Official Report: Monday 24 February 2025

Mr Speaker: At the start of business, I put on record my congratulations to our colleague Andy Allen for his participation in and achievements at the Invictus Games, which were held recently in Canada. He brought home four medals from the competition: one gold; two silver; and one bronze. It is well known that Northern Ireland has a strong record of punching above its weight in the performances of its competitors in sporting championships, and I am delighted that the Assembly can now boast about one of its very own in recognising the dedication and achievement of home-grown sporting talent. I will write to Members later today to invite them to join me at a reception event to mark Andy's achievements that is to be held in Parliament Buildings tomorrow afternoon.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Last week, Pat Sheehan and I met Mothers Against Genocide. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I thank that group for the meeting. Mothers Against Genocide is a cross-community group of women who have come together to call for solidarity in ending genocide. It is a collective of women from across all religious and political viewpoints and classes that is calling for an end to genocide in Gaza and for the promotion of a lasting peace in Palestine. Its aim is to have all legislators recognise the need for Palestinian rights and to end, under international law, Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. It asked us to call for the protection of humanitarian workers, journalists and health and social care staff in line with international humanitarian law. It further asked us to raise the concern that ongoing arms sales enable genocide, saying that those sales need to end and that that also needs to be done in line with international law. It also asked for our support for a ban on trade with illegal settlements in the occupied Palestine. Advocates for businesses in the North and public bodies also need to look at their ethical procurement policies. That includes looking at firms that provide goods to businesses that are complicit in the occupation of Palestine. We all should call for and defend the rights of individuals, institutions and businesses to engage in boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) without legal restrictions.

We all must call for an increase in humanitarian aid. We need to put measures in place that will allow sick and injured children to evacuate Palestine and travel to the North of Ireland for treatment, similar to schemes that are already in place in Dublin and London.

We also call for the restoration of United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) funding to support Palestinian refugees. We need to ensure that work continues with international bodies to support a just and lasting solution that is based on equality and human rights. It should be on all our lips that every child, every citizen, Israeli or Palestinian, deserves to grow up feeling loved, happy and safe. We call for that pledge to continue throughout all legislatures.

Mr K Buchanan: I am concerned about the rise of avian influenza in Mid Ulster. Last week, 64,000 birds were culled at a commercial poultry farm near Dungannon, and over the weekend, we learned that almost 16,000 birds will be culled at a site near Pomeroy. The spread of avian flu should be taken very seriously. The poultry industry in Northern Ireland is important. It generates over £600 million for the economy and employs a great number of people. If avian flu spreads further in Northern Ireland, it will impact not only on our economy but on the livelihoods of those who work in that industry.

I read that the Balmoral show organisers have announced that there will be no poultry competitions this year. That is the wise thing to do in the current circumstances. I echo the words of the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Minister Muir, in imploring all bird owners, be they commercial or domestic, to:

Mr Honeyford: The growth of renewable energy offers several significant benefits for residents and environmental and economic advantages. At the weekend, however, we saw reports that, again, exposed the slow pace of change, which is made worse by renewable energy being continually wasted because it is not able to access our grid. It is outrageous that almost 40% of renewable energy is effectively dumped in the sea, four times the figure for the South. The inefficiency of that 40% loss has to be built into the cost of future connections and tenders, and that keeps the price higher than it should be.

We live on an island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. We need to have a much greater focus and to work much faster on becoming self-sufficient in energy. Ultimately, doing so will protect our residents from volatile global energy prices by giving more stability to electricity costs. Energy security is vital, and we have felt the cost of relying on fossil-fuel imports. The cost of energy affects every household every week and month. Since 2021, the average price that a household pays in energy has more than doubled. Little has changed in the past year. Alliance wants to see the potential of being self-sufficient in energy realised through delivery, innovation and investment and this region being boosted as a green-energy hub, which will bring lower prices for every household. The Assembly and the Department for the Economy need to deliver in this mandate. We need movement on expanding our grid, alongside support for renewable energy, to happen at a much faster pace so that achieving the "80 by 30 target" for renewables is not just a headline but a reality.

Dr Aiken: Perhaps the litany of horrors that was created by the vile attacks of 7 October has inured us to the evil perpetrated by Hamas, by Islamic Jihad and, now, self-evidently, by so-called civilians in Gaza. The silence of far too many over the fate of the hostages; the wilful ignoring of the use of rape and violence against the innocent; the blatant antisemitism prevalent in the very statements by political parties to so-called NGOs; and the 'wokerati' baying for the destruction of Israel in our streets has become a sad norm. They have all become complicit in the grotesque evil being perpetrated on the innocent.

Last week, four coffins were paraded before a baying mob. Those coffins were marked with the so-called day of arrest of the deceased. One of those coffins held an 83-year-old peace activist, Oded Lifschitz, who was murdered by terrorists for no other reason than he was a Jew. Another coffin held the remains of four-year-old Ariel Bibas, who was murdered by strangulation for no other reason than he was a Jew.

A third held 10-month-old baby Kfir Bibas, murdered by strangulation for no other reason than he too was a Jew. The fourth coffin holding the remains of another arrested person was supposed to hold the children's mother, Shiri, but, of course, it did not. Shiri's remains were then miraculously found by Hamas the next day; another bargaining chip in the sick calculus that passes for reason amongst those who always advocate from the bloody river to the bloodstained sea of the militant extremists' imagination.

Is it too much to expect that, on this island, at least, we can call out evil for what it is without whataboutery and rancour, and just accept and call out the grotesque spectacle that Hamas has created? It cannot have any place in any future peace as our First Minister has suggested. It cannot be given that agency. Strangling infants and toddlers does not give it any right to be included in any peace process.

Finally, while I hope that you all join me in praying for a real and just peace, please also reflect on the words of the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, who said

If that can be seen from Mecca, is it too much to hope that it can also be seen from the First Minister's office and from Benches in this Chamber?

Mr O'Toole: I am tempted to respond to some of what Dr Aiken has said — he has said it repeatedly in the Chamber — but I will not, because I have other things to talk about.

First of all, I associate myself with your remarks about Andy Allen, Mr Speaker. We should all be proud of Andy's achievements. I also mark, if I may, the anniversary, which, I think, was last week, of the passing of our constituency colleague and your predecessor in the constituency, Christopher Stalford, who is sorely missed from the Chamber. As somebody who had very different political views from Christopher Stalford, I often think of him when we have debates here. I think of his intelligence and wit. I just wanted to pause and remember him.

It is just over a year since we returned to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, but we face, in this place, a crisis in accountability, a crisis in the public's trust that people here — specifically Ministers — will make decisions, be willing to take responsibility and answer for those decisions and be held accountable for them. I will give a couple of examples. Last week, the Health Minister announced a new policy on core grant funding for health bodies. That resulted in a loss of funding for a wide number of organisations, although I accept that it also meant that some bodies got core grant funding for the first time. You would think that that was the kind of thing that a Minister should bring to the Assembly to face questions on. He did not do that, but he is not the only one. There are umpteen examples.

A particularly egregious example or set of examples, is that of the Finance Minister — now successive Finance Ministers — having meaningful decisions — when I say "meaningful", I am talking about large and important decisions — on spending announced by written ministerial statement on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays and not bringing them to the Chamber. Tens of millions of pounds were allocated in response to storm Éowyn through the January monitoring round, but that was not brought to the Chamber. That was issued by written statement with no one — not a single MLA from the Opposition or Executive parties — being able to ask a question.

Not only that, but the draft Budget was announced before Christmas. Before Santa got here, the Finance Minister announced the draft Budget, which, by the way, included a policy decision to increase rates for the people of Northern Ireland. That had already been decided. It was not brought to the Chamber. I see Members across the Chamber smiling at me as I make that point, but our job is accountability. Whether you are in the Opposition or the Executive, simply waving stuff through, pretending that we are not here to hold people to account and are simply here to act like pygmies and have meaningless debates and motions, reading things out and not scrutinising the people in power fails the people who sent us here.

I am serious about accountability. I am aware that it prompts guffaws and occasionally contempt from people in the Chamber who do not like accountability. However, the rest of the official Opposition and I are serious about it. We intend to keep holding people to account, whether they like it or not.

Miss Brogan: Rinneadh Lá Idirnáisiúnta na mBan agus na gCailíní san Eolaíocht a cheiliúradh ag tús na míosa. Is iomaí bean as an oileán seo a bhí, agus atá go fóill, ar thús cadhnaíochta san eolaíocht. Ach, ar an drochuair, is minic nach bhfuair na mná aitheantas mar ba cheart san am a chuaigh thart as an tsaothar eolaíochta a rinne siad. Mar shampla, is d’fhear céile Annie Russell Maunder a cuireadh síos an chuid ba thabhachtaí den obair a rinne sí agus is amhlaidh a fuair beirt fhear Duais Nobel na Fisice as obair a rinne Jocelyn Bell Burnell.

Bíodh go bhfuil iarrachtaí á ndéanamh le 10 mbliana anuas le cothromas a bhaint amach do na mná san eolaíocht, is é rud a dhéantar leithcheal agus leatrom orthu ar fad. Tá bearna inscne ann go fóill i ngach aon réimse eolaíochta, teicneolaíochta, innealtóireachta agus matamaitice ar fud an domhain. Mar sin de, tá cúis bhróid againn go bhfuil eolaí mná as Contae Ard Mhacha ar thús cadhnaíochta arís agus í ag iarraidh an bhearna inscne úd a chúngú. Bhain Jocelyn Bell Burnell the Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics 2018. Bhí 3 mhilliún dollar ag gabháil leis an duais sin. D’úsáid an tOllamh Bell Burnell an t-airgead sin uilig go léir le ciste a chur ar bun le cuidiú le mná a bheith ina dtaighdeoirí fisice.

Tá obair go fóill le déanamh má tá teacht mar is ceart le bheith ag na mná ar an eolaíocht, ach ós rud é go bhfuil eiseamláirí amhail an tOllamh Bell Burnell, Niamh Shaw agus Lydia Lynch againn, sílim go bhfuil ábhar dóchais againn don am atá le teacht.

Mr Kingston: I rise to pay tribute to UDR privates James Cummings and Fred Starrett who, on this date 37 years ago, while performing their duty to protect life and property in Belfast city centre as soldiers in the Ulster Defence Regiment, were murdered by the IRA. In the late evening of that day, 24 February 1988, Cummings and Starrett attended to lock the security gate in Royal Avenue, to protect the city centre from the IRA bombing campaign, which aimed to destroy the economy of Belfast. The IRA had hidden a bomb behind a hoarding beside the security barrier covering Castle Court shopping centre, which was under construction at that time. When it detonated, Private James Cummings was killed instantly, and Private Fred Starrett was taken to hospital where he died several hours later.

Private Cummings, from Rathcoole in Newtownabbey, had been a member of the regiment for two years. Private Starrett, from east Belfast, had joined the regiment just four months previously. They were both just 22 years old. The cowardly IRA members who planned and carried out that bombing had just one intention, which was to take the lives of members of the security forces who were trying to protect society from the evil of terrorism. Had passing members of the public also been killed or seriously injured, the terrorists would have taken no responsibility for that.

Cummings and Starrett would have known that, every day and every night, they would be prime targets for terrorists, yet they bravely stepped forward to join the UDR and serve in the British Army to protect society. Both men were members of Orange lodges in Ballymacarrett No 6 district in east Belfast. Two days ago, on Saturday morning, I joined hundreds of others in attending the annual service of remembrance for Cummings and Starrett, which was held in Royal Avenue and organised by the Ulster Defenders of the Realm LOL 710. I spoke to family members in attendance, who said that it means a great deal to them that their sacrifice is not forgotten and that their names are honoured. We will continue to remember them with honour.

Those who planned and carried out that and other acts of terrorism during the Troubles were the enemies of democracy. In fact, they achieved nothing other than to take thousands of lives and to devastate thousands of others who were injured or bereaved. There was always an alternative to terrorism. Indeed, the Assembly is part of that; it is called peaceful and democratic politics and respect for the rule of law and other people's right to life. That is what the people of Northern Ireland expect Members of the House to be committed to, and not to the shameful glorification of the evil terrorism of the past.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Ms Egan: This week marks 20 years since Lisa Dorrian went missing. Lisa was from Bangor, and she was 25 years old when she went missing on 28 February 2005. She was last seen in a caravan park in Ballyhalbert, where she had been at a party. Lisa went missing that evening, and the police believe her to be dead, but her body has never been located. Lisa's disappearance shocked people not just from the area but from across Northern Ireland. A beautiful young woman, with her whole life ahead of her, just disappeared. It is a travesty that she has still not been found, 20 years later.

Lisa left behind her parents, Patricia and John, and her siblings Joanne, Michelle and Ciara. It is hard to imagine the pain and torment that they have had to endure. Tragically, Lisa's mother, Patricia, passed in 2015, having never got answers, justice or a proper burial for her daughter. The family have been campaigning now for 20 years with the simple message "Let's find Lisa". Incredibly, they have used their grief to help others. The Dorrian family has been outspoken in calling for the introduction of Charlotte's law in Northern Ireland, which would increase the sentence for murderers here who do not disclose the location of their victim's body. The family has worked with the Minister of Justice and the family of Charlotte Murray to ensure that that law will be delivered.

Lisa's sister Joanne is the chair of K9 Search and Rescue, a charity based in north Down that conducts search-and-rescue missions to help families who have missing loved ones. That work speaks to the dignity and strength with which the Dorrian family has campaigned for truth and justice. It is remarkable.

Today, I appeal to anyone with information to come forward to the PSNI. Twenty years on, we know that there are people in our community who know what happened to Lisa. I urge them to search their conscience and do the right thing. It is not too late: "Let's find Lisa".

Mr Brett: In August 2016, the 'Belfast Telegraph' led with a story that was headlined:

Following the public commentary that has disgracefully emanated from the party on the Benches opposite this weekend following the death of IRA man Brendan McFarlane, it is my moral imperative to ensure that they are not forgotten.

On 13 August 1975, under the cover of darkness, three cowardly terrorists, led by McFarlane, set out to murder and maim their Protestant neighbours. They arrived at a packed bar, where they opened fire indiscriminately and planted a 10 lb bomb at the entrance to ensure the maximum number of casualties among innocent Protestant men, women and children. The IRA, in its actions, killed five people, the youngest of whom, Linda Boyle, was just 17 years old, and injured 50 others.

Thankfully, Mr McFarlane and his accomplices were caught by the security services that night and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1983, Mr McFarlane led the Maze prison escape, during which a prison officer died. In 1983, he was charged with the kidnapping of a supermarket executive in the Irish Republic, which led to the deaths of a further two individuals.

In all the public pronouncements from Sinn Féin eulogising Mr McFarlane, there was not a single sentence — not a scintilla — of a "sorry" for the victims of his evil deeds. The Sinn Féin Member for North Belfast, who represents the very place where the bomb went off, managed to say in his remarks that Mr McFarlane did all that he could in the struggle for Irish unity. Did that struggle include the murder of an innocent 17-year-old girl? The leader of Sinn Féin described him as a "great patriot". Do great patriots plant a 10 lb bomb at the entrance to a bar to tear the heart out of the Shankill Road and then celebrate the murder of five people?

I was raised never to speak ill of the dead, and I recognise that a family is hurting, but my community and my constituency hurt every single day as a result of Mr McFarlane's actions. Sinn Féin's failure even to acknowledge that fact is nothing short of a disgrace. No amount of whitewashing or saying that the IRA's actions were justified will ever stop my party calling out the rank hypocrisy of the Members opposite.

Ms Sugden: Recent events in Coleraine have once again highlighted the issue of women and girls' safety in Northern Ireland, the threat to which is pervasive. The discovery of a bag containing suspicious items near a family home has understandably caused distress in our community. Although the police indicated that the incident was domestic, other recent reports of women being followed in the area highlight the range of dangers that women face every day. I commend the police in Causeway Coast and Glens for their quick response to the recent event. They worked tirelessly throughout the week to get a result, which we will see in court today.

Regrettably, Coleraine is not unique. The vulnerabilities experienced by women there reflect wider issues across Northern Ireland. The unsettling reality for women is that we have always navigated a world that is fraught with potential dangers, both public and private. For women, even walking in public in familiar spaces often requires a heightened sense of awareness. When doing simple things that many men take for granted, such as coming home after dark, we clutch keys between our fingers, we avoid certain routes and we get our phones ready to call for help. That constant state of alert is a lived reality for women and girls. The threat, however, is not confined to public spaces. Our homes, which should be havens of safety, are frequently places of unreported distress, and 32,763 incidents were reported to the PSNI last year.

Although women face harassment, stalking and exploitation on social media platforms, Northern Ireland is not doing enough in that space. We could review the Malicious Communications Act 1988, otherwise it is just redundant legislation. We could introduce stalking protection orders to intervene earlier in cases of persistent harassment.

As ever, tackling the issues requires a joined-up approach that goes beyond a reactive police response. Local councils have a role to play: better street lighting, more and more active CCTV in key areas and better maintenance of public spaces can make a real difference to making women feel safe. The justice system also really needs to improve. We need swift and decisive action when crimes are reported, sentencing outcomes that reflect the harm that is being caused, and timely investigations and processes. We need proper support for victims, and we need to make sure that perpetrators are dealt with appropriately so that women have confidence in the system.

We need to be clear about the realities of violence against women and girls. While individuals from any background can be responsible for the behaviour, it is important to focus on facts rather than assumptions led by misinformation or prejudice. Most perpetrators are known to their victims — they are their partners, relatives, colleagues or acquaintances — and shifting blame to specific groups without any evidence only distracts from addressing the real and systemic issues at hand. The safety of women and girls demands our attention to ensure that every individual, regardless of background, can live without fear. Let us focus our efforts on tangible, immediate actions that make our community safer and more respectful for everyone.

Mr Dunne: As has been said, this week marks the 20th anniversary — we are just a few days short — of the disappearance of Lisa Dorrian, aged just 25 years old, from a caravan park in Ballyhalbert in County Down on 28 February 2005. Lisa is irreplaceable. Her disappearance has left a hole in the lives of her loving family and friends and continues to cast a dark shadow across our local community to this day, as, tragically, her body has never been found.

For two decades, Lisa's family have endured unimaginable pain and heartache, yet, throughout that time, they have shown extraordinary courage, resilience and determination in their quest for justice. They need to be commended. The campaign to find answers has not only kept Lisa's memory alive but shone a light on unresolved cases across Northern Ireland. I commend the family for their bravery and resilience in continuing to search for truth and justice and to find Lisa. Sadly, Lisa's mum, Patricia, passed away with a broken heart in December 2015. However, the courage and commitment of Lisa's father, John, and her sisters Joanne, Michelle and Ciara over the years have given hope to so many other families in similar heartbreaking situations across Northern Ireland and, indeed, beyond. Having met members of Lisa's family on many occasions, I know that their desire for truth and justice continues and is just as strong today as it was 20 years ago. No family should ever have to face the additional heartbreak of not being able to bury a lost loved one. If there is anything that we, as Members of the House, can do to offer hope to families in such a position, we have a moral responsibility to do it.

The "Let's Find Lisa" campaign has strongly advocated the introduction to Northern Ireland of what, in memory of Charlotte Murray, has become known as Charlotte's law. The Justice Minister has confirmed that she intends to bring forward that proposal in this mandate as part of a wider sentencing Bill, and I encourage her to continue to progress that. I will take the opportunity, as we mark this 20th anniversary, to once again urge anyone with any information that might help this grieving family 20 years on to bring it to the PSNI immediately. It is never too late to do the right thing: let's find Lisa.

Mr Gaston: The bodies of 34-year-old Shiri Bibas and her children — four-year-old Ariel and six-month old Kfir Bibas — who were kidnapped on 7 October 2023, were supposed to be handed over during a sickening ceremony on Thursday. On Friday, it emerged that the body of Shiri Bibas had not been returned as promised, and authorities had to wait another day to get it. The coffins released on Friday were locked, resulting in painful delays in the processes for Israeli authorities, because they feared that the coffins could literally blow up in their faces. Those were horrific circumstances for the families and the Israeli authorities to deal with. Yet, to enter this very Chamber, Members pass a portrait of someone who was linked to similar behaviour. I will read a poem called 'A Simple Set of Car Keys', which is partly based on revelations in Liam Clarke's biography of Martin McGuinness about three murders:

The names of the men referenced in the poem are Chief Instructor Leslie Jarvis, Detective Inspector Austin Wilson and Sergeant John Bennison, who were murdered at Magee College in Londonderry on 23 March 1987. Some people in the House make a virtue out of not meeting Donald Trump because of his policy on the Middle East. Perhaps the truth is that they are closer to Hamas, in ideology and tactics, than they are to any innocent Palestinian civilian with whom they claim to sympathise.

Mr Speaker: That concludes Members' statements. Members should take their ease for a moment while we change the top Table.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to my Member's statement, in my role as leader of the Opposition, I have a particular concern around Ministers' failure to bring oral statements to the House. The Finance Minister is in the Chamber now, but we have now had two monitoring rounds and a draft Budget that should have been delivered to the Assembly orally but were delivered by written ministerial statement. Last week, we had a significant announcement from the Health Minister. Can you advise whether you are satisfied with the situation or whether your office is doing further work to encourage Ministers to bring oral statements to the Assembly?

Mr Speaker: I will happily look at that again. Members and Ministers know my view on that, which is that, where possible, it is appropriate that Ministers bring their statements to the Floor of the House. We discourage and we seek to dissuade Ministers from making statements on other occasions. When they have the opportunity to bring a statement to the House, that is the appropriate place to which to bring it. Ultimately, Ministers should be open to being questioned by Members. It is important that that questioning take place. I will write to Ministers again on that subject, Mr O'Toole, because you have raised a valid point.

Members should take their ease for a moment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance, Mr John O'Dowd, to move the Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to group the 15 clauses of the Bill for the Question on stand part, followed by the Questions on the three schedules and the long title.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, your objection has been noted, and I have heard Ayes from all sides of the House.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, your objection has been noted, and I have heard Ayes from all sides of the House.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, your objection has been noted, and I have heard Ayes from all sides of the House.

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister for Communities, Mr Gordon Lyons, to move the Consideration Stage of the Child Support Enforcement Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. Therefore, I will put the Question on stand part on each clause, followed by the Questions on the schedule and the long title.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Child Support Enforcement Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Miss McIlveen: I beg to move:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on this debate. Therefore, Michelle, I ask you to open the debate on the motion.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Democratic Unionist Party has a mandate to continue the fight to fully restore Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom, including removing the application of EU law in our country and the internal Irish Sea border that it creates. By implementing the changes to EU animal health law and drawing a distinction, both in law and in practice, between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, in the identification, registration, movement and enforcement of livestock, the regulations before us conflict with our fundamental objectives. As unionists, we will not, in good conscience, accept the undermining of the United Kingdom's internal market in that way. Local representatives had no say in making those changes to EU law or in their application in Northern Ireland courtesy of annex 2 of the protocol, which rides roughshod over the principle of cross-community consent.

The Department has been keen to stress the technical nature of the regulations. Yet the Minister clearly deemed the contents to be of such legal and political significance that it warranted discussion by the Committee in a closed session, which was a request that the Committee ultimately denied. It is not credible for the Minister or his officials to claim that the regulations do not represent a significant policy change whilst, in the same breath, denouncing the potential negative impacts on trade and animal welfare if they are not introduced.

We all accept the arguments that are put forward about the single epidemiological unit and disease control. However, prior to Brexit, even when there were controls over live animals being moved across the Irish Sea, Northern Ireland was not required to have a unique prefix code for cattle and sheep tags. The bottom line is that there should be no circumstances in which exports into the EU from Northern Ireland are distinguished from those that are entering the EU from other parts of the United Kingdom. We are part of the United Kingdom and its trading block. The regulations sustain the fundamental obscenity of Northern Ireland's being annexed into the EU in over 300 areas of law.

Not only has the distinction inflicted unnecessary additional costs on farmers, as they have to purchase new tags and will potentially be left with a glut of redundant tags, but it is a manifestation of how Northern Ireland has been annexed into the EU. The Minister has placed much emphasis on the fact that the switchover date from UK to XI tags for newborn livestock has been extended to 30 June 2025, yet he and his colleagues in the Alliance Party initially called for the rigorous implementation of the protocol, which would have enacted the disruption even earlier and in a way that would be entirely out of kilter with the farming calendar.

Ultimately, the XI prefix dilutes the UK branding that is renowned throughout the world for its high quality and excellent welfare. It is unsurprising, therefore, that farmers have questioned the impact on access to existing and premium GB markets. While I appreciate that the SR does not mandate the new tags, it gives the Department the ability to enforce them, and, by virtue of agreeing to that power, we are endorsing the introduction and use of the tags. The SR also extends the timescale for retagging sheep and goats that are imported from third countries from 14 days to 20 days. It is worth noting that, up until the middle of last year, movements of livestock from GB to NI were captured by that onerous requirement. Indeed, the EU and the UK finally agreed to waive the retagging requirements between GB and NI only because there was an outcry about the impact on farm-to-fork traceability. However, how can we be sure that the agreement will not eventually break down? If it does, the difference between 14 and 20 days will provide very little benefit in tackling the additional red tape and costs to farms across the UK.

This is very much a matter of principle, and I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): At its meeting on 23 January, DAERA officials briefed the Committee on the Animals (Identification, Records, Movement and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. We were advised why the SR was needed, and the reasons are as follows.

From 2021, the EU legislation that set out a system for the identification, registration and movement of livestock, otherwise known as IRM, has been:

That was "revoked and replaced" by the animal health law (AHL), which is listed in annex 2 of the Windsor framework and, therefore, applies to Northern Ireland. We were advised that the AHL:

The officials went on to say:

We heard that the SR makes technical amendments to five separate pieces of domestic livestock movement legislation, and, primarily, the regulations update references to the repealed EU instruments by replacing them with the reference to the equivalent AHL provisions. We heard that technical changes are required to ensure that the domestic legislation that provides for the enforcement of the EU requirements on IRM refer to the correct current legislation. A change also has been made by the SR to update the details of what is considered an approved livestock ID tag to align with the requirements for the new XI prefixes.

The bottom line is that officials advised us that there is a need to ensure that DAERA continues to have a legally enforceable livestock traceability regime and that there has been some legal uncertainty about the Department's ability to fully apply the relevant enforcement provisions to this date. However, the officials were at pains to note that the legal obligations to correctly and appropriately identify livestock and record their movements have applied to farmers at all times.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Chairman's giving way. I speak as someone who is not on the Committee. To clarify for the House, is he saying that there has been some kind of legal lacuna since 2021? I am not entirely clear about that from Miss McIlveen's remarks, but it would be helpful if the Chair were to explain to us what precisely the legal issue has been for the past three years.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for that. I am sure that the Minister will give him the Department's absolute position, but there is no doubt that there has been some legal uncertainty on this. I think that that has caused some nervousness in the Department, and that is probably why there is such a need to see this legislation brought through.

The officials were at pains to note that the legal obligations to correctly and appropriately identify livestock and record movements have applied to farms at all times, and that is the caveat that they gave on this to try to apply some confidence. While there has been a legal gap with the enforcement powers, DAERA took the decision not to pursue legal prosecutions for breaches of IRM requirements other than in the most severe cases. However, it has continued to take all possible measures short of pursuing legal action in cases where breaches of IRM requirements have been identified.

There followed a question-and-answer session on the proposed SR, and Committee members expressed a range of views and queried the provisions. It was noted that only the most severe cases of non-compliance with IRM would be referred to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) for potential prosecution. The Committee supported the need for robust farm-to-fork traceability, but there were concerns expressed by some members regarding divergence from the rest of the UK, as the AHL is listed in annex 2 of the Windsor framework, and that is why we have the prayer of annulment. The Committee understood that, since 2021, DAERA has not been able to take forward any such cases for prosecution but that the SR will bring back legal certainty. However, there was no Committee consensus of support that the Department proceeded to make the SR, and a vote was then taken. The Committee divided, with five Ayes, zero Noes and three abstentions. Therefore, the majority of the Committee present agreed that the Department should proceed to make the SR.

The Committee then considered the SR on 6 February 2025 and noted that there had been no change to policy content since the SL1 was submitted. The Committee noted that it had been briefed on the matter in detail on 23 January, and, for the record, I ran through a summary of that discussion and the views expressed at that meeting. I then put the Question on the SR, and the Committee remained divided but was in support of the SR. A quorum of eight members was present, and a vote was taken. The Committee divided, with four Ayes and four Noes. There was no Committee majority, so no agreed position was taken on the SR. For completion, at the next meeting, members considered the thirty-first report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR). The ESR drew the attention of the Assembly to the SR on the grounds that it was laid in breach of the 21-day rule, however the ESR was content that the Department's explanation for the breach was sufficient.

There was no Committee consensus, and the vote on the SR gave no Committee majority, so there was no agreed Committee position on the SR. The members of the Committee who have spoken or will speak today will express their own views on the SR, and I will keep my remarks really brief.

The debates in the Committee on the SR were very good and very measured on what is a complex issue to debate. Obviously, there are animal welfare issues. There are issues relating to farm-to-fork traceability that, all Members will agree, need that legal certainty and in regard to which the Department needs to have the powers. Unfortunately, this is absolutely wrapped up in the internal market provisions. For the Ulster Unionist Party, which will support the motion, this very much feels like the thin end of the wedge.

People rightly quantify the amount of legislative vires in the Windsor framework at about 300 pieces, but, unfortunately, on issues such as this, we need to have our eyes open. We need to be very aware of the impact that the changes might have in the not-too-distant future. All markets are close now, and our internal market remains our biggest opportunity not just for farmers and the agrisector but for most industry in Northern Ireland. Whilst the statutory rule may not bring instant pain or critique, we in the Ulster Unionist Party feel that we need to be on our toes about it and upfront about the fact that we will not rubber-stamp any aspect of the Windsor framework or potential divergence in our internal market.

Mr McAleer: I oppose the prayer of annulment against this essential statutory rule, which makes necessary and technical amendments to the North's livestock IRM regulations. The changes are not about policy shifts, nor do they introduce new burdens on farmers; rather, they ensure the continued operability of our livestock traceability system, which is critical to public health, trade and the reputation of our agriculture industry.

For decades, the North has had a robust farm-to-fork traceability system that has ensured the highest standards of food safety, animal health and disease control. That is not just a domestic priority but a vital requirement for maintaining access to key export markets. Without a legally enforceable traceability regime, we risk damaging consumer confidence and jeopardising trade relationships that our farmers and the agri-food sector rely on.

The EU animal health law, which came into effect in April 2021, consolidated and replaced various EU laws on livestock IRM. Since the North remains aligned with certain EU agri-food regulations under the Windsor framework, our domestic laws must reflect those updates. The statutory rule simply amends outdated references in existing legislation, ensuring that our legal framework remains functional and enforceable. The introduction of the XI country code for the North's livestock's tags is, additionally, a requirement under the AHL to distinguish the North's exports from those of Britain. That transition, which is already under way, provides clarity for farmers and trading partners and is necessary to comply with our international commitments.

The Department has questions to answer, however, about why the SR, given its significance, was not brought to the Committee when the institutions got up and running last year. If the prayer of annulment is successful, the consequences will be severe. The Department will lack the legal authority to enforce livestock identification and movement regulations, undermining disease control measures. Public health could be compromised due to weakened traceability of livestock from farm to consumer, and export markets may question the North's compliance with EU requirements, potentially leading to trade barriers and economic harm for our farming sector. The North's reputation as a producer of safe, high-quality agricultural products could suffer lasting damage.

The SR is not about imposing unnecessary regulations; it is about maintaining a system that has served us well for years and ensures compliance, safeguards public health and protects our agri-food sector from unnecessary risks. To oppose the measure would be to undermine the foundation of our livestock industry's credibility. For those reasons, I urge Members to reject the prayer of annulment and support the responsible governance of our agriculture sector.

Mr Blair: As a member of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee and as Alliance spokesperson on these matters, I express my strong opposition to the prayer of annulment tabled by the DUP. The motion seeks to challenge vital measures that are necessary for the effective operation of the system of identification, registration and movement of cattle, sheep and goats. The measures that the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs aims to advance align our domestic legislation with the European Union's animal health law, which has already been referred to. It is worth pointing out that there have been challenges to achieving that due to the inaction of the previous Minister, Brexit and, of course, collapsed government, but, thankfully, it is now being pursued by the new AERA Minister.

The provisions outlined in the statutory rule facilitate the Department's enforcement capabilities, enabling it to address non-compliance more effectively. That improvement means better livestock identification and movement monitoring, resulting in stronger deterrence of violations.

Departmental officials made it clear to the Committee that the measures were necessary to ensure that frameworks were in place and that they were robust and without gaps in order to protect the excellent reputation of our agri-food products. Failing to advance those measures severely impacts on farm-to-fork traceability, which is essential for meeting consumer expectations in Northern Ireland and far beyond. It helps farmers to remain competitive while ensuring quality and building trust with consumers. Therefore, revoking the statutory rule risks weakening that robust livestock traceability system, jeopardising our agricultural integrity and valuable export opportunities.

In addition to traceability and agricultural integrity benefits, advancing the measures has significant implications for food safety itself and for job security in the sector. Reinforcing regulations surrounding livestock identification and movement enhances the sector's ability to respond to potential health crises, reducing the risk of food-borne illnesses that can arise from a lack of transparency. Those are important matters, and there have been recent reminders of that. It not only protects public health but safeguards the livelihoods of those employed in the agri-food industry. A robust regulatory framework helps consumer confidence, as I have said, but it also directly translates into sustained demand for local products, ultimately preserving jobs in farming and related sectors and protecting our local economy.

I also stress that the new regulations do not significantly change Northern Ireland's existing identification and movement processes. Instead, they provide much-needed certainty for the sector and ensure that we remain compliant with legislation that has already been recognised and accepted as necessary.

The DUP's latest resistance, driven more by ideology than actual concerns regarding the proposed measures, sends the wrong message to our farmers and businesses. We cannot afford to have ideology hinder progress in our agri-food sector, progress that the DUP itself has repeatedly and loudly called for in the Chamber.

I urge all Members to reflect on the broader implications of their actions today. We must adopt the measures to uphold our reputation for a robust and competitive agriculture sector that produces world-class, high-quality food products, while emphasising traceability and accountability as part of that. By doing so, we will safeguard public health and maintain the high standards that our agriculture sector is renowned for. I and my colleagues will, therefore, vote against the prayer of annulment and urge others to do likewise.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, John. Glaoim anois ar Phasty McGlone.

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

The SDLP stands in line with common sense to oppose the prayer of annulment on the identification, records, movement and enforcement regulations. To do otherwise and to support the prayer of annulment would be crazy.

Members have already referred to enforcement of the requirements for farm traceability. It would remove the — sorry, there is none at the moment. The enforceability of the livestock regime creates, at present, legal uncertainty. Officials outlined to Committee members that, in those more extreme cases, they could not legally enter farms, conduct enforcement or prepare cases for the PPS. That is an awful position to be in. We need to have the situation clarified and the proper laws and regulations in place to allow that to be done. That is in the interests of farm manageability, animal welfare and sending out a message about what our industry is about: good standards and high consumer confidence.

The issue has been lying since 2021 with no applicable legislation. We have had devolution for a year now, and there has been no action from the Department on what is a clear animal welfare issue and commercial issue for farm businesses for almost a year.

The Department has, in effect, been asleep at the wheel. In fact, an issue as important as ensuring traceability of our livestock was such an embarrassment to the Department that it asked the Committee to deal with it in secret.

It is important, however, that we arrive at the key issue, which is the message that we send out about consumer confidence in our meat industry. Let us deal with one fact, which is that the value of our food and live animal exports from the North to the rest of the island increased from £1·6 billion to £1·75 billion in 2023. What message do we want to send from here about the export market? That is the market solely within our own island. We want to send out a clear message about consumer confidence.

Mr McAleer: Patsy, thanks for allowing me an intervention. The Member mentioned exports to the rest of the island: does he agree that food is processed island-wide, particularly dairy products?

Mr McGlone: Absolutely, a chara.

I take the Member's point that food crosses the border daily, going up and down. The food from Ireland is good food and meets the highest standards, and the markets and customers that receive it get high-quality produce. It is important that that be the message that we send out from the Assembly today. It is the message that we must send out by rejecting the prayer of annulment.

Ms Mulholland: Like my colleague, I oppose the prayer of annulment, because it is not in the best interests of any farmer, food producer or rural community in Northern Ireland, including the rural community that I represent in North Antrim. This is not about sovereignty or ideology but about food safety, consumer confidence and ensuring that our agrisector continues to thrive.

I cannot help but question why the prayer of annulment motion was tabled and what the end goal is, because it really is not about strengthening our economy or supporting our communities. It is not about helping farmers in North Antrim or anywhere else in Northern Ireland. It is about appealing to a narrow political base rather than acting in the best interests of the people whom we are here to serve, and that is negligence. It is pure, short-sighted short-termism at its worst. The DUP is using farmers as a political football. Some Members are putting ideology over practical governance and what is best for our farmers. How can we expect Northern Ireland to thrive if we continually sabotage our ability to function?

In my constituency, farming is not just an industry but a way of life. Generations of families have worked the land, built their businesses and provided food not just for local markets but for GB, Ireland and well beyond. They want certainty, not disruption. They want opportunities to grow, not unnecessary trade barriers. They want to thrive, not just survive. The statutory rule is about ensuring that Northern Ireland's farmers can continue to trade with confidence, maintain access to markets and uphold, as has been mentioned, world-class food safety standards. The SR does not create new policy. It ensures that our domestic laws remain functional by aligning them with EU animal health law. The SR is restoring essential enforcement powers, powers that ensure that our farmers can comply with the necessary food safety and traceability rules without any uncertainty or risk.

As has been said, one of the key technical changes required by the animal health law is the use of XI ear tags rather than UK tags. Let me be clear: that is not an attack on our place in the UK; it is about ensuring that Northern Ireland's exports can be distinguished from GB's so that we maintain compliance with EU food safety standards. It is a common-sense measure that allows our farmers to continue to trade freely rather than face unnecessary barriers. The issue should not be political: it is practical. The Minister is working to help farmers thrive in every market to ensure that farming communities have the certainty, sustainability and support that they need.

There has been a lot of scaremongering about the issue. There is nothing to fear if we continue to follow the rules by which we should already be abiding. If the SR is annulled, we will remove DAERA's ability to enforce livestock identification laws, creating further uncertainty for farmers. We will undermine our food safety and traceability standards, damage Northern Ireland's reputation in key markets and risk additional trade barriers if NI's livestock sector is seen to be non-compliant. Stripping away the enforcement powers would be reckless and would put ideology over food safety, jobs and the future of our farmers.

Farming in North Antrim is at the heart of our economy and our way of life. The Minister and I want to support, protect and enhance the opportunities for our farmers around the world. The SR provides certainty and ensures that our farmers can trade, our food remains safe and our agricultural system and industry remain strong. Ultimately, it is about maintaining farm-to-fork traceability, as others have said. That is the bedrock on which our agri-food industry is based and on which it trades, and it ensures consumer confidence.

The prayer of annulment is not political leadership; it is political point-scoring at the expense of the very people whom the Assembly is meant to serve. I urge all Members to reject the prayer of annulment and stand with our farmers, our food producers and our rural communities.

Mr O'Toole: My colleague Patsy McGlone has ably put on record the issues with this, frankly, absurd prayer of annulment, but I will make a couple of additional points.

We have here a situation where, I am afraid, the in-denial meet the incompetent. The DUP has tabled a prayer of annulment on, effectively, the continuation of core animal health rules that affect farms and food producers in Northern Ireland. Let us rewind the tape a little to the years between 2016 and 2020, if those of us present can bear it, when the people who did not want Northern Ireland to align to plant and animal health standards were repeatedly asked what their alternative was and how they could make our agri-food sector work when the two bits of Ireland — the two jurisdictions on the island — followed different sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards. That is in the context of there being cattle on the island that graze in both County Fermanagh and County Cavan. That is a fact. We have farms that straddle the border. It is not that they are next to the border; they are on the border. There are cattle, sheep and other livestock that graze and are farmed in both jurisdictions. There is milk being served in the canteen downstairs that will have been milked on one side of the border and processed on the other side of the border. There is not and has never been any practical way of disaggregating our food production and our agriculture sector on the island — never, ever. The DUP and its fellow travellers never offered us any practical solution for that. If they were serious about this stuff, they would be using the pressure and the leverage that they have to press the British Government for a comprehensive veterinary agreement to deal with the issues.

The prayer of annulment is, frankly, nonsense. It is a distraction. Not only that, but it is not serious. If it were serious, it would damage the agriculture sector. I would love food businesses to come here and say that they want the annulment to happen, but they will not, because, if it were to happen, it would jeopardise trust in our product. One of the big priorities in promoting Northern Ireland's brilliant beef industry over the last while has been securing the all-island grass-fed beef certification. Am I wrong? Any member of the DUP or anyone else can correct me on that. The sector wants all-Ireland grass-fed beef certification. It wants our great beef and dairy products to be acknowledged for their high-quality and traceable nature.

Mr McGlone: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will happily give way.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for raising that, my friend and colleague. I have to record my clear thanks to the Minister who was in situ at that time, Charlie McConalogue, for working actively and vigorously not just with us but with representatives of the meat and farming industry in the North.

Mr O'Toole: I am happy that I gave way to my colleague Patsy McGlone to make that point. That is exactly right. Minister Muir, I am sure, would agree with that and agree that, if you want traceability and confidence in the brilliant produce that comes from this part of the world — lots of it is produced, by the way, on both sides of the border, collectively; most famously, lots of our milk — you cannot simply disapply the rules. It is absurd, and it is not serious. It is about promulgating the, frankly, ridiculous version of events that the Irish Sea border, as it is called, is the root of all evil. Of course, the root of all evil in all these issues is, I am afraid, Brexit, in the first place, and the hard Brexit.

If you want to solve the issues, back greater alignment between the UK Government and the EU. Back a comprehensive veterinary agreement so that the differences are not required. In the meantime, let us keep confidence in our food product. I cannot believe that I have to make those obvious points to DUP Members from agricultural constituencies. Back it, but, in the meantime, do not do stupid things that would jeopardise confidence in and undermine our brilliant food production and the product that our farmers export across the EU.

That is another point: we have a vast opportunity to export. We already do that, and we should grow the export of our amazing products all over the European continent. How does the motion help that project? All the while, the great Donald Trump is thinking about imposing tariffs on produce from outside the US, so the grand plan to replace the European market with Trump's America is going nowhere fast for food producers here.

I talked not just about those in denial, such as the DUP, but about the incompetent. It is clear that we have had a slightly concerning — to put it mildly — situation in which there has been a legal anomaly for the past three or four years because of the Department. That is why the DUP has been able to table the prayer of annulment in the first place. It did not lick it off the ground — to use an expression from this part of the world — it was able to bring it forward because the Department clearly did not copper-bottom the legalities around all of this.

I am glad that we at least have had the opportunity to debate the issue in the Assembly. We have been debating plenty of Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck stuff in the Chamber; at least we are debating a proper problem. It is concerning to hear that there was an attempt to close off the issue in a Committee and not expose it to the proper sunlight of public scrutiny. My colleague Patsy McGlone and I have no difficulty with debating the issues properly in the open, whether that is in a Committee or in an Assembly plenary sitting: that is where we should debate them. That is where you can tackle issues and confront arguments, such as the absurd ones that have been made by the DUP today around the prayer of annulment.

Let us be absolutely clear: we should not have been in this legal situation in the first place. Part of the reason why we have the protocol or Windsor framework is to give absolute certainty to our brilliant food producers so that they can continue to produce food to the highest possible standards; produce and process dairy products on both sides of the border; and export those products across this continent of half a billion consumers. The Department should do its job and make sure that we have the legal framework to protect all of that and give absolute certainty not just to the European Commission but to the farmers, food producers and industries that rely on it.

We robustly oppose the prayer of annulment, but we are concerned about some of the incompetence that seems to have been revealed in the Department. I hope that the Minister can provide some certainty and reassurance for us. Ultimately, it is about backing our farmers and our food producers and giving them the legal certainty that they need to sell their brilliant products. It is not about engaging in the, frankly, pathetic stunts of the parties opposite, which, as with others who supported Brexit, created all these issues in the first place.

Mr Gaston: The latest ruling by our colonial masters that our livestock can no longer bear UK ear tags but must, because of the protocol, have ear tags with EU designation XI, is yet another working of foreign rule in Northern Ireland. The root of the matter is that Northern Ireland, uniquely in the UK, is subject to the EU's animal health regime and laws. I say this gently to those who tabled the prayer of annulment: the very fact that you have had to do so is a concession that the DUP returned to the Assembly under false pretences. I remind the House that, in the aftermath of the dud Donaldson deal, Gavin Robinson wrote an article in the 'News Letter' that carried the headline:

He later boasted that the sea border would be gone by the autumn of 2024. It is now 24 February 2025, and the sea border is still here; indeed, it hardens by the day. Shame on those who lied to the unionist people, but shame, too, on those who championed the division of the United Kingdom through the rigorous implementation of the protocol.

The protocol continues to inflict unnecessary additional costs on farmers. Now, Great Britain, which, historically, we have traded freely with, is treated as a third country. I hear some in the House claim that the protocol is because of Brexit. We have heard that here today from the leader of the Opposition.

The business before us proves the opposite: Northern Ireland did not get Brexit. If we had got it, we would have left with the rest of the UK. As the prayer of annulment illustrates, the protocol means that we remain in the EU single market and customs union and, consequently, trade with GB might as well be trade with Argentina.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member giving way. He said that the protocol — or Windsor framework, if he prefers — had nothing to do with Brexit. Would there have been a protocol or Windsor framework if Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK had still been in the EU?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask Members, including the Member who raised the intervention, to return to the prayer of annulment. I have given Members a lot of latitude, but I am asking you to return to the motion. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will briefly respond to Mr O'Toole. The reason for the protocol and the Windsor framework is that Northern Ireland did not get Brexit. If we had got Brexit, there would be no protocol and no Windsor framework.

I will go back to the motion on the prayer of annulment. The SR is about aligning our farming industry closer with the Irish Republic and driving a further wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of our Union. It is no surprise to me that the nationalist and republican Alliance is the chief cheerleader for the SR. We have seen that from the Minister who is pressing for it.

I am glad that the DUP has tabled the prayer of annulment — I will supporting — but we have to go back to why it is needed. It is needed because the protocol and the Windsor framework are still in place. Those are the very things that the current DUP leader said the DUP had got rid of. That was clearly not the case. I hope that in future debates, the DUP will again find its energy and take the fight to the Government. Until the protocol and the Windsor framework are scrapped, Northern Ireland will continue to be held back by its colonial masters. The SR is only a simple outworking of that, but, for the farming industry, it is a big issue when it comes to tags on sheep and cows. This is a small example, but there are many more to come. The protocol and the Windsor framework must go. Only then will Northern Ireland be able to move forward.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Mr Andrew Muir, to respond.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is concerning and, to be honest, frankly ludicrous that we are considering the prayer of annulment. This is perhaps one of the most irresponsible legislative motions to have been tabled in this mandate. Many wax lyrical about their support for the agri-food industry, but nothing could be further from the truth for anyone who speaks and votes in support of the prayer of annulment: they will be putting ideology above people's jobs and livelihoods and our agri-food industry.

I will respond to a number of issues that have been raised. The Animals (Identification, Records, Movement and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, which, you will be glad to know, I will refer to as "the regulations", ensure that there are appropriate powers to enforce EU law on livestock identification and traceability. It is important to note that farm-to-fork traceability here has been underpinned by European law since the late 1990s and that the regime that those regulations enforce is broadly the same as it always has been.

To set the context, EU law sets out a system for the identification, registration and movement of livestock. That has been the case for a number of years, and it is supported in domestic law by departmental legislation, which describes how livestock should be identified; the significant life events that need to be reported to the Department to ensure robust farm-to-fork traceability; and the offences and penalties that apply if those rules are not adhered to. However, the EU legislation that previously set out those livestock identification and traceability requirements has been revoked and replaced by new EU legislation, which is known as the animal health law.

The animal health law, which was published in March 2016 and applied from April 2021, is listed in annex 2 of the Windsor framework and automatically applies in Northern Ireland. My predecessor chose not to update domestic law following the changes in April 2021. However, I have, and I will set out why. It is important to emphasise that animal health law, in general, does not make any changes to the livestock identification and traceability regime, nor are there any fundamental changes to the processes or procedures for livestock keepers or the Department as a result of the regulations. As the Department's domestic livestock identification and movement enforcement legislation refers to the previous repealed EU instruments, it needs to be updated to ensure that it is operable. The regulations are technical. They do not represent a change in policy, but they ensure that Northern Ireland's domestic legislation refers to the correct pieces of EU legislation.

The existing domestic livestock identification and traceability legislation enables my Department to enforce the agreed European standards for the identification, movement and traceability of livestock. Indeed, the key components that are set out in European law reflect what any robust livestock traceability system should look like the world over. That is: the requirement for farmers to uniquely identify animals; the requirement for farmers to notify the appropriate competent authority of when animals move on to and off a farm; and the requirement to advise the competent authority of where those animals have been moved to, be that to another farm, a market, an abattoir or a destination that is beyond Northern Ireland. To put it another way, farmers need to provide that information so that we know where the animals are right now, where they have been and where they are going. In a disease outbreak scenario, having solid, accurate details on all movements is vital, because, as we have seen, diseases of animals do not respect borders.

Through the regulations, my Department is ensuring that there are enforcement powers to make sure that farmers comply with the mandatory reporting requirements and that operational offences and penalties are available, should they choose not to. Quite simply, if a person wilfully fails to record a livestock movement, that is an offence, and so it should be. I should not need to remind the House of how one suspect movement of cattle or sheep has the capability to wreak havoc on farming, the health and welfare of animals and the economy of Northern Ireland. That is why my Department needs the powers that are in the regulations to investigate non-compliance issues. Where contraventions are detected, remedial actions range from the issue of warning letters, application of movement restrictions and, in the most severe cases, criminal prosecutions.

The regulations also update the details of what is considered to be an approved livestock ID tag in order to align with the requirements of the new XI prefix tags. Members may be aware that, on 24 June last year, my Department implemented the new prefix of XI and its numerical equivalent, 899, on electronic identification devices that are required to uniquely identify animals from Northern Ireland. That requirement stems directly from animal health law. A transition period, which allows the application of UK or XI tags, is in place. However, Members may be aware that the transition period will end on 30 June this year. After that date, XI prefix tags must be applied. The legislative change in the regulations therefore ensures that domestic legislation is updated to reflect that change. It enables enforcement provisions that relate to the use of the new XI prefix tags that would not be possible without it, such as where there is failure to attach approved ear tags within existing legal timescales, where someone removes an approved ear tag from an animal without permission or where approved ear tags are altered or defaced.

The regulations make a number of other minor changes, such as broadening the definition of the term "animal" to include the crossing of species and increasing the timescale for the re-identification of sheep and goats that are imported from third countries. It is important to emphasise that the regulations do not introduce any new enforcement powers. Therefore, herd and flock keepers will not notice any difference. The regulations allow my Department to utilise the same enforcement provisions that have always been applied but to do so with legal certainty.

It is important that I address the criticisms that were raised in the Chamber about the request to hold discussion on the item in private session at Committee. I was very conscious of the risk of non-compliance that could occur due to the knowledge that a lack of legal certainty existed around the powers of enforcement. That has now been rectified. That is why we sought to discuss the matter in private session.

There has been a delay in introducing the regulations because it was not possible for officials to put in place the necessary legislative fix through the introduction of regulations prior to the former Minister's ceasing to hold office in October 2022. My predecessor decided not to proceed with the regulations. Negotiations between the UK Government and the European Commission, including indications that they might have included potential changes to requirements in animal health law on prefix codes for Northern Ireland livestock tags, meant that work on the regulations was further delayed until a position on that was agreed. My Department is also progressing legislation to fully implement the identification, registration and movement requirements in animal health law. There had been an expectation that that legislation would be ready in autumn 2024, thus negating the need for these regulations. It is the first time that Northern Ireland has fully advanced domestic legislation to introduce EU regulations without the complete support of Whitehall. The task has proved more complex than anticipated, and has resulted in an extended timeline before the legislation to fully implement animal health law IRM requirements will be ready to be laid. Given the extended deadline for introducing the full IRM legislation, work resumed at pace to progress these interim regulations.

Before I continue, I want to put on record my thanks to all the officials in my Department who have been working on that. I do not find it appropriate to level any allegations of incompetence in that regard. Those officials are highly competent and dedicated individuals. We are spending lots of time, night and day, to implement the Windsor framework and ensure the safety of our agri-food system. That is what those officials are doing. I put on record my thanks to them.

It is important to register to the House the consequences if the prayer of annulment passes. Members will agree that those technical regulations are important. Should they be annulled, my Department's existing domestic legislation would refer to repealed EU instruments and would not be operable. We, Northern Ireland plc, would be in the position of not having a legally enforceable livestock traceability regime.

Annulling the regulations will not negate European law or its application here. The livestock identification requirements that were set down in EU animal health law will still apply in Northern Ireland regardless: it is the Department's domestic legislation that will be affected and its ability to enforce those identification and traceability requirements. Whilst I appreciate that most herd livestock owners comply with the law, there is, unfortunately, a minority who may not. Enforcement powers that are now in place following the making of the regulations are necessary to ensure that any potential non-compliance can be investigated and action taken as appropriate. That is important to ensure that the legal obligations to correctly and appropriately identify livestock and record their movements, as set out in EU legislation, apply at all times, thereby reducing any potential risks to public health.

Other possible risks of not having a functioning livestock traceability enforcement regime could include negative implications for consumer confidence in our meat products, as well as possible trade and reputational damage to the livestock industry here. There would also be potential impacts for our future trading relationships, as a basic element of any agri-food agreement is to provide assurance about the origins and provenance of the product. If we cannot demonstrate that we take livestock traceability seriously, why would anyone want to trade with us? In addition, failure to implement those requirements, as with all directly applicable European legislation, could lead to infraction proceedings being pursued by the EU.

Members may note that, while the industry was, as far as I understand, completely unaware of the fact that my Department was without a fully functioning enforcement regime between April 2021 and when the regulations came into force in January 2025, during that period, my Department took a proportionate approach that continued to take all possible measures short of pursuing legal action in cases where breaches of livestock identification and movement requirements had been identified. That included continuing to apply herd restrictions and issuing warning letters where wrongdoing was confirmed. Doing so ensured that there was no known reduction in animal health standards, thereby reducing any risks that could have arisen to public health and food safety. However, as I have already stated, prior to the regulations coming into force, the industry was largely unaware of the gap in the Department's enforcement powers. Therefore, the impact was relatively minor as most enforcement activities continued at risk. Should Members vote to annul the regulations, my Department's domestic livestock traceability legislation will become inoperable again.

Given the risks that were raised by my officials when they provided oral evidence to the AERA Committee in public session and that have been further highlighted in the debate, the loss of my Department's enforcement powers would become widely known. Consequently, there would be a potential increased risk of non-compliance. Even if that were not widespread, some keepers could challenge or, potentially, ignore any enforcement action that the Department would take to address such wrongdoing. Not only could the Department not pursue prosecutions for the more serious cases of non-compliance, but even routine action for more minor contraventions, which are normally resolved by movement restrictions and the issuing of warning letters, could be called into question.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: The Minister is keen to defend his officials, which is fine. Our job is to ensure the accountability of officials and Ministers, and we should make no apology for that. He mentioned the past three or four years of, apparently, looking at the legalities, but have his officials looked at any potential legal liability that is created by the legal anomaly that has arisen over the past three or four years? Are there any exposures there?

Mr Muir: The Member has asked a very specific question about liabilities, but it depends where the liabilities would be borne. The main thing, as I have outlined in my response to the prayer of annulment, is that the industry was largely unaware that this lacuna had arisen. My predecessor was offered the opportunity to update domestic law back in 2021 and chose not to. As Minister, I am working through this and many other issues in order to rectify the situation that we are in. It is important that I state that.

For years, our farmers have benefited from a world-leading system of animal traceability. The notion that the DUP would seek to annul an update because it originates from the EU is both bizarre and reckless, playing fast and loose with people's jobs and livelihoods and the future of our agri-food industry. Sadly, however, that does not surprise me when you take into account the fact that the previous DUP leader said that he could live with 40,000 job losses due to Brexit. We all should be about safeguarding and creating jobs, not wrecking our economy because of some ideological purism. Therefore, I urge Members to vote against the prayer of annulment and ensure that my Department continues to retain the necessary livestock identification and traceability enforcement powers.

Mr T Buchanan: I will make a few comments in my winding-up speech on the prayer of annulment. The Animals (Identification, Records, Movement and Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 are nothing short of a devious move to implement further EU law in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is no surprise in the House that the Alliance Party and others support the regulations. By implementing these changes to EU animal health law, we are drawing a clear distinction in law and in practice between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

When the departmental officials were questioned on the regulations in the AERA Committee, they were clear in their response that they do not apply to Great Britain. I ask the Minister and others: why not? Why apply the regulations to Northern Ireland when they are not being applied in GB? If we support the regulations, we are, in fact, driving the wedge further, separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. Is that what people in this House really want?

We will not accept the undermining of the United Kingdom internal market in this way. As my colleague Michelle McIlveen said when she proposed the motion, the bottom line is that there should be no circumstances in which exports into the EU from Northern Ireland are distinguished from those that enter the EU from other parts of the United Kingdom. If others in the House want to implement EU law, which we have no say or control over, that is a matter for them, but I want to make it clear that the Democratic Unionist Party will not be implementing EU law over which we have no control or no say in, nor can we be expected to implement it.

The Alliance Party talks about being on the side of the farmer. When will the Alliance Party waken up to the fact that it is not on the side of the farmer — far from it. All that it has to do is to go out into rural communities to see that, far from the farmers supporting that party, they are totally against the way in which it is driving agriculture policy forward. Therefore, I urge the House to support our prayer of annulment against the regulations.

Mr Blair: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Standing Order 69(5) states, fairly clearly, I think, that, when a Member has a "financial interest in any matter" or a "relevant interest" in that matter, they:

I ask that you make a ruling as to whether that is being adhered to in the general run of business here, particularly in relation to the previous debate, and on whether Members are declaring an interest on every occasion on which they should in a way that is in keeping with their interests in the Register of Members' Interests.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We are all intrigued, John,

as to who should have declared an interest and who should not have declared an interest. As a Deputy Speaker, you will know that I cannot make a ruling on that. I will bring it to the Speaker's Office. Standing Orders are fairly clear, but the Member has raised a point, and the Speaker will certainly rule on that.

Members, I was hoping to start the next item of business. Take your ease for a wee minute while we change the top Table. Thank you.

Ms K Armstrong: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the motion and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Kellie, please open the debate on the motion. I shall give you ample time afterwards. Thank you.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I wish to address a pressing issue affecting the over 300,000 individuals in Northern Ireland who rely on the private rented sector for their housing needs. The motion highlights the critical challenges of unaffordable rents, insufficient long-term security and inadequate tenant protections that many of our constituents face daily.

The affordability crisis in our private rental market is stark. In the final quarter of 2024, an average monthly rent consumed approximately 35% of the average income, escalating to an alarming 50% for our lowest earners. That surge in rental costs — a 9% increase from the previous year — far outpaced the 4% growth in average wages during the same period. Such disparities force families into making difficult decisions, often sacrificing essential needs — food and heating — to keep a roof over their heads. That imbalance is exacerbated by a significant undersupply of rental properties. Estate agents report an average of 46 enquiries for every available rental unit, which is a clear indicator of the demand-supply mismatch. Contributing factors include delays in private housebuilding, inadequate funding for new homes, planning system bottlenecks and insufficient water infrastructure capacity. Moreover, with over 48,000 individuals on the social housing waiting list, many low-income families are compelled to seek housing in the private sector, often at higher cost and with fewer protections.

The insecurity inherent in short-term tenancies leaves many renters in a perpetual state of uncertainty. The looming threat of eviction or unexpected rent hikes can disrupt lives, affecting employment, education and community ties. The Private Tenancies Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 introduced various measures, such as restricting rent increases to once every 12 months. However, without comprehensive regulations to enforce those provisions, tenants remain vulnerable to abrupt changes that can lead to displacement and financial hardship. While the Private Tenancies Act aimed to enhance tenant protections, its implementation has been piecemeal. The sections that address critical issues, such as smoke, heat and carbon monoxide alarms, were scheduled to come into force by the end of last year. Tenants have been left without those essential safeguards in the interim. The intention of the House was to ensure that renters were provided with fair notice at the end of a tenancy. That, too, has not been delivered. Furthermore, the absence of a statutory housing ombudsman means that tenants lack a dedicated avenue for resolving disputes efficiently and fairly.

To address those challenges, Alliance recently published a comprehensive new deal for private renters, which encompasses the following key measures. There will be third-generation rent controls that implement a considered system of rent regulation to prevent unstable rent hikes and ensure affordability for tenants while providing fair returns for landlords. There are three generations of control, as outlined in the Chartered Institute of Housing's report, which confirms Professor Richard Arnott's typology of rent control, and states:

which I am proposing:

Alliance proposes that a third-generation rent regulation could provide renters and landlords with a fair solution.

The next measure is a ban on no-fault evictions. There should be legislation to prohibit evictions without a valid reason, which would provide tenants with greater security and stability in their homes. The third measure is open-ended tenancies. Open-ended tenancies should be established as the standard, with a move away from fixed-term contracts, which often disadvantage tenants. The fourth measure will be the creation of a statutory housing ombudsman, who will create an independent body to oversee disputes between tenants and landlords, ensuring accountability and access to justice. There should be an increase in the affordable rental supply by utilising existing housing stock more effectively and incentivising the development of new affordable rental properties to alleviate the supply shortage. That would include reducing the number of short-term holiday lets and making greater use of empty homes. Finally, there should be a thorough review of housing standards and the enforcement of minimum fitness standards. The enforcement mechanisms should be strengthened to ensure that all rental properties are safe and habitable, including statutory time frames for landlords to investigate and carry out repairs.

Those proposals are not merely aspirational; they are grounded in the urgent needs of our constituents. By implementing the new deal, we can create a private rented sector that offers affordable, secure and high-quality housing for all.

The challenges in our private rented sector are multifaceted and deeply entrenched. However, with decisive action and comprehensive reforms, we can transform the sector from being one in which a tenant has to choose between a roof over their head or dinner on their table to one that serves the best interests of tenants and landlords. While this is another non-binding motion, I urge my fellow Members to support the proposal and commit to delivering a new deal for private renters in Northern Ireland. Doing so will send a strong and clear message to the Minister for Communities and the Executive that the House wants better for our private renters. Housing is included in the Programme for Government: it is now time for action not words.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Kellie, for finishing just before 2.00 pm. As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to be called will be Gerry Carroll to move amendment No 1.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Decarbonisation is one of my four key objectives. Transitioning to net zero is the right thing to do, and it offers economic opportunities. In order to grasp those opportunities, it is vital to equip the workforce with the necessary skills. My Department has been working in collaboration with the green skills delivery group to develop an action plan to address the needs of the energy sector as well as wider green industries. It is a comprehensive framework to guide government, employers, trade unions, education providers and individuals on what is needed to deliver the skills for the future and to meet net zero targets. The plan will be launched in the coming weeks.

A subgroup of the delivery group, with representatives from business, academia and across government, will continue to advise us on changing green skills needs. Delivery has already commenced in some areas with free courses through the SKILL UP programme, including on hydrogen energy systems; installation and commissioning of electrical energy storage systems; passive house; and retrofitting. Additionally, our universities and colleges offer a range of courses in energy, environment and sustainability as well as net zero engineering. By working together, we can meet the challenge of the evolving and complex skills demands of the energy and wider green sectors.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Minister. The Budget for 2025-26 could result in the ending of the skills fund. What steps are you taking to protect its funding?

Dr Archibald: As the Member will be aware, all Departments' budgets are constrained. The Executive's Budget is constrained, and, collectively, we continue to make the case to the British Government that we should be properly funded. As a Department, we are still working through our budget plans for 2025-26, and we will prioritise key areas in the Department, skills being one of them.

Miss Brogan: Will the Minister outline what the green skills action plan will deliver and when it will be available?

Dr Archibald: On the basis of research and stakeholder consultation, the action plan has identified four priority key areas of action to address current and future green skills needs. They are reviewing the skills ecosystem; a partnership approach to ensuring a skills system that is responsive to changing needs; promoting awareness of careers and opportunities in green jobs, green skills and transversal skills; and developing a skilled workforce. The aim of the plan is to help to create an effective skills ecosystem that will be responsive to the changing needs of our green industries and to build partnerships and networks that will collaborate and meet our skills challenges as well as building career pathways and promoting opportunities in green sectors. Crucially, it will upskill the current workforce and develop a pipeline of suitably trained people for the future. A subgroup will be established for each priority action area that was mentioned to oversee the implementation of those actions, and we are trying to identify a suitable date to launch the action plan. I hope that that will be in the coming weeks.

Mr Honeyford: To give our skilled workforce opportunity for employment, we need growth in the wider industry. With our grid not being capable of taking about 40% of renewable energy, which is dumped at sea, will the Minister outline any expansion of or investment in our electricity grid that will allow those jobs to come through?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As the Member will be aware, low-carbon and green industries is one of our priority sectors, and we are working with industry to develop an action plan for the sector. As he mentioned, it not only includes skills but looks at the wider issues. For example, we are aware of the report that Cornwall Insight published on some of the capacity issues that the Member has referred to. Departmental officials are engaged in that, and we will work collaboratively with industry to address some of those challenges.

The Member will be aware that the consultation is out on the socialisation of grid connection charges. That is one action that we, as a Department, are taking to address some of the constraint issues, because investment in the grid will be required to take on the additional renewable capacity that is needed not only to meet our targets but, essentially, to deliver our low-carbon future.

Dr Archibald: With the Speaker's permission, I will group questions 2 and 6.

On 23 May 2024, the Executive agreed a package of measures and allocated an additional £25 million to the Minister of Education to enhance early learning and childcare support in 2024-25. The package included, amongst other things, a commitment to provide targeted support to childcare providers in significant financial difficulty and in areas where demand for childcare exceeds supply.

On 22 July, Minister Givan wrote to both the Health Minister and my predecessor, Minister Murphy, asking for help with his Department's scheme. Minister Murphy agreed to assist the Education Minister with that important work, as childcare is, rightly, a priority for the whole Executive. Due to our business expertise, my Department volunteered to progress a research proposal, and the Department of Education transferred £153,000 to my Department to fund that research.

On 30 August, a DFE-led working group was established to better understand the sector's needs. The group commissioned Innovation and Consultancy Services to carry out market research to determine the key issues impacting the financial sustainability of providers in the sector. That research will help to inform decisions on what form any specific sectoral support should take. The steering group met Innovation and Consultancy Services on Thursday 6 February. The research, which is progressing at pace, is on track to be completed by the end of March.

Consultations have taken place with a cross-section of stakeholder organisations and representative organisations in the childcare sector and more widely. More detailed consultations with individual childcare providers and parents are taking place. The resultant evidence base will allow my Department to make recommendations to the Minister of Education on the nature of the assistance required by childcare providers.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. While that research is welcome, it sounds like a long work in progress. Right now in Northern Ireland, parents are forced to leave employment because they cannot afford childcare. Today, we have seen Melted Parents NI share helpline information on mental health and debt to support parents. What immediate action are you taking to support childcare providers while the research is ongoing?

Dr Archibald: As I mentioned, childcare is, rightly, a priority for the whole Executive. It is a priority in the draft Programme for Government (PFG) because, collectively, we recognise the huge challenges for parents struggling with access to affordable childcare and for childcare providers in the cost of doing business. The research is really important in determining what interventions are necessary to provide the most appropriate support for childcare providers and offer best value for money.

The Department is taking forward other actions on skills, for example, to support childcare providers and ensure that a pipeline of people comes through, because we know that that is also a challenge.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her answer. Childcare is critical infrastructure for our economy in Northern Ireland. The sector is on its knees. We see reports across the board of providers having to increase their fees, passing on costs to parents and, effectively, putting people out of work, and the sector says that a number of providers face closure in the weeks and months ahead. That would be catastrophic for our economy. Minister, what are you doing to safeguard that sector, thereby safeguarding our economy in Northern Ireland by helping people to get out to work and stay in their jobs?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question, and I agree with a lot of what she has said. Childcare is critical economic infrastructure in addressing the challenges of gender equality. It is also crucial for child development, so it is really important that we get it right. Rightly, it is a priority for the Minister of Education as well as for me. As I mentioned, it is a priority for the Executive as a whole, and that is reflected in the Programme for Government. It is important that we get it right, and that is why research is being undertaken to ensure that we get the correct support to the sector.

The Member also referred to challenges in the coming weeks. For example, the impact of increases in employers' National Insurance contributions will hit all businesses, and many of our childcare providers that already have small margins will be hit. That is why, when I was Minister of Finance, I commissioned research on the costs of doing business. Both of those pieces of research are due to report in March, so we will have a good evidence base for what comes next in terms of interventions.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for that information on the important research that her Department is doing to support the Education Department. She referenced other actions. What else is the Department for the Economy doing to assist the Department of Education when it comes to childcare specifically?

Dr Archibald: As I have mentioned to other Members, childcare is a priority across the Executive. I wholeheartedly welcome the positive steps that are being taken by the Education Minister and others towards supporting child development, improving affordability for families and supporting parents to work. Our economic vision sets out the need for investment in affordable childcare and fair pay for childcare providers. My skills agenda is looking at how we can best create a larger pool of qualified workers in the childcare sector, and I have ring-fenced £740,000 in the skills fund to support pathways into childcare that will help support the supply of workers to that critically important sector.

Through working collaboratively, we have already developed childcare micro-courses through our six further education colleges and a pilot assured skills academy in early learning and childcare. The gender employment gap research that I commissioned has already been made available to the market research work on targeted business support for childcare providers, and my officials, along with Invest NI, continue to work closely with the Department of Education, including representation on a range of related cross-departmental groups. I am fully committed to working with the Minister of Education and other Executive colleagues to implement the early learning and childcare strategy.

Mrs Guy: People will be really concerned that £1·8 million that was earmarked for childcare has been returned, given just how vital that sector is. Given that childcare is an Executive priority, did your Department seek assurances from the Education Department that that money, which was ring-fenced for childcare, would still be used to deliver on childcare pressures in Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: The Member has heard me say repeatedly to other Members that childcare is a priority for the Executive. This financial year, 2024-25, we were able to ring-fence that £25 million, and the Minister of Education brought forward proposals that were supported by the Executive. I have outlined actions undertaken by my Department. In the incoming financial year, 2025-26, the draft Budget sets aside £50 million for childcare, so we will build on the work that has been done in this year and, hopefully, be in a position to support more parents and more childcare providers. We will collectively look at those proposals as they come to us. The research that has been undertaken by my Department will help inform them.

Dr Archibald: Decarbonising the economy is one of my four departmental priorities. The energy efficiency capital grant helps businesses reduce their energy demand and build resilience through green efficiency. The grant is part of a wider suite of support delivered by Invest NI across the wider energy and resource efficiency programme. It is designed to be a five-year grant programme valued at £40 million. Grant support is offered to eligible businesses to buy and install renewable technologies and energy-efficient equipment aimed at reducing energy costs and carbon emissions.

Since the energy efficiency capital grant opened in April 2024, it has received over 1,300 enquiries, indicating an exceptionally high level of interest. Enquiries are being addressed in chronological order and are at various stages of the process. The scheme is delivering on regional balance, with over 70% of enquiries to date coming from outside the Belfast metropolitan area.

My officials have been working closely with Invest NI since the scheme launch and have adopted a process of continued review through the initial pilot phase to ensure that scheme delivery aligns with policy objectives on energy efficiency. The scheme demonstrates that businesses across multiple sectors and across the North have an appetite to invest in becoming more sustainable. It is encouraging to see high interest from manufacturing sectors as well as from the retail and hospitality sectors, which are increasingly moving to become more sustainable. As a result, the programme is showing early success in delivering across departmental priorities, including decarbonisation, regional balance and supporting growth in investment in the green economy.

Mr Boylan: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, what types of businesses and technologies are attracting most investment through the scheme?

Dr Archibald: Scheme delivery has been ongoing for nine months, and we are beginning to see some trends in the data. For instance, solar photovoltaic is the most popular technology that businesses wish to deploy. The enquiries come from a mix of businesses, with the majority coming from manufacturing industries and the retail and hospitality sectors. The scheme is delivering, as I said, across the region, with over 70% of investment likely to be directed outside the Belfast area, with most of the funding being delivered to SMEs.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, energy efficiency is indeed hugely important and, along with other types of decarbonisation, is one of your four priorities. In your Department's business plan, however, next to baseline — how you measure progress — there is a range of measures for other policy interventions, but, for energy efficiency, the baseline is "TBC". That is from more than six months ago. Can you confirm what the baseline is to measure progress on energy efficiency?

Dr Archibald: I do not have that information in front of me, but I am happy to write to the Member.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the information provided on the energy efficiency capital grant scheme. Can the Minister outline how it will be budgeted for in the 2025-26 financial year?

Dr Archibald: As I mentioned, the scheme has a budget of £40 million over, I think, five years — yes, it is a five-year grant programme valued at £40 million. That is based on applications being processed. As I said, we have 1,300 enquiries, which is an exceptionally high level of interest, and those are at various stages through the process. We will align the budgets to the demand as it goes forward.

Mr Allen: Can the Minister advise what steps her Department is taking to scale up energy efficiency support for domestic households?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The Department recently conducted a consultation — a call for evidence — in relation to energy efficiency support, so we will look at the analysis of that and bring forward proposals in the near future.

Dr Archibald: Artificial intelligence is one of the most significant technological developments in recent times. It will bring about significant change in the economy and the workforce, and it offers potential to contribute to my economic vision, most obviously in relation to productivity and good jobs.

Last Monday, I met Napier AI, which is creating over 100 jobs in this field. It emphasised our skills base and our close connections with further and higher education institutions as key reasons for locating its investment here. It is important that we continue to provide that skills pipeline, and we are implementing our digital skills and our software and cyber sectoral action plans and have a range of provision across the Department to ensure that the required skills are available. That includes the Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre (AICC), funded by my Department and Invest NI, which is a five-year, £16·3 million initiative delivered by Ulster University and Queen's University. It promotes AI awareness and adoption among businesses and offers hands-on support and skills development opportunities for SMEs.

There are higher level apprenticeship (HLA) programmes, including IT-related qualifications from level 5 through to level 7, that contain modules on AI. Specifically, there is an HLA master's degree that combines AI and computer science delivered by Ulster University. The SKILL UP programme, which is part of my skills fund, is supporting the delivery of AI courses through our colleges and universities, and those courses range from level 3 through to level 7, with funding allocated for 95 participant places. It is a fast-developing technology, so it will be important to keep pace with the demand for skills.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. How will the Department ensure that access to AI-related skills training is inclusive, particularly of those from disadvantaged backgrounds and, indeed, those who are currently employed in sectors at risk of automation?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. It is important that we continue to upskill individuals and businesses alike. Inclusivity is priority for us across the skills landscape in order to ensure that people from a broad range of backgrounds are able to access skills and training courses, particularly those from under-represented groups, such as women in certain areas, people with disabilities, people from less well off backgrounds and those who face additional barriers to education and training. That is a key focus for my Department, and it is something on which I put a priority personally. Likewise, the AICC is working with businesses to support them to adopt digital technologies through a wide range of initiatives.

Ms Nicholl: I have already tabled a number of questions for written answer on AI to the Minister. I am very interested in the subject. A number of other Departments are also doing work on artificial intelligence. I am curious to know what the Minister's assessment is of the Executive's ability not just to harness the potential of technological advancements but to mitigate their risks in a flexible way.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her interest in AI, because her questions for written answer are also helping inform me. AI clearly has huge potential, but it comes with challenges, and people have concerns about it. It is therefore important that we address AI's potential and its challenges. In my previous role, I was responsible for the public-sector transformation board. Something that became clear to me was that there was significant interest in digital transformation projects. The Executive agreed to conduct a digital landscape review to take a wider look at the Executive's needs. I am aware that different Departments are undertaking proof-of-concept projects in the area, and those projects will be really important for informing how we can best utilise AI and grasp the opportunities.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, how is AI being incorporated into your Department's work?

Dr Archibald: My Department has delivered an AI proof of concept to explore economic data and policy documents and to assist with research. Officials are actively exploring opportunities for the use of AI. As I said to Kate Nicholl, I am aware that other Departments and, indeed, other Administrations are taking forward proof-of-concept projects that are at various stages of development. Officials are working with colleagues to learn from that work and to explore how the Department can deploy relevant solutions in a controlled and measured way that adds value and harnesses the potential of AI.

Mr Crawford: Minister, what engagement has your Department had with the UK Government on the ethical and regulatory framework for safeguarding AI?

Dr Archibald: As I have said, the Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre, which is an initiative that my Department and Invest NI are supporting, promotes awareness of the adoption of AI amongst businesses and offers support and skills development opportunities. The AICC is engaging with a wide range of stakeholders. I am happy to write to the Member with more detailed information on our engagement with the British Government on the issue.

Mr McNulty: Minister, what specific actions are you taking to ensure that the North can capitalise on artificial intelligence's potential and will be protected from any threats? To that effect, do you support the creation of a region-specific AI action plan?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I outlined, a range of work is being undertaken to further explore and harness the potential of AI, to ensure that we have the skills pipeline to support it and to ensure that we support businesses on the adoption of AI. Cyber is one of the Department's priority sectors. We have already developed an action plan for the sector. We continue to engage with industry and academia on the issue to make sure that we maximise the opportunities from it.

Dr Archibald: Since the launch of the subregional economic plan in October 2024, positive progress has been made. Reforms in DFE include a dedicated regional balance unit, which has been set up in a new social and regional economy division. It brings together complementary work streams, including the social enterprise action plan and entrepreneurship. All councils have a DFE strategic adviser and an Invest NI regional manager assigned to provide support in establishing local economic partnerships. The first of those partnerships has already met, and the rest plan to do so imminently. The partnerships will identify local priorities, and Departments will be asked to help to deliver on them. In addition, in order to help to pump-prime projects, partnerships will have access to a £45 million fund over the next three years. Projects will be in line with my departmental priorities. A project board, including council officials, has been established to work through fund design and governance. The funding allocation for each area was announced in January.

Invest NI has implemented a new regional approach. Promoting people and places is one of the six strategic priorities in Invest NI's 2024-27 business strategy. That includes the new target of 65% of investment to businesses outside the Belfast metropolitan area by 2026-27. Other initiatives, such as the Magee expansion task force, are also progressing well. A recent focus has been on acquiring the land necessary to facilitate the significant expansion in student numbers that we are committed to delivering.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer. I note what she said about local councils working with the Department and about 65% of investment outside of Belfast. How will the Minister ensure that regional rebalancing serves the people of North Belfast, whom I represent, and West Belfast, for whom economic opportunity is so vital, given that those areas suffer the worst economic and health outcomes in Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. She makes an important point. The local economic partnerships are about empowering areas to address their specific needs and align them with the departmental priorities. There will, of course, be opportunities for all councils and all areas in them to do that. I know that every MLA and every councillor will make the case for their area: that is healthy. It is really positive that those partnerships are being established and that there will be the ability to shape the economic priorities of local areas. We will review those as they roll out.

Mr Delargy: Minister, will you provide an update on the Magee planning, given that its expansion is so vital to regional balance?

Dr Archibald: As the Member will know, the task force published its final report and action plan on 16 December. The report provides a comprehensive and costed plan to deliver 10,000 students for Magee and highlights the significant milestones that have already been achieved in the early stages of the expansion, including the identification of 16 capital projects, the acquisition of key pieces of land, an additional 500 student places in the academic year 2024-25 and tuition fee loan access for graduate entry medical school students from 2025-26, for which the Member made the case. Work has begun on marketing and other enabling projects to support the delivery of additional students. The final report also recommends an investment of £291 million of capital funding to deliver the facilities for 10,000 students by 2032.

Ms McLaughlin: What is the Minister's assessment of the Executive's performance as a whole in improving regional balance since last February? Is she confident that enough measures are being taken across government to achieve and deliver that goal?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I know that it is an issue that she is passionate about. I share that passion. As an Executive, we have a focus on regional balance. That has come through in key decisions that have been taken across a number of Departments. The work that has been taken forward under the city and growth deals, for example, is positive and will see real change in the coming years. It will continue to take all of us who are passionate about the issue to ensure that delivery is being made on addressing the historical regional imbalances that have been faced, particularly in the west, south-west and north-west.

Mr Speaker: We move now to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I do not agree with the Member's assessment. Energy is clearly a priority for my Department and for me as Minister. One of the four key objectives of my economic mission is decarbonisation. Therefore, we are putting a significant focus on it from a departmental perspective by ensuring that there is budgetary cover and that the resources are there.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Minister. The Economy Committee recently received evidence from Transmission Investment, which informed us that the failure to produce proper policy on interconnection is placing the delivery of its interconnector at risk. This is a multimillion-pound investment that will lower electricity prices, provide additional energy security and support decarbonisation. What is the Department doing to support such investments? Will the Minister concede that her Department has not acted quickly enough to facilitate the drive to net zero?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Clearly, the Department recognises the challenges that exist in delivering on its energy targets, and we have taken significant action already. The Member will be aware of the energy strategy that was published in the previous mandate and of the action plans that have been delivered since then. As I said, it is a key priority of my economic mission, and we need to ensure that we are taking appropriate steps. I recognise the issues relating to interconnection. As the Member is probably aware, the Department has commissioned research into energy storage policy and interconnection. We are due to receive that in April, and it will help to inform our way forward from a policy perspective.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. My Department's consultation on the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill prompted a range of stakeholders to present a significant number of complex and considered responses that have been very useful and that continue to be carefully considered by my Department. That analysis work is nearing completion and will help to inform decisions about how we best update our employment law framework. On15 January, my officials provided the Economy Committee with an interim update on the analysis of responses. My Department will continue to work with the Committee to ensure that members are engaged and informed of key developments.

Since my predecessor set out an economic vision for the North, my Department and its delivery partners have taken forward a wide range of initiatives to help to create more good jobs. As the Member will be aware, the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill public consultation focused on four aspects of a good job: terms of employment; pay and benefits; voice and representation; and work-life balance. Obviously, a lot of issues will fall into those areas. Detailed analysis is almost complete, and that analysis, along with other policy considerations, will inform my decisions about the way forward. I plan to bring Bill proposals to the Executive for agreement in the coming months.

A good work charter consultation will also be launched in the coming months. I look forward to working alongside the Labour Relations Agency and business and trade union leaders in co-designing a charter that will support businesses here to maintain and create good jobs for all. We want to stimulate high-value-added growth by promoting industries and sectors that have the potential to create high-quality jobs with good pay, conditions, security and opportunities. Last year, we published the action plans for the seven high-potential industrial sectors, a subregional economic plan and a social enterprise action plan.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for her response. Does the Minister have any update on the work of Advice NI to promote the living wage?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Advice NI began its work, supported by my Department, as the new accreditation partner here for the Living Wage Foundation in June 2024. My Department provides funding of £125,000 per annum to Advice NI. Advice NI has confirmed that the number of accreditations for businesses as living wage employers continues to rise, with 51 new organisations becoming accredited since the start of the project and 19 doing so between October and December alone. Up to the end of December, the total number of living wage employer accreditations here stood at 127. The Living Wage Foundation's new accreditation partner for the North, Living Wage NI, was launched in June 2024. That was established by Advice NI and supported by the Department for the Economy. The Department holds quarterly progress meetings with Advice NI. At the last progress meeting, Advice NI confirmed that, as I have outlined, the number of accreditations continues to rise.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As he will know, my Department is working with the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) and NIE Networks on the delivery of the North/South interconnector north of the border. That will be a really important project when it comes to increasing the electricity flow between both jurisdictions and improving the operation of the wholesale electricity market on the island. SONI recently advised of a delay, to which the Member referred, in the construction of the North/South interconnector following the assessment of the remaining programme of works in the South. The Department continues to engage with the Utility Regulator, SONI, NIE Networks and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications in the South on the progress of the project's delivery. Clearly, it is a priority for us.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much, Minister, for your reply. The Minister will be aware that somewhere in the region of £100 million of extra costs are anticipated because of the fact that there is no North/South interconnection, as reported in Dáil Éireann. Therefore, Minister, will you report back to the Assembly on the likely additional costs for Northern Ireland, particularly for Northern Ireland businesses? As she is aware, the integrated single electricity market (ISEM) is a virtual market: there is no physical connectivity. Considerable costs are being applied to our manufacturing sector and across our domestic sector.

Dr Archibald: As I outlined to the Member, the delivery of the North/South interconnector is important for our energy, particularly the flow of electricity across the island. I will get further briefings from officials on the issues that have been raised.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. AI has an interface with many sectors, and it poses some challenges for the creative sector. Some legislation is coming forward in Britain that is concerning to that sector. I have not yet had the opportunity to engage with the creative sector about that, but I am more than happy to do so.

Ms Mulholland: My question is a perfect follow-on from that because it is about the UK Government's consultation on the legal framework for copyright and artificial intelligence. Will you commit to engaging with representatives of the creative sector to understand their worries about that and ensure that they can meaningfully exercise their own copyright and exclusivity rights?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her follow-up question. Creatives have engaged with me on that. There is significant concern about the potential implications. I am happy to engage with the sector to try to understand those challenges and to see if we are able to bring any influence. It goes back to the point that, while there is huge potential with AI, it comes with challenges. We need to understand both.

Mr Speaker: Andy Allen is not in his place.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. That issue was raised with the Communities Minister at a recent meeting in Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council. When the Minister brought forward the housing supply strategy before Christmas, he asked officials across Departments to work on particular issues, with that being one of them. My officials are happy to be engaged in that work.

Mr Brooks: Will the Minister, perhaps through Tourism NI, look at the best international examples of regulation — I am thinking particularly of Amsterdam's 30-day cap, which seems to have worked well there — to see what we can learn to bring better enforcement regulation here?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for the follow-up question. I had the opportunity to meet Tourism NI last week. It was an introductory meeting, but that issue was actually mentioned in passing. I am happy to look at it in more detail. It is important that we look to where there are good examples of things that work and that we are able to try to build on that best practice. I am happy to engage on that and to work with Tourism NI and the Communities Minister.

Dr Archibald: The Member may not have been in his place when I responded to a question from Mr Aiken on the North/South interconnector. I assume that he is referring to the delay that was announced in the South recently. SONI advised the Department of a delay in the construction following the assessment of the remaining programme of works in the South. My Department continues to engage with the Utility Regulator, SONI, NIE Networks and Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications officials in the South to progress the delivery of the project. The project is clearly highly important to the efficiency of our electricity transmission across the island, and it is important that we see progress quickly.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. Figures are bandied about for the cost of actually building the interconnector and for the benefits that would then be derived from it, but those figures are now massively out of date. Can the Minister provide accurate figures for the cost to build and the benefit that will then be derived from the project?

Dr Archibald: The Member will appreciate that I do not have that information in front of me. I am happy to share it with him in writing.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. My Department, in collaboration with other Departments and key stakeholders, has developed the offshore renewable energy action plan to enable offshore renewable energy development in the North's marine area from 2030. DFE recently appointed RPS Ireland to undertake an update to the 2012 strategic environmental assessment and habitats regulation assessment of offshore renewable energy in the North's marine area. That will, in collaboration with other key delivery partners, help to identify suitable areas for offshore renewable energy development across various technology types, including wind, tidal and wave.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. As part of delivering 80% renewables by 2050, how is the Minister working with the UK and our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland and across Europe to ensure that those in the offshore maritime industry remain competitive and at the forefront of their industry?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his follow-up question. We need to build on our previous success in renewables development, and the Executive need to take a collaborative, whole-system approach in order to facilitate the delivery of the 80% by 2030 target. While my Department has legislated responsibility for the target, collaboration across Departments and jurisdictions with wider stakeholders, including industry, is going to be essential to its successful delivery.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): My officials have been working closely with the PSNI to develop a robust business case for the funding that will be required to recover workforce numbers over the course of the current mandate. I am pleased to confirm that that business case has been submitted to the Department of Finance for its consideration. I should stress that affordability remains a key issue for business case approval. Subject to Department of Finance approval, however, I will continue to work collaboratively with my Executive colleagues to seek the additional funding that is required.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for her answer. To add to your woes, Minister, how much do you think the Labour Government's employers' National Insurance rise will cost the PSNI?

Mrs Long: It is difficult to speak specifically about how much it will cost the PSNI. I know that stabilisation pressures have increased by about £60 million due to changes in employers' National Insurance contributions, and that includes things such as the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) pay award assumptions and legal aid fees as recommended in the Burgess report. There has been a considerable increase in stabilisation pressures in the Department. Looking to the PSNI specifically, excluding employers' National Insurance contributions and NICS pay award pressures, the pressures that it needs to meet stand at around £17·98 million in the current year.

Mr Crawford: What actions is the Minister taking to support the police recruitment campaign and to dispel the negative commentary that has surrounded it?

Mrs Long: First, it was really important that we were able to have a recruitment campaign. It is very important that the PSNI is right-sized to be able to provide the critical service that it does. I encourage any young person, irrespective of their background, to consider a career in the police, because it is important for public service that the brightest and best of our young people are engaged with the PSNI. I have made that case repeatedly when I have been interviewed and asked questions about the issue.

Clearly, there has been some negative commentary around the adverts that the PSNI launched, and some others have tried to intimidate and threaten those who would wish to join the PSNI, neither of which I view to be helpful. It is in all our interests as a community that we have a representative police force so that when people see the PSNI, they see themselves reflected in it and they know that its officers are members of our community, serving our community.

Mrs Long: The report was received by my Department on 22 January 2025 and was published on 30 January 2025. I will now take time to consider the report’s findings and afford the Policing Board and the Chief Constable time to reflect on the recommendations that are relevant to them. I will outline my response to the recommendations in due course.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for her response. Minister, do you believe that policing has been overly politicised in the past, as per the report? What action will you take to rectify that from a DOJ point of view?

Mrs Long: There is always a danger that policing will become politicised — by which I mean party politicised — because, of course, policing is inherently a political issue. It requires the support of the public and of politicians, and it requires us to engender confidence in policing. Policing is an inherent part of the transformation of our society, so it is inherently political in that sense. However, it should not become a party-political football, nor should its operational development be politicised.

When it comes to the Department of Justice, I am very clear that it is important that I respect the tripartite arrangements, that I allow the Chief Constable to be operationally responsible to the Policing Board and that I allow the Policing Board to hold the Chief Constable to account, rather than to do that through me in the Chamber, which some Members, I think, would prefer. Historically, our policing and our oversight arrangements are delicate and are informed by our experience. The results of the review show that, in the main, those arrangements are working, albeit they may need to be tweaked here and there in order to make them more effective, the review certainly does not say that we should rub them out and start again.

Mr McGlone: Minister, you took us into the realm of the current tripartite arrangements. Will you outline your assessment, please, of the effectiveness of those arrangements with regard to accountability and delivery, given the recommendation in the review that they should be subject to a new partnership agreement?

Mrs Long: There was no suggestion in the report that the current tripartite arrangements were not appropriate. However, what I think was suggested in the report, and something that I considered at length with the Policing Board in the previous mandate, was whether we needed, in light of there now being devolved institutions, which were not here at the time of the Policing Board being instituted and the PSNI reforms, to clarify the lines of accountability so that we can refresh people's minds about where the responsibility for different things lies. Any clarity that we can bring to the robustness and effectiveness of those arrangements would be helpful. Crucially, the strategic element that is highlighted in the report came from conversations with the board, which itself was saying that it wished to be strategic in its oversight of policing. That would be aided greatly by its own strategic plan and by the PSNI's strategic plan.

The current operations work pretty well. It was important that we did a health check after recent events, because we have a duty to ensure that the public have confidence in those arrangements, and not just those of us who are using and working through those arrangements on a day-to-day basis.

Mrs Long: The Domestic Abuse Information-sharing with Schools etc. Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2022, which make statutory provision for Operation Encompass, came into operation on 1 April 2022. The regulations were drafted by the Department of Justice in partnership with the Department of Education, the Department for the Economy and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. However, whilst my Department introduced the regulations to provide for Operation Encompass, responsibility for its roll-out sits with the Department of Education and the Education Authority (EA). The EA's child protection support service operates Operation Encompass across all schools through the provision of advisory support, training and information-sharing with the PSNI. I am advised that the scheme is working well and allows staff to provide direct emotional support to child victims of domestic violence. The EA has completed a limited evaluation of the impact of the scheme within the school setting, and it is hoped that that will be shared with partners once it has been approved by the relevant EA governance procedures. Since the commencement of the pilot, there have been over 30,000 referrals to schools across Northern Ireland.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Operation Encompass, as you outlined, came in under the Domestic Abuse Act, and it has been valuable. Do you see merit in broadening it out in its referrals to children who go into school?

Mrs Long: As I said, since the commencement of the pilot, there have been over 30,000 referrals to schools, which shows how necessary that information-sharing protocol has been. The sharing of information creates an administrative demand on policing, particularly on sharing and then on teachers receiving that information. However, all parties fully agree that the ethos behind Operation Encompass is incredibly worthwhile and are now working together to streamline it and to automate the sharing of information where possible. That will reduce the administrative burden but, more importantly, should allow the information-sharing to be undertaken more quickly and without any delay so that we can provide the support to young people in the classroom more expeditiously.

In the past six months, the Police Service introduced an email facility for schools to ask for a callback when they were unable to reach the designated teacher. That alerts the designated teacher that there is a referral to be received. I am advised that the PSNI and the Education Authority are developing a mechanism to fully automate the process and make the referral via public protection notices (PPN). A PPN is required for every domestic abuse incident or crime that the police attend, and it collates a significant amount of relevant information to share with the schools. A small number of pilot schools in Belfast have been identified to test that latter concept via secure email accounts. It is hoped that the new phased pilot will be able to be rolled out and provide more timely interventions for young people.

Ms Bunting: I want to stick with the issue of domestic abuse a bit more generally, if I may. Minister, what is being done to support male victims of domestic abuse and coercive control and encourage them to come forward? Not to diminish in any shape or form violence against women and girls, I am concerned that men and boys could fall behind.

Mrs Long: That is a really important and timely question. When we introduced the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill, which became the 2021 Act, to the House, I was clear that the provisions were to be gender-neutral so that, irrespective of a person's gender, sexuality, race, age or whatever they identify as, they could fall into the categories that were listed in the provisions.

I recognise that, while people always assume that domestic abuse is, stereotypically, a strong man physically abusing a weaker woman, that is not always the pattern. There can be many permutations. Whether the abuse happens in same-sex relationships or through a child's abuse of a parent in the home, for example, whereby a child who is the main carer can exert coercive control over a parent who relies on them for care, all of it is captured in the domestic abuse offence. It is therefore important that, when we see synergies, which we do, with the ending violence against women and girls strategy, we recognise that not all violence against women and girls happens in a domestic setting and that not all domestic offences are against women and girls. In our original advertising on the subject, we made sure that we showed a range of victims.

When it comes to the support that we provide for victims of domestic abuse, representatives of charities that are involved with male victims provide support for men who come forward and make such disclosures.

Ms Egan: What will happen in the next phase of Operation Encompass, and how will that evolve?

Mrs Long: The harm that domestic and sexual abuse causes to the lives of children and young people is significant. There were strong calls for the domestic and sexual abuse strategy to include a fifth pillar in addition to partnership, prevention, support and provision and justice that specifically focused on meeting the needs of children and young people. We want to do more to prevent young people from becoming victims of domestic violence and abuse or from witnessing it in the home. The important part of that is the digitisation project that I mentioned that is being brought forward by the EA and the PSNI. By streamlining the communications between those organisations, we will be able to expedite contact with young people who may have been subjected to a domestic incident in the hours before they arrive at school. That incident may have required them to leave their home to find a place of safety. It may have meant that they did not get any sleep that night or that they have come to school without doing their homework or without their uniform. The school needs to be sensitive in handling those situations rather than escalating them to being a disciplinary issue that makes the young person dread going to school, so that the young person sees school as a place where they can get some respite from what is happening at home.

Ms Hunter: Minister, I recently spoke to a domestic abuse survivor whose ex-partner repeatedly drives past her home. Sadly, that has not met the threshold for a stalking offence. In cases such as that, where behaviour is not technically deemed to be a domestic incident or a crime but could be seen as a form of psychological weapon, can we do more with Operation Encompass to have that data shared with a school?

Mrs Long: Operation Encompass does not particularly pertain to an adult's experience of someone driving past their home. It is not appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, but a person's repeatedly arriving at your place of work or your place of residence, their initiating contact with you that, you have made clear, you do not wish to receive or their behaving in a way that is fixated, obsessive or unwanted, where that behaviour is repetitive, is the very definition of stalking. I encourage your constituent to seek further legal advice on whether there are legal avenues that they can pursue to get a non-molestation order or a charge of stalking against the individual involved.

Mrs Long: There are currently no transgender prisoners housed in Northern Ireland.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, given that there have been lots of conversations about transgender males going to female prisons, and given that none are housed in our prison system, is now the time to make a clear decision that, if you are a biological male, you stay in a prison for biological males and that, if you are a biological female, you stay in a female prison?

Mrs Long: There is no need for a clear decision to be made. A clear decision has already been set out, which is that people will be housed in the prison system in a way that maintains and protects their dignity, their privacy and, crucially, their safety. That remains the policy that the Prison Service will follow.

Mrs Long: The Northern Ireland Prison Service, like all public services, has faced budgetary pressures over a number of years. In response, it has made significant efforts to drive efficiencies, where possible. In doing so, however, it has at all times been mindful of the need to ensure the safety of prisoners and staff.

The rising prisoner population places pressure on the Northern Ireland Prison Service and on all prison services across the UK and Ireland. On 1 February 2022, the total prisoner population in Northern Ireland was 1,601. On 1 February 2025, it had increased by almost 20%, to 1,913. Between 1 February 2023 and 1 February 2025 alone, there was an increase in prisoner numbers of 170. The Prison Service is dealing with a greater number of complex individuals in custody with poor mental health and drug and alcohol addictions. It is also dealing with higher numbers of older people in prison.

As a result of the increase in the prisoner population, and following a review of operational staffing levels, I have approved the recruitment of a further 75 prison officers. The Prison Service remains focused on supporting the rehabilitation of people in custody so that, when they leave prison, they are able to resettle and contribute in a meaningful way that supports the Executive's commitment to making communities safer. The Prison Service's ability to deliver on that work, however, has been impacted on by the rising prisoner population, the high number of remand prisoners and short-sentence prisoners and a rise in the number of public protection cases.

In response to those pressures, the Prison Service has commissioned a review of its rehabilitation model. The review is scheduled to be completed within the next few months. Its findings may mean that additional funding is required in order to support rehabilitation work. I will consider any such funding requests sympathetically. The Prison Service is a robust and agile organisation that, over many years, has proven itself to be able to change and adapt. The results of the recent Hydebank Wood Secure College inspections are a testament to that determination, and I am confident that the Prison Service can continue to respond to the pressures that it faces from having a rising prisoner population.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for her response. What are the impacts of a rising prisoner population on each establishment?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for his question. Each prison establishment is distinct. Hydebank Wood is the smallest such establishment in Northern Ireland. Despite its size, it comes with its own complexity from housing young male and female prisoners on a single site. Although the young male population there has remained relatively stable, the young female population has increased from 70 to 113 between February 2022 and February 2025. Magilligan is an adult male prison that primarily holds sentenced prisoners as they progress towards release. Its prisoner population is being managed carefully in order to sustain it at as close to its capacity of 500 prisoners as possible. The reason for the careful population management is to alleviate the ongoing pressure on the prison. Maghaberry is the largest and most complex prison in Northern Ireland. It is a high-security prison for sentenced and unsentenced adult male prisoners in integrated and separated conditions. Since February 2022, the population of Maghaberry prison has increased by 25%, to 1,270. Nearly half of the prisoners held there — 632 — are on remand.

Mr Dunne: The number of assaults on prison staff has trebled over the past four years, from 32 in 2020 to 96 in 2024. Does the Minister feel that that has had an averse impact on the recent recruitment campaign? What more can be done to tackle what is a growing problem?

Mrs Long: Based on the number of people who have applied, the recent recruitment campaign has been quite successful. Northern Ireland remains in a much healthier position than other jurisdictions that have run recruitment campaigns. The increase in the number of assaults has undoubtedly has an impact on the prison staff already in place, however. When there is more disruption and a more volatile situation in prisons, which is the case when prisoner numbers are increasing, people are often unable to benefit from having the full regime. As a result, they get frustrated, and volatility increases. It is therefore a spiralling situation. Nevertheless, we have managed to keep the prisons reasonably stable and safe.

As prisoner numbers grow, however, there is a challenge with the access that people have to opportunities to let off steam and to avail themselves of therapy and education as part of the full regime. That is challenging for prison officers as well, because it means that people are spending longer in their cell. It is important that the recruitment of new officers to the Prison Service allow us to have additional officers in place over the summer in order to restore the full regime. As I said, it will then be important, through the review, to look at what we can do around rehabilitation that better reflects the new prisoner population that we now have to manage in the establishments.

Mr Beattie: The Minister 's answer feeds in well to the question that I am about to ask about pressures and the moral component. The Department of Finance believes that the sickness-absence policy for the Northern Ireland Prison Service should be the same as that for all civil servants. Does the Minister agree that the policy should take account of the unique role of our Prison Service? What is she doing to get DOF to change the policy to reflect that unique role?

Mrs Long: We recognise that, across the Civil Service, there are people acting in front-line roles whose jobs are distinct and different from those of people who are office-based and do not have to interact with members of the public who, often, are vulnerable and volatile. The Prison Service has a unique situation, which is why we have put unique supports in place, whether those are through access to the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust (PRRT) — and the work that is done there in psychology, physiotherapy, rehabilitation and training, where required, for prison officers — or in the work that we do in prisons to support prison officers in their role.

It is important that we drive down sickness absence, but I recognise that sickness absence can be driven up because people work longer hours and take additional shifts when the Prison Service is under stress. One of the reasons that it is so important that we recruit a new cadre of officers is so that we can relieve some of that pressure and allow officers who are suffering from stress to make their way back into the system. Any HR system has to look at the roles and functions that somebody is involved in. That does not mean that there has to be a different system, but the system has to be sensitive to the nature of the role. That is standard HR procedure.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her answers thus far. Minister, to what extent are disputes with legal practitioners and the associated strike action putting the prison system under further duress?

Mrs Long: To be clear, there is no dispute with legal practitioners; there is a dispute with the criminal Bar. The remainder of the legal practitioners continue to work and are working with me. Only the criminal Bar has withdrawn its services at this point — certainly, as far as I am aware, that is the case. I met the criminal Bar in the past week or so to work through some of the issues that it raised. Of course, the remand population increases if there are delays to trial. Delays mean that, potentially, there will be people in prison who should not be in prison and people who are not in prison who should be. The criminal Bar should reflect on that as it decides how to take its action forward.

Mrs Long: I published the terms of reference for the review of the case of Jonathan Creswell on Friday 21 February. I also confirmed that I had appointed Jan Melia as the independent reviewer. I believe that the terms of reference are expansive and provide the reviewer with the scope to look at any and all issues that she considers are relevant to the case. I am mindful that the family of Katie Simpson need to be at the heart of the review. As a matter of priority, the reviewer will engage with them to hear their voice directly and to understand how they wish to be engaged in and by the process. I have received confirmation from the key agencies that they will actively engage in and cooperate with the review. I welcome the commitment that they have shown to learning from the case. It is vital that the reviewer is now given the time and space to undertake this important piece of work and to report on her findings.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, I really welcome that progress. There were so many missed opportunities that, if taken, literally could have saved Katie Simpson's life. Does the Minister agree that that important piece of work should not limit its learnings to that tragic case but should export them across every incident and case, and that lack of resources should not be an excuse for a lack of professional curiosity from the PSNI?

Mrs Long: To be clear, it will not be only the actions and interventions of the PSNI that will be considered. There was a range of opportunities across a range of statutory agencies, where earlier intervention may have made a difference to the outcome. None of us can say, with confidence, whether it would or would not have. However, we can say that, if those opportunities were missed, we would not want that to happen in another case.

It is crucial to say that, of course, we will want to embed any learning from this case within organisations. Undoubtedly — I have raised this in the Chamber before — when we lack resources for the key services that are provided, whether by the PSNI, the Probation Board, Health or any other part of the system, cases will fall through the net. As I explained, whilst many people do not see Justice as a matter of life and death in the same way as they view Health, it absolutely can be. It is important that Justice be properly resourced, but also, as you rightly said, we must engender professional curiosity in all sectors. This is not to be a finger-pointing exercise; it is to be a lessons-learned exercise so that we do not continue to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer and welcome the publication of the terms of reference last week. It is a very positive opportunity to learn from missed opportunities in the past. On the partners to be involved, can the Minister confirm whether there is scope to include trusts other than the Western Trust? We now know that Katie Simpson, unfortunately, attended hospital in the Southern Trust area, on many occasions with Jonathan Creswell. It turned out that she was a victim of his abuse at the time, and he was the reason why she attended hospital.

Mrs Long: The terms of reference cover all the key issues and the key Departments that we anticipate will have some input to make. However, they also give the independent reviewer scope to pursue whatever fields of enquiry are, she believes, relevant, and that will include any engagement with other trusts, hospitals and practitioners. Critically, the review will focus on learning, because it is important that we take away any lessons so that we can safeguard and better protect victims who are subject not only to terrible forms of abuse but, often, coercive control. The parameters are broad, and, while they are quite expansive, they allow other issues of concern, if raised with the reviewer, to be included even if they are outwith the terms of reference, which are set up in such a way that she has the freedom to do that.

Mrs Long: Limavady courthouse has been closed since March 2020, with its business currently transferred to Coleraine. Prior to the building's closure, it operated as a hearing centre and was open one day a week for the delivery of Magistrates’ Court business. The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service's (NICTS) estate strategy, published in December 2023, provides a long-term framework for investment over the next decade and beyond. To implement the strategy, the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service is using data and evidence to baseline the existing estate against the agreed strategic outcomes; assess the adequacy of its buildings; and, in the context of the finite resources available, develop prioritised investment plans that will be subject to public consultation, as appropriate. The future use of Limavady courthouse forms part of that process.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Minister for that answer. My biggest concern for courthouses across Northern Ireland is primarily access to justice, but also the impact on rural areas of removing courthouses. As part of the review, will the Minister look at an impact assessment to ensure that we take into account all the aspects of why not having a courthouse is a good thing?

Mrs Long: First, we have to make sure that those courthouses are accessible in the most basic sense, and many of them, unfortunately, are not fit for purpose. Many of the protections that we would wish to put in place — for example, for vulnerable victims and witnesses — are not possible, because everyone enters through the one door at the front of the courthouse, meaning that we cannot segregate in the way that is normally expected in some of our more recently opened, purpose-built facilities.

Limavady courthouse is the smallest courthouse in our estate, and, since 2002, it has heard only adult Magistrates' Court business. In 2023-24, only 476 cases were received by Limavady Magistrates' Court, and, historically, it has had the lowest business volumes in the court estate, which is one of the reasons why it was previously open for only a single day each week. However, it is right to say that access to justice will be one of the crucial issues in the decision-making process, but it has to be looked at in the round, including whether access to the buildings can be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act and whether people live adjacent to them.

Ms Ferguson: I previously asked about Derry courthouse, Minister, and you mentioned the potential for an additional extension and refurbishment. When can we expect a firm timeline or resourcing commitments, given the ongoing need to ensure adequate access to a modern justice system in the north-west?

Mrs Long: As the Member will know, our initial thoughts were that we would not be able to provide the service at the current Bishop Street location, simply due to the constrained nature of the site and the listed status of the building. The plan had been to provide a new facility for the north-west.

However, fortuitously, we have been able to obtain enough land beside the courthouse to allow us to reconfigure business, so we should be able to provide that kind of modern facility. The process is still in its early stages, but I will be quick to let the Member know once we have a firmer set of propositions.

Again, that is part of the overall estates strategy that we have to work our way through. A number of our court buildings are old but are grade 1 and grade 2 listed and therefore need to be refurbished. Parts of the court estate are distributed into accommodation that we have to pay for whilst we have accommodation that is deteriorating rapidly through lack of use. We need to look at the whole strategy to make sure that we make best use of the buildings that we have; ensure that those that are genuinely historic buildings are maintained properly; and, crucially, ensure that we are able to maintain a justice system that works in tandem with the estate to provide people with the best possible service.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mrs Long: It is not just that I rehearse the independence of the PSNI: your predecessors in the SDLP fought for the independence of the police service when it was being reformed during the Patten process. They argued strongly that no Minister should be able to intervene with policing in the way that it had happened historically in Northern Ireland and that we needed a fully independent Policing Board to ensure that. That system was introduced to ensure that people, irrespective of their religion, gender or ethnicity, would have confidence in the PSNI. I have consistently called for people from all backgrounds to get involved in the PSNI and be involved in a service to their community that is vital. I encourage the Member to do likewise. I know that he has many connections through sport and in the community, and I imagine that he, as somebody who is well respected in his community, could have great influence in getting young people to come forward and join the PSNI.

Mr McNulty: It is interesting that you put the responsibility on me, Minister. Since the devolution of policing and justice powers, your Department has held strategic oversight of the justice system and your party has successfully privatised recruitment to the post of Justice Minister to the exclusion of nationalists. Given the trust, funding and recruitment challenges in policing, you could and should have made public confidence in policing a priority: you have not. Please tell us what urgent actions you will take as Minister of Justice to ensure that policing reflects the society that it serves.

Mrs Long: I will say a couple of things about that supplementary question. The Member said that it is not his responsibility, but it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that the PSNI is reflective of the community. Every Member who walks through the doors of the Chamber has a responsibility to ensure that their community has confidence in the PSNI, cooperates with the PSNI and creates an environment in which the PSNI is safe to do its job. I certainly will not wash my hands of that responsibility, and I hope that the SDLP is not going down the route of trying to do so.

On the wider issue that he raised about prioritising confidence in the PSNI, I have done that because I respect the independence of the Chief Constable. There would be nothing more toxic to policing in Northern Ireland than for politicians to start dabbling in the operational decision-making of the PSNI. With respect, Mr McNulty, you have a colleague on the Policing Board. I suggest that you converse with him about how you can best build confidence in the PSNI in your community.

Mrs Long: I do not have statistics on the number of people who have not yet been able to receive their ill-health retirement. It is not for me to make decisions on ill-health retirement. Those decisions fall to the PSNI to make and are a matter for the Chief Constable. However, we have worked hard to ensure that we are able to find the medics who are capable of making those decisions and assessments, both for injury on duty and for ill-health retirement. I do not hold the figures that the Member has asked for.

Mr Chambers: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, are you in a position to detail the number of officers who are receiving no salary while the matter remains unresolved?

Mrs Long: Again, payment of salaries is not a matter for the Department of Justice, so I do not hold those figures and neither does my Department.

Mrs Long: It can have a number of impacts. The report shows that 60% of our adult population have reported at least one adverse childhood experience and that nearly one in five people has experienced four or more. The correlation between higher adverse childhood experience (ACE) exposure and poorer life outcomes, from educational achievement and chronic health conditions to substance misuse and abuse, points to a pressing need for enhanced investment in targeted intervention and support.

It is not all bad news, however, because the report also identifies how positive childhood experiences can counterbalance adverse childhood experiences and help people to thrive and live healthy and productive lives. By using a trauma-informed approach across government, we can turn around the long tail of people who have been and continue to be profoundly affected by violence. If we are to address societal trauma on that level, however, sustained long-term intervention and investment will be required across the Executive, not solely from the Department of Justice.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, do you agree that the report could inform how the Executive can target resources and interventions at an early stage in order to prevent further costs across public services down the line?

Mrs Long: Without doubt, and I commend the study to Members and encourage them to read it. It is instructive about the legacy that our experiences, particularly those related to paramilitarism and organised crime, have left us. The issues that we talk about weekly in the Chamber — people who have achieved less in school; people who struggle to hold down a job; people who have complex PTSD and severe mental health needs; people with higher levels of alcohol dependency and substance misuse and abuse; and people with higher levels of physical disability — can all be tracked back in the report to our society, how people have grown up and the experiences that they have had.

The report also shows that early intervention through Health, Education, Communities, the Economy, Justice and every other Department can make a difference in outcomes for young people. Whilst the report is depressing in many ways, namely the extent to which adverse childhood experiences have affected our society, it offers a way forward for the Executive by evidencing why early intervention is so important.

Mrs Long: I do not hold figures on spending by the Police Ombudsman on that legal action. As I have previously explained to Members, the ombudsman is a corporation sole, appointed by royal warrant on the advice of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I have oversight of her office — I will have an oversight meeting with her in the next few weeks — but not of the ombudsman's decisions, in which she acts completely independently of me. You can write to the ombudsman's office to ask for that information, and it should be forthcoming. It has not been presented to me, however, and I do not hold those figures.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Questions are often brought to the Education Minister about decisions that the Education Authority has taken, and the Health Minister has answered questions on health trusts in particular. Why do you not feel, as Justice Minister, that that is information that you could present to the House?

Mrs Long: There are a number of reasons. Different legislative constructs were put in place for particular purposes in order to ensure the absolute independence of the Police Ombudsman and of, for example, the judiciary, the PSNI and the Policing Board, to which I have referred. The legislative framework is different. I answer questions with respect to the Prison Service and probation because they are not covered by the same legislative constraints.

To be clear, there is no mechanism whatever in legislation for any assessment of the ombudsman herself or her performance. There never has been. It is only the office that I can hold to account for its performance, and that is against the annual plan that the ombudsman sets.

Mrs Long: There are a number of things. First and foremost, I contacted the Chief Constable about the incidents that took place and extended my support and solidarity to the officers affected, as well as to their families and colleagues, because they have to face into such situations every day and showed great courage and fortitude in continuing with their work even though they were subjected to quite significant injury.

The other issue, I suppose, is what I say publicly. I take every opportunity that I have to say that it is not acceptable that we price in to a career in policing the fact that you will be assaulted by members of the public. That is not acceptable. When somebody goes out in the morning to serve our community, to keep us safe and put themselves between us and harm, they have a right to expect our support and our cooperation and to be safe in doing so. That is the least that they should expect from us. There is lots of accountability with regard to police who behave badly, but there must also be accountability for members of the public who behave badly towards them. That is why I am bringing forward in the sentencing Bill later this year additional aggravating factors in attacking someone who is delivering a public service, is a public servant or is delivering a service to the public, which covers a gamut of people who put themselves out there every day to serve the public and do not deserve to be abused, threatened or attacked for doing so.

I have also had conversations with the Chief Constable on the matter because I am concerned about the impact that it has on both morale and recruitment. He is clear, that from his perspective, the days of dropping charges when someone assaults a police officer, as one of those things that just happens in the system, are over. When people assault a police officer, it will be treated as assault and should be prosecuted.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her response. When health workers are attacked, it is rightly condemned. There should be zero tolerance. When Fire Service operators are attacked, again, it should be condemned and there should be zero tolerance. Unfortunately, the PSNI does not seem to receive the same respect across the board. Will the Minister outline a possible timeline for when we are likely to see her proposals on sentencing and so on come forward?

Mrs Long: My hope is that the legislation will be introduced in the autumn of this year, so we are working to a timeline of somewhere between September and Christmas with the Justice Committee and the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC).

You are absolutely right in your wider point. Those who work in the justice sector are no less deserving of protection than those who work in the health sector or any other part of the public sector, where that kind of violence, intimidation, threat and abuse would not be tolerated. It should not be tolerated in the justice sector either. We are clear — we talked about attacks on prison officers — that that has to be dealt with as seriously as an attack on any member of the public. We cannot simply price it into a career in the justice system. It is not acceptable. When you do that, you not only harm the individual whom you have attacked but you are potentially putting at harm someone else who may be waiting for them to arrive to give them assistance. You could be intervening in a life-or-death situation. People need to realise the seriousness of what they do and the damage to the wider community and need to stop.

Mr Bradley: Minister, if you can answer that in the time left, I will be mightily impressed.

Mrs Long: I agree with you completely, and it is why I have made the case repeatedly in the House that we cannot underfund the justice system and still expect it to perform its functions as though by magic. We need to properly resource our justice system at every point in the system to ensure that, when members of the public need that support, it is there for them.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Bradley.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am getting another one in.

Is there strategic planning and adequate funding to ensure that the justice system can effectively protect and serve the public? Albeit not exclusively, but a reduced police presence and 15 years of underfunding have increased pressures, with an adverse effect on crime prevention and crime detection.

Mrs Long: Undoubtedly, for policing to work, it has to start with neighbourhood policing and with local communities feeling a positive impact from that policing. One of the positive things to come out of some recent reviews has been that neighbourhood policing is very highly rated, in terms of its quality, by the community. It falls down on its frequency, so I want to get to a point — that is why we have the recovery plan that I spoke to earlier — where we have the resources to build police numbers so that we are able to have dedicated units that are engaged with community policing, doing exactly what the Member has suggested and being able to do it in a consistent way that builds trust and confidence within the community and, hopefully, encourages other people to come forward and join the PSNI and support the work that it does.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My apologies for indulging in points of order and dosing you on them twice in one day. In the past hour and a half, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has issued, under embargo, a written ministerial statement. Further to what I raised with you earlier, not only has he not brought that written ministerial statement to the House to allow Members to ask questions about the vital subject of avian influenza, he has put an embargo — or his Department has — on the written ministerial statement for reasons that are completely inexplicable to me, having read the statement. He talks about issues that Keith Buchanan raised on the record on the Floor of the Assembly earlier. I ask that your office investigates not only the question of when Ministers do and do not bring oral statements to the House but the use, or misuse, of embargoes for no obvious reason. We have been asked to embargo that information, most of which seems to be in the public domain, until 4.30 pm, and I have no idea why.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for raising the point of order. We will certainly look at that and make some commentary on it.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Carroll. You have up to 10 minutes to propose your amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I support today's motion, and I hope that Members can support my amendment.

For too long, Executive parties have refused to crack down on profiteering landlords, instead spending years, or even entire mandates, tinkering around the edges of reform at best. Private renters in the North are long overdue a new deal, one that starts shifting the balance of power away from landlords and towards tenants. My amendment's aim is to strengthen the motion and make the private rented sector more secure and truly affordable for tenants.

The private rented sector is an under-regulated Wild West where landlords call the shots. Tenants can be evicted for no reason, for daring to ask for basic repairs, challenging legal fees or trying to challenge or negotiate an extortionate rent increase. Landlords can charge whatever rents they want, and, in Belfast, that is an average of £1,100 per month. When tenants even begin to question these extortionate rents, landlords will point to the market — some mythical figure — as though they are not the people setting the rents and driving up house prices; as though they are not the market who are driving up people's rents.

The insecurity and unaffordability of the private rented sector forces people into homelessness. Loss of private rented accommodation is consistently among the top reasons for people presenting as homeless to the Housing Executive. Another common reason for homelessness is sharing breakdown, but why are people sharing in the first place? In most cases, it is because they cannot access social housing or are priced out of the private rented sector. We have debated and discussed these issues many times, and we are all in agreement that we are experiencing a housing crisis that is spiralling out of control.

We all know that homelessness destroys people's physical and mental health and rips apart the social fabric of our communities. Over 42% of homeless children in this city live in my constituency of West Belfast, which is a totally shocking statistic, but what is not talked about as often is the role that landlords play in the homelessness crisis, not to mention that the Housing Executive spent £15·5 million on single let temporary accommodation in 2022-23 alone. That is £15·5 million straight in the pockets of landlords who are actively profiteering from human misery and homelessness. Some landlords consciously and knowingly send families directly into homelessness when they issue an eviction notice or give them a rent increase that they know is completely unaffordable. Giving tenants more protections, including banning no-fault evictions, would save hundreds — potentially, thousands — of families from homelessness every year. It is a no-brainer.

Many private tenants are living in abject poverty. A decade or two ago, many families who are now struggling in the private rented sector would have lived in social housing, where rents are lower and tenancies are more secure, but they cannot because, year after year, the Executive fail to meet social housing building targets. According to NISRA, an average of 941 social homes have been completed every year since 2010. At that rate, it will take 50 years to build enough homes for everyone on the waiting list, and that is if the waiting list magically freezes instead of growing year-on-year. At the same time, the housing sales scheme continues to decimate the supply of social housing stock.

The failure to expand the supply of social housing has forced more and more people into the private rented sector. There is one very easy solution that is staring Executive parties and the Minister in the face: bring empty homes back into use. According to Land and Property Services (LPS), there are at least 22,500 empty homes in the North, but the latest census report states that there are over 52,000 households with no usual residents. I hope that the Minister can clarify which it is. It is a disgrace that those homes lie empty while people are sofa-surfing, living in insecure, temporary accommodation or sleeping rough on the street.

As well as the housing ombudsman that is proposed in the motion, which I obviously support, a well-resourced and effective rental board should be set up to enforce minimum fitness standards, a no-fault eviction ban and a system of rent controls. Those are questions that we explored during the consultation stage of my Member's Bill, the people's housing Bill, that I will, hopefully, bring through the Chamber.

Currently, tenants have almost no recourse when a property is riddled with damp or mould or when a landlord steals or refuses to register a deposit. Environmental health teams have enforcement powers, but, in practice, councils are generally underfunded and under-resourced, meaning that those powers are not worth the paper that they are written on. We need to learn from that shambolic system and make sure that any new deal for private renters is backed up by a strong enforcement body.

In the past year, rents in the North increased by 10%, which is higher than that in any UK region. In the same time frame, average wages increased by just 1·2%. Public-sector workers actually saw their pay decrease by 2·8%. Rents keep rising, but wages and benefits are stagnating. Furthermore, students face an acute affordability crisis. The National Union of Students - Union of Students in Ireland (NUS-USI), as part of its fix student housing campaign, showed that students are paying through the nose for poor-quality, overcrowded housing. Some 44% of students surveyed have less than £100 left each month after paying their housing costs, and half of students need to rely on a credit card or a loan to just get by. I commend NUS-USI for its work in highlighting those issues. It does not take an economist to see that that is totally unsustainable and a powder keg waiting to explode.

Third-generation rent controls are a step in the right direction, but they limit rent increases only in a tenancy. There is nothing to stop a landlord massively hiking the rent once a tenant leaves and before the property goes out to let again, so there is a limitation with it. A stronger system of rent controls would begin with a freeze, followed by a gradual reduction over time to a predetermined, affordable level. It is called first-generation rent control, although, tellingly, it is not often called that when we talk about it in the Chamber; we hear of hard or extreme rent controls or versions of that.

The total lack of rent control in the North and in Britain makes us outliers compared with the rest of Europe. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, France and the South of Ireland have some form of rent control system in place, and the sky has not fallen in. Landlords have not fled the market, despite the scaremongering that is touted when rent controls are talked about. In the decade up to 2022, European countries with rent controls had a faster-growing private rented sector than countries without rent controls, which really exposes the misinformation that is spouted by some when talking about rent controls. The idea of rent control is not outlandish or unworkable. In fact, all private tenancies in the North were subject to rent controls until 1978, so it was the norm for decades upon decades. If we agree with the basic principle that the right to housing is more important than the right of landlords to make a good profit, we need to implement rent controls now.

A new deal for private renters must do what the Executive and previous Executives have failed to do, and that is to challenge the scourge of landlordism in the North. Landlords do not, and should not, have unqualified rights to profiteer from a person's fundamental human right to a home or to evict a tenant from their home for no good reason. Those statements should not be controversial, but they may be to some in this place.

Mr Durkan: I beg to move amendment No 2:

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

Mr Durkan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. For many people, renting is no longer a stepping stone but their only option, and one that is becoming more untenable by the day. That stepping stone now provides slippery and unstable footing, with skyrocketing rents, stagnant housing benefits and a lack of meaningful support pushing more and more people into arrears and towards a greater risk of homelessness.

As we have heard, the private rented sector in Northern Ireland is the fastest growing across these islands, with twice as many families living in private rented housing here than in the social sector. The repeated failure of successive Executives to meet social housing supply targets has led to more low-income households floundering in a largely unregulated sector. Since 2020, the writing has been on the wall for private renters at risk of poverty, eviction and homelessness. That has resulted in a 48,000 household-long social housing waiting list, driven by the unaffordability and instability of the private rented sector, with the loss of private rental accommodation being responsible for an estimated 33% of all homelessness presentations.

Between 2022 and 2023, there was a 17% increase in the number of households made homeless owing to the loss of their private rental home. I have spoken with countless renters who, after spending a decade or more living in, and caring for, a property, were evicted for daring to make a reasonable request for repairs or that persistent problems with damp be addressed. I have witnessed a 122% increase in rental market costs in the past five years for a basic two-up two-down home in the Derry area, where the issue has been made even worse by the quest to provide more-profitable student accommodation. How can anyone be expected to keep their head above water in such impossible circumstances?

Although I concur with most of what the Member who spoke previously said when proposing his amendment, I point out that many landlords are responsible, reasonable people. I am sure that some of Mr Carroll's comrades or supporters own property and provide accommodation. Many are almost accidental landlords, who have been caught with rising mortgage rates, insurance costs and rates, and that is then reflected in rising rents. I have even heard from some people who are trying to find ways in which to mitigate the burden on their tenants, but that is not to deny that there is an issue with unscrupulous landlords or to let them off the hook. Regardless of that, however, renters have been left exposed and vulnerable.

Meanwhile, the long-awaited and much-vaunted housing supply strategy is notable for its lack of detail on reforms for the sector. If my memory serves me correctly — it does not always — the issue is afforded just one line in the strategy. Promises that the previous Minister made during the previous mandate about welfare mitigations and private tenancy safeguards have seemingly evaporated in recent times. Members right across the Chamber recognised that the then Private Tenancies Bill in the previous mandate fell far short of what was required, but we were assured that subsequent legislation would strengthen security of tenure and deal with a ban on no-fault evictions. The Bill made provision for longer notice to quit periods, which worked effectively during the pandemic. Although that was a welcome move, it was simply to be a starting point. In principle, the intermediate rent scheme is a very positive step, but, to date, the Minister has not been able to give assurances that schemes will be prioritised in areas of greatest housing need or to provide detail on how individual applicants for such schemes will be prioritised.

We support the motion but seek support for our amendment. We recognise the need to protect private tenants against unfair rent increases and to empower them to call out poor practices and demand quality homes without fear of retaliatory eviction. Rent controls are a welcome intervention, but it is important that any such provision is implemented quickly and properly to reduce the prospect or fallout of unintended consequences. The motion does not go far enough, and I am hopeful that my amendment supplements and complements it. We propose an amendment that will ensure that people get help before reaching crisis point. Prevention is better than cure, and at least part of that cure is in extending the threatened with homelessness window, along with the introduction of meaningful financial support to help renters meet the growing gap between housing benefit and soaring market rents.

Mrs Guy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: Certainly.

Mrs Guy: You referenced the gap between support from DWP through the housing allowance and proposed a grant scheme for that. Do you agree that a grant scheme would be costly and place an administrative burden on officials; that, perhaps, a better approach would be for us to, collectively, lobby DWP to review the local housing allowance (LHA) annually to make sure that it synchronises with the market; and that that would help ease those pressures?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for the intervention. My primary concern is and our primary concern should be the cost of the current situation for those caught in that trap, but I fully welcome the Member's suggestion and support any cross-party or Executive intervention that can be made with DWP to argue the case. As an Opposition, we will be fully supportive of and behind that.

The local housing allowance was increased for 2024-25, but costs were based on September 2023 rates. It was already outdated, and now, with a freeze for 2025-26, the support fails to reflect the reality of the precarious rental market. To make matters worse, the removal of discretionary housing payments from many long-term disability benefit recipients has pushed some of the most vulnerable into crisis. Many of those individuals cannot work due to their conditions or ill health, which means that they have no ability to increase their household income. Now they face rent arrears, eviction and the terrifying prospect of homelessness.

Targeted support to address the reality of housing costs would reduce pressure on social housing waiting lists and help individuals and families sustain tenancies for longer, creating a strengthened private sector that works for everyone in it. We need to act now. The number of families who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads will only grow. It is time for real, meaningful action to protect renters and prevent the crisis from spiralling even further.

Mr Gildernew: I start by thanking Members for tabling the motion, and by saying that I own a private property from which I gain a rental income.

Sinn Féin believes that housing is a human right. Everyone in our society, no matter what age or background they come from, should have access to a decent and affordable home of their own. A home is not just a roof over someone's head; it is fundamental to the well-being of every person in our society. Yet, we still have many people who do not have access to a decent, affordable home of their own that meets their needs.

The motion focuses on the private rental sector. I will address some of the substance of the motion in a moment, but, from the outset, it is important to recognise that we are simply not building enough homes. As we all know, house prices are driven upwards by a lack of housing supply, so foremost in our concerns, if we want to support renters, should be the aim of building more homes. We have a draft housing supply strategy that sets an ambitious target of 100,000 new homes over the next 15 years. That is the scale of what is needed if we are to make any meaningful impact in tackling the housing crisis. Whilst we have a target to aim for, we also need the investment to match it. Unfortunately, we have not seen adequate investment in housing for many long years. The draft Programme for Government outlines the Executive' s commitment to deliver more social and affordable homes, and we now need to see a significant increase in investment so that we can deliver on that.

I turn to the substance of the motion, which is about supporting renters. Much of it aligns, I have to say, with Sinn Féin policy. We agree that rents have become unaffordable for many people, and we have supported measures to bring rents under control in the Six Counties and in the Twenty-six Counties. In particular, I point to the sterling work carried out by my party colleague Deirdre Hargey, who implemented a rent freeze during her time as Minister for all those in Housing Executive properties. She also introduced the Private Tenancies Bill in 2022, which extended the notice to quit period to eight weeks and banned unfair rent increases. Deirdre recognised that there was more work to be done to protect renters, and the Private Tenancies Act 2022 was but the first stage of a journey to see even greater protections being put in place in the future.

Sinn Féin supports a ban on no-fault evictions. I am sure that many Members have had constituents in their offices seeking advice after a landlord has decided to evict them from their home without any good reason. No-fault evictions create huge stress and uncertainty for the affected party and often force families into homelessness. Many jurisdictions have taken steps to ban no-fault evictions, including Germany, New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries; indeed, my party colleague Eoin Ó Broin introduced a Bill in the Dáil calling for a ban to be introduced in the South.

I thank the SDLP for its amendment, which calls for legislation to extend the statutory threatened with homelessness period beyond the current 28 days. That provides me with a brilliant opportunity to advise the House that I am working on a private Member's Bill that would do exactly that. I hope to have that Bill out for consultation in a matter of weeks. I am happy to work with everyone in the Chamber who is interested in that area and that issue to ensure that the Bill can be progressed. Also, my party colleague Ciara Ferguson is consulting on a private Member's Bill that would protect renters by introducing a ban on unfair letting fees. I encourage as many people as possible to respond to that consultation and ask that Members do likewise.

I will leave my remarks there.

Mr Kingston: I speak as a DUP member of the Committee for Communities. The availability and quality of all types of housing are major causes of concern and debate among the Committee members. We wish to see the regulated provision of quality housing in the private rented sector, including good protections for tenancies and a model that is sustainable and affordable for landlords and tenants and enables landlords to invest in their stock and sustain their business.

I turn to the motion. The DUP tabled an amendment that retained parts of the original motion's wording as well as amended and additional wording. Unfortunately, it was not selected. We have concerns about the original wording of the motion and the selected amendments. They contain proposals that, we believe, would be counterproductive to the supply of housing and have the unintended consequence of reducing supply.

On the issue of affordable rent, during the first half of 2024, we saw average rent prices across Northern Ireland continue to rise by 8·5% compared with the same period in 2023. That equated to £886 a month, and rent accounted for an average of 39% of median income. The DUP has helped working families by launching the intermediate rent product, through which a long-term, low-interest loan is offered to an operator to develop a supply of affordable homes for rent at a 20% discount on the market value.

Instability of tenure is also a major cause for concern for many in the private rented sector. However, NISRA data shows that, for 2023-24, the proportion of private renters who had resided at their current address for five years or more was higher in Northern Ireland than in the UK as a whole, at 41% and 31% respectively.

Housing affordability is a growing problem and is recognised in objective 1 of the housing supply strategy, which is to:

In Northern Ireland, we have rent control on properties that the local council has deemed to be in an unfit condition and for protected and statutory tenancies. We can all agree that we want all private rents to be affordable. However, we cannot ignore the potential negative consequences of universal rent controls and reductions. Research has highlighted that a large proportion of landlords may exit the private rental market, which would result in a greater shortage of available private rented properties in an already stretched market that needs stability. Estate agents have pointed out that, with high borrowing costs and unfavourable conditions, landlords are seeking high monthly rents in order to stay in the sector.

Demand for private rental properties remains exceptionally high, with PropertyPal reporting an average of 73 enquiries being sent to estate agents for each rental property advertised. Any Member who talks to their local estate agent will be aware of that level of demand. Losing a lot of supply and discouraging the building of new homes for the rental market would make that situation worse. According to the Chartered Institute of Housing, rent controls generally have a negative impact on the housing market, often leading to a reduction in the number of available rental properties, lower-quality housing and difficulties for new tenants in finding accommodation, as landlords may be less incentivised to invest in new properties or maintain existing ones when faced with capped rent increases.

To relieve the pressure on affordability, we must increase the housing supply and ensure that the benefits system properly takes account of the cost of housing. There was a substantial increase in the local housing allowance rate in April 2024, but, regrettably, as the SDLP will know, its sister party in government at Westminster has frozen housing allowance for the forthcoming financial years. Perhaps, the SDLP could have a word with its Labour Party colleagues, who set the national rates of housing allowance, instead of diverting responsibility to the Stormont Executive. Any mitigation — this my last sentence, Mr Deputy Speaker — locally would need to be funded by the Finance Minister —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Brian, I think that you have had enough. Thank you.

Mr Kingston: — and the Executive as a whole.

Mr Butler: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, because, frankly, housing is absolutely in crisis. I do not know about other Members in the Chamber, but, if you were to ask me for the number-one issue that comes through my door each day, I would say, unequivocally, that it is housing. People face other pressures in health, education and farming and agriculture — I have to get a punch in for my Committee — but housing and issues across the housing sector take up the most time for my staff. Some of the issues have already been discussed.

It is evident that, across Northern Ireland, too many people struggle to find a secure, affordable and decent place to live. Rents are soaring, tenant protection is not robust enough and many tenants face constant battles just to get basic repairs done. I know that it is not part of the motion, but we need to keep an eye on the issue: on Friday, I did a little drive-by in my constituency and saw a lovely house with the eye-watering rental price tag of £2,000 a month. It is a nice, detached property in a nice area — well, obviously, it is, because I live in Lisburn — but, setting that aside, who can afford rent of £2,000 a month? As Mr Carroll said, in Belfast, rents for properties that are not very big are well in excess of £1,000 a month. We are pricing people out of the market.

Let me be clear: this is not about painting all landlords as bad, as Mr Durkan rightly said. Many do the right thing: they provide safe and well-maintained homes and treat their tenants with fairness and respect. However, as in many areas of life that we come across, there are those who do not play by the rules and, unfortunately, give others a bad reputation. I am sure that we have all dealt with cases in which tenants were afraid to ask for repairs, possibly because they were afraid that their landlord would evict them.

We cannot pretend that that does not happen, because it does. No-fault evictions leave families in limbo, forcing them to uproot their lives at short notice. That is not fair, and it is not right.

Any intervention that we achieve must be balanced, proportionate and underpinned by evidence so that we do not cause an adverse effect. In an ideal world, we would simply deliver at pace more housing options, but we have to be honest and say that that is not going to happen overnight. That is why it is right that tenants have protections against unfair rent increases, evictions and the denial of basic repairs. They should also have a clear route to challenge and hold landlords to account when those responsibilities are not being met.

The motion calls for a "new deal for private renters". It is about striking a balance, however, that supports reasonable landlords whilst ensuring that tenants have proper rights and protections. That means having fair rent controls, stronger security of tenure and a statutory housing ombudsman to hold bad landlords to account. It also means enforcing proper housing standards so that no one is forced to live in damp, cold or unsafe conditions. I am sure that you guys get to see the pictures from your constituents of instances where there is black mould and damp that cause health inequalities that in turn lead to pressures on our health system.

This is not just about renters; it is about fixing the wider housing system. For too long, we have relied too heavily on the private rented sector because there simply have not been enough social and affordable homes built. If we do not address that, we will keep pushing people into an unstable market with little security. People deserve better. They need fair rents, safe homes and real security. Good landlords should have nothing to fear from such reforms because they are already doing what is right. This is about tackling bad practices that undermine the entire sector and, most importantly, making sure that having a home is not a constant source of stress and uncertainty. I urge the Minister to act because decent, affordable and secure homes should be not a luxury in Northern Ireland but a fundamental right.

Miss Brogan: Sinn Féin firmly believes that housing is and should be a human right. The state has a duty to ensure that every one of its citizens has access to the requirements that are fundamental to living a full and safe life, and there is no need more basic than access to shelter and having a home. The state also has a duty to ensure that the private rental market is regulated in order to prevent unfair pricing or discriminatory practices and to make sure that basic standards are upheld and that renters are protected and can have some sense of security in their home.

I am pleased to be able to say that those are not just principles that we in Sinn Féin hold but actions that we put into practice. My colleague Deirdre Hargey brought forward the Private Tenancies Bill in 2022 and implemented a rent freeze on Housing Executive properties during her tenure as Minister for Communities. My colleagues Colm Gildernew and Ciara Ferguson are working on Member's Bills to extend the statutory duty to prevent homelessness and to introduce a ban on unfair letting fees. Furthermore, Sinn Féin TD Eoin Ó Broin, the man who literally wrote the book on social housing, has called on the Dáil to reintroduce the ban on no-fault evictions.

As populations increase, housing has become one of the most important issues of our time. There is an onus on Governments to respond to the needs of their citizens and to provide housing. The private sector has a vital role to play in that. However, it is important that, in the private sector, standards of affordability, fairness, quality, comfort and security are upheld. The world is a volatile place right now, global economies are in flux and working-class communities are bearing the brunt. Here in Ireland, we are in the midst of a seemingly never-ending cost-of-living crisis, and the North in particular is dealing with the legacy of British Government underinvestment that stretches back decades and continues to this day. The one thing that people should not have to worry about is a place to live. The family home should always remain secure, and, as legislators, we have a duty to ensure that that basic principle is upheld. I commend and support the motion.

Mr Bradley: I thank the proposers of the motion and the amendments for a very worthwhile debate. As mentioned, housing is a prevalent issue, and I see that in my constituency office, as I expect does every other MLA in their constituency office.

I want to address rent control and reduction, which is a critical topic that deeply affects many of our residents. The powers that were granted by the Private Tenancies Act (NI) 2022 to implement rent controls have lapsed. Moreover, independent research has highlighted the potential negative impacts of such controls. Research indicates that a significant number of landlords might exit the private rented market if rent controls were imposed, exacerbating an already severe shortage of rental properties. The demand for private rented sector properties is exceptionally high. As was said earlier, PropertyPal reports an average of 73 enquiries for each advertised rented property. If we lose a substantial portion of our rental supply, while discouraging the construction of rental homes, that situation will only worsen.

The most effective ways to alleviate pressure on rent affordability are by increasing housing supply and ensuring that the benefits system adequately reflects housing costs. The Private Tenancies Act has provisions to restrict the frequency of rent increases. The Minister introduced that power earlier this year, which aims to provide greater stability and predictability for renters by ensuring that they are not subjected to frequent and unpredictable rent hikes. The Minister remains committed to supporting private renters, while adopting a sensible approach that ensures that sufficient safeguards are in place. By focusing on increased housing supply and adjusting the benefits system, we can create a more balanced and sustainable rental market. I call for a common sense resolution to the problem, one that everyone in the House can support.

Ms Nicholl: I thank my colleague Kellie Armstrong for proposing this important motion and for her hard work in developing the policy proposals that she set out so eloquently earlier.

I agree with Robbie Butler. Housing is the number-one issue in my constituency office, and it is one of the most fundamental and important things that we can talk about in the Chamber. To humanise the debate, I want to share some of the reality of what people are going through. I am grateful to my constituents who were happy for me to share some of their experiences.

One is a single parent who works full-time in healthcare. They have rented privately for 20 years and currently share a bedroom with their child because the private market is too unaffordable and too insecure. They were in a house, but the rent went up; they could not afford it any more, and they had to get the deposit together for another house. It was a vicious cycle. They have been left traumatised by it and say that they will never again rent privately. That is someone who works full-time in our healthcare service.

Another constituent is renting privately because the Housing Executive has not yet been able to find them something suitable. She lives with her partner and three children in overcrowded accommodation, which is so small that she is sharing a bed with one of her children. In another case, the individual can afford private rent, but only because the house is so old and costly to heat. They have developed mobility issues, and the house is no longer suitable or affordable because they are not entitled to more than statutory sick pay, which puts a real strain on the entire family.

In my office we have been supporting a single mum of two, who is expecting her third child — something that I can sympathise with. I am not living through what she is, and I do not know how she is going through that. There are issues with extreme damp in their house. They are on the Housing Executive waiting list, but that has been the case for such a long time, and we all know that the likelihood of that changing any time soon is unlikely.

In many cases, constituents are coming to me about houses that are simply not fit for habitation. In a particularly shocking case, there was mould throughout the house that was so severe that it was beginning to grow on clothes and shoes. One person told me that they began to wake in the morning with a headache and sore throat, which, with hindsight, they attributed to the mould. Condensation became so bad that wallpaper began to peel off the kitchen wall. Combined with an unreliable central heating system and poor insulation, they were spending a fortune on heating but still living in a house that was cold almost 24/7. They moved out at the end of the 12-month contract, and after even all that, the landlord sought to withhold their deposit. That was a few years ago, and the property has remained vacant ever since, which tells you everything about the property.

As a representative for South Belfast, I know that students are facing real challenges in the private rented sector. According to a recent NUS-USI survey, around 35% of students in Northern Ireland live in private rented accommodation, and they have to deal with the very real challenges of high rental costs and poor housing. The survey states that 35% of students had difficulty paying rent, almost 20% had less than £50 a month left after paying rent, and 92% of renters had experienced some issues with their accommodation such as mould, damp, plumbing or noise.

One student told me that when they moved into their apartment, the window pane was cracked and the landlord initially accused them of having broken it, before providing them with duct tape to put over the crack. The landlord gave the student a tea towel with which to dry the condensation, but there was so much of it that it was dripping onto the bed. A council inspection of the house found several issues, including mould, exposed wiring and out-of-date fire safety equipment. The council gave the landlord a list of fixes to action before the follow-up inspection, which was set for 30 days later at 12.00 pm. The student told me that the landlord, having not done any of the maintenance, showed up without warning at 11.30 am on the final day with a tin of paint and asked to get into the room to paint over the mould before the inspectors arrived.

There are many good landlords, of course. There are great examples, but there are some who really need to do better, and that is what our proposals seek to address. Your house should be a home and a sanctuary. For too many in the private rented sector, it is the opposite. For many constituents, the positive experiences are far from universal. Life as a private renter should never be defined by a constant fight to keep a roof over your head. We should not and cannot accept that.

Mr Gaston: When discussing unaffordable rents and the lack of available housing throughout Northern Ireland, we must consider the causes rather than simply focusing on dealing with their outworkings. The main issue driving up rents is the lack of available housing stock and the lack of new affordable homes that are being built to match current, never mind future, demand.

A number of weeks ago, I welcomed the Communities Minister's ambition to deliver at least 100,000 new social or affordable homes over 15 years to meet our housing demands. On top of the potential capital funding and planning permission issues that he will encounter, I question the commitment, if any, that the Minister has been given by the Executive and the Minister for Infrastructure on the investment required for Northern Ireland Water to support that much-needed housing plan. Members will not need me to tell them that, across the Province, there are horror stories of how decades of underinvestment in the waste water infrastructure have left many homeowners living with the consequences.

Another issue that is relevant to the matter before the House, although it is not mentioned in the motion or the amendments, is the rapid increase in legal or illegal HMOs. Landlords know that if they evict a good sitting tenant today, they can fill the house with a number of people tomorrow and increase their income as a result. A landlord in my constituency is now buying commercial properties in the town centre with a view to turning them into HMOs, because he can get a better return from an HMO than from a shop.

I will touch briefly on another point that the motion does not address directly. Whether the Chamber wants to admit it or not, uncontrolled immigration is a contributing factor to rising housing rents, especially in deprived areas. Last summer, we witnessed some disgraceful disorder on our streets. There were attempts by some, particularly in the media, to claim that pressure on housing caused by immigration was a myth. The data, however, tells us a different story. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency tells me that there was a net international flow of over 5,000 people into this country in the year ending mid-2022. The lived experience of many of my North Antrim constituents is that working-class communities such as Harryville in my home town recognise that immigration has been a factor in the housing pressure that creates higher rents. The court ruling last year on the Rwanda Bill showed that the protocol opens up the very real prospect of effective immigration controls in the rest of the UK not applying in Northern Ireland. That matter may not be a concern for the majority in the House, but, as Sinn Féin has found in the Irish Republic, the EU's open-borders policy eventually gets unpopular with communities well beyond the confines of the loyalist housing estates of Ballymena that I am proud to represent. I make no apology for articulating their views here today, even if no one else will.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for giving way and caution him that language like that is extremely dangerous. Does he not agree that short-term Airbnbs are one of the biggest issues in his constituency, as opposed to a small number of people who are coming here? Asylum seekers and refugees come on a separate contract to what is paid for through the Housing Executive.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. I remind him to keep his comments to the motion.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will respond to the Member by saying that immigration is one of the issues that adds pressure to our housing stock across Northern Ireland, whether or not the Member wishes to admit it. When there is a lack of stock, rents will ultimately increase: that is a fact. Immigration is one of the issues that adds to the pressure on our housing stock: that is also a fact.

Unless and until we deal with the factors that cause rent increases, landlords will continue to be driven by money rather than by a desire to provide good houses for their tenants. I am happy to support the motion, but greater focus needs to be put on the cause of rents being driven up rather than on mollycoddling the landlords to keep the prices down. We need to look at the cause as well as the outworkings.

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

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all the Members for their contributions. It has been highlighted, rightly, that housing is the number-one issue that — I am sure, for every Member of the House — is brought to us by our constituents. I recognise that and have seen it for a long time in my role as a Member for East Antrim. Since coming into post as Minister, I have made it a priority to deal with the housing issues that we face.

This question has been asked: what is the root cause of our housing challenges? The root cause is supply. Constrained housing supply in the wider housing market will always create pressures in the private rented sector first. That is why that sector is important, and that is why I am taking a balanced approach to regulating the sector. I will talk more about that shortly. I recognise the problem, especially for those in the private rented sector. I understand that, because those concerns come in to me. We have heard some eye-watering sums of money being talked about and about the challenges that people face. I agree with much of the motion's content and commentary. I have a particular concern about one or two issues, however, and I will come to those in a moment.

If we are serious about tackling the issue, it is important that we take a whole-system approach. My determination was to ensure that housing be included as a priority in the Programme for Government, because addressing our housing challenges requires a whole-system approach. In December, the Executive endorsed my housing supply strategy and the whole-system approach. I am determined to deliver on the objectives of the strategy and to tackle the challenges that prevent us from delivering the type and number of homes that we need in order to meet our housing needs over the next 15 years. Work is well under way on setting up cross-departmental structures to develop the first of the short-term action plans as part of the implementation of the strategy.

In reference to Mr Gaston's comments, I say that, absolutely, there is a responsibility on other Ministers to deliver. I will remind other Ministers that they have signed up to the strategy; there are individual actions and responsibilities for each of them. It is no longer just a DFC strategy; it is an Executive strategy, and everyone needs to work and pull together to make sure that we deliver on it. I will not be afraid of reminding other Ministers of the commitments that they have made, because it is such a critical issue. It is critical not just because of the people and the number of people whom we are talking about or the real-life impact that it has on them now; it is critical for the future. I have said many times in the House and out of it that, if we get housing right and can provide a warm, safe and stable place for people to live and grow up in, it can completely transform their life chances. I therefore see housing as an investment and expect the rest of the Executive to see it that way as well.

Social housing is a significant part of housing supply, and I will continue to allocate the majority of my Department's capital budget — around £170 million this year — to the provision of new social homes. We worked very hard to secure additional money in this year's monitoring rounds to increase the number of new starts. Although that is welcome, we will not be able to deliver the 2,000 homes that I would like to have delivered at the start of this year. I will, however, continue to bid for the additional money that is needed in order to deliver the new-build programme.

We know that many people in the private rented sector ultimately want to own their own home. I have heard, loud and clear, the voices of the people who feel trapped renting. Since 2020, DFC has provided over £150 million in financial transactions capital funding to Co-ownership. That has helped over 4,000 people purchase a home, and about half of the people buying with Co-ownership come from the private rented sector. I am committed to continuing with that funding so that we can relieve pressure in that way.

I am also keenly aware of another group of private renters who are struggling: working families who are paying far too much of their income in rent and who are not able to access social housing or homeownership. We need to do something different to help that group, and I am determined to do so. That is why I have launched a completely new and innovative project, which I am driving forward by funding the delivery of a new supply of affordable, intermediate rent homes. The intermediate rent scheme will provide good-quality and affordable private rented housing with enhanced security of tenure to lower-income households. The discounted rents available — at 80% of rental costs on the open market — can make a huge difference to those struggling with cost, quality and security of tenure in the private rented sector. I look forward to making a further announcement on that very soon, and I hope that we can ramp up the scheme in future years as well.

For those who find themselves in the private rented sector right now, action has been taken. Many people privately rent because it is the tenure that suits them best, but I want to make sure that it is improved for them. The programme of private rented reform that I am taking though is therefore aimed at addressing issues that are raised in the motion, namely affordability, security of tenure and quality. The programme will deliver what the Assembly mandated the Department to do through the Private Tenancies Act 2022. That work strikes a balance by making improvements in the private rented sector without exacerbating supply challenges.

As for affordability, I am acutely aware of increasing rents in the private rented sector and of some tenants who face such increases mid-tenancy. That is why I have been given the primary legislative power to introduce a restriction on the frequency of rent increases through the Private Tenancies Act. I have instructed my officials to take that work forward as a matter of urgency. That is a form of third-generation rent control, as suggested in the motion, and will mean that, from April 2025, a private landlord will not be able to increase rent within 12 months of granting a tenancy or in the 12 months following the date of the previous rent increase. It will also specify that landlords must give tenants three months' written notice of any rent increase. Commencing the legislation will therefore help tenants plan for the future by providing them with an assurance that they will not face multiple or unexpected rent increases over a short period.

Landlords here do not have to specify a reason for eviction. Security of tenure is therefore a major concern for tenants. I have been mandated by the Assembly to introduce much longer notice to quit periods, and I am taking forward that work. I am committed to fulfilling my duty to the Assembly. My officials are working on drafting exceptions to the notice periods, as is required by the legislation and to ensure that our action complies with the Human Rights Act 1998.

As for fitness and quality, every tenant is entitled to live in a safe and affordable home, and I have completed work on regulations to improve fire and electrical safety for tenants. Officials will now examine how best to set minimum energy-efficiency standards in the private rented sector. Doing so will help improve the quality of our housing, while also improving comfort levels and helping to address fuel poverty, particularly for low-income tenants.

Other piece of work that I am undertaking to improve standards and enforcement is the transfer of the landlord registration scheme to councils. The aim of that work is to increase the number of landlords who comply with the requirement to register. We already have evidence to suggest that registered landlords are more aware of and compliant with their legislative responsibilities. In addition, the landlord registration fee revenue will support the scheme's running costs and the development of potential pilot projects to improve compliance.

The programme that I have set out has an ambitious agenda. A lot of private renters might be better off living in social housing, so we will build more social homes, but I want to deliver more than that. Many private renters aspire to homeownership, and I want to make sure that they can have a house of their own. I will continue to improve the security, affordability and quality of the private rented sector for those who live in it. It must be done in a balanced way. We cannot exacerbate supply challenges in an already stretched market. I believe that my reform programme achieves the balance, but, ultimately, more than anything else, we need to make sure that we increase the supply of homes in Northern Ireland. That is my number-one goal for housing, and I hope that, with cooperation from other Departments, that will be exactly what we deliver.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Cara Hunter. Cara, you have five minutes to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2.

Ms Hunter: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members to my right for bringing forward this important motion and Gerry for his amendment.

Our communities are under unprecedented strain and stress. Families are forced to pay an ever-increasing share of their income on rent. Reports show that rents in Belfast are now, on average, over £1,000 per month, which is absolutely insane. In one year, homelessness has shot up by 17% due to a lack of available rental properties on the market, which means that hundreds of families across our constituencies have been left with no home and nowhere to go.

Rents are becoming sky-high. Many parents are choosing between paying those rents and providing basic needs, such as food or childcare. The costs of paying for rent, electricity, heating and transport are an increasing pressure on parents. I spoke to one person who said, "As soon as my money goes in, it goes out, and we are all left with very little". Rental inflation has soared by as much as 9% this year, pushing average monthly rents to a record £942, which is totally unsustainable for working families here. Undoubtedly, the rising cost of rent has profound, far-reaching impacts on quality of life. Parents cannot afford to give their children a trip to the cinema, a birthday party or a new pair of school shoes, because they have no choice but to keep a roof over their heads.

Other Members have rightly mentioned the need to consider our student population. Over the years, I have spoken to NUS-USI, which does a fantastic job in describing the lived experience of our students, who are undoubtedly impacted on by rogue landlords — not all landlords are like that, but there are certainly some — who know that our students are young; that, often, it is the first time that they have signed a rental contract; and that there is very little advice for them on how to do so. That means that students often experience damp in their houses, which has a negative impact on their health and studies. Alarmingly, two in five students have contemplated leaving their studies as a direct result of the crushing financial pressure of unaffordable housing and housing that is not fit for purpose.

All the contributions today have mentioned data and statistics, but, ultimately, we are talking about real people. It is a daily reality for parents, students and hard-working individuals who have been forced, by the ever-rising costs, to sacrifice stability and security. It is important to recognise that it is not a personal failure of our constituents but a systemic failure: insufficient housing supply has placed pressure on some of our most vulnerable citizens. It is imperative that we invest in affordable housing, reform rental regulations and support initiatives that give families and students the stability that they desperately need and rightfully deserve.

I have the Minister tortured when it comes to the north coast, but it is important to reiterate that there is a unique dynamic in our coastal areas, which are tourist attractions. Those areas are squeezed. There are not enough rental properties on the market, and, therefore, rents are going through the roof. Single parents are struggling to pay their rent, because they have only one income. The situation is contributing to the collapse of our communities and forcing people to live elsewhere, which is heartbreaking to see.

Mr Brett: I thank the Member for giving way. She has talked about the north coast. Will she elaborate on the issue as regards unregulated Airbnb rental properties? That is outside the scope of the Minister, so we need an Executive strategy on it. Residential areas are being flooded with Airbnb properties, which is having an impact, particularly on your constituents.

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

Ms Hunter: Thank you. I thank the Member for his intervention. It is really important to note that. I know, Minister, that you are tortured by me, but we need to hear a commitment from the wider Executive on the matter. It continues to grow and grow year-on-year and undoubtedly impacts on my constituents and those in other impressive areas across the North.

To conclude, I will touch on some Members' comments. Kellie Armstrong said that the issue of housing and rising rents is really impacting on the well-being of families here, adding stress to their everyday lives. Ms Nicholl spoke about the challenges that students face. Gerry Carroll mentioned the number of empty houses in the North that could be used yet lie empty today. Of course, we need to talk about the moments when landlords take advantage of tenants. Mr Gildernew talked about the importance of recognising the strain that it puts on families in all of our communities. Brian Kingston said that PropertyPal reports that 73 enquiries are made about any rental property, which shows how competitive housing is becoming in the North. Mr Butler rightly said that, for us collectively, housing is our number-one issue. Therefore, as a collective in the Chamber, we must recognise that it needs to be a priority for the Executive. It certainly is for the Opposition. I know that we all feel devastated when we cannot help, so I would like the Minister to do all that he can and work with his Executive colleagues to ensure that the issue is resolved. Housing is a human right, not a privilege.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gerry, you have five minutes to wind on amendment No 1.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Quite a few comments need to be challenged and rebutted. I do not know whether I have time to do justice to all of that, but I will do my best.

In the general thrust of the debate, Members who caution against third-generation rent controls, as they are called, show us where their true priorities lie. Clearly, they believe that a landlord's right to extract profit from the tenant at all costs is more important than a tenant's right to a secure and affordable home. Members warn against landlords fleeing the sector or the risk of rent control destabilising supply in the private sector, but similar arguments were used against the introduction of the minimum wage. Critics said that introducing those basic protections for workers would cause mass unemployment, but, 25 years later, rates of unemployment have fallen. The minimum wage increased living standards and boosted the economy, so I suggest that there is a bit of scaremongering going on. I repeat the point: rent controls exist in Europe, and the sky has not caved in. Housing markets have not collapsed, and, in fact, the private rented sector in those countries is growing. The fact that one in five MLAs is a landlord also tells us all that we need to know. I suggest that there is a lot of looking after their own interests and those of their wealthy and powerful property-owning friends.

The Member for North Antrim talked about immigration. I say to the Member, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is landlordism causing the crisis, not immigration. Asylum seekers and migrants contribute so much to our society, but they often live in the worst housing possible with damp and mould riddled throughout their homes.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that those immigrants are the people who are working in our hospitals and our healthcare systems and that some of them, due to inflammatory language, had their homes attacked recently? We need to be careful about what we say and about the leadership that we give in the House.

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

Mr Carroll: Thank you. I concur with the Member. She will probably agree that quite a lot of those asylum seekers want to work in our health service but, due to a racist immigration and asylum policy, are prevented from working. They have skills but have been prevented from contributing to the health and education sectors.

Often used in the debate and referred to by one or two Members today was the Chartered Institute of Housing report from, I think, 2002. A few quotes were read out from that report, but this one was missing:

It would be good for renters, but that has been missing from the debate. The CIH report stated that between 41% and 60% of landlords would leave the market if rent controls were introduced; the Member for North Belfast referred to that. I maintain that that is scaremongering. There is no evidence whatever to support that claim. If you look at Housing Executive data, you see that the majority of landlords do not — I repeat: do not — have mortgages to cover. The data shows that just over 33%, just over a third, rely on rent to cover mortgage payments. What does that mean? It means that about two thirds of landlords are directly, massively profiteering from the huge rents that they charge. The Minister and other Members should remember that when they talk about the issue.

Even if some landlords leave the market, the house still exists. It does not disappear. It may be bought by another landlord, a first-time buyer who is leaving the private rented sector or the state, if the will were there to step in to buy homes that landlords sell and convert them into social housing.

The report recommended strengthening the social security system and significantly increasing the supply of social housing. Almost three years on, the Executive have absolutely failed to act on either recommendation. The housing crisis has got worse since the report was written. I urge Ministers to listen to tenants, who tell us clearly and repeatedly that they want rent control, rather than to landlords who make unfounded threats to leave the sector. Politicians cannot pick and choose from that report.

I will move on to the SDLP amendment. Grants to help tenants make up the shortfall between LHA and the market rent might be welcome in the short term, but it is a sticking plaster. Tenants would not see any of that money, which would go straight into the pockets of landlords. To subsidise increased rents is to throw away good public money. The UK Government already spend over £30 billion per year on subsidising private landlords via housing benefit and the housing element of universal credit. In the North, we top that up. Executive parties take every opportunity to talk about efficiency, use of resources and managing constrained budgets: I suggest that funnelling large sums of public money to landlords who charge huge rents is not good value for money.

The Member who proposed the amendment cheekily asked about landlords in my party. I remind him that, for years, his party had as a member on Belfast City Council one of the worst landlords in the Holylands and, seemingly, had no problem with it. It is remarkable that the party —. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Durkan, you have been here long enough to know not to chunter from a sedentary position.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Over to you, Gerry. Keep going.

Mr Carroll: It is remarkable that, as a member of a party that traces its legacy from the civil rights movement, the Member seems to be against rent reductions and controls. I remind the Member that people did not march to end sectarianism in housing to be ripped off in the private rented sector. I commend my amendment to Members and ask them to support it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Sian, you have 10 minutes.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members who spoke today, especially those who shared their constituents' personal stories. I am one of the MLAs who has housing as the number-one area for casework in the office. We know that the private rented sector in Northern Ireland is in crisis, and that is why we tabled the motion.

We will support the SDLP's amendment. The Member for West Belfast said that there was no evidence to support a particular claim, but, in response to his comment, I will say that there is evidence not from 2002 but from 2022, which is just three years ago, from the Chartered Institute of Housing. That is a fairly reliable source for us to look at, rather than opinion or thought. We agree that rent freezes and reductions could result in 60% or, at least, a high proportion of landlords leaving the sector. How will that positively impact on anyone?

The crisis has been years in the making, with a series of Ministers playing their part. In the past, Ministers have made grand promises about housing on the one hand and then, on the other, have, unfortunately, presided over yet more rent rises and a chronic shortage of homes with shocking standards and levels of security in the sector. In our more recent history, the Minister could have put things in place. He has acknowledged that we need more homes but refuses to stop the Housing Executive scheme that continues to sell off the limited stock that we have. We think that that puts more pressure on the supply.

I am relieved that the Minister referenced the introduction of some rent controls, or at least the announcement of a reduction of the amount of rent increase that someone can have within a certain period. That would be really positive. It fits with the research commissioned by the Minister's Department, which shows that those third-generation controls would improve affordability and already have widespread public support. That is a really positive thing that we can point to.

Given my background as a youth worker, I am concerned about how the next generation experiences things. We have a generation of young people who are supposed to be thriving, starting careers, settling down and contributing to the economy, but they are stuck waiting for change to a system that refuses to listen to them. They should be laying the foundations of their adult lives, building careers and planning for the future, but they are trapped in a system where they cannot afford to buy, they can barely afford to rent and no real alternatives exist. They are left treading water, waiting for policies that are taking just too long to come, and the cost of living continues to rise beyond their reach. That shows in the fact that we have more and more young people moving back in with their parents.

Those from low-income backgrounds face barriers before they even get through the door. One constituent of mine called it "a rigged system". Renters have to provide a guarantor who is earning three times the rent, pay deposits that take years to save for and pass credit checks that penalise them for being on low incomes.

Another core group, who we tend not to talk about too much, are care-experienced young people who simply do not have the luxury of the Bank of Mum and Dad, or even the safe place of mum and dad to move home to. When they leave care, they lose not just a roof over their head, they lose their security, stability and, in most cases, their entire support network. There is little to no guarantee of social housing in the locality of whatever support network they have built up. For those who end up in the private rented market, the inability to maintain a tenancy puts them at serious risk of homelessness.

Worse still, I am told that landlords openly discriminate against people on benefits. A 2019 survey of private landlords by the Housing Executive found clear evidence of discrimination against tenants on housing benefit. While 40% of landlords had tenants receiving housing benefit, certain landlords were far more likely not to rent to them. Crucially, whilst 56% of landlords were open to renting to tenants on benefits in the future, nearly one in five refused outright. Therefore, the reality is that many benefit claimants face significant barriers to securing private rented accommodation as well.

For those who manage to find somewhere, the reality can be grim, as my colleague Kate Nicholl outlined through sharing some of the personal stories that have come through her office. Mothers share beds with their children. Damp, mould-ridden homes make them sick. Heating systems fail in the winter. We also heard from other Members about choosing between freezing and unaffordable bills. It is no surprise that poor housing wreaks havoc on physical and mental health, piling more pressure on the NHS, with substandard housing costing over £1·4 billion annually across the UK. Landlords ignore repair requests, knowing that tenants have nowhere to go. If they complain, they risk having their rent hiked as punishment.

It is not all about bad landlords. As Robbie Butler pointed out, good landlords have nothing to fear from reformed legislation. The things that we are trying to do target bad practice. That is what we are talking about today. Not all landlords are bad.

My colleague Michelle Guy suggested that we lobby for a full-system review and a regularly updated LHA. Analysis undertaken by Shelter NI identified that inadequate LHA rates are pushing those on the lowest incomes into unsuitable accommodation. They have no other choice. As a result, claimants in Northern Ireland face that annual shortfall of nearly £1,000 between their welfare support and their rent. That is a gap that is absolutely impossible for so many to face. It leaves them with two bleak choices: somehow scrape together the difference, often at the expense of essentials, or settle for cheaper housing that is frequently substandard or unfit for purpose. Renters are simply left powerless. We heard that from quite a few Members.

Living in a rural community makes all those issues even worse at times. Housing options are fewer, rents are still high and wages are often lower, making it really hard to save for a home.

In my constituency and the neighbouring one, as referenced by Cara Hunter, short-term lets and Airbnbs are a growing issue, and they are sucking the heart from our coastal communities, as we have seen in so many villages between my constituency and that of the SDLP Member who mentioned it. We need the Minister to work with the councils. Is there a way to license short-term lets, akin to how HMOs are dealt with? Is there something that we can do to start to address the short-term lets situation, particularly in those coastal or tourist destinations? I take on board what the Member for North Belfast said; it is also an issue within the city.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member's giving way. This has been raised by many Members in the House, including the Member for East Londonderry. It is an issue that we take seriously. It is one that I raised during my discussions before the publication of the housing supply strategy with the then Minister for the Economy, whose remit that lies under. I see it as a cross-departmental issue and something that we will work together on, because, as has been said in the House many times, and as Mr Brett also said, it is not now an issue that is only for our coastal or tourist areas. It is seeping into different parts of the country, including Belfast. It is something that is going to be dealt with, and I will continue to work with Executive colleagues on it.

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

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, deputy —. I was going to say deputy First Minister. I mean Deputy Speaker. Goodness me. You know that it is that time of the night. I have given you quite a promotion there.

Thank you, Minister. I really appreciate that. People do not live in silos, so their problems are not siloed. Therefore, it is really encouraging to hear you talk about working across Departments. We need the Department to act for real, tangible change. As Maurice Bradley said, we need a common-sense resolution to some of these problems. My colleague Kellie Armstrong referenced our paper, Alliance's 'New Deal for Private Renters', and we believe that it sets out a road map for some of that. I hope that the Minister's words come to fruition: we need a whole-system approach because we simply do need to increase the supply and because renters in Northern Ireland cannot wait any longer. They deserve better. They need security and fairness, but, most importantly, they need a safe and good roof over their head.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I thank everybody for the debate. Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Mr Carroll: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Are there any Ayes apart from Gerry Carroll? Gerry, your vote has been noted, but there are Noes from all around the House.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Lyons: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): It is just you, Minister. Your party is not with you. [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): OK, but you are not going to push it? OK.