is wanted for war crimes, as people to my right in the Chamber should remember. Trump stated that Gaza could be a big real estate site that the US owns. That is, obviously, naked and over-the-top imperial salivating from the US Administration, which have backed Israel's genocide campaign to the hilt.

Despite all the rhetoric from Trump, Palestinians do not want to leave Gaza and should not be forced out of Gaza to go to Jordan, Egypt or anywhere else. The reason why there are millions of people in a tiny bit of land the size of Lough Neagh is that they were forced out. They were ethnically cleansed and forcibly displaced by Israel during the Nakba, and that cannot happen again. You never know — it would be silly to guess — what is going on inside the head of someone such as Donald Trump, but I suspect that that was not just a throwaway comment but the actual intent of where his Administration want to go. It is not that surprising when you think about it and when you see previous presidents' unwavering support for Israel's genocide campaign. It was funded, let us not forget, and cheered on by the US, Britain and most European countries. While Trump's statements are outlandish and extreme, they are quite often parroted by Israeli politicians.

That, obviously, brings focus to what we can do here to oppose Trump and Israel's agenda. First, I make an appeal to everybody watching to attend the Grá don Phalaistín protests this Saturday at 2.00 pm in Writer's Square, organised by Gaels against Genocide. The second is to focus on actions that Ministers in this Building can take. Over recent days, it has been suggested that Invest NI, through its funding mechanisms, could be supporting Israeli warplanes or other machinery. On several other occasions, I have asked several Ministers about how infrastructure at Belfast International Airport in particular can be and possibly is being used to support the Israeli and American war systems. There has been a head-in-the-sand approach from previous Ministers, and I implore the new Minister for the Economy to adopt a different approach, to come clean and to urgently break with apartheid Israel.

Ms Hunter: Last Friday, I had an event that was attended by over 50 families and young people on the issue of school refusal, also known as anxiety-based avoidance or emotional-based avoidance. Many of the parents and young people with whom I spoke on the call voiced that they have never really heard us as elective representatives talk about the issue or about addressing it or talk about addressing the needs and the wants of young people. Many parents with whom I spoke felt that they were very much isolated and alone on this topic, and many have been forced into a position where they have had to leave their job as their child is refusing to go to school. Statistics reveal that, in Northern Ireland, over the past few years, it has become an ever-increasing and more present issue, with 2023 having the worst statistics for school refusal since they began.

A number of factors contribute to our young people not wanting to go to school. It is not a matter of the children being, as they are labelled, "troublemakers" but is so much to do with delays in assessments for autism and ADHD. Children feel unheard and overwhelmed. I thank a young lady called Emily, aged 13 and in year 9, who shared her story about recently being diagnosed with autism. She talked about the complexity and difficulty of school attendance and the importance of feeling that her needs are recognised in school.

It is not that our young people have a problem but, fundamentally, that our education system is flawed. The system is rigid, not flexible or agile, and does not meet the needs of our young people. We need to transition to a more inclusive and understanding learning environment for children who struggle with things such as routine and therefore really struggle with the current learning environment and face significant anxiety.

I was struck by a story that I heard from a mum whose young son really struggled to go to school. He is academically able and intellectual, and he loves to learn, but he had anxiety about sitting exams. As a result, he left school with no GCSEs, there is now no school place for him — only two schools in Northern Ireland offer students the chance to sit GCSEs outside our traditional system — and he has no pathway to get those credentials. That is crazy, and the House needs to be aware of it.

To the parents who are listening today, I say that they are not on their own. The Education Committee will be addressing the issue this week when we will meet representatives to discuss school attendance. I firmly believe that we need to listen to our young people about why they do not show up for school and to recognise that the problem is with not them but the education system as a whole. We will do all we can at the Education Committee, hopefully, to get answers and the change that is necessary.

Mr Gaston: The abortion stats recently published by the Department of Health show that the number of abortions being carried out in Northern Ireland has increased by a shocking 77% since 2020-21.The number of unborn children being denied a chance of life is up 29% on last year, with 2,792 perishing in the past year. The level of data published by the Department continues to fall well below that released by health authorities in England and Wales. There, information on the socio-economic background of the mother, whether she had more than one abortion and on other matters is provided. In 2024, my predecessor, Jim Allister, received an assurance from the then Health Minister that the situation would change. Why has it not?

It is time that we had a properly informed debate on the issue. It is clear from those figures that abortion is increasingly becoming just another form of birth control in Northern Ireland and that the dishonest debate around the matter in the early 2020s, framed around hard cases, did not deal with the real issues created by the legislation.

The famous anti-slavery campaigner William Wilberforce said of the great evil of his day:

There is a tendency in the House to look the other way when it comes to many things. One of those matters is abortion. I noted, for example, that, following the publication of the stats, I was the only MLA to comment on the matter. Could it be that some who say that they are pro-life do not find it expedient any more to say so often? Whatever the reason, they must answer for themselves.

I will continue to force people in the House to face the truth, whether that is about the bloody terror campaign that resulted in the Belfast Agreement or the slaughter of unborn children ushered in by the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, which, I remind the House, enabled the DUP to renew its immoral partnership with Sinn Féin.

Mr Buckley: I am fortunate to follow two Members who focused their remarks on young people, children and, indeed, the unborn, because I will address an injustice that has left many people in my constituency with a sense of utter disgust and bewilderment at the state of our legal system.

Yesterday, it was reported that a 28-year-old man was found to be in possession of 77 grossly indecent images and videos of children.

It was evidence of real abuse and real suffering. That man contributed to a cycle of harrowing abuse. Members, let me be clear: they were not just images and videos. Each one represented a child who was exploited and had their innocence stolen and their pain recorded for the pleasure of predators to consume. By possessing them, that man contributed to the cycle of abuse. He was not just a bystander; he was complicit. Yet, instead of a lengthy prison sentence, he was handed just 80 hours of community service and two years' probation.

We cannot blame the police in this instance. They carried out a robust, thorough investigation, only to be failed once again by our judiciary. His case is not in isolation. Let us look at the BBC's former journalist, Huw Edwards. Again, there was possession of indecent images and videos. He avoided jail, and those who supplied him with the images avoided jail. In 2023, the National Crime Agency said that eight out of 10 people in the United Kingdom caught with indecent images of children being sexually abused avoided jail. That is absolutely shocking. Members often talk in the Chamber about the dangerous place that this society is for women, and that is true, but please let us put a laser-like focus on the abuse that our young people and children face throughout this country.

It is not just the issues that I have raised. Look at the shocking testimonies of those who were involved in grooming-gang abuse across the United Kingdom, whether it be Telford, Rochdale or other areas. Are the police aware of similar grooming gangs in Northern Ireland? We simply do not know how deep it could go.

How does this protect our children? How is this justice? Our judiciary is failing our police force and our children, and it is time that we took action.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move

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

Dr Archibald: A key priority of my Department's economic plan is the decarbonisation of our economy. It is a moral obligation to future generations. The transition to net zero also creates the opportunity to increase the number of good jobs, raise productivity and drive regional balance across the North. Anything that supports that transition is to be welcomed.

The Great British Energy Bill was introduced at Westminster on 25 July 2024. It creates a new publicly owned company to support the delivery of clean power projects here and in Britain. It is worth emphasising that the Bill only establishes the company: how it operates in practice will be determined by the policy directions given to the company.

Energy policy is fully devolved under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It should therefore be for me, as Economy Minister, to set those policy directions. However, the original iteration of the Bill did not respect devolution. My predecessor, Conor Murphy, therefore sought amendments that would allow us to consent to the Bill. Our Scottish and Welsh counterparts had similar concerns. Those efforts led to an amendment to clause 5 that requires my Department to consent to the strategic statement that the Secretary of State lays at Westminster. That ensures that the strategic approach taken by the company aligns with my economic plans and those outlined in the draft Programme for Government. Following discussions at the Executive, it was agreed that I should now seek the legislative consent of the Assembly that the Bill's provisions be extended to here.

My officials are already working closely with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) to ensure that the work of the company aligns with that of my Department and supports SMEs. That work includes shaping the British Government's local power plans. It is proposed that the local power plan for the North will identify small and medium-sized renewable projects that GB Energy will invest in, driving development of those low-carbon energy projects. Importantly, GB Energy will focus on building the supply chains necessary to meet the demands of rolling out a decarbonised energy sector.

Early indications are that GB Energy has the potential to support the transition to net zero. I will, however, scrutinise all proposals to ensure that our devolved powers are properly represented and respected. I therefore commend the motion to the Assembly and thank Members for their support at this juncture.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): My initial remarks will be made on behalf of the Committee for the Economy.

The Great British Energy Bill was introduced just after the general election in July 2024, and it is understood that the Minister for the Economy at the time engaged with His Majesty's Government at some length on the Bill's devolved aspects. It is understood that similar engagement took place for other parts of the United Kingdom with the devolved legislatures in Wales and Scotland. The then Minister, Conor Murphy, corresponded with the Committee about the Bill in September 2024, and the Department provided a departmental evidence session a considerable time later, on 8 January 2025, that included the related amendments that the Minister has just articulated to the House. Brief written responses to the Committee's queries were provided a few days later.

It is evident that the new energy company that the Bill establishes is designed to undertake project development in order to develop new renewable energy capacity and local power plans that would make communities stakeholders in small and medium-scale projects. The energy company is also to develop, in partnership with the Crown Estate, new offshore wind capacity of up to 20 to 30 GW by 2030 and invest in ports across the United Kingdom. The UK Government have announced £8·3 billion of funding for Great British Energy over the course of the Parliament, including £3·3 billion for local projects. The Department was unable, however, to clarify the degree of agency that the Department will enjoy in respect of directing the Great British Energy investment. That said, officials also advised the Committee that Great British Energy is expected to engage with key players in Northern Ireland as part of its role.

As the House is aware, Standing Orders generally require Statutory Committees to report on the devolved provisions in relevant legislation. The idea is that the Committee can inform Members' deliberations on the legislative consent motion (LCM) before them. The Committee's report on the LCM was therefore shared with Members last week. It provides commentary on Great British Energy and the potential overlap with devolved matters. The Department was unable to provide detail on how the energy company will work in Northern Ireland, although that was not the fault of the Department, which has sought that information from the UK Government. Nonetheless, Great British Energy will mean welcome investment in our renewable sector. In the absence of clarity from Whitehall, the Committee was unable to come to a final view on the LCM.

I will now speak as DUP spokesperson on the economy. As a party, we are happy to support the LCM that is before the House today. At the previous general election, the DUP set out our intention to explore how Northern Ireland businesses and projects with green and clean ambitions can better tap into UK-wide funding, supply chains and incentives. It is clear that there will need to be engagement from the Department for the Government to understand the unique operation of the energy sector in Northern Ireland. As a party, we will play our part in that.

I note the Minister's concern about decisions being made that impact on the devolved settlement here. I gently point out that those concerns did not exist for some Members when similar issues in relation to EU legislation were before the House. I have made those important points. My party will support the LCM.

Mr O'Toole: I rise, to use the cliché, not to speak in support of the LCM, although we will not force a Division on it, but, rather, to put on record real and important observations about the lack of information, which the Chair of the Economy Committee has just referred to, about how Great British Energy will operate in Northern Ireland.

It is important to say that one of the priorities, notwithstanding the concerning utterances and plans of the Trump Administration, for the rest of this century in most of the world will be to decarbonise our economies, moving towards clean energy and away from the burning of fossil fuels. It is therefore welcome in principle that there will be a state-owned entity to drive investment in various types of renewables project. We have no difficulty with that, albeit that the title is not one that we would have selected. We welcome the principle of a state-owned energy company. However, energy here is devolved, and that is an important matter.

We are having a debate in the absence of real detailed information about how GB Energy will select, prioritise and direct investments in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is also part of an all-island single electricity market. We are bound by aspects of European law in that regard, which is for a good reason: it enables us to keep the lights on, because we have a single grid operating on the island. None of that is necessarily a deterrent to GB Energy operating in Northern Ireland; in fact, I hope that it will make us a more attractive investment proposition, because we certainly have the capacity to and already do export energy to the EU via the rest of Ireland. Hopefully, ultimately, through the greater use of interconnections, we will export it across the continent of Europe. However, I draw Members' attention to the unique regulatory and investment position that Northern Ireland is in.

We have very little detail as yet about how GB Energy will reflect that unique regulatory proposition or about how it will select and prioritise pieces of investment. From what the Minister said, it sounds as though that is not simply a failing on the part of her Department; clearly, part of it comes from the home UK Department, which has yet to provide clarity on how all of this will work. We, as an Opposition, would not be doing our job if we did not say today that it is concerning that we are bringing forward an LCM without clarity from the UK Government about precisely how it will operate. I want my words to be in Hansard, because I am concerned.

The Sewel convention operates with regard to how LCMs are brought forward in devolved legislatures. Given that UK Governments often disregard the rejection of LCMs by devolved legislatures — I hope that the current UK Government are less wont to do that than their predecessor — and have the prerogative to simply carry on anyway, it is really important that, when an LCM is going to pass, as, it appears, this one will, there are clear words in the Hansard of our devolved legislature that demonstrate that we are not in a good position in terms of what we know and do not know about how Great British Energy will operate. It matters because we have an energy strategy and an implementation plan in Northern Ireland.

We have made progress over the past decade and more on moving our generation towards renewables, and we have specific advantages as part of islands in the north Atlantic that, for example, generate a lot of wind and tidal energy. However, there are also concerns from energy companies — I am sure that they have vocalised them to members of the Economy Committee — about the certainty of when certain interconnectors, whether they are North/South or east-west, will be built. There are concerns in that respect from industry and the investment community, which we need to be behind what we do on energy.

I am simply putting on record some concerns that I have about the fact that we do not yet know how Great British Energy will interact in Northern Ireland. It may well be a really useful and positive source of getting investment into our renewables sector here, which would be welcome. We are not going to force a Division simply for that reason, but it is concerning that we do not yet have detail.

It is also the case that, in the future, there could be UK Governments of different political persuasions and perspectives who might want to use Great British Energy to prioritise their own type of investment, which might be different from what a devolved Minister, in conjunction with their counterpart in the Republic, might want to prioritise. We need to be alive to all those things and working on all those things.

If the LCM is accepted today — I think that it will be — we cannot simply allow some random official in Whitehall to say, "Ah well, the Northern Ireland Assembly gave its legislative consent to this. We can basically do what we like now". Frankly, I fear that that is what will happen, given that, often, when we withhold our legislative consent to something, they do it anyway. We need to have absolute clarity and have it on the record. Perhaps we can hear from the Minister what she intends to do and what the Executive intend to do to get commitments in writing and articulated on the record. We want commitments on safeguards for the devolved settlement. That is number one. We want commitments on our specific legal and regulatory context here in the North and on the island of Ireland; the fact that we operate within a single electricity market on the island of Ireland; and the fact that we have unique and distinct opportunities in exporting energy across the EU and want those to be respected and maximised. What specific promises or provisions will be made to help us to maximise our dual market access and potential opportunities there, which Great British Energy could help us to fulfil? I would like all those on the record.

I would like more detail on how the Bill will respect the devolved settlement. The Minister said that amendments had come forward. That is progress. I am glad that Minister Murphy sought and got further clarity. As the Minister said, this is a Bill that just creates an entity called Great British Energy; it does not start to make investments, and it does not start to set strategic priorities. However, we are beginning to go down the road of the existence of this legal entity. We need more clarity and detail about how, as I said, it will respect the devolved settlement, respect our unique regulatory position and enable us to maximise dual market access. All those things are important.

Finally, we are, it appears, passing an LCM to help the UK Government, which came into power in July of last year, to create an entity called Great British Energy. The Minister's previous Department did not bring forward similar enabling legislation for an entity that has existed for almost five years: the Fiscal Council. We are waiting, waiting and waiting for the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate for the Fiscal Council, but we are passing a motion on Great British Energy. That is slightly in parenthesis and not really to do with what we are debating today, but it points to the slight difficulty that we have in respect of legislation coming through here.

We will not force a Division on the LCM, but I want us to put on the record that we have specific issues that we want to see the UK Government address. I would like to hear the Minister for the Economy tell us specifically how she and her colleagues will raise those with the UK Government.

Ms Sheerin: I support the LCM, the details of which have been outlined by my party colleague the Economy Minister. All Members will agree that it is important that our commitment to net zero be upheld, and, obviously, the same commitment is the basis on which this energy company has been formalised by the British Government. The establishment of that is important. It is also important that policies reflect the specific nature of our economy in the North, our society and the different needs of the businesses, people and families operating here.

As has been outlined, the assurances that were acquired by the former Economy Minister, Minister Murphy, in establishing that any policy needs consent from us in the North, are key to that. It is key that devolution is respected and that we have a say in what is to be implemented here and what will be expected of our businesses.

Mr Honeyford: Alliance supports the transition towards renewable energy. We absolutely want to see that happen at a much faster pace, and we want to see the energy security and all the benefits that come with that, not to mention cleaner air and a cleaner environment. Anything that we can do to progress our journey to net zero is to be welcomed. Growth in renewables has stalled in the past while. We are still sitting at under 50%. We had a quick upward trajectory, but, unfortunately, that has stalled. With the deadline of 2030 to achieve 80% quickly approaching, we need to be doing all that we can to progress that, so I am happy to support the LCM and progress it at this stage. However, I want to flag up the fact that we are seriously lacking detail on the outworkings in Northern Ireland. I have raised that issue at every level, including at Committee. The Secretary of State was in Lisburn only a matter of weeks ago, and I discussed it with him then. There was little information or detail then — in fact, there was none — on how it will work. It is another example in which we feel a bit like we are an afterthought: the main focus has been on GB, obviously, and then there has been a realisation that our energy system is not connected. There is a concern about the outworkings here, because we are not connected to the GB infrastructure. Maybe the Minister will elaborate on that.

She laid out a bit more information, which I appreciate, but I am thinking about what we can achieve as we move towards the 80% by 2030 deadline. How can we use GB Energy to deliver for people here? Maybe the Minister can confirm whether there will be a Barnett consequential. Will there be equal funding? How will that be accessed? Will it be used like the British Business Bank? Will a company approach GB Energy and use it as a fund? Are we ruling out state-owned infrastructure in Northern Ireland? That is all unclear. I look forward to seeing the detail coming through. I am happy to support the LCM and, indeed, anything that will bring our renewables further on and move this place forward so that we get delivery.

Dr Aiken: The Ulster Unionist Party supports the LCM. I declare an interest, because, when GB Energy was first mooted, I had conversations with the current UK Government about its remit and what it was likely to do. Specifically, we looked at the £8·3 billion of investment that is supposed to be made over time, where it is likely to go and the amount of it that is expected to come to Northern Ireland. The indications were that somewhere in the region of £500 million to £600 million is expected to come to Northern Ireland from GB Energy.

The Great British Energy Bill contains some elements that are crucial to Northern Ireland. We have heard about the integrated single electricity market (I-SEM), but we are in a fairly strange situation in that, while our electricity market is part of an all-island regulatory and budgetary framework, it is, in fact, only connected to GB. One of the things that we need to see is whether there will be sufficient investment in the new Lir interconnector that has to go in and whether there have been any developments on the North/South interconnector. Maybe the Minister will address those issues. Quite frankly, at the moment, the I-SEM is only a series of methodologies to transfer funds with no physical linkage. That is a considerable problem for energy security.

One of the other issues with GB Energy is its links with the Crown Estate. That is important, because if we are to have a workable offshore wind industry in Northern Ireland, we need to resolve the issue with the Crown Estate and how we can move on. The Minister will be aware — or she should be following her first day brief from her predecessor — that several companies wish to invest in offshore wind in Northern Ireland. There are two main hold-ups to that. The first seems to be the interrelationship with the Crown Estate, which we need to deal with at speed. The second hold-up is due to issues with interconnection. I never really got a satisfactory answer from the Minister's predecessor about what his views were on interconnection. It is vital that we build not only the North/South interconnector at a cost that is reasonable — in that it will not be buried all the way — but a second interconnector that goes east-west to support that. That is critical.

The next issue is about hydrogen. GB Energy is key to moving towards green hydrogen. We know that there are ample opportunities in Northern Ireland for the rapid adoption of green hydrogen and for us to be able to take a waste product, particularly from the agriculture sector, and turn it into a useful product. That will need regulatory frameworks, but I note, Minister, that, so far, the only areas in which investment in green hydrogen is going ahead are in the Merseyside region. Maybe the Minister will address why her officials and Department are not engaging directly with GB Energy to ask why significant investment is not also coming to us to try to make green hydrogen.

We have talked about offshore wind, but it is important that a significant investment goes into the Celtic Sea for that. The critical point is to make sure that we have appropriate interconnection across these islands — not just this island but these islands. These islands need to be directly linked to the European market, and, again, we need to look at that, because, far from being supportive of that, the I-SEM is anticompetitive. When you are talking about GB Energy and the importance of the LCM, Minister, I would like you to address what we are doing about a review of the I-SEM, which is being anticompetitive and really creating significant problems in how we are looking at our future energy market and in how we get to the decarbonisation of energy by 2030.

My final remark is to my friends to my right. I really miss my learned friend Mr Frew, who would normally talk quite a lot about these issues. Minister, I re-emphasise that the Ulster Unionist Party will support the LCM, and I look forward to your remarks.

Mr Carroll: I have some concerns about the Great British Energy Bill, the company and the LCM. I also have concerns when I hear Members say that there is a lack of information about the LCM, which is pretty stark but a fair point to make. My concern is that Members seemingly have big questions but still want to vote for the LCM. That is a bit of a warning for me. It is very concerning, and it should scream out to other people.

The £8·3 billion funding from the British Government to establish the energy company is a significant reduction from the £28 billion investment that the Labour Party initially announced before the Westminster election. There are also massive concerns about the fact that the company will not be a publicly owned energy supplier. It will use billions of pounds of public money to construct green infrastructure that private energy companies will then use. Publicly funded and paid-for infrastructure will be used by private companies to continue to fleece people, rip them off and increase prices once again. The private provision of energy means higher bills. Some people claim that it is about regulation or bureaucracy. No — it is privatisation and profiteering, which cause people's energy bills to go up, and that is what has been happening for at least the past four years. That point flies in the face of the just transition principles that the previous Assembly voted for and that current Executive parties supported.

To make a general point that is connected to the LCM, we cannot rely on the goodwill or the greenwashing of multinational energy companies to reduce emissions and stop the climate chaos. They are the reason why we are in this mess in the first place. We also need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and I implore the Minister to keep to that commitment. You cannot control or regulate what you do not own. There is a wider point about nationalising energy that the Member from Lagan Valley raised. It is a real concern that the Bill is not about publicly owned energy; it is about privatisation and allowing it to continue.

The Bill, essentially, sets the groundwork for a company that will be allocated large sums of public money for a private industry with the objective of stimulating the private industry with a huge handout. Labour's description of the Great British Energy Bill is that it aims to:

and "accelerate private-sector development". Those are massive red flags for me, and the Minister should, at the very least, address them. There are serious questions about whether the LCM should be supported at all not just by me or the leader of the Opposition but, seemingly, by members of the Committee.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for the Economy to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion.

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

I thank Members for their contributions and welcome the interest that has been shown in this important issue.

As I set out in my opening remarks, it is not yet clear how GB Energy will operate in practice. Indications from the British Government are that it will drive clean energy development, create employment opportunities and boost energy independence. Importantly, my Department has been assured that GB Energy will work with local businesses with expertise in the area of energy and decarbonisation, investing in supply chains and promoting local growth.

I will pick up on a couple of points for clarity. If the LCM is not approved, GB Energy will still be established as a company and will still operate here, but we will have no ability to input or engage, whereas, following the intervention of my predecessor, the GB Energy Bill will now properly take account of devolution. It will allow us to feed into and shape that strategic direction and the local policy plans once GB Energy is established. Importantly, it requires the consent of the Assembly and the Scottish and Welsh Governments in respect of that. The company will have to operate in our regulatory environment. Therefore, we have the opportunity to shape what will be taken forward.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for giving way. I understand the principles and the risks associated with not giving legislative consent. However, can the Minister tell the House why the Department, which first had sight of the legislative consent mechanism six months ago, failed to bring it to the Committee to allow proper scrutiny at the time?

Dr Archibald: The Member will, of course, appreciate that I am in the job only a week. However, my understanding is that officials have had significant engagement with DESNZ over that time, most importantly to ensure that the amendments that we now see were brought forward and that we got the assurances that we now have that we will be able to shape the strategic direction of GB Energy once it is established. That is really important. It will allow us to engage collaboratively and to coordinate on the issue, which is clearly challenging not just for us as an Assembly but for Governments across the world, regarding our ambitions and the necessity to decarbonise.

Obviously, the schemes are still being developed, so there is significant work still to be done there. Officials are very engaged in that process and are working with DESNZ. Again, on the funding issues that were raised, we are still getting clarity on how exactly that will flow and how those schemes will be developed. We have been given assurances that that will be done in partnership with local businesses and those who have expertise in the field to ensure that what is being developed very much respects our priorities and takes account of them in what is being taken forward.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way and appreciate the clarification that she is offering. She said that, if we did not pass the LCM, we would be excluded. I do not think that it will happen, but, if the LCM were not passed, is it not true that the UK Government would be fully within their rights, as we have discovered previously, to plough on regardless and put Northern Ireland in? LCMs, whether they are rejected or endorsed, are not binding on the UK Government. It would also be the case that, if it were rejected, the UK Government could come back with a different proposal. They could even come back with more written clarification, and then we could have another LCM in a week or a month's time.

Dr Archibald: It would be bad form if they were to plough on regardless, as, I am sure, the Member would agree. As I said, if the LCM is not passed, it does not preclude GB Energy, as a company, from operating in the North and we would have absolutely no ability to shape what is developed or taken forward.

The approval of the motion enables us to remain engaged as work on GB Energy progresses. It also helps to ensure that the Executive's policy priorities are properly reflected. Therefore, I recommend that the Assembly passes the motion.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I genuinely ask for clarification from the Chair. When an LCM is granted, is a Minister obliged to come back with more detail, or are the UK Government obliged to give the Assembly more detail on the meaning that they have divined from an LCM being granted? It is clear today that, while people agree with some of the principles of the GB Energy Bill, there is real concern about the devolved settlement and our unique position.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for that, Mr O'Toole. I am informed that, if a Bill were to be subsequently amended, there would be a further debate on that amendment.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I invite Members to take their ease for a moment while we set up for the next item.

Mr Durkan: 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.

Mr Durkan, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Durkan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to propose this motion on the universal credit five-week wait and its inextricable links with illegal moneylending, another hook that paramilitaries — organised crime gangs — use to tighten their grip on our communities. It is a quiet, untold threat that preys on vulnerability and desperation, emboldened by the disaster that has been welfare reform.

The universal credit system was supposed to support the most impoverished and in-need households; instead, the five-week wait leaves those who already struggle to make ends meet in a state of panic over how they will cope. It is not only debt-inducing but dangerous. It is a gateway for loan sharks to step in and offer a way out with no credit checks or paperwork, just a promise of fast cash. Once fear and intimidation take hold, victims are understandably reluctant to come forward. That reluctance suggests that the issue is far more widespread than is reported.

What we know comes from the brave individuals who have told their stories. Those stories often follow the same pattern, with the same shame and fear attached. In my experience, the issue disproportionately impacts single mothers. I see parents who have exhausted all avenues of support turning to my office to seek help with food vouchers or emergency financial support. A cuppa while they wait and a general chit-chat around the cost of living inevitably breaks down barriers, and people begin to talk. They tell a tale of desperation, which often begins with receiving a migration letter informing the individual that they should apply for UC before said date or risk losing their benefits. The letter, currently focusing on those in receipt of tax credits and mostly young families, fails to mention the five-week wait, nor does it direct claimants to relevant support. That realisation normally comes post application, as worried parents scramble to cover costs. Typically, front-line UC staff offer an advance, which needs to be repaid, but the contingency fund is not routinely mentioned. Most people whom I have spoken to were completely unaware of its existence. It is clear that the current framework is inaccessible and fails those whom it is supposed to support.

Yesterday, I spoke on the carers motion and said that it was not perfect. My motion today is not perfect either, so I welcome the amendments. I am glad that we have the motion on the Floor for debate. I am glad to see that the Alliance amendment, which we will support, calls for the renaming of the contingency fund, which will ensure that those who need it can find it. However, renaming alone is not enough.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member says that renaming the fund is not enough: what would be enough?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his intervention. The Department and its staff must do more to promote the fund, update guidance to expand its use and increase the budget to ensure that it achieves its intended purpose of helping those struggling with the five-week wait. Backdating UC, particularly for care leavers or those missing out on three or more weeks of housing benefit, is important. However, if the contingency fund were strengthened and amended effectively, it could help to reduce the need for backdating. Whilst today's focus is on the five-week wait, I would like to see funding restored for both the contingency fund and the social fund, which has seen support fall by 60% in just four years. That reduction forces more people towards high-cost illegal lenders.

What is even more worrying than the invisibility and inaccessibility of the contingency fund is the apparent indifference of the Minister. When I asked him about addressing the five-week wait and his Department's research into debt, poverty and illegal moneylending, he referred me to an answer from a year ago. Not only has research not been conducted but there appear to be no plans to address it, although that is very much in keeping with the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on welfare and poverty, which highlighted concerns that Ministers and the Department for Communities appear to be too far removed from the experience of those impacted by welfare policies. Not only are we in danger of creating bad policy that destroys lives, it also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the damage being done.

Later today, the Minister will give a statement on tackling benefit fraud. Whilst I am sure that we will all support attempts to prevent people from abusing the system, what will the Minister do to stop the system abusing people? We look forward to statements from the Minister on tackling error in benefits as well and maybe from the Government in London on tackling tax evasion and avoidance, which cost us billions.

Meanwhile, half of UC claimants struggle to afford food and bills during the waiting period. The Trussell Trust has repeatedly stated that the wait is a key driver of food bank use that pushes millions of people into crisis. It has led to acute and immediate financial hardship and worsened households' longer-term financial resilience. That is the reality of the erosion of social welfare under welfare reform. What was once a safety net is now full of gaping holes, allowing people to fall into the jaws of predatory loan sharks.

We have only scratched the surface of the issue. Alarmingly, research by Ulster University has shown that, while fear is one obstacle to getting reliable data on illegal moneylending, another is that the practice is so commonplace here that it has become unremarkable. Research shows that 43% of victims of loan sharks said that they had been abused, threatened or physically harmed as a result of taking a loan. A third of them had considered taking their life. We cannot afford to ignore the issue.

I am also deeply concerned about the impending managed migration of employment and support allowance (ESA) claimants to universal credit. ESA supports those who are unable to work because of illness or disability. They are some of society's most vulnerable individuals and are arguably the least well equipped to navigate the transition and the most at risk of exploitation by illegal moneylenders. How will they be protected?

When I raised concerns with the Minister last month, he advised that people affected by illegal moneylending should simply seek support from Advice NI. Advice NI is a fantastic organisation, but the advice sector is already overwhelmed. How will the Department support that sector to ensure that it can support people?

We call for the establishment of a working group —.

Mr McGlone: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: I will run out of time. Sorry.

We call for the establishment of a working group that brings together Departments, the PSNI, the advice sector, financial institutions and credit unions with input from those with lived experience. We want to see the immediate renaming and reform of the contingency fund, targeted investment and solutions to eliminate the five-week wait. In the short term, there should be collaboration on a leaflet to be included with every managed migration notice, ensuring that claimants are fully informed about the five-week wait and the risks of illegal moneylending and are signposted to appropriate support. That should be an easy enough ask. Such a leaflet would also be useful to people who are allocated new homes. In my constituency, I have seen organised crime groups, gangs or paramilitaries go from door to door in new housing estates offering to lend people money to furnish their home.

"What would you do?" is the question that I am asked time and time again. People tell me, "I was paying back numerous loans already. I had no gas in the meter. I had used emergency credit on my electricity, and an answer came knocking. I had no idea what I was getting myself into. What would you do?". I therefore ask the Minister this: what will you do? Resolving the issue requires cross-departmental working, but the first step begins with you, Minister. People should not be forced to live in fear in order to make ends meet.

I commend the motion to the House.

Ms Mulholland: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The proposer of amendment No 1 will have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the proposer of the motion. We have much common ground. I am really pleased to speak about one of the most pressing issues that face the constituents whom I deal with about universal credit.

As the roll-out of universal credit continues, with households in receipt of tax credits needing to be migrated before 5 April, even more households will face the punitive five-week wait. We need to understand what that means in practice. It means people living for five weeks without any income whatever when they are already vulnerable. It means five weeks of impossible choices between heating and eating; five weeks of mounting anxiety over rent arrears; and five weeks that can push families who are just about managing into a spiral of debt from which it is absolutely impossible to escape. The five-week wait is not an accidental flaw but an explicit design feature of the universal credit system that is driving poverty and misery in every corner of Northern Ireland.

The evidence of the impact of the wait is overwhelming. While conducting research on the general issues that people faced with universal credit last year, my party and I found that the top issue that came up — overwhelmingly so — was the five-week wait, because of the impact that it has in both the short and long term on people who are dealing with loans, be they official or illegal. That research led to the development of our policy paper, 'No More Time to Wait', the title of which came directly from a claimant's saying, "Never mind the five-week wait; we have no more time to wait". In many cases, verification delays, claim amendments and other issues may mean that the wait is even longer than five weeks. UK data shows that one in eight new universal credit claimants were not paid on time in January 2024. In Northern Ireland, universal credit claimants have highlighted waits of up to six to eight weeks for their first payment. More widely, the Work and Pensions Select Committee heard evidence from people who had waited for more than 11 weeks without receiving anything.

The Trussell Trust reported that there was a consistent pattern across these islands that, wherever universal credit had been rolled out, food bank use had increased. In areas where universal credit had been in place for 12 months or more, food banks had seen an average increase in demand of up to 52%. That is not coincidental; it is causal. Parents, who make up over 50% of universal credit claimants in Northern Ireland, face unique challenges during that five-week wait. Some legacy benefits offer a two-week run-on period, whereas child tax credit does not. That leaves many parents without any additional support for their child's needs. Additionally, the fact that parents have to pay childcare fees a month up front often forces them to take on more debt or to give up work entirely if they experience that five-week wait.

The Alliance Party has consistently called for reform of universal credit. If it is to be worth anything, the social security system must provide a safety net at the point where people need help, rather than letting them fall, without having any financial support for five weeks. While we support the principles of simplifying the benefits system and making work pay, we cannot stand by while the five-week wait undermines those very objectives. The current system of advance payments is not the solution either: it merely spreads the hardship over a longer period as claimants struggle to repay those advances from their already stretched monthly payments. Since universal credit was introduced in Northern Ireland, over 100,000 households have taken out an advance payment. I find it deeply concerning that many claimants are not made aware of the risks of taking on an advance payment. They are immediate-term fixes that, in most cases, simply kick the financial crisis slightly further down the road.

Perhaps most alarming is the growing evidence of vulnerable people turning to illegal moneylenders or loan sharks out of sheer desperation during the five-week wait. Those predatory criminals exploit people's desperation, charging exorbitant interest rates and often using threats and intimidation to collect payments. During the debate on our motion about child poverty, Members heard about two young single mothers who had their windows broken because of their inability to repay debt to illegal moneylenders. It is not just a financial issue; it is a serious social and criminal justice issue.

I commend the efforts of the Executive programme for tackling paramilitary activity and organised crime. That comprehensive cross-departmental initiative is led by the Department of Justice under Minister Naomi Long. While that cross-departmental programme addresses all aspects of paramilitary activity and organised crime, it places particular emphasis on combating illegal moneylending, especially in cases of criminals preying on and intimidating society's most vulnerable.

In the here and now, the Minister for Communities has the power to take meaningful action and make meaningful change. While the universal credit contingency fund is welcome, it is too limited in its scope, scale and eligibility, as Mr Durkan mentioned. For probably as long as I have been an MLA, we have called for the fund to be urgently renamed and reformed to make it more accessible to those who desperately need it. We have heard repeatedly from claimants who have never even heard of the contingency fund. It is not offered as a standard first response to those who engage in their first universal credit claim and is often hidden online. People do not see it when they go in to their journal. The contingency fund or whatever its new identity is confirmed to be should be the default option. I agree with Mr Durkan on the option of an easy-to-understand leaflet. When you are in the midst of the life admin that comes with a universal credit claim, it can be really difficult to understand the options that are open to you. Something that is easy to understand and accessible to all, particularly the most vulnerable, would be a welcome option. The scale of the fund should be widened to counter the number of claimants getting into debt before their UC journey has even begun.

More fundamentally, we urge the introduction of a system of backdating for a claimant's first universal credit assessment period. Using the month before a person's claim for universal credit for their initial assessment period in order to provide a much quicker first payment for some eligible claimants can happen currently, but it is available only in certain circumstances and requires an extraordinary amount of proof. Backdating the first assessment period in that way would give some eligible claimants much faster or, in some cases, immediate access to payment, provided that they had not earned too much in the previous month. It avoids the need for people to take an advance payment and risk falling into that cycle. It is an approach that has been supported by expert stakeholders, including the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Policy in Practice, all of which I met and discussed the solution with while preparing our paper.

A balanced approach, as outlined by IPPR, would be to allow claimants to backdate their claim by two weeks. Essentially, they would receive half of their estimated award up front and could then take out a smaller advance payment with more affordable repayment terms spread out over a longer period. That solution would still encourage people to apply for UC promptly but would significantly reduce their initial debt burden and control the costs for the system. While the reform would require temporarily suspending UC conditionality, such as work search requirements for the backdated assessment period, that is a reasonable price to pay to avoid the poverty caused by the five-week wait. It is not an unreasonable request. It is a practical solution that would reduce or eliminate the need for the five-week wait in many cases. It is notable that, whilst it would cost money up front, it would significantly reduce or, in many cases, eliminate the need for advance payments and the use of the likes of the contingency fund, so money would be saved there. Even more important, it would significantly reduce the cost and impact of poverty caused by the current system.

The cost of implementing the changes would be far outweighed by the savings in human suffering and in the long-term social and economic costs of poverty and debt. Some might argue that those changes would be too expensive, but the question that I have to ask the Assembly is this: what is the cost of not acting? Similarly, does any Member in the Chamber really believe that a future working group would come up with anything different or an alternative solution? We have had quite a few working groups, and we have had the independent review of welfare mitigations, which was extensive in its recommendations.

We are firm believers in evidence-based policymaking. The evidence is clear: the five-week wait is causing immense hardship, pushing people into debt and undermining the objectives of universal credit. We also believe in practical solutions. That is exactly what our amendment proposes.

Our constituents deserve better. They deserve a social security system that brings genuine security, treats them with dignity and supports rather than undermines their efforts to improve their circumstances.

Mr Kingston: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Kingston. 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.

Mr Kingston, you have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the SDLP for proposing the motion highlighting the consequences of the universal credit five-week wait for claimant households across Northern Ireland. I propose the DUP amendment to that motion.

The challenge that poverty presents to households across Northern Ireland is huge. There is a heavy burden on many hard-working people struggling to make ends meet due to matters beyond their control. We must thank all those who work in the community and voluntary sector and do so much to help people experiencing poverty. Those groups help those who need support by not only providing the essentials but often offering a listening ear, assisting people with their financial planning and budgeting and signposting them to other help.

The Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, has been working on the anti-poverty strategy to prevent poverty and to help people out of poverty. We know that every Member in the Assembly wants to work collectively to ensure that we support people facing poverty in Northern Ireland.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that funding should be attached to the anti-poverty strategy to reduce poverty?

Mr Kingston: There will be requirements on every Department to take action. The Minister is engaging with all nine Departments to ensure that they all make commitments and that there is a collective approach. It is important that funding follows so that there is not just a strategy but action.

There is a clear challenge ahead. The economic uncertainty that has resulted from the Labour Party's Budget is unsettling for many, especially those on lower incomes who fear the job losses that may come due to the impact of the National Insurance changes on businesses.

The assessment period and payment structure of universal credit are integral to the overall design of the benefit, but they are problematic. We know that people have to wait for five weeks before they receive their first payment as the benefit is paid in arrears. Indeed, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee has advised:

It also states:

There is a clear need for the Department for Work and Pensions to mitigate issues caused by the transition from legacy benefits. A working group with those in the sector and those with lived experience would be beneficial to inform the Department for Communities' engagement with the Government at Westminster. Our amendment retains the call on the Minister for Communities to establish such a dedicated working group.

Our amendment also recognises the importance of retaining practical measures to mitigate the five-week wait with the universal credit contingency fund, the provision of advance payments and the two-week run on of legacy benefits. The Department's spend on the universal credit contingency fund has increased in line with its forecast demands, and plans to change the name of the fund are being taken forward. That follows a report recommending changing the name to something that makes its purpose clear.

As with all matters connected to welfare benefits, any further additional support must be sustainable and will require a UK-wide approach, given the role of the Department for Work and Pensions at Westminster. That is where the focus must be, and it is why our amendment seeks to place an onus on engagement with the relevant stakeholders to inform such developments at Westminster. I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Members who tabled this important motion. I am sure that most Members know all too well the issues that many of our constituents face when it comes to claiming universal credit, not least the five-week wait for the first payment.

An application for universal credit is almost always made at a time when the applicant is facing a difficult situation, whether it is because they have just become unemployed or because they are being forcibly migrated from another benefit. The process is complex and confusing for claimants, and it creates undue stress and worry for them and their families. All the stress and worry is compounded by the bizarre situation of having to wait five weeks for the first payment to arrive. It is completely unreasonable to expect anyone in financial difficulty to go for five weeks without any money to live on. Imagine being forced to wait five long weeks before you can access the financial support to which you are entitled. That is five weeks of uncertainty, stress and, in many cases, total deprivation. Those affected are forced to rely on food banks. They face rising debt and experience the fear of eviction all because they are unable to access their benefits in a timely manner.

We often talk here about tackling poverty in our society, and Sinn Féin has been forthright on the urgent need for an anti-poverty strategy. However, it is clear that the five-week wait for universal credit is pushing ever more people into poverty and hardship. As mentioned, people who are in a desperate situation are the most vulnerable to exploitation from criminals and gangsters in our communities. Paramilitaries and loan sharks can exert huge control and power over people who are indebted to them. When those issues are raised with DWP, it often points to the advance loan that is available and the UC contingency fund, but, as solutions, they leave a lot to be desired. The advance loan might be useful in the short term, but it too puts claimants into long-term debt, which reduces the already meagre monthly payments that claimants are entitled to. The UC contingency fund is woefully underutilised as a support mechanism, largely due to its restrictive nature and a lack of awareness among claimants. I am keen to hear more detail on the Alliance amendment, but I support in principle anything that can be done that can help with the issue albeit recognising the challenging financial situation that faces us.

The independent review into welfare mitigations, which my colleague Deirdre Hargey commissioned when she was the Communities Minister, made a number of recommendations, including interim measures that would mitigate the impact of the five-week wait. However, those recommendations have never been implemented. The review recommended increasing the budget for the UC contingency fund to £5 million and renaming it "new claims payment" to make it clear to new applicants that help was available should it be needed. Sinn Féin would welcome the implementation of those interim measures.

It is clear that a longer-term solution is also needed. I echo the call in the motion for the Minister to establish a working group with key stakeholders to examine alternative solutions. Ultimately, the five-week wait is a vestige of Tory austerity and it belongs on the scrapheap. The British Government need to take immediate action to scrap that cruel and damaging policy once and for all.

Mr Crawford: Members, today we gather not merely to discuss numbers but to reflect on the lives that are behind those numbers. The alarming statistic of 349,000 individuals living in poverty in our community is not just a figure; it represents our friends, families and neighbours who are grappling with hardships that many of us can scarcely imagine. As Members, it is our collective duty to confront that reality, express our regret and take meaningful action towards alleviating that plight. Social welfare payments have proven to be a vital lifeline for countless households, providing essential support to those who are facing financial difficulties. Those payments help to ensure that, as a society, we do not turn our backs on our most vulnerable. However, we must recognise that the impending move to universal credit poses significant challenges, particularly the distressing five-week wait that over 71,000 households will soon face.

That delay in receiving vital support can turn a manageable financial burden into an insurmountable barrier, casting families deeper and further into poverty. For women, who often bear the brunt of financial responsibilities in households, that waiting period can exacerbate existing inequalities and strip away the little financial security that they have. Let us not forget the impact on young people. Young people who are facing unemployment or who are studying while living on their own may find themselves in an alarming situation, struggling to make ends meet during that critical period in their life.

Members, we must acknowledge the interconnected issues arising from the five-week wait. It is no coincidence that we see a strong correlation between the delay, increased debt and the rising usage of food banks, which are services that, while noble in their mission, should not be a substitute for a robust social safety net. The very idea that families have to turn to food banks to survive is a national outrage. We must not sit idly by as people suffer. We must act to remedy those injustices. Moreover, I urge us all to consider the dark underbelly of this situation: the potential for exploitation by illegal moneylenders who often prey on people left vulnerable by the gaps in their finances. The Assembly cannot remain passive in the face of such risks. It is our responsibility to ensure that families are protected during their time of need. Let us not forget that behind every figure lies a human story. Together, we have the capacity to create lasting change and foster a society where poverty is not likely but an exception. Together, let us champion the rights and dignity of our family, neighbours and friends. Together, let our actions today reflect our commitment to a more just and equitable future.

Miss Brogan: The five-week wait is a particularly disgraceful element of British Government bureaucracy, leaving low-income and vulnerable families facing even more challenging and difficult circumstances. Let us not dismiss this as solely Tory austerity. The Tories began the process of welfare reform and introduced universal credit, but the Labour Government continue to run with it. Far from providing a social safety net, the continued move to universal credit has pushed and will push already struggling families further into crisis, poverty and debt.

It is farcical that a system designed to prevent people from falling into poverty begins by asking them to either live with nothing for five weeks or accrue hundreds of pounds of debt up front, with the double whammy effect of reducing their overall payments for the remainder of the year. Worse still, as Members have mentioned, that can force vulnerable people into the arms of paramilitaries and other illegal moneylenders who will use their debt as a form of control. It is worth noting that five weeks is not the limit of the five-week wait; rather, it is the minimum time that claimants must wait. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that about 15% of new claimants end up waiting longer.

In the recent past, the Assembly has sought to mitigate as best it can the effects of British Government austerity on vulnerable people. I am proud of my party's leading role in those efforts. We must once again use every device available to us to reduce the impact of British Government cuts here. However, decades of chronic underfunding have left the Executive unable to fund multiple vital projects, let alone take on the added burden of fighting British austerity on another front.

We fully support the goal of the motion to introduce grants for those who are faced with the impossible choice imposed by the five-week wait. I urge the Minister to take the case to the British Government that the crisis is of their creation and that they have a duty to mitigate it. The imposition of universal credit has served only to push more people even deeper into hardship. Westminster must re-evaluate its harmful and destructive approach to social security. I support the motion and commend it to the House.

Mr Carroll: Our social security system is supposed to be a safety net for people who are struggling through hard times. Instead, the design of universal credit actively causes hardship, as we have heard, for thousands of people across the North. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation described universal credit as:

Given what we know about universal credit and the five-week wait, "turbulence" is probably an understatement.

When people move on to universal credit, they face a minimum wait of five weeks for the first payment. In reality, the wait is usually longer than five weeks. A Trussell Trust report states that the five-week wait is responsible for driving food insecurity. It is one of the key reasons why people use food banks. Housing Rights reports that the five-week wait causes rent arrears. In 2019, the average rent arrears for people on universal credit amounted to £700, compared with £191 for those on housing benefit. I suspect that that average is even higher now, and it shows that universal credit is a completely broken system.

Ulster University and the Women's Regional Consortium have serious, well-evidenced concerns that the five-week wait is a driver of illegal lending, including by paramilitaries. All that I would add is this: what about legal lending, including high street moneylenders that charge extortionate rates of interest on money when people are desperate? Not enough is said in the House about those organisations.

Advanced payments that are supposed to help people to get through the five-week wait end up causing yet more hardship, as some Members have mentioned. The Women's Regional Consortium found that 42% of women who applied for an advanced payment had difficulty paying it back.

The most common reason for people not applying was fear of getting into debt or further debt. Christians Against Poverty found that the most common form of priority debts owed by their clients in the North are debts owed to the Government. Some 50% of people surveyed by Christians Against Poverty said that they had considered or attempted suicide as an escape from debt. It is harrowing stuff. Tangling people up in debt from the beginning of their UC claim is cruel, and cruelty is the hallmark of the welfare reform system that continues to damage and impoverish working-class communities. Some see that tangling people up in debt is a deliberate strategy.

As the migration to UC continues, more people will face these problems. More will face hardship, food insecurity, exposure to illegal and legal lending and an endless cycle of debt. The universal credit contingency fund, the grant referred to in the motion, already exists. However, not many people know about it, and its uptake is poor, partly due to the name but for other reasons as well. Some 86% of women who took part in the Women's Regional Consortium survey had not even heard of the contingency fund's existence. Because they are not aware of it, some people apply for advance payments instead and are, obviously, in debt to the state with unmanageable repayments. One of the reasons for poor uptake and lack of awareness of the fund is the name, which is completely confusing for people. For that reason, I support the Alliance Party's amendment, which calls for the renaming of the fund. Months ago, the Minister committed to renaming the fund. The Member for North Belfast talked about that. A name change is relatively simple, and there is no cost attached to it, but it appears that it has not been done, which really beggars belief. I implore the Minister to make that name change with speed. I presume that he could do it today.

Another simple and low-cost solution, one that seemingly has not been done, is to offer access to the new payments claim as a default option for all new claimants to universal credit. The Alliance Party's amendment also calls for backdating payments to allow for more flexible backdating, meaning that people could get money in their pockets much sooner. That could avoid the need for a five-week wait altogether.

I fully support the demands of the Cliff Edge Coalition, which also calls for an urgent renaming of the fund, as well as amendments to the guidance and an increase in the budget to allow more grant payments to be made.

The serious issues with the five-week wait are clear, but the solutions are also clear. Many of them are shockingly simple, and I urge the Minister to implement them as soon as possible. I hope that the debate reminds Members how futile and destructive it was to vote for welfare reform.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That completes the list of Members to be called to speak. I call the Minister for Communities to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all who contributed to the debate this morning. The implementation of universal credit has necessitated that claimants in receipt of the older legacy benefits move across to a new system, and that presents challenges.

I am committed to my Department doing what it can to help not only people migrating to universal credit but those who are claiming it for the first time. Universal credit is assessed and paid monthly. That means that new claimants must wait until the end of their first month before they receive their first payment. That is what leads to the five-week wait. The approach of paying benefit in arrears is a common feature of the social security system, including the legacy benefits. However, the change to assessing entitlement monthly, as opposed to weekly or fortnightly, is a new experience for many. Therefore, I acknowledge and share the concerns raised about the five-week wait. I fully understand how any delay in payment can put additional pressure on individuals and families at what is already a difficult time.

Members will know that social security operates on the parity principle, and there are a number of UK-wide measures in place to tackle the impacts of the five-week wait. Claimants who are moved to UC from legacy benefits will be entitled to a two-week run-on. That means that they will continue to receive their payments of legacy benefits for two weeks after they move across to universal credit, which helps to alleviate the initial impact of moving to a monthly payment. It is paid automatically, and it does not need to be repaid.

New claimants can also apply for an advance of their first payment of universal credit, providing up to 100% of their potential UC entitlement to help ease the transition to the new benefit. This facility is offered to every person claiming UC for the first time as part of the transition from a legacy benefit. The advance payment is in the form of an interest-free loan and is usually repaid over 24 months. A UC advance is also available to claimants who were not previously in receipt of a legacy benefit, where they are experiencing financial difficulty.

Under the principle of parity, it is not possible for Northern Ireland to make changes to the UC system without absorbing the associated costs and administrative burdens. However, outside the system itself, my Department does offer other assistance, including some measures that are specific to Northern Ireland that can help to alleviate hardship during the five-week waiting period. First, my Department administers the universal credit contingency fund, which is a non-repayable grant for families and individuals specifically aimed at alleviating financial difficulties while they wait for their first full payment of UC. It was paid to over 11,000 people during 2023-24, providing that necessary support during the waiting period. In total, we have awarded £3·5 million, with an average payment of £313. Overall, approximately 76% of applicants received a payment.

As demand for the contingency fund grant increases, so too does the cost. With that in mind, my Department increased the budget allocation for the contingency fund to over £6·1 million in 2024-25. Claimants are not required to take an advance payment of universal credit before accessing the contingency fund grant, and UC staff actively encourage new claimants to avail themselves of the grant as an alternative to the repayable advance payment. Some claimants may choose to avail themselves of both the contingency fund grant and the advance payment facility. Information on the contingency fund is featured prominently in the welcome message of the claimant's journal for those who have made a claim to universal credit, and that includes a link to the nidirect information page for the grant. Applications are available online and can be made 24/7.

People who, for any reason, are ineligible are considered for all other provisions available through the discretionary support scheme in order to maximise their potential to receive an award. The Department regularly promotes the contingency fund scheme and most recently ran an advertising campaign for claimants moving from legacy benefits to UC, which included signposting to the fund. A number of channels were used in the campaign to maximise its reach, including national and regional press as well as digital and social media. We also promote the scheme through the advice sector and highlight the contingency fund in universal credit migration notices. Posters were sent to the independent advice sector in spring/summer 2024 for its use in promoting the discretionary support scheme, including the contingency fund. To further assist with accessibility and ensure that the range of support available is clearly explained, the finance support campaign page on nidirect includes a specific page relating to the contingency fund.

Secondly, through the adviser discretion fund, my Department can provide a non-repayable grant of up to £1,500 to help a claimant with costs associated with entering employment — for example, having to pay upfront childcare costs or purchase clothing or equipment needed to begin work. Work is the greatest tool that we have to break the cycle of poverty and is the best route to financial independence. This helps benefit claimants get into work.

I will turn to the amendments to the motion. On the changes proposed under the first amendment, Members will be aware that the independent report on welfare mitigations recommended that the universal credit contingency fund should be renamed to "universal credit new claims payment". That was one of several recommendations made in relation to providing additional financial support to those waiting on their first full UC payment and promoting the availability of such support. We have engaged with external stakeholders on that issue and invited further suggestions for a new name for the universal credit contingency fund. Plans to change the name are being taken forward. That involves changing notifications and information on nidirect and universal credit journal messages, and it is expected that the changes will have been rolled out by the end of the financial year. The independent report on discretionary support made other recommendations regarding the contingency fund, and these will be considered as part of an overall review of discretionary support. However, any additional costs will have to be assessed in the current financial climate, taking into account other priorities across the Department and the requirement to ensure that budgets remain sustainable over the coming years.

The second amendment acknowledges the valuable support available under the two-week run-on and the advance payment facility. As I have noted, those measures provide crucial help to claimants while they wait for their first payment of universal credit. They are statutory provisions that apply to the whole of the UK, and I certainly support their retention.

Given the package of support that is already available to alleviate any financial pressures caused by the five-week wait, there is, on balance, help available to meet the needs of claimants, based on their individual circumstances. I hope that no one will be in the position of having to wait for five weeks without receiving any support. I am content, however, to engage further and to consider additional measures or action that Members feel would be beneficial to bolstering the support that is already available or to publicising better the measures that are already in place. I have certainly noted the comments that Members around the Chamber have made today. If anyone has any further comments, we will, of course, take them on board.

I hope that the Assembly notes my desire to make sure that we make things as easy as possible for people and provide the necessary help. I will not be found wanting when it comes to engaging with others and working with officials to make sure that we do everything in our power to help those in need.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for that response. I call Maurice Bradley to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. The Member has up to five minutes.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Universal credit is one of the most common concerns expressed in my office. I am sure that the same is true for MLAs across the country. I thank the signatories to the motion for tabling it.

Our party continues to stand by families across Northern Ireland, many of whom are feeling the squeeze as a result of the soaring cost of basic goods such as food and of utility bills. In many cases, the need is being met by community, voluntary and faith groups, all of which do outstanding work in our communities.

Illegal moneylending and lenders having control over people, with the dire consequences that arise, should never be normalised. We say, "Enough is enough". The Ending the Harm campaign has publicly demonstrated how lenders are to blame for the resultant harm, not the vulnerable people taking the loan. Desperate families may turn to illegal loan provision, and that leads to spiralling costs, debts and intimidation.

Childcare is one example of a financial burden on working families. The DUP designed a subsidy scheme that slashed childcare bills by 15%, which is saving working parents up to £160 a month. That is DUP delivery. In under four months, £4 million has been issued in support. We have seen the successful roll-out of the social supermarket initiative, which was co-designed with local councils to assist those facing food poverty. Social supermarkets provide wrap-around services to help address the underlying issues that contribute to a household's financial position. Models evolve and develop in recognition of the level of need and the geographical area in which that need is found.

There has been widespread agreement across the House on today's motion. It is unacceptable that over 349,000 people across Northern Ireland are living in poverty. Collectively, we must remove the five-week waiting period in which people face financial hardship and strain. I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Kellie Armstrong to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. The Member has up to five minutes.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I thank Mark Durkan and the SDLP for tabling the motion. I also thank my colleague Sian Mulholland for proposing our amendment, the DUP for its amendment and the Minister for his comments today.

My colleague Sian talked about what universal credit is and about the five-week wait. Others mentioned the run-on. Although some legacy benefits have a run-on into the five-week assessment period, carer's allowance, disability living allowance (DLA) and the personal independence payment (PIP) are some, along with child tax credits, that do not. That impacts on a number of families and causes them a loss of income. As my colleague Sian said, the Alliance Party has a policy paper called 'No More Time to Wait'. It reflects exactly what we have heard from individuals across Northern Ireland. I can understand why the DUP amendment mentions a working group, but we have working groups coming out of our ears. We need to be doing something. We do not have any more time to waste.

As others said, the Trussell Trust has stated that, as universal credit has been rolled out, the use of food banks has increased. Social supermarkets, which one of our DUP colleagues mentioned, are great. I am, however, disappointed that, not all the time but a lot of the time, the underlying cause of the use of food banks and social supermarkets is paramilitary lending.

That paramilitary lending is not recorded anywhere, because the services try to protect the person. They do that, because if the paramilitaries find out that that person is going to the social supermarket and telling it about their paramilitary lending, they will get an increased percentage added to their loan.

Advance loans are not the answer for people who are already in debt. People who have been moved on to universal credit as part of the planned migration have not had time to save up and prepare for that period without money. I have to say a huge thanks to the departmental officials, including Paddy Rooney, who came along to provide an informal update to the Communities Committee on the work that they are doing to try to mitigate those losses — they are doing the best that they can — because we all recognise that that five-week wait is causing harm. Those mitigations, while welcome, need to be added to. That is why we have called for the universal credit contingency fund to be changed to the new claims payment. My colleague Sian Mulholland talked about backdating, as supported by the IPPR. Two weeks' payment as a universal credit new claims payment, for instance, could be a way of mitigating that loss so that people, including children and families, are not living for those periods with no money. The contingency fund, rather than the loan, should be offered as a matter of course. I appreciate that the Minister has said that a lot of promotion of the universal credit contingency fund is happening, but it is still not working. There are still people coming to our offices and many of the advice centres saying that they were offered the loan first, and that they did not know about the contingency fund — that non-repayable fund that they could have accessed.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member giving way. I hope that she will promote the fund and its availability to her constituents, but I also hope that she sees the amount of work that the Department has done to try to raise the profile of the fund. We have used all the tools that are available to us. We have gone out to the advice sector, and we have made sure that it is on the websites and in the journal. I have read all of that out. I am happy to take further suggestions as to how we can do more, but it is certainly not the case that we have been sitting on our hands when it comes to promoting what is there.

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

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that the Department is trying its hardest, but one way that we could make that change is through the solution that we have proposed in our amendment — making the grant a default payment and not offering people other choices; just making the default payment. As my colleague said, the cost of the upfront two-week payment would be covered by the savings that would be made from other things. Any fixes to the five-week wait are not going to be free — there will be costs to them — but let us make it as easy as possible for people who, to be honest, are living in poverty because of this.

The roll-out of universal credit has caused difficulties. While the Department has tried its best to time the roll-out well, if you are moved on to universal credit in September and then have a five-week wait until you finally get a payment, it is going to hit the run-up to Christmas. If you get moved to universal credit in July and have your five-week wait, it is going to hit the time when you are facing uniform costs. There are times of the year that cause people the most pressure and, unfortunately, some have been hit by the timing of the move to UC. The Alliance amendment provides solutions that have been designed by people with lived experience. My colleague Sian Mulholland has spent an extraordinary amount of time with people who are on universal credit and who have experienced the five-week wait. I ask Members to support the Alliance amendment and the SDLP motion.

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

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

I also thank the Minister for being here and for listening intently to the arguments that have been made. These are real issues that affect many people. One aspect that has not been focused on relates to people with mental health issues who are exceptionally vulnerable and who may be in the support group of ESA at the moment. Local staff in the Department have been very helpful in being available to help people with their claims. However, I have a concern that some of those people are, potentially, inaccessible and may not follow through on letters from the Department. I put that as a marker to make sure that everything that can be done to reach those people is done. We deal with people who come into our office and have not responded to letters. They wind up at an appeal, and you find out that there have been incredibly difficult issues for them mentally and, often, physically as well. I wanted to put that marker down at the start of my remarks, Minister.

We have heard about the difficulties not just with the five-week wait but with the minimum five-week wait that is associated with a claim for universal credit. We have heard about how people have coped with that. My colleague referred to loan sharks, intimidation and the fact that people are fearful about what might happen to them. People rely on food vouchers and emergency financial support, and they fear receiving that migration letter. My colleague also referred to the need for more accessible information on the contingency fund to be made available. The contingency fund is useful, but it is no substitute for universal credit payments. There is a further element to that: anyone who may have been eligible for discretionary support within the previous 12-month period may not be eligible for the contingency fund. That is another aspect that has to be considered. They could have received discretionary support because of moving house and having no money, being in low-paid work or receiving another benefit. That discretionary support is there to help them to kit out their house or maybe even to give them a basic bed. That is one aspect that I ask the Minister to consider.

I have already referred to the migration to UC of people who are principally but not exclusively in the ESA support group. In proposing the Alliance Party's amendment, Sian Mulholland referred to the fact that people have to wait for up to six to eight weeks to get a determination. Some have had to wait for as long as 11 weeks. Since the introduction of universal credit, food bank use has increased. I think that Sian cited the statistic that their use has gone up by 52%. There are issues with people taking advance payments and illegal moneylenders. Sian referred to two young mothers who had their windows put in by moneylenders, who are out there to prey on people who have no money and are exceptionally vulnerable. Those people are ripe pickings for the moneylenders. It is awful stuff.

A couple of other issues around UC are not particularly to do with the five-week wait for payment. For people who are captured within the monthly assessment period, their pay or, indeed, arrears of pay may fall within that period. As a result, the assessed amount goes up, and they are then ineligible for payment that month or their payment is substantially reduced. It can affect their housing payments too. That is tied in with Westminster, but it affects people.

We have had at least one case around another issue that definitely affects people. It concerns the transition from the benefits that someone is on, especially for those in receipt of tax credits. I tabled a question for written answer about one such case. In that case, an overpayment accrued, but the overpayment was not because the person had not notified HMRC about their transition to UC. The notification is supposed to come from the UC system itself. The person was hit with an overpayment of about a couple of hundred quid. It was not their fault, responsibility or duty. I ask the Minister to look at that too. I do not know how many cases like that might be out there, but there is, clearly, at least one.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Certainly.

Mr Lyons: The Member raised a number of issues, and I do not have time to respond to all of them. I assure him that notes are being taken, and we will respond directly to the issues that he has raised and provide clarity. If necessary, we will lay our response in the Assembly Library for other Members to take on board.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that, Minister.

Brian Kingston spoke on behalf of the DUP. I think that we are all on message here when it comes to the implications and effects of UC and how it is processed. It is problematic, and people are paid in arrears. He quoted comments from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee on the minimum five-week wait and the fact that people could not afford to eat or to heat their homes during that wait. He referred to other engagements with stakeholders.

Colm Gildernew said that there was a need for an increase in the contingency fund. If he has any idea of who is in charge of the finances, maybe he will give them a wee nudge about allocating additional resources to the Minister for that. He called for the scrapping of UC, which is a fair enough point. When we saw it being introduced, many of us said that there would be a lot of problems with it, and unfortunately those problems are here.

Colin Crawford referred to the problems that people are facing and the distressing challenges and financial implications for women and young people. He talked about food banks and the exploitation that ensues for people who find themselves in financial difficulties.

Nicola Brogan also made reference to bureaucracy, welfare reform issues and how people were facing difficulties, and called on Westminster for additional support.

Gerry Carroll referred to the food insecurity issue and the fact that people cannot even eat, which is just awful. It is our moral duty to ensure that we do all that we conceivably can to make sure that no one is placed in that position — no one. I agree with him that, following the introduction of UC, there has been an increase in rent arrears. He also referenced illegal lending from paramilitaries and legal lending from high street lenders. If I understand Mr Carroll correctly, people are becoming afraid to even apply for UC because of the fear of debt.

The Minister has taken note of a number of the issues that have been raised, and I thank him for doing so. However, it would be very helpful if he made an application to his colleagues in the Department of Finance for additional money for the contingency fund. It is incredibly important that people get the support that they require to make sure that they are able to put food on the table. With regard to the issues around discretionary support and the contingency fund, I am not sure how many people fall into the category of ineligible, but I would like to think that just because someone has moved house and has had to get utilities and stuff sorted, they will not be caused to fall into a situation where they do not get any money, even to put food on the table for themselves or their families. I support our motion in line with the Alliance Party amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please take your ease while we make a change the top Table.

Ms Murphy: I beg to move

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

Ms Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Today, we stand with our resilient farmers, who are enduring an unprecedented financial crisis. Escalating costs and unpredictable market conditions that are largely out of farmers' control have left many struggling to stay afloat. Despite all those overwhelming challenges, our farmers continue to serve our communities, safeguarding food security and sustaining our local economies. At this critical juncture, the British Government's decision to impose the punitive inheritance tax measures jeopardises the future of generational farms and rural sustainability. With business incomes plummeting by 46% per farm, many family farms are at risk of collapsing without immediate interventions.

The upcoming spring Budget offers a crucial opportunity to halt the damage that the proposals would inflict. Considering that farmland prices in the North already average around £15,000 per acre, with an anticipated increase, any farm larger than 27 hectares will be affected. Many farm families will be liable for inheritance tax that never existed before. That could force many families to sell land simply to meet the tax burden, leading to fragmented farms and destabilising our rural communities. Our farmers are not only the backbone of our economy but the stewards of our natural environment. The livestock sector alone contributes £1·7 billion annually to our economy and provides 4·6% of total employment. However, those family farms, which have been passed down through generations, now face the real threat of crippling inheritance tax. If the proposals are enacted, they will not only impose an unbearable financial burden but could force land sales, dismantling viable farms and undermining our nation's food security.

The British Government must recognise that land values do not equate to farm income. The changes could force families to sell their land just to meet tax demands, eroding the very fabric that is so important to our rural heritage. It is not merely an economic setback but an assault on our rural way of life. Our agriculture sector is unique and cannot be compared to those of other devolved regions. The truth is that 77% of dairy farms and a third of livestock farms will be severely impacted by the changes. That is not a fair tax; it is an attack on working families who are already on the brink of collapse.

The British Government may argue that land transfers can reduce tax liabilities, but that is unrealistic for elderly farmers or in the event of an unexpected family death. The ability to pass down a farm intact should not be contingent on complex tax planning; it should be a fundamental right for those who have dedicated their life to food production and rural sustainability. DAERA has warned that the changes could result in forced land sales, disrupting farm succession and threatening the long-term viability of our rural communities. With escalating development values, some farmers may face even higher tax liabilities, further increasing uncertainty.

This is not just a crisis for the North; it is an island-wide issue. Agriculture is deeply interconnected throughout Ireland. In the South, however, targeted tax reliefs and succession planning measures provide vital supports to family farms. The South has various mitigations in place that allow land to be passed down without placing severe financial strain on families. Furthermore, the Irish Government have implemented young farmers' supports, restructuring reliefs and income stabilisation schemes to ensure the long-term health of the sector. In contrast, no such safeguards exist in the North, leaving farmers more vulnerable to those harsh tax proposals. Given the cross-border nature of our agri-food industry, which sees over £1 billion in trade annually between North and South, it is critical that farming in the North remains competitive. We must work together to protect the future of our agriculture sector and preserve family farms for generations to come.

I acknowledge the efforts of the Finance Minister and the AERA Minister in raising these matters with the Chancellor and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister also made representations on the issue at the recent British-Irish Council meeting before Christmas. All parties have made it clear that the tax changes represent an existential threat to family farming and the rural way of life in the North.

The Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) has mobilised in opposition to the inheritance tax changes, securing widespread support throughout the North by way of petitions that have been signed by thousands of farmers and rural residents. They have made their voices heard: the tax will devastate family farms and must be stopped. The UFU has also organised tractor runs over the last number of weeks, uniting farmers from across the North to demand immediate action from the British Government. Those grassroots movements represent the deep frustration and fear and anger in our farming communities.

I call on the British Government, as they prepare their spring Budget, to listen to the voices of farmers and reverse the proposed inheritance tax changes before irreparable damage is done. We must protect family farms, ensure fairness in taxation and support those who work tirelessly to feed our people. We stand united in solidarity with our farmers and rural communities, and we will continue to fight for policies that protect and sustain them.

Miss McIlveen: While any debate that highlights the chronic problems that farmers face in light of the Chancellor's autumn Budget is welcome, key debates on the issue have been taking place in Westminster, where the decisions are made. Sinn Féin is conspicuous by its absence, and, by continuing to distance itself from Westminster, it effectively forfeits its ability to directly influence the decisions that impact on us most. Instead of fighting for the reversal of harmful changes in the place where real change can happen, Sinn Féin opts to raise the matter here, knowing full well that we do not have the power to affect the outcome.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I ask the Member, please, to address the scope of the debate. Thank you.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. If you will bear with me, I was just moving on to that.

As the proposer of the motion outlined, we must acknowledge the immense pressure that is already being placed on family farms. Inflation, rising living costs and widespread economic uncertainty on top of additional regulatory burdens and reductions in government subsidies in real terms mean that farmers are battling not only to keep their businesses afloat but to continue to provide the essential food and resources that sustain our nation. That is a tough reality for those who work tirelessly, often with little recognition, to maintain the land that has been passed down for generations.

Family farms are not just businesses; they are part of the fabric of our agricultural heritage and economy. Those farms contribute significantly to our agricultural output, ensuring the continuation of local food production, maintaining rural landscapes and preserving traditional family practices. To undermine their sustainability is to risk losing not only the future of our agriculture but the livelihoods of countless families who have invested their lives in that vital industry. Yet now, as we have debated previously in the Chamber, they are confronting another financial hurdle due to recent changes in inheritance tax policies. The changes introduced in the Chancellor's autumn 2024 Budget have the potential to deeply affect the long-term viability of family-run farms throughout our country.

Just last week, the Northern Ireland Rural Valuers Association (NIRVA), in conjunction with the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV), produced a report on the impact of the changes. It found that at least 6,000 Northern Irish farming taxpayers would be affected by the tax change over a generation. Northern Ireland farms will be more significantly impacted by the changes than farms in any other part of the United Kingdom. That is a result of high land values, the age demographic, greater prevalence of the sole-owner model and farming here being more livestock-based. Where there was a second owner, they were typically a spouse.

The analysis provided shows that using the UK Government's estimate of 500 farming taxpayers affected in the first year, Northern Ireland, on its own, would have 200 or 40% of the total that the UK Government expect for the whole of the UK. The report broke down into real terms what farms would have to do to meet the additional burden. For example, a 67-head lowland suckler herd would need to increase in size by 90%, with an increase in the associated labour hours and costs and no improvements to the business. A 100-head dairy farm would need to increase by a further 41 dairy cows, again with increased hours and costs.

The report, identifying those trapped by the tax change, states:

The analysis showed an increase in land values from £15,000 to £21,000 per acre. That dramatic change raises the number of farms that will face financial difficulties under the new inheritance tax regime, pushing many family farms to the brink of collapse.

Despite the rallies, protests and debates, letters from the Executive and from other Chambers, we see no movement from the UK Government. It is essential that the issue is kept alive, and I will support the motion. I appreciate that it is a Westminster issue and that inheritance tax changes are not in the gift of the Minister or the Executive. However, the Minister can do more to help the farmer. As I have said before — it is worth repeating — that means addressing policies that restrict development and betterment on farms; eradicating and preventing disease in livestock; and a workable future generations scheme to keep future generations in the sector. It means supporting farms and farmers and recognising them for what they are: our primary industry, employing over 51,000 people and contributing £6 billion to the economy. They are the custodians of our countryside, so it means not using the farmer as the bogeyman when pushing an environmentalist agenda.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Miss McIlveen: I support the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that very much, Michelle. Thank you.

The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. This item of business will continue after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be John Blair. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Between September 2024 and 31 January 2025, the Education Authority (EA) paused new referrals from schools to the Education Authority literacy service. That allowed the service to facilitate the prioritisation of pupils awaiting support as a result of the legacy discrepancy model of referral and service delivery. In September 2024, as part of the move to new local impact teams, the Education Authority removed the requirement for an educational psychology assessment prior to a request for input from any stage 2 pupil support service. That, alongside the planned removal of the discrepancy model, will allow for increased flexibility and earlier access to support for children and young people with special educational needs. The literacy service offer has also been widened to include training, advice and guidance.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for his response. Primary-school principals that I am in contact with in my constituency tell me that it is increasingly difficult and slow for pupils who are suspected of having dyslexia to get referred to the EA literacy support service. Can the Minister give the House and concerned parents an assurance that moves towards graduated responses and local integrated SEN support teams are not just euphemisms for the dilution or reduction of services that are currently provided by the EA literacy support service? Are the changes being properly resourced?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question, which touches on a number of areas. I assure him that the EA is reviewing literacy support in line with the new model and the graduated response framework that he mentioned. The EA is liaising closely with experts in the field, including Professor Julian Elliott from Durham University. It has also established a new reference group of professionals across Northern Ireland's higher education providers and the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). Work is being undertaken in a number of areas to improve the situation, and some progress has been made. It may not be being felt yet, but processes are in place to improve the situation.

Mr Martin: Will the Minister outline why the Department's literacy and numeracy strategy, Count, Read: Succeed, has been withdrawn?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. It is hugely important and relates to what is taught in our classrooms and the approaches that are taken. We need to have a strong focus on literacy and numeracy in particular, because they are the essential foundation for all education. They are essential to allowing our children and young people to succeed in their educational journey. The Count, Read: Succeed strategy was published in 2011. It contained actions and targets up to 2020, all of which are now out of date. Work to develop the strategy commenced in 2007, which means that the research that underpinned the guidance dates back nearly two decades. It was unhelpful for such a strategy to continue to be endorsed as departmental policy.

There is excellent evidence on approaches to reading acquisition, and it is clear that we need to set out clear expectations for teaching reading so that all children benefit from an evidence-based approach. The evidence shows that phonics is an extremely strong approach. The evidence for competing models of balanced reading is equally weak. It is vital, therefore, that the teaching of phonics should be explicit and systematic across all schools to support children in learning to read. My officials have therefore commenced work on a new literacy strategy for Northern Ireland that will take account of recent international research in those key areas and set out the support and resources that will be available to our teachers.

Mrs Guy: Does the Minister accept that evidence shows that systematic phonics, rather than systematic synthetic phonics, is the best approach to teaching literacy in schools?

Mr Givan: For phonics and its systematic use, both are important. The key question has been around the use of cueing. It is well documented that cueing is not now an advocated approach, based on international research. ITV carried out a very good investigation into literacy performance in Wales, where there has been a significant downturn. Going by the programme for international student assessment (PISA), which benchmarks at an international level, I can say that literacy measurements for Northern Ireland are high. Phonics is the established way in which literacy is taught. It has been inferred that elements of cueing are an appropriate way in which to teach literacy, but evidence shows that cueing can undermine the use of phonics.

Mr Givan: I recognise the detrimental consequences of gambling and the considerable impact that its associated harms can have on individuals, their families and the community as a whole. To address the issue, it is essential to promote awareness among our children of the dangers of gambling-related harm. Our strategy is fundamentally in line with the objectives of the Northern Ireland curriculum. Those objectives include promoting critical thinking and informed decision-making, equipping students with the skills to manage risks in their personal and financial situations effectively and addressing contemporary societal issues, such as the increasing prevalence of gambling through the use of online platforms.

The Northern Ireland curriculum is structured to be dynamic, allowing for adaptability in education delivery. Instead of mandating specific content, it empowers schools and educators to select contexts, topics and themes that best suit the needs of their students. That approach is highly advantageous, as it enables the curriculum to be tailored in such a way as to emphasise particular subjects, while remaining compliant with statutory requirements. At present, the topic of gambling harm is explored in the curriculum through the wider themes of financial capability, risk management and making responsible choices. Although the term "gambling harm" is not always explicitly referenced, aspects of the curriculum enable students to comprehend the dangers and outcomes that are linked to gambling and related behaviours. Financial capability, encompassing awareness of gambling and gaming, is already established as a statutory and essential component of the curriculum. Opportunities for the teaching and learning of financial capability occur across the curriculum and through young people's everyday experience, inside and outside school.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. Today is Safer Internet Day. Will the Minister outline how his Department works with other Departments to ensure that our young people are adequately protected from the harms associated with online gambling in particular and how his Department's actions to tackle mobile phone use in schools can assist with that work?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for raising the issue and for highlighting the importance of today. Yes, we need to work across Departments. The consequences of gambling harm in our society are far-reaching and have a substantial impact, so the involvement of multiple Departments working in a coordinated way is required. That joint approach is necessary if we are to address changes in gaming and gambling, and particularly their impact on young people. That has been well documented in various reports.

Last year, the all-party group (APG) on reducing harm related to gambling published the final report of its inquiry. I had hoped that that would have prompted the Executive, collectively, to prioritise that significant issue and to ensure that the requisite resources were provided to do so, but the process has not moved at the pace at which, I think, Members from all sides would have wanted to see it move. I can, however, assure the House that my officials continue to engage with their colleagues in the Department for Communities and the Department of Health through the established cross-departmental working group on preventing and treating gambling-related harm.

The Member rightly highlighted the use of mobile phone technology for online gambling, which, as many Members will know, is a real source of concern. We should welcome and support any measures that we can take to reduce access to equipment that facilitates people's engagement in that type of activity.

Ms Hunter: Minister, on the topic of addiction, will you please detail what your Department is doing to educate our young people on alcoholism and drug addiction? I note that drug deaths have doubled in the past 10 years, so this is very important.

Mr Givan: Again, those are areas that we can touch on in the curriculum. There is room to do that. The Member rightly highlights all those things. Whether it is gambling or addiction to other drugs, such as alcohol and other substances, they all cause harm in our society, particularly to young people. Yes, there is a place for our schools to be involved in that, but it is a wider societal issue. Often, the responsibility of addressing a lot of wider issues is placed on schools. It is one of the workload-related issues that teachers will mention to me. They say that the pressure that they are placed under to engage in all these things, albeit they are important, creates an additional workload for them when they still have to be engaged in teaching literacy, numeracy and all the other core subjects in our education system. We need to make sure that the primary focus of our schooling system can be on those subject areas. Of course, we need to be involved in addressing the other issues as well.

Mr Givan: For the 2022-23 academic year, 116 pupils living in the North Antrim constituency with a statement of special educational needs were recorded as being enrolled in a specialist provision class in a mainstream school.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister for his answer. What strategies are in place to ensure that those children receive the adequate resources and support that they need to meet their individual needs?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for raising that, because I highlighted it through the special educational needs review that was completed. We have taken that information. I made a statement to the Assembly outlining how we needed to address it. Subsequently, I published the details of the delivery plan associated with that and the resources that would be required to meet the need.

Special educational needs have been a key priority for me from day 1 of taking up office, from creating an extra 1,400 places across our school system to making sure that we have the appropriate pathways and supports in place to make that change; carrying out a review of all special schools in Northern Ireland; and ensuring that the operational plan 2, published by the EA for area planning, had a SEN-first approach, which means prioritising meeting the needs of children with special educational needs. There is also the funding that my Department has bid for from the transformation programme. I anticipate that that will allow us to take forward further work when it comes to transformation, which will be of assistance to those who need that help.

Ms Ferguson: Minister, in relation to a specialist provision in mainstream schools, what is your assessment of the number of schools across the North that would require work to be done to improve disabled access to their entire facility?

Mr Givan: The Member is right to raise the issue of specialist provision. Seeking expressions of interest in having specialist provision, we contacted all schools. I visited Carr Primary School in my constituency. It did not offer that provision but indicated that it wanted to. About 10 months later, I was able to visit the school again, and it now offers excellent specialist provision. Eight children are getting the support that they need, and the principal has been hugely supportive of that. That has been replicated in many other schools across Northern Ireland where we were able to put in that provision.

When it comes to specialist provision, we need to make sure that it works. What assistance do we provide in SPiMS? We support the individual through self-evaluation and action plans. We provide professional learning development. We facilitate cluster groups. We signpost to other services. There is a dedicated link officer. There is pre and post set-up support. We interface with the various practitioners, allied health professionals and multidisciplinary teams. When we set up a SPiMS unit, we need to make sure that it will actually work, and that requires that wider wrap-around support to be in place.

We are already looking at what is needed for 1 September. Work is ongoing to make sure that we can provide the appropriate placements, making sure that our capital criteria and requirements align with the need that we see coming forward. Things were bad. Things have improved, but they are still nowhere near where they need to be to meet the needs of the young people who are affected.

Mr Frew: Minister, are you confident that you have the most up-to-date data for North Antrim?

Mr Givan: Data was received from all schools in 2023-24. In 2024, pupil-level information was not received in electronic format from 25% of primary, post-primary and special schools, and a paper return was received from the schools that refused to submit a return electronically. Members will know that that was part of the action short of strike that was taken in some schools. People say that such action does not have an impact, but it did have an impact and continues to do so. The result was that the Department was unable to obtain all the necessary information that it usually receives electronically on special educational needs, so it was not possible to fully undertake the normal validation processes. The data is not the complete picture. That is one of the reasons that I say to the House that action short of strike causes harm and should not be supported.

Mr Mathison: In correspondence from the Minister's Department, the Education Committee recently learned that the number of allied health professionals (AHPs) available to the education system is not known. However, a workforce strategy does not appear to be a year 1 action in the Minister's new delivery plan for special educational needs transformation. Will the Minister urgently undertake a workforce strategy plan in conjunction with Health so that we know how many allied health professionals are available to the education system for the children who desperately need them?

Mr Givan: The Member rightly highlights the need for the wider support that allied health professionals provide, and I agree with him. The provision of that support is the responsibility of the Minister of Health, and I have made that point. We need to have the Department of Health and its Minister supporting me and schools in order to meet the need for allied health professionals.

The Member highlights the SEN reform delivery plan. It was published on 4 February, and it recognises the need for Health and Education to work collaboratively to ensure access to support from AHPs for the children who require it. That need is well evidenced, and the plan includes actions to address it, such as increasing the number of undergraduate places for AHPs and establishing protected education posts. My Department is working closely with officials in the Department of Health and the Public Health Agency (PHA) to take those actions forward.

Mr McGlone: Minister, supporting children with special educational needs was a priority in the draft Programme for Government, yet children continue to wait nearly three times the statutory limit for an assessment. Will you outline when your Department expects to deliver an assessment for every child within the statutory 26 weeks? Is that likely to be included in the Programme for Government?

Mr Givan: Special educational needs was an issue that was consulted on in the draft Programme for Government, and I am confident that it will be in the document when it is agreed. That recognises the collective approach that the Executive are taking to deal with those issues. Of course, it needs to be followed through with Budget and resource allocations. That will be important.

The Member rightly highlights the statementing process and the ability to carry out assessments. The time frame is not satisfactory. However, the fact that people feel that they need to have a statement — a legal document — to get the services that, they believe, are required is symptomatic of a system that does not work. I am trying to provide the support early and have the assessment carried out with some flexibility rather than through a statementing process. We can then make the intervention, so that people do not need to get a statement and do not need a legal document. We should be meeting those needs without parents going down that route.

There is a feeling that, once you have a statement, you will get the resource, but that is often not the case. There has to be a better way, and we now have a clear pathway for achieving that, but it will take time and resources. We know what we need to do; it is about being able to do it.

Mr Givan: With the Speaker's permission, I will answer questions 4 and 10 together.

I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to the staff in all our schools, in the Education Authority and in NIE and to members of our community who worked extremely hard, sometimes in very challenging conditions, to protect our schools estate from the storm and subsequently to ensure that schools could safely reopen as quickly as possible. The Education Authority maintenance help desk received in excess of 1,000 calls from schools reporting damage to their premises following storm Éowyn. Those calls ranged in severity from missing roof tiles and damaged fences to significant structural damage. On Monday 27 January, 60 schools were closed. Of those, 10 were closed due to major damage and the rest were closed due to power outages. I confirm that all schools were reopened by Friday 31 January due to the tireless work of the Education Authority's maintenance teams and other agencies, including NIE and Northern Ireland Water.

Significant damage has been experienced across the schools estate. The Education Authority's maintenance teams have been collating damage reports and triaging on a safety basis. Plans are well developed to address the required remedial works, which are likely to be ongoing in some schools for several weeks and, indeed, months. The Education Authority and the Department will continue to liaise with schools to provide support and ensure that any outstanding repairs or replacements are progressed as quickly as possible.

Mr T Buchanan: Can the Minister give any indication of the impact that the damage has had on pupils and teachers?

Mr Givan: The impact, as I outlined, was detrimental to the schools that had to close, but we were able to have the vast majority open, and, by the end of that week, all schools were open. Schools were also seeking, where they could, to carry out some remote learning. It also highlights the need for contingency arrangements to be in place for exceptional circumstances when a school is closed. Obviously, some schools and homes had no electricity, making it difficult to do online learning — everybody understands that — but it is important that contingency plans were in place to ensure that, despite what was going on, some education could take place. Yes, it was disruptive, but we were able to mitigate that disruption through the good work of those involved.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, how much it will cost your Department? Has any indication come from the Executive that they will support your Department with those costs?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. The Minister of Finance allocated some funding to Departments to help to mitigate the costs. Obviously, the Department of Education and other Departments are already under acute financial pressure. My Department received a £3 million allocation towards the storm damage on the resource side. As a caveat to that, I will say that we are still trying to get precise details. Our current assessment is that costs to the Department in the region of £6 million are attributable to the storm and £2 million on the capital side. That comes with a heavy caveat, because we are still trying to get that information. I have received £3 million. On the capital side, I have received nothing, but I do not believe that any Department received capital allocations, because the capital is not there to allocate.

Mr McMurray: Will the Minister and his Department, along with EA, carry out formal feedback sessions with school and educational setting leaders to hear what further support and communications, they feel, are needed before and after major incidents such as storm Éowyn?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that. As with everything, whilst I believe that departmental officials, the Education Authority and others responded very well — I went to meet the staff in EA to convey my appreciation — lessons on communications can always be learned. That Sunday evening, nearly 300 principals were invited and came to an online briefing session from EA to provide them with that support. We were communicating support, and the feedback that I have got from many of the principals is positive. It is important to acknowledge and recognise when people do good work. I will always be the first to say that we could do better, and, at times, I will be critical of how we operate, but, in that example, the EA got it right, the Department got it right, and we responded well in difficult circumstances. A review always takes place to make sure that we learn how to do things better, but it is important to acknowledge that it was well handled.

Mr McNulty: Minister, has the lack of strategic management of the school estate made school buildings more vulnerable to events such as storm Éowyn?

Mr Givan: That takes me into the territory of the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report on underinvestment in our school estate, the need for much higher levels of investment and the bids that I make, which are for much greater sums than I receive. I agree in general that there needs to be much better investment in the school estate. We can invest only what we have, however, and what we have is inadequate.

Do I believe that the significant structural damage that occurred on some occasions was a result of underinvestment in a particular school structure? I do not have that evidence to hand on the basis of this report. When a tree comes down and goes through the roof of a building — footage of such an incident has been shared with me — it is difficult to say, given the 90-100 mph winds, whether the damage could have been avoided had there been more investment in schools. It would be unfair of me to say yes, because I do not have the evidence to show that schools in those circumstances suffered damage as a result of underinvestment. I agree with the Member's general point that there has been underinvestment, and that needs to change.

Mr Givan: The 2024-25 package of measures for parents and providers that I announced to the Assembly on 23 May continues to be successfully implemented, including a major expansion of preschool education provision. I announced at that time my intention that an additional 100 preschool settings and 2,000 places would transition to deliver a full-time preschool education place from September 2025, with more to follow in successive years. I have now approved 106 settings to transition to the standardised session length, enabling over 2,500 additional children to have access to a full-time place from September 2025. The Department and the Education Authority are in the process of supporting the settings to prepare for successful transition, and that work is on track.

Simultaneously, the programme is turning attention to the work of identifying and supporting the next cohort of settings to transition to the standardised session length. The EA will issue an online survey to all part-time funded preschool providers between February and March to refresh the state-of-readiness data used to identify settings suitable for transition. I will be in a position to set a further ambitious target for the programme for September 2026 once the available budget is confirmed and analysis of the updated state-of-readiness data is complete.

It is important that we recognise the positive and lasting impact that this will have on the lives of thousands of our children, many of them not yet born. We are embarking on the biggest expansion of preschool education in a generation, and, with the support of my Executive colleagues, I am determined to see it through.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for that information. Minister — I have written to you about this — we have been contacted by preschool principals who feel that they are now at a disadvantage and are in competition with preschools in the same area that can offer more hours. How do you plan to support them in the short term, prior to the next roll-out?

Mr Givan: I absolutely understand the representations that the Member has received; I have also received them. It is recognition of what we are able to do as an Executive with the resource that is available. I would love to bring more in, but that comes with a cost implication. Some of the settings, as we develop the programme, will require capital investment to increase their physical capacity.

We should not hold everybody back until everybody is ready to move at the same time. It will take a number of years to do that. Where we have had the opportunity to increase part-time provision, which is 12·5 hours, to 22·5 hours, which is a full-time place, we have done so, and that is the right approach. I welcome the support of the Executive and the funding that has allowed me to do that, but I want to bring so many more settings into line to provide a full-time place.

That is subject to finance. For some, it will also be subject to their being in a state of readiness, which will include capital investment to increase the physical size of their buildings. We also need to have the staff available to provide the additional hours that we need to make everybody full-time.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. Colleagues will know that I receive a huge number of invitations, and I just cannot be everywhere all at the one time. However, I seek to make myself available. Most Members in the Chamber, if they look at it fairly, will say that I do that and attend as many settings and take up as many invitations as I can.

The Member raises an issue on the recommendations published in respect of the matter. I accept that there are issues in providing enough resources for those who want to have their education through the medium of Irish. I also recognise that, when it came to making reductions in numbers going into teacher training colleges, the one area that did not have a reduction was training for those who participate in the Irish medium. That recognises the efforts that the Department has made in the past to support the Irish-medium sector. I am happy to continue to provide that support when requests come through.

Ms Hunter: Minister, you will be aware that the Good Friday Agreement states that we have to facilitate and encourage the growth of the Irish language. In your term, in this mandate, on a scale of one to 10, how well would you say that you are serving the Irish-medium sector and the Irish language?

Mr Givan: 10.

Mr Givan: We held a meeting with a number of principals about the pressures that Knockevin and other schools face around allied health professionals and nurses. I have every sympathy with and support for the principal of Knockevin. These schools need to be supported with appropriate healthcare because they are dealing with very complex medical needs in the school setting, as are other principals and teachers across special schools. I do not think that the situation is satisfactory. Principals have brought to my attention the withdrawal of health services and the decisions that have been taken by the health trusts to withdraw them from special schools. I believe that those services should be enhanced not reduced.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for that. It is positive. He referenced the health trusts and the ongoing review. Will he commit to engaging with principals and parents of such schools as Knockevin to ensure that any changes in provision reflect the views of those who are most affected by the withdrawal of nurses from special schools?

Mr Givan: I will continue to engage. I assure Members that work is ongoing between my Department and the Department of Health on this issue. I have asked for that to be looked at, and officials are engaging on it. I know that the Member's colleagues have had an interest in this. They have met me and can testify to the ongoing work. I also recognise that there has been frustration as they have sought answers and tried to get information. I have had to get involved in order to help them get that information.

There needs to be collaboration and recognition that support is required. When a young person, who has significant medical needs, is already in a school, typically a special school, that is the place to provide them with their medical support. Rather than take them out of the school to a hospital appointment, given the transport involved and the disruption that takes place, school is a good place for those children and young people to receive the care that they need. However, I also recognise that principals and teachers feel very vulnerable when incidents occur, and they do, and when things happen, because they do not feel that they have got the support that they need because they are not medical experts. Therefore, there needs to be better support for those schools, particularly special schools, when it comes to the medical needs of the young people whom they are ultimately there to educate.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. There was a period of intense negotiations during January and, as the financial circumstances for my Department were crystallising and work was taking place to identify the resource that we would need, I was pleased that those negotiations concluded with management side being able to make a formal offer and the trade union representatives agreeing to it. They took it to the trade union executive committees, and each agreed to it. They then sought feedback through consultation with their members, and the feedback that came through is now well documented: the unions have characterised it as misrepresentation on social media and hysteria on social media that led to a negative outcome of their processes in consulting.

I have been supportive of management side in trying to reach a resolution, because I am the Minister who secured an over 10% pay increase for all teachers last year and the Minister who increased new graduates' starting salaries from £23,000 to £30,000 so that they would have a 24% increase. I also identified funding in my Department, which has been very difficult, and worked with EA to facilitate a £48 million offer of 5·5%, which is well above inflation and is line with what counterparts in England received, albeit terms and conditions for teachers are not the same in England, so it is not a straight like-for-like comparator. I want our profession to be properly paid and to receive that fair pay. Yes, I was disappointed that, when it came to the unions engaging with their members, they were not able to get a positive consultation response, but work should continue to achieve a resolution.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister. You said that work should continue, and I agree. If the unions are willing to come to the table now, as they have indicated, will you ask or encourage management side to also get around the table as soon as possible so that we can get this over the line to the benefit of everyone?

Mr Givan: It does not require me to ask for that. The management side has already asked for that. Management side offered to go to the Labour Relations Agency for mediation, if that would be helpful. Management side is making every effort. It is available and has said that it is available. There is no inhibitor for that. The unions are indicating that they need time to reflect on the outworkings of the process that they had. I hope that we can reach a conclusion as soon as possible on this, because everyone recognised that, at 5·5%, what was secured was significant.

We also identified workload as an issue. I absolutely understand the frustrations that teachers have about being bogged down in bureaucracy and being distracted from being able to do what they want to do around education. I am very much up for trying to deal with all that. That is why various commitments were entered into with clear timelines to address workload-related issues. I appeal to the trade unions: come forward with how you feel that you need to take this deal away again to your members in order to get a more positive outcome. What is on the table is significant in terms of pay. It will lead to a recurrent expenditure of £83 million next year. At a time when we are under huge financial pressure, I have prioritised teachers' pay because it is the right thing to do, but we also need to allow the commitments around workload to be taken forward. However, we cannot have this period of action short of strike. Members just need to look at the corrosive impact that it has had on our school system for many years. We need that period of industrial stability. That will allow all these things to be taken forward whilst also delivering a significant pay increase for teachers.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. I have been to Ardnashee. The work that is taking place in the Member's constituency is hugely impressive. We looked at the capital needs of special schools, and it was announced that Ardnashee would be developed in order to extend the site, because, as soon as the school opened, it was no longer capable of meeting the need. I therefore decided that Ardnashee required a new build to be built beside the existing school. That work is ongoing. It is a priority scheme for the Department.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for his answer and for his commitment. Will he provide a time frame for that work? More broadly, a number of schools are in the same predicament. How can the Department work better so that an increase in school numbers is reflected in any future planning for those schools?

Mr Givan: I am happy to give the Member a written update on where we are currently at with the processes and the time frame to which we are working. He raises an important point. I commissioned work on forward planning to identify need and how we align with the schools estate to meet that need. The Education Authority has been carrying out an assessment of all special schools. I recognised that Ardnashee needed to get the go-ahead to allow work to start, so, in advance of the assessment's being completed, I approved Ardnashee, as I did Knockevin School, where work continues to try to identify a site. They have been prioritised in the EA's operational plan for children with special educational needs. That is where the priority capital spend has been going. Some £51 million has been spent in the current financial year to meet the needs of children with special educational requirements. That will continue to be the case, because those children are the most vulnerable. If we cannot help the most vulnerable — the most in need — we are failing them. I am very much of the view that I have to take a SEN-first approach.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. The answer is no. Nobody in the House has yet apologised for the misrepresentation of the scheme. People ask why there is a lack of confidence and trust in these institutions' taking of decisions. There is a lack of confidence and trust when Members deliberately misrepresent the facts.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: Members need to reflect on their approach. They owe that school an apology, as does the Education Committee. I went to the Committee for two hours to talk about children with special educational needs and all the other issues in our education system. For 90 minutes, the Committee prioritised an investigation — if you want to call it that — into £700,000 being spent at one school. Not one Member who was critical about the issue has highlighted the glaringly obvious contrast: non-controlled schools have received nearly identical levels of funding for the exact same provision. When it comes to that issue, the motivation is therefore pretty obvious.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for providing clarity on the matter. With his closing comments in mind, is he aware of any similar media or political focus on the decision to fund a pitch at a school in the maintained sector, not the controlled sector, in Foyle in recent years?

Mr Speaker: You have just another minute, Minister.

Mr Givan: I highlighted that issue when responding to comments on the statement that I brought to the Assembly last week. It is notable that, although I had put it on the record that funding was provided in the Foyle constituency to a Catholic maintained school, not one of those who subsequently asked questions at the Education Committee picked that up. That school and the principals of other schools in the controlled sector to whom I have spoken since the story broke are asking themselves, as I am, why it is that the controlled sector and that school have been singled out when they were pointing out to me examples in their communities of where funding had gone into non-controlled schools. They are concerned about the focus, because they believe, as do I, that it is politically motivated and has a sectarian agenda. That is what it is about; that is the purpose.

The Alliance Party has a particular problem with the controlled sector, because it is obsessed with one sector alone: the grant-maintained integrated sector. That is its preference. It has no concern about Fresh Start funding, which gives preferential treatment to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds to the integrated sector. It is allowed preferential treatment, but how dare a controlled school get crumbs of £700,000 from the table? I had better not point out similar funding for identical projects in other sectors. Members who have used this story need to apologise: not to me but to the school.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Education. Members may take their ease until we move to the next item of business.

Mr Blair: I support the motion and thank the Members who tabled it for bringing the debate to the Chamber. All of us are aware that, understandably, protests have occurred across Northern Ireland in response to recent changes to inheritance tax that will profoundly impact on family farms. The situation underscores the deep concern and frustration felt by our farming communities. The changes threaten not only the livelihoods of farmers but the very fabric of family-owned farms that have sustained generations.

Family farms in Northern Ireland are the result of generations of hard work and dedication. The land is cultivated and passed down to the next generation, which aspires to continue the family's legacy. That next generation is crucial in moving to a new era of sustainable farming and land management conducted in a way that helps our natural environment. However, that pathway is now at risk. Ultimately, the tax represents a harsh blow for our hard-working farmers, who are already grappling with the aftermath of a challenging year, marked especially by adverse weather conditions. The financial stress has been compounded, and farmers are experiencing mental strain, even before confronting the new tax realities.

As the motion specifies, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has estimated that nearly half of farms in Northern Ireland could exceed the £1 million threshold, making them subject to a staggering 20% inheritance tax. Dairy farms, in particular, are expected to face significant challenges due to the tax change, as they typically have more high-value sheds and equipment. For many farmers, the new tax threshold could translate to thousands of pounds every month. That is an amount that could easily ruin a family farm and force farmers into this daunting dilemma: pay the tax or sell the land. That decision is not just financial; it is a life-altering choice with, as I said, consequences for generations to come. We can expect to see farmers being driven away from agriculture altogether, which will lead to a domino effect that impacts on other local businesses as well, businesses that rely on thriving local farming communities.

I again express the Alliance Party's profound disappointment with the UK Government's decision. It reveals a startling disregard for the unique challenges faced by the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland, which is vital to our local economy and, of course, to food security. The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has had regular engagement with the UK Government on the issue. He has persistently communicated with the UK Government, including discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and has submitted a letter, alongside the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Finance Minister, that highlights the potential effects on Northern Ireland farms. Furthermore, the Minister has presented evidence to the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to underscore the possible impact on our farming sector.

It is crucial to say that the UK Government must recognise the unique challenges that confront our farming community. They should reconsider their policy so that it aligns more closely with the actual conditions of our agriculture sector. While the Executive have expressed their commitment to supporting the farming industry in Northern Ireland regarding the issue, increased engagement is required before the spring statement 2025 to ensure that the changes are urgently reversed.

Farmers serve as custodians of our land and producers of our food, and they are a crucial part of the local economy. As we look ahead, it is essential to acknowledge that their success is intrinsically tied to our food security and environmental sustainability. On that theme, it is regrettable that, on a day when we could have stood as one on the issue raised by the motion, comments were made by the DUP earlier in the debate that implied that anyone with a keen environmental agenda sees the farmer as "the bogeyman". That is simply not the case. Some of us do not see everything as a binary us-and-them choice. Some of us acknowledge the major environmental improvements that there have been in the agrisector but realise that there is still some way to go. We understand that environmental and economic stability are becoming more closely linked. However, the plight of farmers is the main priority in the motion —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Blair: — and we are happy to support it in that regard.

Mr Butler: I welcome the motion tabled by Sinn Féin in the names of Declan McAleer, Nicola Brogan and Áine Murphy. It is really useful to be able to highlight the mounting financial pressures that face farming families across Northern Ireland. Those pressures are compounded by inflation, rising living costs, planning restrictions and delays in tackling the scourge of bovine TB. All of that is set against the backdrop of economic uncertainty, with global markets opening further due to trade deals, such as the EU-Mercosur partnership agreement, which threatens to undercut local produce and further lower imports from outside Northern Ireland. Added to that burden is the uncertainty that surrounds future support from the Department in meeting climate and environmental challenges. There is no doubt that farmers want to play their part in tackling change, but they need clarity, stability and funding.

I will focus on the specific threat, which is mentioned in the motion, to the future of family farms brought about by the changes to inheritance tax announced in the Chancellor's autumn Budget 2024, with DAERA's analysis showing that half of farms, accounting for a staggering 80% of farmland in Northern Ireland, could be affected. Let me be clear: that is almost certainly an underestimate.

With average land values rising from £15,000 per acre to £21,000 per acre and to even higher levels in high-yield areas, many more farms will be caught in the inheritance tax net. It is not just a technical adjustment in a tax code; it is a direct attack on the viability of family farms in Northern Ireland. Those farms form the backbone of our agriculture sector, rural communities and local food security. If the changes are not reversed, we risk forcing the next generation off the land, accelerating the decline of family farming, handing even more power to large agribusinesses and speculative investors and ending food security for good.

The Executive must do more than simply acknowledge the crisis: they must act. That means actively lobbying the British Government ahead of the spring statement to secure the urgent reversal of those damaging changes. Let me be clear: words without action are like wheels without traction. It is how you vote that counts, not the likes that you accrue.

When the official Opposition brought the issue before Westminster, only six of our MPs recorded a vote — six. That is an absolute insult to every farming family in Northern Ireland. Let us be honest about what happened. Sinn Féin, to be fair, true to its abstention policy, did not vote: that was no surprise. The SDLP, sadly, did not vote. Revealingly, the Alliance Party, whose MP is from Lagan Valley, did not record a vote. The parties failed to show up. When push came to shove, they all had the chance to stand up for farming families in Northern Ireland —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Robbie. Will you return to the debate, please?

Mr Butler: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Yes, I will.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. For clarity, is the Member referring to the vote on inheritance tax changes at Westminster?

Mr Butler: I absolutely am. What happens in each of the legislatures, whether it is Westminster, Edinburgh or Cardiff, is important when we talk about the topic at hand. I was talking about a vote on the inheritance tax. They are intrinsically linked, so I thank the Member for that.

Family farmers need more than press releases and social media posts; they need every legislative and political tool at their disposal. That means physically showing up in the voting Lobbies where it counts. If we are serious about protecting the future of family farms in Northern Ireland, we must move beyond word salad signalling into tangible and meaningful action. That starts with demanding an urgent reversal of the inheritance tax changes, fighting for fair funding and protection for our farmers and standing up here, in Holyrood, in the Welsh Assembly and, more important, in Westminster to ensure that the next generation of Northern Ireland family farmers has a future. We need to send a clear message.

I heard the Member for South Antrim talk about living in people's heads. I will live on the family farms of Northern Ireland if that is what is needed to protect them. I will not be living in anybody's head, but I will hold to account those with responsibility for tackling this at its core in Westminster with the Labour Government, who brought in the changes that could see the end of food security across the UK and inflict the greatest harm on family farms across Northern Ireland. Their future is our future. We will not stand idly by while they are put at risk.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next Member, I draw Members' attention to something. This is a political arena, and people can make political points as long as it is done within the scope of the debate. If Members mention the topic that they are debating, that would be helpful. It is just to let people know that, because I noticed a few comments this morning.

Anois glaoim ar Patsy McGlone.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas fosta le mo chara Déaglán agus a chomhChomhaltaí as ucht an rún seo a chur osár gcomhair.

People have asked what the scale of this is. Those who are not off the land, whose families are not engaged in farming and whose families have not held in ownership the land, which, we know, is a very important issue in Ireland alone, and those who are not attached to the land or are not of the land really do not get what this means. It is emotional attachment. It is a legacy, a tradition, a way of life and a way of working that has been handed down generation after generation and kept in the family. When we speak about the issue, it is not just about basic accountancy; it is about a range of emotions and a host of issues about attachment to the land and working it to sustain families and others.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he also realise that the point should be made that there will be young people on that farm, for example, a son, who may work for less than a minimum wage throughout his career until he inherits the farm? Does the Member recognise that?

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

Mr McGlone: Absolutely. I thank the Member for raising that point. Some do it because of their attachment and the emotional value of that land to the family. There is another element to that, as no one — it is usually the father or grandfather — wants to leave a legacy of debt to that young person.

Whether or not that debt can be paid off the inheritance tax over 10 years interest free, it is still a debt. Earlier, John Blair mentioned the environment. That debt means that the young person will not be able to invest in new farming methods. They will not be able to invest in tractors, machinery or whatever it is. They will not be able to invest in maintenance of the ground. Therefore, to inherit that debt is certainly not the legacy or bequeathal that any father wants to leave to his family. There is that element to it as well.

A report estimates that at least 6,000 Northern Ireland farming taxpayers and potentially up to 420 cases per annum could be affected by the change. If the Labour Government want to go after those billionaires who are "land stocking", we will call it, just to avoid tax, they should go after them. Surely, among the great and the good and the brilliant tax advisers that there are, they can find a methodology with which to go after someone who has bought land just to avoid tax and is not actively farming it. Do that instead of going after the small man, the small farmer, or others who are just trying to provide food for their families and to provide food for 10 million people. That is what Northern Ireland does in various aspects of farming and agriculture. It has been estimated — again, these are estimates — that Northern Ireland could account for over 40% of the inheritance tax intake as a result of the change to inheritance tax for farming families. That is incredible. That just shows that the Government are directing it at the wrong target, if their aim was to target it. They should really reflect on that.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I am sure that he has been doing his job and making the case to the Government at Westminster. It would be helpful to shed a wee bit of light on that detail. Minister, you will forgive me: I watch most of your stuff and make sure that I keep an eye on you most of the time, but I cannot do it all the time. It would be helpful if you shed some light on the case that was made to Westminster. It is a big issue that has caused a lot of angst among farming families. It has caused a lot of angst among the young, the old and the generations in a household. That is not where we want to be. If we want to invest in the future, we need the people who own the land to still work the land and provide food for our people and to give their young people and families a future to look forward to. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Tá fáilte romhat, a Patsy.

Ms Dolan: Before I begin my remarks, I declare an interest as I was brought up on a family farm.

I stand firm in support of our farming communities, which are under threat from an unjust tax that jeopardises not only their future but the very foundation of our rural economy in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The British Government's decision to impose inheritance tax on farms that are valued at over £1 million is a direct assault on family farming. Its consequences will be devastating, particularly here in the North, where agricultural land prices are amongst the highest.

On 18 November 2024, the Agriculture Minister and Finance Minister, along with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, wrote to the Chancellor urging a rethink of that flawed policy and the preservation of agricultural relief. The message was clear: taxes must be fair and proportional. That policy will force many farm families to sell land or shut down their businesses just to pay an unfair tax bill. Family farms are not just businesses. They represent a lifetime of hard work and heritage and are crucial for our food security. We cannot let them be taxed out of existence.

Sinn Féin has been vocal in opposing those changes. Alongside the Ulster Farmers' Union, we have shown our commitment to protecting farm families. Despite the British Government's refusal to listen, we will continue to fight for fairness on every front, including at the British-Irish Council. Farming is the backbone of the rural economy, especially in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It provides jobs, sustains communities and ensures food security. The tax puts all that at risk, threatening to drive even more families off the land.

The British Government's autumn Budget 2024 proposes capping agricultural property relief and business property relief at £1 million from April 2026. With the North's high land values, farms that are larger than 27 hectares could face a 20% tax on the portion of land that exceeds the cap. That could affect 36% of farms, including many dairy and livestock operations, and force land sales that would destabilise the industry.

DAERA has warned that the changes will disrupt farm continuity, particularly for elderly farmers and those who face sudden estate transitions. The issue does not just affect the North; it is an all-island issue. Agriculture is interconnected across both parts of Ireland. We must ensure that farmers in the North are not left at a disadvantage compared with those in the South, where targeted reliefs help to protect family farms and secure the future of agriculture.

Despite rising land prices, more land was advertised for sale in 2024, up 21% from the previous year. Young farmers are being priced out, and tighter planning regulations will only increase costs for those who are looking to expand or modernise their operations. We cannot let tax pressures and inflated land prices block the future of farming.

As we approach the 2025 spring statement, I urge the British Government to reconsider their inheritance tax proposals. This is a critical opportunity to protect our farmers and the rural economy. I call on all representatives here to reject that unfair tax and stand with our farmers to safeguard the future of family farms in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and across the North. We must act now before it is too late.

Mr T Buchanan: The announcement of the Chancellor's Budget in autumn 2024 not only dealt a body blow to the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland but was a complete betrayal of our hard-working family farmers, who are the cornerstone of our economy and a fundamental part of our local communities and rural life. The dismantling of historical agricultural property relief and the introduction of a 20% inheritance tax on family farms that are valued in excess of £1 million is an unprecedented and unjust assault on the backbone of this vital industry. It threatens livelihoods and the very survival of family farms and has the potential to force many farm businesses to sell off land and assets in order to keep them out of debt as they struggle to manage huge tax liabilities.

The Northern Ireland Rural Valuers' Association (NIRVA) and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers recently published an in-depth report into the impact of the October 2024 Budget inheritance tax charges on the farming community, which revealed stark challenges for the continued livelihoods of the farming community. The study assessed the values of nine typical farm types, focusing on those that primarily produce a livelihood. The findings demonstrate that many of those modest owner-occupied farms, often in sole ownership, are highly vulnerable. They face severe financial burdens that could force drastic operational changes to their businesses. It was noted that if the tax charge for a 67-head lowland suckler herd in sole ownership was £297,000, that farm business would have to pay £29,700 a year over a 10-year period. That is unsustainable for any farm business.

Furthermore, the assessment highlights just how difficult it would be for a new farm successor to invest and develop the business when it is required. Financial pressures created by the inheritance tax changes would prevent farmers from investing in new technologies, the uptake of which is needed to help meet environmental targets as set by DAERA and, of course, the stringent targets that have been set by the AERA Minister in Northern Ireland. That includes farm renewables, low-emission slurry spreading, air pollution reduction technology and the restoration of habitats.

Given that 79% of farm businesses in Northern Ireland are classified as small farms, some of those could remain under the tax threshold where there is some form of diversification; for example, contracting businesses, holiday accommodation or renewable energy production. However, it is increasingly clear that, over time, even small farms such as those would be pulled over the threshold, especially when inflation is taken into account. The net effect of the proposals will, effectively, leave working farms in a much poorer financial state and will, undoubtedly, discourage the next generation from taking up the reins or investing in carrying farming forward into the future. The message is quite clear: if we do not have policies that support the sustainability of the agriculture sector, which is the backbone of our economy and our communities, our economy will suffer, our food production will suffer, and the prosperity of that great industry will suffer. Where there are no farms, there is no food and no future for the upcoming generations in our agriculture industry.

I welcome the Minister here today to hear and respond to the debate. I support the call from my colleague Michelle McIlveen for the Minister to do more to help the farming community in Northern Ireland. As Mr Butler said, words without action are no good. We need to see tangible actions from this Minister that show that he is genuine in going forward to support the farming community in Northern Ireland if we want to see it survive.

Mr McMurray: I welcome the motion, which keeps an important issue on the agenda. I spoke on the issue in the Chamber in November when the new inheritance tax rules were announced. At the time, I and many others pointed out that the impact on Northern Ireland farmers would be harsh due to the comparatively high value of land in the Province. DAERA figures were quoted then, and again today, to underscore that fact. Thanks to a new deeper analysis of the DAERA data, we now know that the impact on the Northern Irish farming community will be even worse than feared at the time, with many more farms affected than the UK Government estimated.

We have seen, as others referenced, analysis by the Northern Ireland Rural Valuers' Association of the financial impact on typical Northern Irish farms, and the findings were striking. In practical terms, the association said that the tax cost to a typical farming business of spreading its payment over 10 years could be compared with the cost of employing an extra member of staff who would contribute to the business. As Miss McIlveen said, a 100-cow dairy farm in sole ownership would have to increase its herd by 41% to make up the extra cost. A dairy farmer in my constituency told me that that would simply put the farm out of business. Between 2018 and 2024, land prices quadrupled in our local area, with some as high as £25,000 to £40,000 per acre. The geography of South Down does not help. We have the Mournes on one side and the sea on the other. That drives prices up, and to be viable means buying ground, which cannot happen in the current climate. According to the analysis, a 67-head suckler herd in sole ownership would require a 90% increase in the size of the herd. By my rough maths, that is an extra 60 head of cattle. From what little I know about this, an increase in herd size requires an increase in land, and that becomes illogical because farmers have to sell land to pay taxes and then buy land for it to be viable. That makes the whole operation unviable.

The core issues remain unresolved. The agri-food sector is important to the rural economy, the environment and to our communities. I hope that the issue can be resolved so that young farmers can thrive.

I do not need to imagine the stress that this is bringing on the farmers in my constituency. I hear it in their voices when they disclose to me the potential outworkings of this. Unfortunately, it brings into sharp focus the mortality of us all. One concern put to me was that if the father dropped dead, the "for sale" sign was going up. None of us knows the hour of our passing. Accidents and ill-health happen. The outworkings of the inheritance tax increase mean that there will be those who, despite being diligent in this regard, will be forced to pay to the point of losing the farm to a misfortune. It is difficult to listen to those disclosures. The reality is that if an accident befalls a loved one, it is not just that loss that has to be dealt with but the loss of the homestead and the farm. That cannot be right.

The upcoming spring statement provides an opportunity for the Chancellor to revisit and reverse this damaging decision. I call on the Executive to show their support to the farming sector and to earnestly lobby the UK Government on the matter.

Mr Buckley: I welcome the debate as another opportunity for the House to talk about family farming and the hugely positive impact that farming has had on the Northern Ireland landscape since its inception. Anybody who follows the debate closely will realise that you cannot escape the issue. In whatever farming sector you are in, it is at the top of everybody's conversation list. 'Farming Life' reported — Mr McGlone, the Member for Mid Ulster, highlighted it — that Northern Ireland alone could provide between 40% and 85% of the total number of inheritance tax cases. This has the potential to be devastating for an industry that is already facing huge challenges and anti-agriculture policies.

In Northern Ireland in particular, high land valuation, coupled with low profitability, means that farmers' very fight for survival focuses on overturning that devastating tax.

Northern Ireland farmers face a double whammy. The motion refers to:

On the one hand, farmers have a Labour Government that are intent on pursuing a scorched earth policy through the family farm tax — a death tax that is penalising farmers and restricting the potential for young farmers to come into the trade — while, on the other hand, they have an Alliance Minister of Agriculture, who, in my opinion and that of most farmers, is the most anti-agriculture Minister of Agriculture in the history of the Northern Ireland state. I see Alliance Party Members shaking their heads, but that fact is not lost on the rural community. The Minister, Andrew Muir, is more interested in and concerned about cows breaking wind than farmers breaking even. That is the reality. He cannot hide. Fancy, sympathetic words in the Chamber to pat farmers on the back will not do. He must demonstrate through action that he is prepared to stand up for the farmer.

After the farmers' protest in the Eikon centre in Lagan Valley, I was asked what it would achieve. I said in the House that we might see parties "finding reverse gear", getting back on the agriculture community's side and bringing forward policies to promote sustainable, long-term family farm viability.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Absolutely.

Mr Frew: Does the Member agree that, if parties in this place and in Westminster do not U-turn on policy, we will go back to the situation of 1870, when only 3% of Irish farmers owned their land?

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

Mr Buckley: The Member's analysis is spot on. That is the damage that policy intent can have.

When I talked to young farmers about where parties stand on supporting agriculture, I started to see a change in this place. It is a positive change, which I welcome. I welcome the fact that Sinn Féin tabled the motion. I recognise its intent and purpose, which is to protect agriculture and family farming. I think that every Member will vote for it. Does that not stand in stark contrast, however, to the Minister's setting out his five achievements of the past year and his failing to mention the £50 million a year that is being spent on tackling and eradicating — not eradicating, sorry, only tackling — TB? Some 90,000 cows have been culled in the past five years, family farms are being destroyed, farms' viability is going out of the window and farmers are under huge pressure, but there is no mention of that from the Minister.

It is the same with ammonia policy. Many family farms want to expand, become sustainable and potentially become more environmentally friendly, but, because of Andrew Muir and the Alliance Party's anti-agriculture policies, they cannot. We hear warm words from them today about how supportive they are of the farmer, but the farmer is not stupid. The farmer can see through their warm words. The Alliance Party in particular is in for a huge awakening to the anger on the issue.

The Minister's fifth achievement was his vision for sustainable agriculture. Under his vision, however, there will be no agriculture. That is why the inheritance farm tax policy, coupled with the anti-agriculture policies promoted by the Alliance Party and others, must find reverse gear. What did the Alliance Party do last week? It had the opportunity to show its support for the farmer, but the Minister attempted to place even more bureaucracy on the farmer by increasing fines. The Assembly said no, Minister. Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Ulster Unionists, the TUV and independents went through the No Lobby to stop you in your tracks. Despite that, we still face the prospect of anti-agriculture policies from this House and from Westminster, and I say that it is time to stop. I congratulate the farmers who have been putting up a noble protest and ask them to continue.

Ms D Armstrong: Like my fellow Fermanagh and South Tyrone MLA, I declare an interest: I come from a farm family. Like other Members, I welcome Sinn Féin's motion and the opportunity to return to a topic that is of great urgency and profound significance for our rural communities and farm families. I have listened to and heard the many statistics, so there is no need for me to go over them again.

The debate gives the House an opportunity to reaffirm its opposition to the disastrous family farm tax, which will rob the young farmers of the future and, as we have heard, threaten the United Kingdom's food security. No farmers would mean no food and a bleak future for us all. In fact, the tax has many ramifications. We can look forward to what happens in supply chains: when our farmers do not produce food, there is a knock-on effect on retailers, butchers, logistics and many others. There may even be a knock-on impact into the future. Think of our colleges of agriculture and what this will mean for the future sustainability of the very institutions that educate the farmers of the future. We really feel that there is an onus on us to represent those people.

Since the Government's autumn Budget, we have seen resilient and stark opposition to many elements of their tax-driven agenda and the push to balance the books at the expense of those who do so much to feed the nation and maintain the land. The situation that farm families face is intolerable, and the inheritance issue has served only to highlight the many difficulties facing the sector, including the substantial bureaucracy and economic uncertainty in the agri-food sector. That uncertainty has led to united lobbying in opposition of the changes, spearheaded by the Ulster Farmers' Union, which has actively demonstrated the anger in our farming community with tractor rallies. It continues to lobby at Westminster, which is the only place where the issue can be addressed, and it must be addressed.

At Westminster, the Ulster Unionist Party continues to highlight the genuine concerns that the family farm tax raises for our rural communities through Robin Swann MP and Lord Elliott. I am greatly pleased that my colleague Robin Swann presented the UFU's family farm tax petition to the House of Commons and that, like other unionist MPs, he has spoken at every opportunity to highlight the matter, whereas, disappointingly, other NI MPs' voices are not heard.

In Northern Ireland, the family farm tax has intensified discussion on two principal issues: the major issue of succession planning; and the issue of land values. As we know, the increasing land values that will push farmers into that threshold of tax will lead us to the largest crisis in family farming in generations and decimate food production in Northern Ireland. Again, no farmers would mean no food and a bleak future.

We must understand that the family farm tax does not affect merely the financial bottom line; it strikes at the heart of our rural communities, and, as the Member for Mid Ulster said so clearly and emphatically, it really affects our rural communities. Family farms are more than just businesses; they are a way of life and a tradition that is passed down through generations. In them are embodied the values of hard work, resilience and stewardship of the land, which we must value and protect. To jeopardise the future of family farms is to jeopardise the essence of our rural heritage.

Upon taking post, the Minister assured my predecessor, Lord Elliott, that he would balance environmental policies with farming practices. I ask that the Minister continue to give his fullest support to protecting farming families so that the legacy of generational farming can be protected.

I support the motion and thank the Members who tabled it.

Mrs Erskine: I also declare an interest: my in-laws are farmers.

It is no surprise that, as a representative for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I see at first hand the massive impact that Labour's ill-thought-out inheritance tax policy is having on our family farms. That is what I want to focus on: the real-life impact on our farming families. The outworkings are burnout, stress, anxiety, worry about unexpected death and more. This policy is essentially daylight robbery: a land grab by the Labour Government on farms that have been in families for decades. I have spoken many times in the Chamber about the perfect storm that is facing our agriculture community: rising costs, avian flu, bovine TB, the threat of foot-and-mouth disease, bad weather and a lack of understanding of the sector and its needs. Now, we have this governmental land grab. The farming community has not just been hit with a triple whammy; it is being hit constantly.

Agriculture is no small part of our economy: it is worth £6 billion. There are 26,000 active farm businesses in Northern Ireland that give employment to 51,000 people. What are we doing to support those farm businesses? That is not some hypothetical question; it is a question that has been posed to me a number of times by the community that I represent.

I do not say this lightly: there are people, right now, who are really worried about a sudden death on a farm. The chances of sudden death are a lot higher on a farm due to the nature of the business. People are worried about what the taxman will bring, even when a hearse is pulling out of their laneway and they are grieving the death of a loved one. Think on that for one moment. There will be no time for those families to grieve. Instead, they will have to pick up the pieces after a massive bill has landed on their doormat.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. As someone who lost two uncles in farm accidents, I think that what is lost on people is not only the impact that such deaths have on the family but the particular impact that they have on a local community, of which the farmer is the bedrock.

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

Mrs Erskine: Absolutely. The Member makes a very important point, and I have seen that a number of times. This policy is ripping the heart out of our rural communities.

We have to be real: governmental policies are putting farmers under pressure and causing stress in communities. In the Chamber, we talk an awful lot about mental health, and that is important, but we forget about the mental health of our farmers. With ammonia regulations choking development and bovine TB not being addressed quickly enough, it beggars belief that Governments would advocate for a scenario in which meat comes from other countries as a result of their trying to reduce greenhouse emissions on farms here. We are not encouraging our own food security or helping our own farming community.

From what I can see, we are essentially encouraging the break up of family farms. Young people do not want a millstone around their neck. They will really struggle with taking on farms with massive amounts of tax payments. The changes to inheritance tax will affect our food security and our economy as a whole. Those who have no idea about farming may think that the £1 million cap sounds huge. In reality, taking land prices, machinery and all that into account, the figures do not take long to mount up. There are very few viable farms worth under £1 million, but those farmers are not bathing in sterling banknotes. Land value has been mentioned in the debate. When you look at road infrastructure projects and the value of the land that is required to make way for their construction, you see how land value is an issue.

Like myself, the Minister was at the UFU rally and heard about the plight of our farmers. Since then, what has he done to bring that plight right to the door of our Chancellor? As I have always highlighted in the Chamber, our farmers are not and should not be the scapegoat for reducing emissions or pollution in our waterways. There are many more places and people at which the finger should be pointed.

It is time. It is time to step up. It is time to stop ripping the heart out of our rural communities and to start supporting our farmers. The warm words that we have heard in the Chamber today are not enough. It is only right that we sing with one voice and urgently seek to have the changes reversed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I bring in Timothy Gaston and Gerry Carroll to speak before the Minister responds, I have decided to apply a grace period of up to 15 minutes to ensure that all Members who put their name on the speaking list get the full five minutes. I respectfully ask that Members do not take interventions, because we do not have the time, even with the grace period. I call Timothy Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Labour Government have proved once again that they have no empathy with the farmer. If they did, they would not have dealt such a brutal blow to the future of family farming through their inheritance tax extension policy. In Northern Ireland, land prices are, in some cases, twice as high as they are in other parts of this United Kingdom. As a consequence, the farm tax threshold will be reached more quickly in Northern Ireland than in GB. Farmers are asset rich because of their land but are cash poor and struggling to meet the constant monthly bills from a fluctuating income. Importantly, when someone in one generation takes over a farm, they naturally want to grow, expand and improve their productivity. During a lifetime, extra land will be bought. That extra land is bought with money on which tax has already been paid. Therefore, it is a double taxation. People buy land with the profits that they have made and on which they have paid their taxes. When they die, the Government come once again looking for more money. Although a farmer may own 50 or 100 acres, they cannot be drawn on for his day-to-day needs. Yet retaining the 50 or 100 acres for farming in the future is key to the generational survival of any farm.

There is reason and logic for the historical agriculture exemption from inheritance tax. With limited cash reserves, many family farmers will have no alternative but to sell off land and, consequently, diminish the viability of the farm. Food production and security will suffer the knock-on effects as a result. Currently, 36% of farmers in Northern Ireland are aged 65 and over. Farmers in North Antrim and elsewhere have devoted their life to building up their farms with the driving motivation of seeing the land handed on to the next generation. Now, this kick in the teeth from an uncaring Government has rightly left many feeling angry and betrayed. When will the nation and its politicians start to respect those who put food on our tables?

With all that having been said, there is an irony in the motion. I do not expect that anyone in the Chamber will oppose it. Yet, if this place votes on inheritance tax, that does not really matter. As has been said, where were the parties with seats in the Commons when the issue was voted on and when it really mattered? Just half of Northern Ireland's MPs bothered to vote when the issue came to the Commons, which is where the real power lies. As has been said, the Agriculture Minister's party colleague was not there. Half the SDLP did not bother to show up, and the half that did voted with their sister party's Budget. Although Sinn Féin tabled today's motion, its republican ideology matters a lot more than the farmer. It is about time that the parties in the Chamber stopped their play-acting and got serious about representing farmers' interests. It is all well and good to say the right things in the House, but those words need to be followed up with actions in Westminster, where the real power is. Members, farmers see you, farmers are watching and farmers will judge you accordingly.

I sat in on an Ulster Farmers' Union meeting in Ballymoney just before Christmas. The worry and stress in the room were palpable. Many questions remain unanswered from that night. I fear that the inheritance tax, if imposed by Labour, will devastate our agri-industry and, in years to come, lead to food shortages on our doorstep. If imposed, it has the potential to wreck the backbone of Northern Ireland's economy. It has to be resisted at every level. However, once again, resisting it in this House is all fine and good, but it is at Westminster, where there are those who do not take up their seats or do not bother to attend, that the real power lies, and that is where you can make the difference.

Mr Carroll: I will begin by clarifying some figures before outlining why I oppose the motion. The proposed changes will mean that farmers pay inheritance tax at half the normal rate on property transfers above £1 million. Two people with farmland, depending on the circumstances, can pass on £2 million and, in some cases, up to £3 million without paying any inheritance tax. Those are huge figures that we are talking about. Fewer than a quarter of farms in the North have an agricultural and business property value of more than £2 million. That means that less than 25% — less than 25% — of farms will have to pay half the normal rate of inheritance tax on their land valued above £2 million. It is important to keep that in mind during the debate. The fact is that most family farms across the North will not be affected by the changes.

An organisation that is often quoted in this Building, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, notes that the changes, if implemented, would still mean that farmland is much more lightly taxed than most other assets. Land is an asset and it is wealth. The pushback against changes to agricultural property relief across the North and in Britain has been led — I emphasise the word "led" — by the political right and massively profitable agri-food businesses and their lobbyists. That is the exact opposite of a grassroots movement, as the proposer of the motion described it. The fact that protests in England were led by the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, a TV presenter and hobbyist farmer who bought his farm for the stated purposes of dodging tax, should tell us everything that we need to know about who is setting the political agenda in this debate. Clarkson, Farage and others leading that charge are nothing more than multimillion-pound opportunists, desperately trying to cling on to their obscene wealth. They have also used this debate to peddle myths about climate change.

The interests of large landowners and big agribusiness are entirely opposed to the interests of small farmers, and that includes most family farms across the North. Big farm landowners speculate on land value. They buy farmland with the clear purpose of raising prices to accumulate wealth or as a vehicle to avoid inheritance tax. Those are the people and the businesses hiking up land value, threatening the sustainability of family farms and the livelihoods of tenant farmers.

We also need to talk about why small farmers have been drawn to those protests in the first place. They do have genuine fears and struggles — nobody is doubting that — including the control that multinational companies have over prices paid to farmers and large supermarkets forcing down prices as low as possible to fuel their own profiteering, but there has been nothing about that in today's debate so far. Too many farmers in the North balance unstable and insecure work on farmland alongside full- or part-time jobs in other industries just to make ends meet. Like everyone else, small farmers have been hit by the cost-of-living crisis.

If the Government want to promote specific land uses for food production, tree planting and encouraging biodiversity, support must be targeted directly at those activities. That is how you support food sovereignty, climate action and biodiversity, not through inheritance tax relief that big landowners use as an income generator or, quite often, a tax loophole. Changes to agricultural property relief are a very small step in the right direction that will restrict opportunities for tax avoidance and will, hopefully, bring down massively inflated land value. However, the state must go much further to achieve real tax justice, including having a mass programme of wealth redistribution that would ensure sustainable, fairly paid work for small tenant farmers and rural workers. I suspect that most in the House may oppose that. I oppose the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members for tabling the motion. This is primarily a reserved matter on taxation, but I am happy to respond, and I will respond to the motion as tabled.

As Members will know, the issue raised in the motion has caused and continues to cause significant concern and uncertainty, not only for our local farming community but for me as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Last October, I spoke at the UFU rally at Balmoral against the introduction of the changes to inheritance tax. I have also attended many meetings with Ministers on the issue. The support that the farming community has received across all sections of our community underscores the concern about the issue that is out there and highlights the fact that there is an understanding across society of the important role that our farmers play in all our lives.

I said in the Assembly in November that I was disappointed by the lack of engagement with devolved Governments in advance of the Budget announcements. As I stand here today, I continue to be disappointed and have been left frustrated by the UK Government's lack of willingness to engage on the issue with devolved Governments and farming representatives. The far-reaching impact of the policy changes is much more significant than the Treasury estimate, and it is critical that Treasury listen to the concerns raised by devolved Governments and farming unions.

Land values bear no resemblance to the income-earning potential of land, and they are never realised where land is passed down through the generations of farming families and continuously farmed. Due to the policy change, however, those values could give rise to large tax bills. As I said, I have met Ministers on the issue. In October, I met the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to emphasise concerns about the impact of the changes on our family farms and farm succession planning. I have also, on numerous occasions, expressed those concerns to other devolved Agriculture Ministers and to the Minister of State at DEFRA, Daniel Zeichner, who, in January 2025, responded to a letter from me on the issue. I have also raised issues with Steve Reed, the EFRA Secretary of State.

I will address specific points in the motion. As Members will be aware, and as is referenced in the motion, in December 2024, my Department undertook further analysis of the impact of inheritance tax changes on local farms. That built on the original analysis undertaken in November 2024, and along with land values, took into account buildings, residential property, livestock and machinery. The analysis found that just under half of all farms in Northern Ireland have agricultural and business property values that exceed £1 million. The analysis assumed that, in 2026, agricultural land in Northern Ireland will have an average valuation of £21,000 per acre. That value is not overinflated. It has been calculated based on information from the 'Irish Farmers Journal' survey and the DAERA farm business survey.

Last week, the 'Irish Farmers Journal' confirmed that the average Northern Ireland agricultural land price had hit a record high of £14,736 per acre, which is up 6·8% or £942 per acre year-on-year. Furthermore, the farms that are likely to be impacted on by the policy change account for about 80% of the total land farmed in Northern Ireland. Those staggering statistics highlight why there is such overwhelming fear in our farming sector. As we have repeatedly heard from farmers across the UK since October 2024, the limitations on agricultural property relief and business property relief will impact not only on the wealthy investors in land, at whom the UK Government say the policy change is aimed, but on vast numbers of family farms, because the policy change makes no distinction between the two.

Just this month, as Members have mentioned, the Northern Ireland Rural Valuers' Association, in conjunction with the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, published a report that corroborates the point highlighted by my Department that the policy change has the potential to have a disproportionate impact in Northern Ireland. Owing to our distinctive farm structure of smaller farms that are more likely to be owner-occupied and farms with higher land values than in many other parts of the UK, our farmers are much more vulnerable to the UK Government's inheritance tax changes, which will come into force in April 2026. I plan to write to the EFRA Secretary of State to highlight the findings of that updated analysis and re-emphasise to him my concerns about the inadequacy of Treasury figures in measuring the impact of the policy change on our farming community.

I urge the UK Government, as part of a rethink of the policy, to look at how inheritance tax operates in other European countries, particularly Germany, where agricultural land obtains up to 100% relief if it is retained in agricultural use and not sold by the inheritor within a set period of seven years. The introduction of such a provision in the UK, whereby inheritance tax would not be payable on inherited land provided that it remained in agricultural use and was not sold within seven years, would mean that family farms could continue to be passed down through generations without incurring a large inheritance tax liability. That is crucial to the future of our agri-food sector.

At the same time, it would remove the possibility of investors from outside farming buying agricultural land in the knowledge that, on death, it could be sold free of inheritance tax and capital gains tax and therefore discourage that type of activity.

The motion states that:

I want to be clear that this is not scare tactics. On the basis of my Department's analysis and my engagement with farmers, farming unions and land value experts, that outcome is a real possibility. I use the opportunity, once again, to urge the UK Government before their spring statement to reconsider the policy change, given the disproportionate impact on family farms and the potential repercussions for our rural communities and food supply chain.

I urge the Assembly to support the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Declan McAleer to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. I advise you, Declan, that you have 10 minutes.

Mr McAleer: Thank you. I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate.

We kicked off with Áine Murphy highlighting the struggles faced by farmers. The inheritance tax changes will jeopardise farming futures. Farms of over 27 hectares will be impacted. Because of rising land prices, farmers will be forced to sell land to pay off their unbearable tax burden. She also linked it to food security, the erosion of the fabric of rural communities and an assault on the rural way of life. She said that this would impact on 77% of dairy and one third of livestock farmers. Farmers should have the right to pass on family land to their families. She also referred to the South of Ireland, where there are mitigations in place to alleviate and support the long-term health of the agri-food sector, which we do not have here. She noted the roles of the Finance and AERA Ministers and the First Minister and deputy First Minister in making representations to the UK Government and DEFRA. She also mentioned the role of the UFU in mobilising farmers to oppose this. The UFU has been highlighting the genuine fear and anger amongst the farming community. She called on the UK Government to reverse this family farm tax.

Michelle McIlveen spoke next. She said that this was a Westminster decision and recognised the huge pressures that are already on farmers such as inflation and livestock costs. She said that farmers work tirelessly on their farms and that farms are part of our heritage and economy and are central to food production and keeping our landscape intact. She said that the Chancellor's decision will impact on farms severely. There are 6,000 farms here that will be impacted, and we are more severely impacted here than farms across the water, due to land value, age and being more livestock-based. Also, there will be a bigger impact on people who are older or ill or are sole farmers. She said that this will push many farms to collapse. Unfortunately, so far we have seen no move from the UK Government. She called on the AERA Minister to do more to help farmers.

John Blair picked up the same theme: the profound impact and deep concern among the farming community. After generations of hard work, the next generation is crucial for sustainability, but the tax change risks this. It impacts about half the farms in the North, particularly in the dairy sector. People are being forced into a decision of whether to pay tax or sell the land, and that has a wider impact on the rural economy. He said that the UK Government have disregard for the local agrisector. He referenced the work of the AERA Minister in lobbying the UK Government and the NI Affairs Committee along with the FM, the DFM and others. He said that the UK Government must reconsider the policy and that increased engagement between the Executive and the Government is needed. He also made the point that this is not an "us versus them" contest between farmers and the environment and that the environment and economic sustainability are closely interrelated.

Robbie, the Chair of the AERA Committee, recognised the mounting pressures on farmers. He cited TB, ammonia, planning issues, inflation, uncertainty regarding future farming support, climate change and the fact that 80% of farmland is impacted here. He said that the Executive must do more to lobby the Government before the spring statement. We need every legislative tool at our disposal to support farmers, and this could risk compromising food security.

Patsy of the SDLP highlighted the emotional attachment between farmers and their land, especially that which has been passed down through the generations. It is not just an accountancy matter. Farmers could be forced to pass on debt to the next generation, and that debt will ruin future investment in the business. He said that the Labour Government should go after those who purchase land to dodge tax and not target genuine farmers, who are providing food security. He also said that the tax is having a disproportionate impact on farmers here.

Jemma Dolan of Sinn Féin said that it is an unjust tax that will jeopardise the future of farms and force sales. She referred to the joint representation from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to the UK Government in November. She talked about the hard work that farmers do and how central that work is to maintaining food security. She said that Sinn Féin will continue to raise the issue at the British-Irish Council. She said that it is an all-island issue because agri-food is produced across the island of Ireland, and she mentioned that there is targeted relief in the South of Ireland and that the North is disproportionately impacted on. She urged the UK Government to reconsider and to protect our farmers and the rural economy.

Tom Buchanan of the DUP said that the changes are a betrayal of hard-working farmers, threaten their livelihood and could force them to sell off their land. He cited a study from the NI Rural Valuers Association that shows that farms face severe financial burden, hindering succession by the next generation and preventing investment in new technology for achieving economic and environmental sustainability. He said:

and called on the Minister to do more to support farmers.

Andrew McMurray of the Alliance Party said that the NI Rural Valuers Association made a striking finding. He gave the example of a dairy herd of 100 being increased by 41% to make up the cost of the tax and said that the increase in land prices could cause a lot of stress for farmers and result in their family losing the farm if they were to pass away early. He called on the Executive to lobby the UK Government.

Jonathan Buckley talked about the positive impact that farming has here and said that the decision is potentially devastating for local farms, which are now fighting for survival. He said that it was a double whammy from the Labour Government and referred to the tax as a "death tax" that will restrict young people from going into farming. He called on the Minister to stand up for farmers and highlighted the many other issues facing them, such as TB, ammonia and the need for sustainable agriculture policies. He congratulated farmers on their noble protests.

Diana Armstrong of the Ulster Unionist Party welcomed the opportunity to reaffirm the House's opposition to the tax. She talked about how having no farmers means having no food and said that there is a knock-on impact on the wider rural economy. She also referenced the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE). Of course, there is CAFRE campus in her constituency, and she knows how important it is. She said that it is a tax on top of the many other issues that farmers face, including increasing bureaucracy. She commended the Ulster Farmers' Union, which is articulating the anger of the farming community at this time, and said that the Ulster Unionist Party is in Westminster arguing the farmers' case in the Lords and the Commons. She also said that rising land values will force many small or moderate-sized farms to cross the threshold, leading to a situation in which farmers are having to pay the tax. She added that it is important to balance farm policies with environmental policies.

Deborah Erskine said that the tax has had a massive impact in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, causing stress, worry, burnout and the fear of an unexpected death. She said that it is a land grab by the Labour Party and that there was a perfect storm of many issues, such as TB, avian flu, the changing weather, inflation, a lack of sectoral understanding of the tax and the constant hits that farmers keep getting. She talked about how, when there is a sudden death in the family, families are now thinking about whether the taxman or woman will be at the door at a time of grief. She said that the tax has potentially ripped the heart out of rural communities. She said that young people do not want to inherit what will effectively be a millstone of debt around their neck. She added that there are not that many viable farms that are valued at under £1 million, that it is time to step up and support farmers and that we all need to sing with one voice in seeking change.

Timothy Gaston said that the Labour Government have no empathy for farmers and that land prices here are twice as high as prices across the water, meaning that the policy change will have a disproportionate impact here. He said that it is double taxation, as farmers have already paid tax on their land. He said that they have limited cash reserves and will therefore be forced to sell off their land, thus impeding the passing on of farmland to the next generation. He said that it is important for all parties to represent farmers' interests. He talked about farmers' worry and stress, the devastation that the tax could cause the agri-food industry and how it could lead to food shortages in the future. He said that we need to resist the tax at every level.

Gerry Carroll opposes the motion. He said that most land here is not impacted on and that the campaign was being led by the political right and hobby farmers who buy land to dodge tax. He also said that big landowners are responsible for driving up prices, which has an impact on small and tenant farmers. He also called for targeted support for biodiversity and environmental measures.

Andrew Muir highlighted the fact that this is a reserved matter but said that he was happy to respond. He said that he spoke at the UFU rally against the tax and has been working with his Executive colleagues to oppose it. He also said that he was frustrated by the lack of engagement with the UK Government and the devolved Governments on the issue. He said that land values do not reflect earning potential, and he linked it to succession planning. He explained that he has raised the issue with DEFRA and made the point that the average land value is £21,000 per hectare, which is from the DAERA farm business survey —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McAleer: I had almost finished, so thank you very much.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members may take their ease before we move to the next item.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate or long introductions, and neither will be allowed.

Minister, over to you.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today, I will address a matter of critical importance: the integrity of our welfare system. That is crucial not only for those who are recipients of the support that it provides or those who one day may depend on it but for those who contribute to it through their taxes and, in doing so, ensure that those supports are available when needed.

At its core, our welfare system is a lifeline, a safety net designed to support those in our community who need it most. Whether it is helping someone through unemployment, supporting families on low incomes or providing for those unable to work due to disability or ill health, the system is a cornerstone of the fair and compassionate society that we strive to build. To that end, I recognise the excellent work that my staff across benefit delivery and benefit security have done over many years and continue to do to protect the integrity of the benefit system while responding to the needs of claimants and to ensure that millions of pounds in support reach those who are entitled to it every year. Their work changes lives, offering hope and stability to those facing hardship.

Let us be clear: the system is funded by the hard-earned taxes of working people across Northern Ireland. They rightly expect us to safeguard it and ensure that every penny goes only to those who are genuinely eligible. They trust us to uphold the principle of fairness. We must honour that trust. That is why welfare fraud is not just a financial issue but a moral one. When individuals cheat the system, they are not stealing from a faceless entity; they are taking from their neighbours, friends and fellow citizens. They are undermining the very safety net that so many rely on.

Therefore, let me be unequivocal: I am taking a zero tolerance approach. I am personally committed to rooting out fraud and ensuring that those who exploit the system face the consequences.

Of course, this is not an issue that is unique to Northern Ireland. All jurisdictions are grappling with the same issues and concerns, but that does not mean that we are complacent or that we do not take action. To be clear, there is a substantial body of work under way in my Department to ensure that the right money goes to the right people at the right time. I have a team of trained and accredited fraud investigators whose role is to take referrals from front-line benefit delivery staff and the public, and to follow those allegations through to their natural conclusion. That can be painstaking and time-consuming, which can be frustrating for those who make referrals and want to see instant results.

My Department receives approximately 10,000 fraud allegations per year and utilises around 25,000 high-risk scans, which help us point our resources to the emerging risks. All allegations are triaged before being routed to the appropriate team for investigation. That is an indication of how seriously we take this issue. My officials work closely with their counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions on fraud, including on the early detection of fraud and the lessons that we can learn from it. Indeed, DWP has adopted some of our initiatives, which shows that we can be a leader on the issue.

Whilst my officials are working hard to detect and reduce the levels of fraud in the benefits system, there is more that I want to do. I have repeatedly bid for additional resources to support greater investment in benefit security activities. I will continue to make the case to Executive colleagues for that funding, but, in its absence, my officials have not been sitting on their hands. My Department's benefit security division works hand in glove with universal credit operations to secure insights and drive real-time learning on suspected fraud, and to target resources towards that. They utilise high-risk scans and the latest fraud detection techniques, which allow them to continuously improve how they target their efforts. They contact claimants directly to ensure that the evidence to support claims is still relevant and valid. My Department made 20,000 of those contacts last year and aims to undertake around 30,000 in the incoming financial year. However, that is not enough. I want to shift the balance from downstream detection to upstream prevention. Therefore, I announce today that I am establishing a task and finish group within my Department to look critically at every intervention that we take and drill down on the high-risk areas. It is about working smarter to tackle this issue, including how we utilise the ongoing digital developments that are constantly evolving and maturing, and will, undoubtedly, support us in this work.

I am determined to use every tool to tackle this issue. Therefore I am also announcing a change in how we report fraud. My Department will reintroduce the practice of naming those who have been convicted of benefit fraud. Fraud is a crime, and those who commit it must be held accountable. We will ensure that our processes continue to be as effective as possible in delivering that accountability, including in the recovery of money from those who claim it under false pretences. My Department's debt management team already actively pursues repayment in those cases and will continue to focus resources on that important task.

There are some in society who will go to great lengths to avoid their obligations or to claim that to which they are not entitled. That should not be tolerated, and I will always be on the side of those who play by the rules. People work hard and pay taxes to ensure that the welfare safety net exists, and support should only go to those who are eligible and need it. Let me be crystal clear: I am on the same page as those hard-working taxpayers.

This issue matters deeply to the people of Northern Ireland. For too long, there has been a sense that the system is not working for hard-working families and people who do the right thing, and that it is too easy for some to exploit while others who genuinely need help are left struggling. That erodes trust and undermines confidence, and it is not good enough. We must rebuild that trust. We must restore confidence in a welfare system that is fair, transparent and focused on those who need it most. That is the change that I am determined to deliver, and we should not rest until we get it right. I commend the statement to the House

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement. I agree that fraud in all forms should be tackled, and abuse of the welfare system impacts on all of us. I would, however, love to see the same appetite for tackling the massive multibillion-pound tax evasion and avoidance that also squeeze public services. We oppose the Minister's decision to reintroduce the naming and shaming of those who are found guilty of fraud. It can happen to anyone. It can be single parents or families who are in crisis. They do not deserve to be prosecuted twice.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mark, do you have a question? It is time for questions, not statements.

Mr Durkan: Those are not my words, Mr Deputy Speaker —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Over to you for a question.

Mr Durkan: — but the words of the former deputy leader of the DUP. Minister, the statement is titled 'Tackling Fraud and Error', yet there is no mention whatsoever of error in the statement. Will the Minister tell us the cost of error to the public purse and what he is doing to eradicate it?

Mr Lyons: First, it is not my role to tackle tax evasion. That does not come under the auspices of the Department for Communities or even the Northern Ireland Executive. I make no apology, however, for wanting to make sure that we have a welfare system that is fit for purpose and that only those who are entitled to help get it. I hope that everybody in the House can unite behind that.

I disagree with the Member about naming people. I believe that, when someone has done something wrong and there is evidence of their deliberately trying to misrepresent their circumstances in order to get additional resource or funding, it is everybody's business. We should use every tool that we have to deal with that. If naming people makes a difference, it is right that we do it.

I do not have figures on the difference between cases of fraud and error, but we are aware that significant sums are involved. The total estimated level of customer fraud in 2023 was 2% of the total expenditure.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for his statement and for the fact that we had some time to consider it, which was very helpful. The statement contains plenty of tough language on the issue, and I look forward to seeing more of the substance and detail of it coming through to the Committee. Will the Minister explain how exactly naming and shaming benefit cheats will act as an effective deterrent? How will you ensure, Minister, that the vast majority of honest claimants are not provided with additional barriers to claiming?

Mr Lyons: We should use every tool that is in our box to make sure that we make such fraud as difficult as possible for people in the first place and that we identify those who are guilty and pursue them. If there is a conviction, it is only right that it is highlighted. We do that across other Departments. If someone is disqualified from being a company director because of activities that they are involved in, the Department for the Economy puts that information on its website. It was the same in the past for those who have been convicted for other things. For example, it happens when DAERA challenges those who have been found guilty of pollution offences. Why should there not be a consistent approach? I think that it is fair and straightforward, because we should take a zero tolerance approach to those who misrepresent their financial situation in order to get money that they are not entitled to.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement and answers so far. I commend him for his work on the matter. I understand that he and his Department have been working on it for quite some time. It is a hot topic that comes up regularly for me in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. People want to see abuses in the system challenged and dealt with. Will the Minister outline how many people have been referred to the Public Prosecution Service for prosecution over the past four years for benefit fraud and how many have been prosecuted?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for her support for the steps that I am taking. It is difficult for us to get an exact comparison, because prosecutions that are initiated in one year may not follow through until later on. There are figures on successful benefit fraud prosecutions over the past number of years. In 2020-21, we had 75 prosecutions; in 2021-22, we had 98; in 2022-23, we had 51; and in 2023-24, we had 40. I certainly believe that there is more work to do. I want the task and finish group to look at making sure that those who are found to have deliberately misrepresented their situation are prosecuted. Ultimately, hard-working taxpayers are paying for it. I think that most people will want to see us take a very robust approach, including prosecutions.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. I agree that, if someone is defrauding the system and is convicted, they should be penalised. However, it is hard enough to get into the system in the first place. The Minister mentioned repeatedly bidding for additional resources for benefit security. Will he tell us, specifically, how much he has requested, for what purposes and why those bids were unsuccessful, given the Executive's stated commitment to tackling fraud?

Mr Lyons: In 2024-25, I bid for £20 million, of which £17·3 million was for current fraud and error activities and an additional £2·7 million was for an increased intervention, which included more staff. I bid for £20 million, but, unfortunately, I received only £16·5 million.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

Whilst we all want to see a proper system in place to prevent people from abusing the system, it must be proportionate in the level of sanction that applies to individuals. Will the Minister outline what advice he has received from officials about the decision to name individuals and whether that has any impact on GDPR?

Mr Lyons: No, I do not believe that there will be any impact on GDPR, because this is something that already takes place in other areas and has been done before. I have not sought advice on the issue directly. It is a decision that I have taken, and officials are now making sure that it will be put in place. Ultimately, it is for Ministers to decide on these issues.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement and his strong action to take every step to safeguard the best use of public funds. Does the Minister agree that those who have cheated the system should be pursued and that overpaid benefits should be recovered?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely, I agree, for the fundamental reason that this is not simply public money. It is money that is put into the public purse by taxpayers, which means that there is a responsibility on us to make sure that we spend it appropriately. All actions should be taken to make sure that we recover the money from those who have cheated the system. Unfortunately, those sums have not been as high as I would like them to be. In the last full financial year that we have the records for, which was 2023-24, we recovered just over £1 million. In that year, we had a loss of £163 million to fraud. That is simply not good enough. I want the task and finish working group to look at that issue to make sure that we are recovering more and to take away any incentive that people think that there might be for engaging in that type of behaviour.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House. I think that we all agree that more money being put into the pockets of those who need it is our end goal. The Minister highlighted the 10,000 annual fraud allegations, and, in response to his colleague Mrs Erskine, he referenced some of those prosecutions. What percentage do we have of penalties or cautions, and what was the total cost of investigating the cases compared with the amount of fraud detected?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for her question. Staffing costs on fraud compliance and intervention activities, with a small level of general expenditure, building costs and IT and training, was approximately £0·5 million. That is out of the total of £15·8 million that we currently spend each year on fraud and error, so there is much more work to be done.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Aoife Finnegan. Welcome to the Chamber.

Ms Finnegan: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank the Minister for his statement. The Minister's announcement will mean more onerous evidence checks on claimants to confirm their eligibility. That will fall on the already pressured staff, who are doing their best to manage the social security system. How will the Minister ensure that capacity exists within the system to roll out the changes?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Good question, Ms Finnegan. Over to you, Minister.

Mr Lyons: First, I welcome the Member to the House. I am not sure whether that was her first question, but I am very glad that she has taken an interest in these matters.

I am bidding for additional resource to ensure that we do everything that we can to tackle fraud and error. It is not about making it more difficult for all those who apply but about dealing with those who have been found to be in breach and having the resource to investigate when something does not add up. I do not want to make it any harder for those who are entitled to benefits to be able to get them.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, there will be a cost to tackling fraud. Do you expect your Department to recoup savings to offset that expense?

Mr Lyons: There will be the opportunity for us to recover some of the funding through our investigations, but, ultimately, additional savings that are made after that will belong to the Treasury. However, whether that money goes back to London or we are able to keep it here, ultimately, it is taxpayers' money and we need to ensure that it is spent in the best way possible. I want to continue to press on the issue to ensure that we tackle it because we must not let it continue at its current level.

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

Minister, what analysis have you carried out that points to the North of Ireland's having a particularly concerning issue with benefit fraud when compared with other jurisdictions that is evidence of the need for those tougher measures?

Mr Lyons: We can compare ourselves with other jurisdictions and the rest of the UK. As I said in my statement, the issue affects all jurisdictions. However, regardless of the different levels that there may be, ours is too high. A level of 2%, which equates to £163·2 million, requires us to take action. I do not think that any of us should be happy with where that figure is right now. I can tell you this: I have many more uses for that money, which I would like to bid for from the UK Government. Ultimately, the money that was lost last year — £163 million — came from hard-working taxpayers who are already taxed to death right now. We need to do everything that we can to press down on that. I will say this: even if we were the best in the whole of the United Kingdom at 2%, I would still want us to do far more.

Mr Kingston: We are all, in the Assembly, guardians of the public purse. We have a responsibility to expose and end any wilful fraud of public funds. I commend the Minister for his determination on the matter to ensure that the welfare system is not abused. The Minister may have just answered the question that I wished to ask, but I will ask it anyway. Can he provide the total level of benefit fraud in Northern Ireland last year or in other recent years?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I can give the Member the figures again. Last year, it was £163·2 million; in 2022, £119 million; in 2021, £138 million; in 2020, £99·5 million; and in 2019, £65 million. In 2019, the level of fraud was estimated at 1%. That is now up to 2%, obviously with an increased benefit spend as well. That is why it is so much more. That is why we need to take action. I know, because I get requests from Members right across the Chamber, that there are many different areas where we would like that money to be spent, be it in our benefits system or outside it, so why should we not take every action possible to ensure that we tackle fraud?

Mr McReynolds: The Department reported £6·3 million in overpaid benefits via fraud investigations, but official errors in universal credit alone amounted to £8·47 million. Minister, what actions are you taking to identify weaknesses in the system to reduce those error rates and protect public money?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. We need to tackle fraud and error. If there are issues in the Department that need to be looked at, I want to see that happen. That can be part of the task and finish group's work. We have identified issues before, such as with carers' overpayments, and there are processes in place now to make sure that people are alerted to that. It is in everybody's interests to make sure that we deal with all areas of fraud and error. Our shared determination and goal should be that those who need support get it and that those who are not eligible do not get it. The figures are stark and show that we need to take action.

Mr Donnelly: While you emphasise upstream prevention, Minister, can you explain how you will ensure that these enhanced verification measures will not create additional barriers for vulnerable claimants who are genuinely entitled to support, particularly those with mental health issues and learning disabilities?

Mr Lyons: As I said in answer to a previous question, this is not about making it more difficult for people who are applying in good faith for benefits, nor is it about asking for more onerous information. It is about when there has been a detection of error or fraud, and we are putting the resources in there to properly investigate it and taking that through to its natural conclusion. That is where the investigation will take place as well.

What I also want to see is a very strong and robust system that sends a strong and robust message that this is not something that we are prepared to tolerate. If you are found to be in breach, we will be coming after you to make sure that we get that money back, because you are not entitled to it. I think that most people in Northern Ireland will welcome that approach. Let me be very clear, lest anybody misrepresents what I am saying today. This is not about making it more difficult for those who are legitimate claimants, nor is it an attack on those who are in receipt of benefits. It is about making sure that the money and the resource goes to those who actually need it.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his determination to provide fairness, not only for working families and taxpayers but for the sustainability of the welfare system for those who really need it. Will the task and finish group consider retaining information on fraud prosecutions for a longer period?

Mr Lyons: Yes. All departmental staff get the appropriate training and are responsible for creating and maintaining the records in accordance with management best practice. The Department manages the retention and secure disposal of information in line with business requirement and legal obligations and ensures that personal data is not retained for longer than is necessary. We have a retention and disposal schedule in place that sets out the retention periods for all data, and that is regularly reviewed. Information must be kept for the length of time that is defined in the schedule, unless there is a legal requirement to destroy it sooner. However, I know that that issue has been raised and that comparisons have been made with data retention in the rest of the United Kingdom. Again, that is something that the task and finish group can look at in order to make sure that we are keeping appropriate records, which can be helpful in tackling this issue as well as in monitoring how we are doing as a Department.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister. It has been acknowledged that errors happen. There was a 17% rise in official error overpayments. Is the Department considering policy changes in order to ensure that claimants are not unfairly burdened with repayments?

Mr Lyons: That is certainly the case at the moment. Perhaps one of the reasons why the levels of payback of that money are not as high as we would like is because it is done over a long period in amounts that are manageable for the claimant. Certainly, we need to make sure that we are recovering that money, but we also need to make sure that it is done in a sustainable way so that we can get back the resource that should not have been taken.

Mr Gaston: Minister, in England, UC work coaches can cross-reference with Companies House in order to verify claims that are made by those who are self-employed or are business owners. Why was the reference to Companies House removed from the NI staff guidance in the past 12 months and, more importantly, under whose instruction? Finally, if I may, will you commit to reintroducing that simple check in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: My understanding is that the reference has not been removed. In fact, the use of information from the Companies House website is only one tool that is available to staff to verify a claimant's employment status. A more reliable source of information is the benefits system interface with HMRC. To be clear, staff are not prevented from accessing information on the Companies House website. Rather, they are encouraged to use the most efficient route for obtaining the relevant information, and my understanding is that that is the benefits system interface with HMRC.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement. I ask Members to take their ease before we move on to the Adjournment debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Peter McReynolds to raise the matter of waste water infrastructure in East Belfast. The Member will have up to 15 minutes.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to have secured today's debate on an issue that affects my constituents in East Belfast specifically but that also affects residents across Belfast and, indeed, Northern Ireland as a whole. As I look around the Chamber, I welcome the attendance of East Belfast and other Belfast MLAs, Committee for Infrastructure colleagues — our Chair is here — and the new Minister for Infrastructure. I take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the Minister on her new role and thank her for attending the Chamber to give her first remarks on the issue of waste water, and, indeed, on Northern Ireland Water (NIW), a body in which her Department plays a fundamental role through providing annual funding.

The call for this Adjournment debate was sparked by correspondence sent to residents in inner East Belfast and elsewhere about the upgrading of Sydenham waste water pumping station under the living with water in Belfast plan that the Department for Infrastructure launched in 2021. The works have been deemed essential to reducing the risk of catastrophic failures of pumping stations and internal property flooding, something that, sadly, my constituents in the Sydenham area of East Belfast have experienced on more than one occasion. The works also aim to decrease the unsatisfactory discharges of storm overflows, to improve water quality and to reduce odours in the Connswater, Knock and Loop rivers, as well as in Belfast lough, thus enabling economic development by unlocking capacity for waste water connections in the area and stimulating job creation.

Late last year, however, the Department wrote to Northern Ireland Water to advise that a review had been carried out that concluded that, although the living with water in Belfast plan continued to be needed, its delivery within the original 12-year timescale was no longer achievable. Instead, it should be delivered as normal, and at a scale and pace that is achievable within available budgets. In essence, Northern Ireland Water has been forced to shelve those essential works in Sydenham, much like it had to do for waste water pumping stations at Kinnegar and Whitehouse and across the wider Belfast lough catchment area.

At this stage, I ask the Minister for Infrastructure whether she recognises the concern that that decision has caused my constituents, many of whom are being denied home insurance to this day or receiving outrageously high quotes, which will remain the case until the pumping station is delivered.

Sydenham waste water pumping station is the largest and one of the oldest in Northern Ireland, serving 6% of the population. It is also the largest unsatisfactory storm overflow in Northern Ireland, discharging virtually every time it rains. It is a fair assessment that, if we MLAs were to flush our toilets up here while it was raining, many of the contents would not reach Sydenham waste water pumping station but would go straight into Belfast lough.

As I have said before in the Chamber, I have always been interested in water policy and how we manage, treat and provide water in Northern Ireland. I studied it as part of my human rights law master's in 2012. I have visited a Northern Ireland waste water and sewage treatment works to see for myself the scale of the operation that Northern Ireland Water undertakes every day to treat water, and I have spoken to residents affected by flooding in East Belfast.

We have all known for over a decade that, in many of the key facilities around Belfast lough and contained in the plans that have slowed from lack of investment, our waste water services simply do not have adequate capacity. In 2021, we had a costed, detailed plan to increase sewerage capacity, but, in 2025, despite positive preliminary work, all projects have been paused. Some of the risks have been realised, as my parents experienced with a burst storm overflow pipe in Newtownabbey, north Belfast, roughly 200 metres from their home. The same pipe, along with Sydenham, was in a key piece of footage in a recent 'Spotlight' programme that revealed that the pipe was leaking large quantities of toilet water and human faeces, which was shown lying on a busy Shore Road with cars driving through it. The programme revealed that Northern Ireland Water had recently removed over 100 tons of sewage-related debris from a beach next to Whitehouse waste water treatment works and had had to stop when the removal began to physically change the landscape. So much biodegradable waste was accumulating that it was becoming a structural part of the beach. Another key piece of footage that I ask the Minister and Members to watch is by local film-maker Stephen Reid, whose video showing exactly what types of items created that artificial beach has had almost half a million views. Matted wet wipes, sanitary pads, condoms and underwear were some of the most commonly found items. The fake beach, only metres away from a public towpath, is physical, tangible evidence of the historical and chronic underfunding of Northern Ireland Water and is directly connected to waste water management.

What do we do? We have three undeniable options. First, we can take the previous Infrastructure Minister's approach by doing and changing nothing, acknowledging that a problem exists but hoping that it goes away by itself with no departmental interventions. Sticking plasters have been applied; fanciful solutions, such as developer contributions, have been proposed, although no one can tell us what projected impact they might have; and criticisms in the media and in the Chamber that the current model is not fit for purpose have been rejected. Secondly, we can start turning off certain waste water stations to prioritise the functioning of others, but that is unconscionable and should never be on the table in a modern society. Alternatively, we can take a new approach to water management. What we have in place is not working. Northern Ireland Water has acknowledged that it is being held hostage by being funded annually, with limited capital investment restricting it to investing only in smaller drainage and waste water treatment projects.

Water treatment and management are not easy or cheap. They are resource-heavy and require consistent planning and investment. Because we have not seen sustained investment in drainage and waste water over the past 20-plus years, the scale of and backlog in the living with water in Belfast programme have increased significantly due to the complexity and number of major projects that are now required. Contractors are being stood down; future projects, such as the one that we are debating, are being reprioritised; and the issues in Sydenham, Whitehouse and Belfast lough are getting worse. At this stage and in that context, I am keen to hear the new Minister's thoughts on whether her Department is supporting Northern Ireland Water to deliver on the aims of the draft Programme for Government (PFG), given its clear connection with housing and the economy.

I have regularly highlighted in the Chamber and in the media the fact that neither the Infrastructure Department nor the Infrastructure Committee get the time or respect that they deserve, given their links with everything around us. Planning, water treatment, social homes to address homelessness, environmental protection, economic growth and life itself: the decisions that are made in this area are fundamental to the delivery of them all. When they are not done right, we physically see and feel the impact.

We have a new Infrastructure Minister in post. I hope that with that change will come new ideas, new passion and a new approach. I am optimistic that the debate will highlight to the new Minister the importance of her role in that she has the responsibility to effect change on an issue of such magnitude. The Infrastructure role is not just about potholes and street lights; it is about human life, development and progress, and, as I said, it correlates directly with many of the aims and objectives in the draft Programme for Government.

It is a cliché, but repeating the same approach over and over again and expecting different results is folly. That is exactly how the waste water issue has been treated historically, and, all the while, the problems have got worse. The stalling of the projects will have a direct impact on the residents of East Belfast, whose homes have been flooded in the past. As I said, human excrement has been documented on the roads, and that same faeces has been documented in Belfast lough, where the water quality is reducing. How much longer can we go on without action to address the fundamental problem that our current arrangements with Northern Ireland Water are not working? Not only is it blocking and restricting development and economic growth, it is putting public health at risk. That is unacceptable, and something has to change.

It is evident that our current funding model cannot address the major complexities that we now see in delivering water and waste water infrastructure. For example, during an evidence session with Infrastructure officials last week, the Infrastructure Committee heard that the way in which the living with water programme is managed and delivered will be a matter for Northern Ireland Water to determine, as if the underfunding of that programme would not have a direct impact on those same projects. We go round and round, having the same conversation and expecting a new outcome and no ill effects. What measures is the new Minister willing to explore or provide to address the funding shortfall of the living with water programme in Belfast?

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the matter to the Chamber. I look forward to hearing Members' contributions and the new Minister's thoughts on the matter, which is of significant importance to constituents in East Belfast. One thing is certain: doing nothing is no longer an option.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Peter. All other Members who wish to speak will have up to seven minutes, if they so desire.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Member for securing the Adjournment debate on this important topic. This evening's debate will provide a valuable opportunity for us, as local reps, to discuss the matter constructively and to air our concerns with a view to seeing improvement in our part of the city. I also congratulate the Minister on her promotion and wish her well in her new role.

Our waste water infrastructure in East Belfast is undoubtedly causing significant problems, with wider implications than might at first appear to be the case. The 'Spotlight' programme to which Mr McReynolds referred outlined some shocking statistics and a terrifying problem. Moreover, the focus on East Belfast and the state of its Sydenham plant was alarming at best, not to mention exactly what is ending up in the Connswater river, where, in the famed Hollow, we have all attended many's a plastic duck race with community groups. On reflection, we may be shocked to learn the full extent of how bad things have become, although it is probably not a huge leap, given the issues that we have worked on in the constituency for the past number of years. I want to consider the wider effects, particularly on development and growth.

There is no question that East Belfast is at capacity in nearly every way that relates to capital infrastructure and development in general. The schools are full, the hospital is full, the roads are full and the park-and-ride is full, yet the truth is that East Belfast remains one of the most desirable places in which to live in the whole of Northern Ireland. I say that not out of natural bias but because it is right. [Laughter.]

It is true.

We have a significant housing problem, especially when it comes to affordable and social housing, because there are hardly any vacant sites left on which to build. What has that got to do with waste water infrastructure? Everything. When a site is identified, not only does planning take for ever, but Northern Ireland Water usually indicates that the system is at capacity, and so the multiple issues with connection commence. We have now learned that Northern Ireland Water has paused the living with water programme due to a lack of funding.

Waste water and sewerage infrastructure or the lack thereof is having a material impact on East Belfast's ability not only to grow but to accommodate those who were raised there and wish to stay. The lack of affordable and social housing cannot be addressed fully for the reasons that I have just outlined. The tower blocks are coming down, and people want to stay in their localities, but there is nowhere to put them. People are therefore moving away from their neighbourhoods, their families, their support, their local networks, their neighbours, their communities and the areas that they love. Even when one site is essentially replaced by another and the numbers on the usage of the water infrastructure are unlikely to change, it appears that that is still not straightforward enough for Northern Ireland Water to grant the approvals for the necessary connections easily. Such was the problem for a local school that I assisted recently.

The flooding in Park Avenue in Dundonald in the mouth of Christmas is further evidence of a system that, for one reason or another, is not working for those who live in the area. People watched in horror as waste water and sewage entered their homes and cars, causing ruin that will take years to fix and will result in insurance problems. That has inflicted significant financial burdens on people and constant worry that it will happen again or that they will never be able to sell. For many, the feeling of sanctuary, safety and pride in their home has been completely destroyed.

Some of the issues are down to infrastructure ultimately, but proper management and preventative maintenance of what is there is also key, as are timely solutions when problems arise. Something must be done. I appreciate that there are considerable budgetary pressures, but East Belfast cannot and should not continue to be at the bottom of the pile when it comes to investment in the city and its people. The need for all capital infrastructure in East Belfast, waste water included, needs to be reviewed and planned for so that we do not fall even further behind our counterparts in other Belfast constituencies and can plan for the future and allow East Belfast to fulfil its potential.

I appreciate that the cost around the waste water issue is significant, but so will be the return on investment for many decades not only through rates but because there simply comes a point when throwing good money after bad in trying to fix the unrepairable, which is never a good idea, is just no longer viable. I know that the budgetary positions are extremely difficult and that there are many and significant competing priorities, but it is imperative that we get a grip on this before there is a catastrophic point from which we cannot return. At that stage, the cost will be considerably more, not just in capital expenditure. East Belfast deserves better. I urge the Minister to act and to act urgently.

Mr Brooks: I agree with what both Members who have spoken have said. While increasing the focus on the matter, the Member, whom I thank for bringing this important topic to the House, will know that the issue is not new for us. Indeed, one of my earliest memories of my few years on Belfast City Council was when I was on the city growth and regeneration committee and NI Water attended to talk about the living with water programme. They rolled out on the desk a massive map of Belfast that had different shades of red according to the risk that different areas faced. There, on the map, one small spot of the deepest, darkest red happened to sit right over my house, which was a matter of yards from the current Sydenham pumping station. It was emphasised to us then just how unfit the Sydenham station was, how regularly it broke down and required emergency maintenance and what effect it could have on residents if the maintenance was not successful or if the problem was beyond repair. I have been aware of that for many years, going back to those council days, as I say.

It was not surprising. As has been mentioned, that area had flooded before. I lived just off Park Avenue beside the station. It had flooded before, and, as Peter referenced, we, as representatives, whether in council or now as MLAs, constantly heard about issues with house insurance and so on. Those had been partly remedied by the works that had been undertaken at Orangefield Park to reroute the river and slow the flow there. That helped some of those residents to get back some of that insurance.

Excepting local residents, there was a degree of ignorance, at times, about the catastrophic effect that the failure of the pumping station would have on the local population, given that it serves 6% of the population. We were all glad to hear that work was beginning on the new pumping station beside the King George V playing fields. It was positive to see that work was starting to progress, and, therefore, it was alarming and disappointing to be informed recently that, because of the pause in the living with water programme, the work had been paused and the development mothballed.

I worked with residents and representatives of NI Water to get it through the planning process, and I am interested to hear from Northern Ireland Water and the Department about what, they believe, the real impact of delaying the project will be and whether they see it beginning again in the foreseeable future. The notification that we received noted, worryingly, a lack of capital budget until 2033, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that the work will move forward sooner than that. The local residents will return to such questions if there are any future flooding issues as a result of station failure, but more likely, and unseen, is the continuing and devastating effect on the lough and the environment.

The promised plan of maintenance is scant consolation and seems to be the kind of maintenance that is routinely needed at the Sydenham site to keep it running. Not replacing the facility is clearly a false economy and brings significant risks on multiple fronts. Whilst we have heard about the significant crisis at Lough Neagh, the focus should not entirely be on that area. We do not want to see a situation where focus elsewhere leads to a similar crisis in Belfast lough. The wider water infrastructure is clearly in a state of crisis, but the Sydenham station is more in need than most. As has been referenced, it was at the heart of the 'Spotlight' programme in December.

The 'Spotlight' programme also discovered a lack of testing outside the peak bathing season, which was hiding the reality of pollution on the beaches around the lough. With the growing interest in sea swimming, paddleboarding and other activities, we need to know what people are being exposed to, and perhaps DAERA should look more closely at that issue. Indeed, last year, my colleague Cheryl Brownlee asked us to take a dip in Belfast lough when she opened her office with a Dip for Diabetes event. If I had been better informed about what I was dipping into, I might have been slower to join the event. However, many do swim, and the programme showed that the swimmers are concerned about what they are swimming in. That probably needs to be addressed cross-departmentally.

As my colleague Joanne Bunting said, it is also a serious issue for the development of our city, the growth of our economy, jobs and homes for young families. The Belfast Agenda wants 66,000 more people to live in our city centre, and there is an ambition to have more energy-efficient dwellings, but it is all being held back by our ageing water infrastructure. I fear that we are, in effect, beginning to outsource our water infrastructure to private developers, which means that developing small numbers of homes on small patches of land — what we generally have in East Belfast — can become financially unviable. That will drive up the cost of housing for first-time buyers and for those seeking to build or benefit from social and affordable homes and will add to the dilapidation in East Belfast.

One example is on Tower Street, where Choice Housing has ambitions to develop much-needed social and affordable homes, and that is being held up largely due to the lack of a fit-for-purpose water management system. It is an example of where we know that plans have been delayed and halted, but many smaller sites of dilapidation have not been purchased or had plans submitted because the current dispensation means that any development would not be financially viable.

I am coming to the limit of my time, and I will leave it there.

Mr O'Toole: I welcome the opportunity to talk about waste water infrastructure specifically in East Belfast, and I will do so. People might predict talk about waste water infrastructure in the city more widely and, indeed, in Northern Ireland more widely, but there is a particular issue in East Belfast. Members have talked about specific challenges around the Sydenham pumping station and specific developments. There are long-standing issues that have been created by, perhaps, some poor planning decisions in the past decades around zoning. Perhaps, some of the decisions that were taken at Castlereagh Council, way back in the day, are ones that we could re-examine. It is important to say that there is a crisis in our waste water infrastructure across Northern Ireland.

There is now a new Minister, and I welcome her to her place. It is not a small brief that she has taken on, and waste water is, clearly, vital, along with all the other things, including the state of our roads and our rail network. There really is, however, a pressing crisis with waste water infrastructure.

First, I will talk about some of the concerns in the east of Belfast and elsewhere in the city. It is clear that, in parts of the city, development is being held up. As is the case across Northern Ireland, there are very real concerns about water quality. There are real concerns about the impact that it is having on getting planning decisions over the line. In the southern end of my constituency around Carryduff, we have been awaiting work starting on sewage outflow pumping stations, as that has been holding up development. Really small-scale planning decisions are being held up by our water infrastructure. In some cases, it is big developments of hundreds of houses, and, in other cases, it is literally the tiniest bits of routine planning that are being held up by our water infrastructure. It cannot be a defensible or sustainable position for any modern European city that, because of the absence of water infrastructure, cafes cannot get basic extensions, shops cannot extend their premises and we cannot have small-scale housing developments where zoning has already happened. That cannot be a defensible situation.

Specific concerns were mentioned around the water quality in Belfast lough. That is hugely concerning. It is not going to become another Lough Neagh because it is a sea lough, not an inland lake, so it has different ecological conditions, but, my God, anything like what happened at Lough Neagh would be a catastrophe. Mr Brooks said that he does not want all the attention on Lough Neagh. I would quite like some more attention on Lough Neagh, to be honest, because I do not think that what the Executive or the Environment Minister have announced thus far is anywhere near ambitious enough to deal with Lough Neagh.

I certainly do not want to see a situation in which, given the amazing sea lough, with huge commercial, economic and ecological significance, that is Belfast lough, we continue down the road that it is going down, where the failure to invest in waste water is condemning it to be a tidal cesspool, to be perfectly honest. We cannot get to that situation, because that is close to where we are with Lough Neagh, let us be blunt about it. For a large part — not exclusively — of that situation at Lough Neagh, agriculture has been a significant driver. Waste water in Belfast is creating problems in Belfast, so we need to hear from the Minister what the investment plans are.

The living with water programme has been referenced. I would like an update on the living with water programme and the investment in it, some of which has been progressed. Some of the living with water programme at a Belfast level has been stalled. Also, I have been made aware — I have asked questions for written answer about this — that the living with water board has been paused or has been stood down. I would like to know more about that. I would like to know what is happening with the entirety of that programme.

There is a bigger question, and it really matters. It is one that I would like the Minister to give attention to and perhaps tell us more about today. Her predecessor mooted something called the developer charge. He did it in the media, and he did in the Chamber. He said that his officials were looking at it. I presume that some of those officials are in the Chamber today. I have no idea what that means beyond the phrase "developer charge". People will have understandable concerns about the impact that that might have on the price of houses, but lots of people also had an open mind on what that might mean for investment in our waste water infrastructure. The Chair of the Committee for Infrastructure is here. People wanted to know what it meant. There are basically three options: an additional charge on developers, which is indirect and would go on the cost; new domestic charges, which have been ruled out — there could be additional non-domestic charges, but I am not sure that our hard-pressed businesses would be keen on that; or continuing with the current funding model, which simply takes money out of other parts of the Executive's capital budget.

The previous Minister and his colleague, the previous Finance Minister, who is now the Economy Minister, both said that the funding model was fit for purpose. The implication of that is that they are happy just to continue funding it out of the block grant in capital terms. If that is the position, we need to see ambition in the long term about how much of the capital budget goes into waste water. There will be a consequential, whether that is in less money going elsewhere, in other revenue raising or in more creative use of financial transactions capital. We need answers to these questions. They are reasonable questions We cannot simply plod along and say that the funding model is fit for purpose as Lough Neagh and, increasingly, Belfast lough turn into cesspools. We cannot get houses built or —.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way. I will not get an extra minute, will I?

Mrs Erskine: I am sorry, but —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Of course you will; I am feeling generous.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. He raised the issue of Lough Neagh, and I thought that that might be a way in because he talked about agriculture. It is important to point out that there are 76 waste water treatment works around the edge of Lough Neagh. They are important, because we have to ensure that overspills there are monitored appropriately. We cannot just blame agriculture. There is an issue with the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) arrangements that also causes pollution.

Mr O'Toole: I did not just blame agriculture —.

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

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much.

I did not just blame just agriculture and would not do so, because it is more complicated than that. Agriculture is clearly a contributor. When we say "agriculture", we do not mean every farmer. We are talking about overloading our soil with nutrients. It is completely unarguable that that has caused some of the issues in Lough Neagh, but the Member is totally right that failure to invest in and deal with waste water infrastructure has been a major driver of what has happened in Lough Neagh; I will not disagree with her there.

The key point is that we need clarity on what the plan is. It comes back to what we, as the Opposition, repeatedly say in the Chamber: we need a plan. It will not be fixed overnight. We are talking about long-term underinvestment in waste water infrastructure, so I do not expect the Minister to fix that by herself in her term of office — her successor, her successor's successor and so on will have to keep dealing with it all — but I would like to hear her plans first of all to deal with the issues we face in Belfast and how they are holding up development, and also the water quality in Belfast lough. In the longer term, what is the plan? Are we to understand that the Executive simply think that —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — we can continue with this funding model forever and a day?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Matthew.

Minister, may I welcome to your to your first debate as Minister?

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

First, I thank Mr McReynolds for securing the debate, which has been helpful in highlighting the importance of waste water infrastructure to our society. It strikes me that we do not always realise, until there is an issue, how critical it is, and that is across the board, so I really appreciate the opportunity to respond to the debate. I have listened intently to Members' comments and the issues that they have raised, and I have heard their concerns, particularly about waste water infrastructure in East Belfast and the need for further investment and improvements. As a former member of the Infrastructure Committee, I have highlighted the issues as they relate to my constituency in particular.

Even in my short time in post, I have met — just yesterday — the chair and chief executive of NI Water to discuss these very issues, because I recognise the seriousness of the problem that we are dealing with. I look forward to working with NI Water. I acknowledge the significant financial challenges that NI Water operates under. It is important to emphasise, however, that it must work within the budget, and that requires prioritisation. That is not to approach issues with the blanket response that finances are always to blame. I am an eternal optimist, so I believe that there are lots of things that we can and should look at to find solutions.

My Department, like others, has been operating in a difficult financial environment due to 14 years of the British Government's chronic underfunding and austerity. We all recognise that there is a need for additional funding, and, with my Executive colleagues, I will continue to make that case.

The situation is creating significant challenges for our ability to make improvements to waste water infrastructure, deliver housing growth, support economic development and improve water quality at the pace that we all would like to see.

It should be noted, however, that my Department fully funded NI Water for the first three years of the price control period. In fact, it provided almost £93 million of additional capital funding, which is over and above the funding level that the Utility Regulator recommended for the same period. It is useful also to note that the housebuilding industry itself has advised that housebuilding is at the highest level that it has been at in 15 years. Although I recognise that we have so much work to do, it is important to mention that point.

Improving our waste water infrastructure will be a huge exercise, costing billions and taking decades to achieve, but I will continue to build on the previous Minister's three-pronged approach. That will include working with Executive colleagues to increase waste water investment and exploring options for developer contributions. I know that Mr O'Toole asked questions about the consultation document, but I hope to see it launched in March. I will introduce the water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill in the Assembly.

During this financial year, NI Water has been allocated a budget of almost £0·5 billion, which is just under 40% of the total non-ring-fenced budget available for my entire Department. In the October monitoring round, NI Water received £32 million, £19·5 million of which has been used successfully to unlock capacity for 2,300 properties across Antrim, Derry and Tyrone. I plan to continue to have a focus on unlocking capacity. I am delighted to announce that my officials are working collaboratively with colleagues in DAERA and DFC to contribute to the aims and objectives of the Executive's housing supply strategy. That demonstrates that, despite the challenging public expenditure context, my Department is continuing to work hard to deliver positive change by improving our water and waste water infrastructure.

Members have previously pointed to the governance model and highlighted alternative approaches. My Department has reviewed water utility company structures across Britain and Ireland for best practice, including mutualisation, in which the Member will be interested, given that the Alliance Party recently published its own policy proposals on the funding and form of NI Water. It has proposed mutualisation as being one possible structure. As my predecessor advised in the Assembly on 8 April last year, however, mutualising NI Water would require a significant change to be made to its governance structures, as well as the introduction of domestic charging in order to provide a separate revenue stream outside of government control or responsibility.

A mutualised company cannot be created when it is reliant on the extent of government subsidy that my Department currently provides. Furthermore, the recent experience of water companies in England and Wales has demonstrated that privatised and mutualised water companies do not necessarily provide the better levels of services that people expect. Indeed, having mutualised companies can lead to higher levels of company debt and subsequent increases in costs.

Finally, I will speak about 'Living With Water in Belfast', the plan that was initially published on 9 November 2021, following Executive endorsement. The plan aims to address the increasing demands on the city's drainage and waste water network that are caused by population growth, alongside the more frequent extreme weather events resulting from climate change.

The plan estimated that £1·4 billion of investment would be required over 12 years to deliver it, with the majority of that required for upgrades to NI Water's infrastructure and around £200 million identified for blue-green drainage infrastructure. An anticipated £700 million increase, however, in the estimated cost of the upgrades needed to NI Water's sewerage network and waste water treatment works within the first two years alone has seen the overall costs of the plan increase to over £2·1 billion. An affordability review that my Department carried out in response to that increase concluded that the Belfast plan still needs to be delivered but that the original 12-year time frame for its delivery is no longer viable because of the increased cost. NI Water projects in the plan will now be taken forward by the company as normal business through the price control process at a scale and pace that is achievable within available budgets, rather than through a structured programme.

It is important to make that point by way of response to some of the concerns that have been raised today. The plan has not been shelved or mothballed, to use the terminology that has been used.

Mr Brooks: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: I will indeed.

Mr Brooks: I understand that this may be a matter for NI Water, but does the Minister have any details on what that might mean for the Sydenham pumping station, particularly the scale and so on of the work? Will it be value engineered? What effect will that have?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his intervention. I suppose that it means that it will be delivered but over a longer time frame. The board has decided to defer these upgrades until the next price control. However, in 2025, repair work and minor works will be completed. NI Water will continue to undertake that essential maintenance to ensure that the current assets continue to work effectively. That is important, because some of the terminology being used does not reflect how it should pan out in reality.

As I said, my Department will continue to identify and develop blue-green sustainable drainage projects in the Belfast plan area alongside delivery partners, including NI Water. Whilst I appreciate that blue-green infrastructure is not a silver bullet, it is critical in building the resilience of our water network going forward. It is about looking at everything in the round so that we have the best systems that we can have within our current financial envelope.

It was always accepted that additional funding would be required to deliver the plan. In New Decade, New Approach, the living with water programme was identified as a beneficiary of increased funding. However, that was not received. I, however, remain committed to the Belfast plan objectives to help to protect against flooding, to enhance the environment and to grow the economy, and I will continue to make the case for additional funding to expedite their delivery. On the projects in East Belfast specifically, the upgrade of Belfast and Kinnegar waste water treatment works, the replacement of the pumping station at Sydenham and the removal of eight unsatisfactory intermittent discharges in the Dundonald area will be considered as part of NI Water's prioritisation process for the next price control.

I will turn to some of the points that Members made. It is important to note that many of the issues raised could be reflected across many of our constituencies, so we should reflect on the importance of the overall picture in waste water infrastructure. I agree with the Member for East Belfast Ms Bunting that something must be done, and we have been saying that for a long time. However, I do not think that we can use the excuse that no funding means that nothing can be done, because I do not believe that that is the case. I am committed to doing as much as we can within that budget, because we cannot sit on our hands. The longer we do, the worse this problem will get, so I am committed to ensuring that, working collaboratively with NI Water and Executive partners, we do what we can within that budget. It is critical, and we cannot wait. We recognise that there are significant challenges. If the money were there, we could do so much more, and I will continue to make that case to ensure that we get the investment that is needed.

Mr Brooks spoke about water quality, which is the responsibility of DAERA, and I think that the NIEA is NI Water's regulator. NI Water consistently exceeds the required waste water compliance levels across the North, so that will continue to be monitored very closely.

I turn to Matthew O'Toole's comments, particularly the issues with planning. Again, we all recognise the issues. I encourage developers, at the pre-application stage, to engage with NI Water to look at what solutions are available in the current context, and, hopefully, as we move through this programme, we will see further solutions being found, because, in many cases, that has happened. We need to continue to work through that and work collaboratively.

The programme board for the living with water programme has been stood down, and the individual projects within the programme are being delivered as business as usual. I hope that that gives some confidence that that has not been completely stalled. The plan remains and will be delivered, just in a different format and at a slower pace.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, could you draw your remarks to a close, please?

Ms Kimmins: I am keen to see the delivery of improvements to our waste water infrastructure across the North to facilitate housing growth and economic development as well as helping to improve water quality. I reiterate that the value of our waste water infrastructure cannot be overstated. I will work alongside my Executive colleagues to secure investment to maintain and improve the quality of our waste water infrastructure for the people of the North. I thank Members for the opportunity to speak on the issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Members. Thank you, Minister.