Official Report: Tuesday 25 February 2025

Mr Speaker: Members, before we start today, I return to the points that the leader of the Opposition raised with me yesterday in relation to ministerial statements. I want to record in the Chamber today an extract from a letter that I issued to Ministers one year ago this very week:

Mr O'Toole raised questions about the written ministerial statement made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs about avian flu. In relation to the point about an embargo on the written ministerial statement, I am less concerned about that in the context of Standing Order 18B, but it puts the focus on Members receiving information before it is made public or shared with the media, and an embargo operates in that context.

The point that concerns me more is that written ministerial statements are being made on a sitting day. To be clear, there is a useful purpose for written ministerial statements: in particular, they are for Ministers to be able to share information on key developments on non-sitting days before Members hear about them in the media. There may occasionally be exceptional circumstances to make a written ministerial statement on a sitting day, due to timing or because Ministers want to provide an update on a limited point of information. Despite that, the general expectation has always been that, on sitting days, Ministers should make their statements in the Chamber so that Members have the opportunity to raise questions.

I asked my office to review the number of written ministerial statements made by Ministers on sitting days over the past few months. It came back that there have been 10 over 22 weeks of Assembly sitting days. That is one for nearly every second sitting day of the Assembly. The two repeat offenders are the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Minister of Finance, but all parties are guilty of it. It is not those Ministers exclusively, but they are the repeat offenders.

There may be an issue with Departments sometimes not giving the Assembly the priority that it should have when they are planning for announcements to be made. However, in the context of my remarks last week about Ministers answering questions, let me say that I am somewhat disappointed with the frequency with which I have to address issues to remind Ministers and their Departments of the role of the Assembly to scrutinise and hold Ministers to account.

This body puts them in their elevated office in the first instance. It is therefore incumbent on Ministers to show courtesy and respect to the Assembly.

I remind Members that, if a written ministerial statement is made on a sitting day, and Members think that it merits a Minister's taking questions in the House, they have the option of tabling a question for urgent oral answer for me to consider. Although I have to consider the individual circumstances in each case, if I have to select a few such questions for urgent oral answer to reinforce the point, I will be very happy to do so. I hope that that provides clarification for Members.

Mr Delargy: Before I begin, I declare an interest: a family member of mine is employed through Foras na Gaeilge funding. I also inform the House that I intend to make my initial remarks in Irish.

Amárach, beidh eagrai´ochtai´ Gaeilge agus gru´pai´ pobail ar fud na ti´re ag dul ar stailc mar gheall ar chiorruithe. Imri´onn na gru´pai´ sin a fhaigheann maoiniu´ o´ Fhoras na Gaeilge, ro´l la´rnach i bhforbairt agus i gcothu´ na teanga. Déanann siad obair den scoth i measc an phobail ar son na Gaeilge. Tacai´mid leo agus iad ar stailc ama´rach.

Tomorrow, Irish language and community organisations across the North and across Ireland will take a stand in protest against funding cuts. I offer those groups my full support and solidarity, as well as that of Sinn Féin, on the picket line. Fair funding is essential in order to ensure that they remain sustainable and continue to grow.

The organisations that rely on funding from Foras na Gaeilge deliver essential services at the very heart of our communities. They play a pivotal role in the ongoing development and preservation of the Irish language. The revival of the Irish language is well under way. We see it thriving across our society every day. Grassroots organisations play a vital role in its resurgence. We must rally behind those groups and support their invaluable work in every way in which we can. They are not just preserving the Irish language and Irish heritage but creating jobs, providing services for families and communities and promoting the language in a host of ways. I therefore appeal to everyone to approach positively the issue of providing proper funding to those organisations, with a determination to find a workable, long-term resolution.

Mr T Buchanan: Over the past week, the BBC has, once again, shown its true colours with the broadcasting of the documentary 'Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone', which featured prominently family members of the terrorist group Hamas. The documentary, which first aired on BBC 2 on Monday evening last week, centred around the 14-year-old narrator, who is a son of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture in the Hamas-run Government. Another child in the documentary is the daughter of a former captain in the Hamas-run police force. A third child was pictured posing with Hamas fighters. I fail to understand how the BBC did not know whom the children in the documentary were. One of the first questions that a BBC producer should have asked was, "Who are the parents of these children?". The producer should also have asked whether there was permission for them to be shown in the documentary. A little research shows that a member of the documentary's production crew celebrated the massacre of the Israeli people on 7 October 2023. It was only after questions were raised about the children who featured in the show that the BBC added a disclaimer to clarify their links to Hamas. Following fierce criticism over the weekend, however, the show has now been deleted from its streaming services altogether.

The broadcasting of the documentary was nothing short of a propaganda stunt for Hamas, promoted by the BBC. Questions must now be asked about whether the BBC used licence fee money, paid by the public, to produce the documentary and about whether the BBC made payments to Hamas officials.

The BBC's impartiality has been in question since the attacks on 7 October 2023. It has repeatedly refused to call Hamas terrorists despite Hamas being listed as a terrorist organisation by the UK Government. Last week, the world witnessed the heartbreaking return in coffins of the Bibas children, who were murdered by Hamas. It is without a shadow of doubt that Hamas are terrorists solely intent on murdering the Jewish people. I strongly urge the BBC to look into its organisational hierarchy, as deep antisemitic views appear to be rooted in it that it needs to address urgently, if it wants to be considered as impartial reporters ever again.

Ms Bradshaw: In recent days, some in the Chamber may have seen on social media the graphic for the dual so-called peaceful gatherings that are due to take place in Belfast and Derry on 23 March. Let me be clear: we in the Alliance Party absolutely support and respect the right to peaceful protest. However, I am gravely concerned about the language used in the graphic, which states:

What harm do they speak of? My recollection of the fallout from the previous protest last summer was that people were intimidated in and out of their home. Many businesses were burned to the ground, and hotels were damaged. Neighbourhoods were vilified and branded as racist and intolerant. Thirty people were charged, including young people between the ages of 14 and 16. International student numbers were down in our two universities, such was the worldwide reporting of the incidents. Most worrying were the physical attacks: at least 10 police officers were injured, and many individuals were attacked just for going about their daily lives, including a young man to whom I spoke, who was chased by four men and had his head stamped on. That is what harm looks like.

Let me be clear: as the Justice Minister noted in the Chamber yesterday, we do not accept that the risk of injury should be part of the job of policing. Police officers are public servants. We should, therefore, all be concerned that there may be a repeat of the violence in March and be mindful that our front-line police officers would bear the brunt of it. It is one thing for misinformation to be spread online but quite another for it to be spread in the Chamber. Members have a responsibility to act and speak in a manner that keeps all people safe.

The Executive Office's draft refugee integration strategy was consulted on in November 2021, but there is no sign of it yet from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, with no credible explanation. I appreciate that TEO officials are working on its draft form, but signing off on it would send a strong message to everyone in society because of the importance given to it by our two First Ministers. We all need to be leaders in our constituencies and stand up for the marginalised and vulnerable, among whom are asylum seekers and refugees who have come to our country because of our freedoms and protections. We cannot let some destroy that for everyone.

Mr McCrossan: I pay tribute to two significant Strabane figures who passed away in the past week: Raymond Kirk and Sean McGrane. They were local businessmen who, between them, had over 100 years of business experience working in their menswear businesses. They supported and clothed many generations of Strabane families through the years. I pay tribute to them because of the overwhelming contribution that they made to our community over many decades. They were weaved into the fabric of Strabane's once-bustling business town. Today, in 2025, their businesses live on through the people to whom they handed them on.

Sean McGrane was a gentleman. His business was Strabane's version of 'Are You Being Served?'. He was sure to meet you at the door; he looked after all of your needs; and you never left empty-handed. He was often accompanied by his wonderful wife, Sheila. He will be sorely missed by the Strabane community. Raymond Kirk was a monumental figure in Strabane. He came from Clady and not only fell in love in Strabane but set up a business there that has survived 67 years under his leadership. Sadly, he passed away last week after a long illness. He also paid a significant contribution to the community. He was heavily involved in St Pat's hall and the local church and had a huge impact on the local GAA, particularly the Strabane Sigersons club.

The shops of those two individuals were just a few doors apart. They were outstanding examples of public service at its best. I have no doubt that Raymond and Sean's legacy will be imprinted on their families and the entire community. They have gifted our town a lifetime of cherished memories, dedicated public service and unwavering human decency and kindness. They both embodied the essence of Strabane at its finest. On behalf of the House, I pass on sincere condolences to both families and our thanks to those two gentlemen, who stood the test of time and survived in business during the most challenging times for our people.

Mrs Dodds: On 7 October 2023, Hamas terrorists killed 1,200 Israeli citizens and took over 250 hostage. It was the biggest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. The hostages included children, their parents and many elderly men and women. Tomorrow, the Bibas family will bury Shiri, a young mother who was taken hostage with her two babies, Ariel and Kfir. Their father, who has only recently been released from Gaza, will not only bury his family but will do so in the knowledge that Shiri's parents were also murdered on that day. Today, I want to make sure that the record of the Assembly records their suffering and grief. We cannot begin to imagine their suffering in Gaza. I also acknowledge the charade around their handover.

After the Holocaust, the world promised that we would never again allow such slaughter, yet the rights industry and so-called progressive groups and politicians across the world have been notable by their silence on this issue. Where are the women's groups who took up the issue of that young mother and her babies? Shamefully, many in the House cannot bring themselves to acknowledge their pain and suffering. The supposed First Minister for all, in her explanation for boycotting St Patrick's Day in Washington DC, tried to tell us that she was on the side of humanity, yet not one word about the Bibas family, not one word about their suffering, kidnapping and death. In the same week, Sinn Féin eulogised the IRA man responsible for the Bayardo bombing on the Shankill Road, the murder of five innocent Protestants and the maiming of 60 people.

It is clear that Sinn Féin's support for terrorism runs very deep. It does not care about the innocents of the 7 October attack in Israel, the killing and maiming of people on the Shankill Road or attacks in hospitals in Northern Ireland. As we have seen with the Omagh inquiry, the pain and suffering from terrorism run deep in Northern Ireland. It is impossible to heal as a community while Sinn Féin continues its glorification of terrorism.

Miss McAllister: Last week, we saw in public the story of Sophie Rodgers. Her mother bravely spoke out publicly for the first time because her daughter — an 18-year-old with complex needs — was being held in Hydebank due to a lack of residential places. Sophie has never been convicted of a crime but has been arrested three times and jailed — first in Woodlands and then in Hydebank. We should never have a justice response to a healthcare issue.

That is not an isolated incident. Families are at breaking point and in crisis because they need the help that they are simply not getting, and it is help that they are entitled to. That is why, last March, I raised with the then Health Minister, Robin Swann, when he first appeared at the Health Committee, the lack of respite places for families.

I got a response, and I believed at the time that he and his Department would take the issue seriously. Since then, the Health Committee has taken seriously the Ray Jones review and has had updates on where we are, particularly with residential provision.

We then saw the 'Spotlight' programme about four mums who were dealing with the difficult and complex needs of their children but were not being provided with the residential places that they deserve. The issue is yet to be fixed, and we are yet to see stepping stones towards solutions. Despite £13 million being secured for respite provision, we are not getting information on how many extra beds or how many extra members of staff we will see. I asked the Health Minister at Committee two weeks ago whether he could outline how many beds would be allocated to those families, but he was unaware of the figure, as it was yet to be finalised. He was also unaware of the issues surrounding Redwood, one of the residential places that was due to open, but, given that I had tabled a question for written answer and received an answer to it several months before that Health Committee meeting, the Department was well aware that there were issues that could be resolved. That is simply not good enough.

We cannot have families relying on the justice system and the police to respond to their desperate cries for help. We need to ensure that there is a healthcare response so that families do not reach crisis point. It has now gone beyond residential respite; it is about permanent places for many families. They are in desperate need of help, and we can no longer turn them away.

Mr Bradley: I was honoured to be invited to attend Millburn Primary School in Coleraine on Friday morning to celebrate the Chinese Lunar New Year, thanks to the kindness of the school's principal, Mrs Lamont, and her dedicated staff. They were privileged to have the Chinese consul general, Mr Li Nan, as their guest of honour. Millburn Primary School stands out as the only primary school in the United Kingdom to hold both a hub status for the Confucius Institute and the prestigious 'Global Classroom of the Year' award. Millburn has a been a pioneer in teaching Mandarin and Chinese culture, providing invaluable opportunities for pupils across all Key Stages and staff to visit China and perform at illustrious events.

In a themed assembly hall, the significance of the Chinese New Year was highlighted through captivating stories, music and performances. The school choir and singing quartet delighted us with songs that were performed in Mandarin. Pupils and parents were also treated to a mesmerising Chinese opera performance and an exciting dance that featured a unique mask-changing technique, which mesmerised the children. The activities not only entertained students but helped them to appreciate and understand the rich traditions of the Chinese New Year and the 5,000-year history of China through language, culture, music and dance.

The school enhances its pupils' employability by helping them to achieve recognised and accredited Mandarin language qualifications. Millburn has also showcased its pupils' talents at Stormont and Belfast City Hall. At all levels, Millburn Primary School has been a strong and vibrant ambassador for the Causeway Coast and Glens area. I wish continued success to the staff and pupils in learning and speaking Mandarin and in enriching the Chinese culture at Millburn Primary School.

Mr Carroll: Yesterday marked three years since the war in Ukraine began. The result has been devastation for ordinary Ukrainians and Russians, with hundreds of thousands killed and millions being forced out of their homes. War is futile and a colossal waste of human life. The resources that are spent on war could instead be funnelled into protecting people in this country from dying in their homes at wintertime because of the cut to the winter fuel payment. That is not to mention the extra money that could be funnelled into the health service to save and enhance lives rather than destroy them as has happened with the billions that have been pumped into keeping the war going. Keir Starmer has pumped at least £8 billion of military assistance into Ukraine whilst forcing people to freeze during this winter. There is always money for war, but when we demand money for services, we are told, "It is not available, sorry".

Putin's actions were rightly condemned and called out across the board. We opposed the war and Putin's actions whilst others fell over themselves to welcome him to the G8 summit in Fermanagh and opposed a ceasefire every step of the way. Imagine that: they opposed a ceasefire every step of the way. They wanted other people to spill blood for the purpose of imperial rivalry and a carve-up.

In the US, Donald Trump's recent manoeuvres are not necessarily pro-Russian, as they have been described. Like every other aspect of his Administration, they are ruthlessly pro-American and a direct expression of the current US grand strategy. They believe China to be the economic rival, and any way in which to undermine China and Russia is worth pursuing to the advantage of the US. Trump is demanding a £400 billion payback from Ukraine. In turn, the US will loot the country of its resources. It is the same as it ever was; Trump is just more aggressive and upfront about it.

A leaked report to 'The Telegraph' has shown what motivates the US. It wants to set up a US-Ukraine investment fund, with 50% of the resources that are taken going directly to the US. A source close to the negotiations described one clause to mean:

That is the result of US and all imperial adventures. No doubt Biden or Harris would have tried something similar.

What has been the result of the war? It has been carnage, death and destruction. We need to call out consistently the aggressive bullying and dominant role across the world that the US and its EU allies have planned regardless of current tensions between them. We should not paint Putin or anyone else who has their own empire as an alternative to the US. We need a world without empires and capitalism.

NATO, which has been expanding exponentially from the 1990s right up to the present day, should be disbanded. It is an aggressive, offensive military organisation that causes death and destruction across the world, while Members to my right laugh at it. [Interruption.]

Regrettably, countries across Europe have folded and dropped any pretence of military neutrality. Thankfully, in the South of Ireland, despite a deluge of propaganda that has been waged —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Carroll: — a huge proportion of the public remains committed to neutrality.

Mr Buckley: We hear a lot in the Chamber about emergencies and crises, such as the climate emergency, health crisis and cost-of-living crisis. We debate strategies, funding and urgent interventions, but let me ask this: where is the same determination, intent and urgency when it comes to safeguarding our children? Where is the national outcry for the most vulnerable, the innocent and the voiceless — the children who are being exploited, abused and violated while we stand by and watch the statistics climb?

The latest figures from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children paint a horrifying picture. Crimes involving images of child sexual abuse have almost doubled in the past five years in Northern Ireland, with a staggering 98% increase. In the past year, offences have risen by 24%, with 859 cases being recorded by the PSNI in 2023-24. That means that, in the past five years, there have been 3,382 recorded crimes, each involving an individual child who has been robbed of basic human dignity. Let us be clear about this: those are only the ones that we know about, yet there is a silence that allows those crimes to fester in the shadows, emboldens predators and leaves children unprotected.

Separate figures show that, across the UK, half of those offences occur on Snapchat and a quarter on platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, yet, in Northern Ireland, the PSNI does not even record which platform is being used. How can we fight that epidemic when we are not even gathering the full picture of the scale of the crime? How can we tackle this horror if we do not have the data, the strategy or the will to take decisive action? We live in a society that is increasingly normalising the sexual threat towards children. It is a society where predators are protected by anonymity, where platforms turn a blind eye and where the response is too slow, too weak and often too late.

We must demand action. We must seek stronger laws, tougher sentences and full enforcement. No predator should walk the streets of Northern Ireland safe in the knowledge that their crimes will go unpunished.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McNulty: I rise to speak on the Department for Infrastructure's proposal to construct a fixed bridge across Newry canal.

People in Newry are making it clear to me, to their local councillors and directly to the Department for Infrastructure through the ongoing public consultation that they cannot countenance the prospect of a fixed bridge that permanently severs and seals Newry canal from Carlingford lough and the Irish Sea. I am strongly of the opinion that proceeding with a fixed bridge across Newry canal would be a spectacular own goal. Such a decision would not only undermine Newry's proud maritime history but significantly complicate the efforts that are currently under way to regenerate Newry canal.

All involved in the campaign to protect and secure Newry's maritime heritage were buoyed by the news that a local MLA had taken up the post of Minister for Infrastructure. I am glad that the Minister is in the Chamber to hear this statement. Liz, I wish you well in your new post. Reassuringly, just a few short years ago, the now Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins MLA, made her position on the issue clear when she said:

Those are wonderful words, and it is reassuring that the Minister said that. I fully agree with her that strategically harnessing the potential of waterways as a tourism asset and as economic drivers has had a powerfully positive impact for businesses and communities in Ireland, Britain and in mainland Europe. The revitalisation of the Shannon waterways led to the creation of construction and environmental management jobs during the restoration. It created permanent jobs in boating, hospitality and tourism and has led to significant small business growth and local economic enhancement, adding an estimated €14 million annually to the Irish economy.

The regeneration of the Grand Union canal in Britain is estimated to have brought approximately £3·5 billion of associated investment with it. The revitalisation of the Canal du Midi in France has generated an estimated €7·5 million in annual tourism revenue that has dramatically increased international recognition and tourism footfall, primarily through cycling tours and canal cruises. The Rhine-Herne canal, which is a major inland waterway in Germany, has seen revitalisation in Duisburg, a post-industrial city that was once heavily reliant on secondary industry, quite like Newry. Regeneration efforts have included the conversion of old industrial sites into cultural spaces, parks and recreational areas along the canal. The project has contributed significantly to the local economy, attracting around one million visitors annually.

A major concern about the discussion around the fixed bridge over Newry canal is that the decision appears to be a fait accompli. Despite having committed a grand total of zero pounds to the project, the Department for Infrastructure is citing financial pressures as a means to justify a fixed bridge.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Martin: The Samaritans have been providing essential support and services to people in Northern Ireland since 1961. Their dedicated volunteers support millions of individuals through life-saving conversations. They are the only 24/7 suicide prevention charity working across Ireland and the UK, day and night, 365 days a year. Recently, delegates and volunteers came together in my constituency for a conference to mark the 50th anniversary of the Bangor branch. I am extremely proud to represent a constituency where that transformative work has been going on for so many years, with so many dedicated volunteers. They are real-life heroes.

During 2023 alone in Northern Ireland, they answered 100,000 calls and emails, responding to 300 calls a day, equating to a call every four and a half minutes. They have 600 trained listening volunteers, who delivered more than 30,000 hours of support. Yet, their life-saving efforts have been repeatedly hampered by a chronic deficiency in suitable funding. In the past, the Samaritans would have received a very modest £12,000 from the Department of Health, but that was cut by 50%. In recent times, they have been increasingly forced to rely on the goodwill of the many people who donate to the organisation. As everyone knows, however, it is neither sustainable nor secure to rely wholly on public contributions.

Last week, the Samaritans were informed by the Department of Health that they did not secure any core funding grant from the Health Minister. It is worth remembering that the core grant equates to 0·02% of Health's £8·5 billion budget. My office spoke to the Northern Ireland Samaritans immediately after the decision, and they said that they were at a total loss. The organisation's life-saving work could not fit in more neatly to the economic concept of invest to save, but that seems to be lost on the Department of Health. The Health Minister must review that decision urgently, look at options and increase the core grant funding, even modestly. No one in the Chamber or beyond can consciously dismiss the severity of the problems now facing that organisation and many others. With their Department of Health funding now culled, the services are at further risk. In a world where mental health services are increasingly in demand, we cannot afford to lose the Samaritans and the life-saving work that they do.

Mr McNulty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following Question Time yesterday, the Justice Minister took to social media to brand me and my party colleagues as sectarian for asking legitimate questions about the Minister's record on police recruitment and a representative Police Service. I ask for a ruling on whether it is in order for a Minister to disparage Assembly colleagues in such a manner or to label those who disagree with her as sectarian either in the Chamber or on social media.

Mr Speaker: My role in that matter ends in the Chamber. Thankfully, I do not control social media [Laughter.]

I have enough problems without that. I will leave you to defend yourselves on social media, which, I am sure, you will be quite capable of doing, Mr McNulty.

Mr Poots: I call the Minister.

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

for the opportunity to address the Assembly on the way forward for the Belfast Rapid Transit phase 2 project (BRT2).

The BRT2 project is one of three projects being taken forward by my Department as part of the Belfast region city deal and formed part of the programme announced in the 2018 autumn Budget statement. The commitment to city and growth deal funding was made on the basis that a returning Executive would provide a matching amount to fund a series of infrastructure, regeneration and tourism projects that would deliver on inclusive economic growth. I was pleased to note that the Executive agreed to provide the match funding necessary to take forward those important and pivotal projects.

The BRT2 project is a significant investment in our public transport infrastructure, with the cost of full delivery in the region of £142 million to £148 million. I am pleased that the funding envelope of £35 million from our Belfast region city deal partners will allow my Department to make an early start on this critical public transport project and lay good foundations for future development as we seek to address the funding shortfall and permit delivery of the full BRT2 project.

In October 2022, my predecessor, Minister O'Dowd, announced the route along the Antrim Road in the north and the Ormeau Road and Saintfield Road in the south, commissioning work on the feasibility of its extension to Glengormley and Carryduff. At the same time, the extension of the existing G2 city centre to Titanic Quarter Glider service to connect with Queen's University and the City Hospital was announced. Considering the funding envelope available for BRT2 and taking account of the outworkings of the feasibility studies, I have concluded that any extension of the Glider service beyond Cairnshill park-and-ride towards Carryduff is not economically viable at this time but will be re-examined when further development along the route is realised. Similarly, the significant congestion in Glengormley, a pending public realm scheme planned for the town, and the limited funding available for the BRT2 scheme make it challenging to extend the service to Glengormley. Therefore, the extension to Glengormley is not feasible at this time, but I will commission further work to determine if a viable option exists in and around the area.

A lot of change will be required to meet our net zero by 2050 targets. Therefore, we need to provide attractive and sustainable transport alternatives, such as public transport, walking, wheeling and cycling. Without those, our people, our cities and our towns will choke. People deserve better: a cleaner, greener urban environment in which they can live and thrive. That will transform our towns and villages into more vibrant places where traffic congestion and air quality are less of an issue and streets feel safer and more pleasant for everyone.

I welcome the £35 million contribution from the Belfast region city deal and recognise that that significant investment will bring enhancements to the city centre and the wider public transport network as we seek to promote sustainable travel options and improve public transport journey time reliability, as well as providing better connectivity for our citizens. The current east-west Glider service is an excellent example of how my Department can provide accessible, reliable and attractive public transport for all.

Post COVID, we have continued to realise increasing passenger numbers, making a positive difference to the removal of cars from the road network as we seek to reduce congestion in our city centre. BRT2 will provide a service to the north and south of our city, bringing the benefits of the current Glider service to our citizens who live along the route. Whilst the full funding for the delivery of the scheme is not available at present, my Department has developed options to maximise the benefits from the available funding in advance of the delivery of the full scheme. In this early phase, I propose to deliver the full G2 extension, providing linkages to Queen's University and the City Hospital, including halts and the provision of Glider vehicles.

Most of us recognise that we are living through a climate and biodiversity crisis. In any crisis, action is needed. There has been progress: for example, during this term, Minister O'Dowd announced a phased rolling out of 100 environmentally sustainable electric buses in a £64 million investment. As part of my continued commitment to sustainability, I propose to commission the purchase of four EV Glider vehicles within the BRT2 project to be tested as a pilot scheme on the heavily utilised east-west G1 route. That will free up four existing Glider vehicles to service the G2 extension. Outworkings of the pilot will be used to determine the practicality of the roll-out of those sustainable vehicles for BRT2, as well as future Glider routes. I am also committed to enhancing our public transport infrastructure and, as part of this early phase, will deliver bus priority measures from Clifton Street to Innisfayle Park along the Antrim Road and from Ormeau Road to Park Road on the southern route, in readiness for the full BRT2 scheme.

As a key element of the Climate Change Act 2022 and in its own right, active travel will play a crucial role in empowering people to make more sustainable choices, particularly for shorter everyday journeys and in combination with public transport for longer journeys. With safe, reliable and accessible active travel infrastructure, individuals are more likely to embrace healthier alternatives to driving. As part of my commitment to the provision of active travel infrastructure and through the £35 million funding available for BRT2, I will bring forward the design and construction of Bankmore Link to provide key linkages of the Belfast cycle network and connectivity between the new Lagan pedestrian and cycle bridge and Grand Central station. Aligning with the aspirations of the Bolder Vision and Belfast Streets Ahead blueprints and working in partnership with our colleagues in DFC and Belfast City Council, we will design and construct the northern civic spine of the city, along Donegall Place and Royal Avenue, which will include the city centre bus priority measures required for BRT2.

To demonstrate my commitment to sustainable transport and to provide attractive alternatives to the private car, I have committed an additional £13 million from my future departmental budgets to deliver a park-and-ride site on the O’Neill Road, as part of the advance phase. Whilst it will not be served by Glider vehicles at this stage, Translink Metro buses will provide a service to and from that site. Park-and-ride is a key enabler to improving connections, increasing public transport use, promoting sustainability and encouraging behavioural shift and in helping to drive down congestion and emissions, change travel patterns and protect our environment. The advancement of the BRT2 scheme will be subject to the approval of the outline business case (OBC), which is at an advanced stage.

I reassure Members that I remain fully committed to progressing the entirety of the scheme, and I will continue to work with Executive colleagues and the Belfast region city deal partners to ensure that the appropriate level of investment is made available to deliver the project. This is just step one to get the project on the ground. I very much hope that everyone will now get behind this much-needed and long-awaited scheme in the interests of the greater good of our communities and of future generations. Officials will brief the business stakeholder reference group this afternoon to inform it of my decision and will meet elected representatives in due course.

Mr Speaker: I commend the Minister for bringing the statement to the House. Almost 20 Members wish to ask questions, which demonstrates the value of doing it by oral statement. That said, we need Members to facilitate us by asking concise questions.

Mr O'Toole: Uncharacteristically, I will endeavour to fulfil that request, Mr Speaker.

I welcome the Minister's bringing the statement to the House. It is, however, a deeply disappointing day for people in north and south Belfast, and it is perhaps unsurprising that not a single North Belfast or South Belfast Sinn Féin MLA is in the Chamber. People in Carryduff and Glengormley were made promises by Executive parties, including the Minister's, and they have been let down. There are thousands of people in those areas, where new houses are being built. Minister, you said that Belfast Rapid Transit — the Glider — phase 2 will continue, but you did not say when. Will you confirm when the outline business case will be published and, specifically, when Glider phase 2, which was due to be transformative, will be delivered?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question, and I understand the frustration. As I said clearly in my statement, the full funding is not available. It is my view that we should do as much as we can with what we have, but it is important to reiterate that this is only the first step. If we want to do it, we have to do it right, and my Department is considering all options to make Glider phase 2 viable. We want to see those linkages being delivered, and we will continue to work with Executive colleagues and all other Members to make sure that we see them realised at the earliest possible stage.

Mrs Erskine (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): Like you, Mr Speaker, I welcome the opportunity that has been presented by the Minister's making the statement in the House and thank her for coming to the Chamber so that we can ask questions on it. It is deeply disappointing that the announcement was made in October 2022 and that this is where we are at now, in February 2025. I therefore look forward to hearing officials give evidence to the Committee for Infrastructure, as I believe that there is more to scope out from the statement.

How confident is the Minister that there is security of funding for delivering that phase and the other phases that are set against key milestones for project delivery along the projected route?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her question. In October 2022, there was a collapse of the Assembly. That has to be factored in. My predecessor had nevertheless endeavoured to bring the statement to the House earlier, but, given some of the recent weather incidents, it had to be delayed. We have tried to get the statement out as quickly as possible.

As the Member knows, I continue to work hard with Executive colleagues to make the case for every funding envelope. I give her a commitment today that we will work to deliver the project in its entirety. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that we secure the funding that is needed in the time ahead. We are heading into a new financial year and continue to look at and work through the options that are available to us.

Mr Boylan: Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire.

What impact will BRT2 have on city-centre congestion?

Ms Kimmins: I thank my colleague for his question. I am acutely aware of the issues with city-centre traffic congestion while essential works are undertaken at Belfast Grand Central station and on the A2 Sydenham bypass. Those works are necessary, however, as we seek to provide an enhanced public transport network. Although I appreciate that the situation has been difficult, the delivery of the new Belfast Grand Central station will hopefully encourage the public to use alternative means of transport into the city centre, thus increasing the use of sustainable transport and removing congestion.

The success of Belfast Rapid Transit phase 1 as a sustainable transport solution resulted in a 70% increase in patronage along that corridor and provided an additional, attractive, alternative and modern mode of travel into the city centre. Although the business case for BRT2 is still being finalised, it is anticipated that it will bring similar benefits and yield a modal shift away from private cars. I travelled to Stormont on the Glider this morning, and, as someone from an area outside Belfast, where we do not always have access to such modern and effective modes of public transport, I can certainly say that I was delighted to have the opportunity to use it and to see how effective and efficient it is.

I hope that we can see a resolution to the congestion, but the works being undertaken are for the benefit of everyone across the city.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for her statement and for taking the Glider to Stormont today. I welcome today's recommitment to delivering the full G2 extension to connect the Titanic Quarter in east Belfast, Belfast City Hospital and Queen's University.

Minister, you acknowledged that full funding for the scheme is not available at present. Officials told me similar at an Infrastructure Committee meeting last year. Can you confirm what the shortfall is now and how you are trying to reduce it?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, the shortfall is quite significant. The overall project is £48 million, so there is a shortfall of approximately £100 million, given that the estimate is around £142 million to £148 million in total. It is a huge amount of work, and we recognise that that is a significant shortfall. However, it is not unachievable. There are definitely things that we can do. If there is a phased approach, we will continue to work through that.

The Member outlined the connectivity to the hospital and the Queen's University area. They are key aspects of the project. We have seen the congestion around our university areas. I hope that the project will encourage students, staff and other people who travel in and out of that area on a regular basis, including those with hospital appointments, to see the benefits of using the Glider service. There are huge benefits to come out of what is being announced today. However, I recognise that more work needs to be done and more funding is required, and we will continue to work to secure that.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for her remarks so far. Minister, I, as an MLA for South Antrim, and the MLAs for North Belfast are really concerned that the Glider will not go out to Glengormley, Global Point and the new Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Centre (AMIC) facility, which would have demonstrated joined-up thinking. We are also concerned, from hearing your remarks today, about the proposed park-and-ride facility on O'Neill Road. Will the Minister and her officials join MLAs to walk the road to explain how it is going to work? Quite frankly, as somebody who has lived in the area for a long time, I cannot see how it is going to work.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his invite. We can certainly consider that, because it is important for us to be out on the ground to understand the local concerns and, hopefully, allay them. The proposal is for the site that is situated on lands adjacent to the O'Neill Road recycling centre, which is just south of Glengormley. The site extends to approximately five acres, with the potential to accommodate in the region of 500 parking spaces. Hopefully, we will see the benefits of that. I am happy to take that up with the Member afterwards.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for her statement. Following today's announcement, Minister, what work will you do with residents and traders who may be affected by the disruption? Will there be a dedicated point for communication with people who are impacted on by the ongoing work?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her question. It is a very important question, given that we have learned lessons from the original BRT project. Regular and meaningful engagement will be undertaken with stakeholders from the outset of the project. That will take the form of a regular, formal briefings and ad hoc meetings with individuals and interest groups. Public information events will also be held as the project progresses through detailed design and delivery.

During the implementation of the scheme, we will use additional communications to the travelling public through variable message signage, our Traffic Watch NI page and the BRT2 website. Consideration will also be given to the timing of necessary roadworks to ensure that they take advantage of seasonal and off-peak traffic volumes, where possible. We have learned lessons from projects in the past, and it is important that we use foresight to ensure that we have as smooth a delivery as possible. The BRT2 team in the Department can be contacted through its dedicated mailbox, details of which can be found on the website. We are keen for anybody to engage with us.

Mr Brooks: The Minister says that they have learned lessons from the original BRT scheme. How will she ensure that park-and-ride facilities have appropriate capacity so that parking does not become a scourge on communities, as it has in Dundonald and other parts of east Belfast?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. The park-and-ride facility that is proposed at O'Neill Road has a significant number of spaces, so we hope that such facilities will address the need in the areas in which they will be available. As I mentioned, just this morning, I got the Glider in from one of the sites that has a park-and-ride facility. I could see that it is very well used, which is a success story. We will engage with elected reps and listen to people on the ground: that is part of the engagement process that will be available to all residents, stakeholders and elected reps throughout the delivery of the project. We will monitor it and, as issues arise, hopefully, put in place solutions to alleviate them.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for the statement today. It is disappointing that the Glider is not currently being extended into Glengormley, but I use the word "currently" because we want to see that in the future. The Minister mentioned the park-and-ride on O'Neill Road, which is where some residents want it to be. However, is that park-and-ride for those using BRT, or will it link to the Abbey Centre or the city centre? We have no information about it. Can the Minister shed some light on that? Where exactly in north Belfast will the Glider stop when phase 1 is initiated?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her question. I will follow up with her in writing with more detail on the access points in north Belfast. I mentioned the O'Neill Road location for the park-and-ride site, and I will follow up in writing with any additional information that is required, if that is OK with the Member.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for her statement. There are some very interesting elements, and better public transport infrastructure is absolutely the way that we need to go. I welcome her engagement with Members today and her commitment to further engagement. The 'A Bolder Vision' initiative was mentioned in your statement, and your Department, along with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Belfast City Council, has worked on that. How will this be of benefit in areas of high traffic, complement the work on the public realm and provide increased cycling and pedestrian opportunities in the city?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for that question. It is important to say that my Department is proud to work alongside our partners in DFC and Belfast City Council to deliver the 'A Bolder vision for Belfast' initiative, which seeks to fundamentally reimagine how our streets and public spaces are used, making them more vibrant, more accessible and, most importantly, safer for all users. The BRT2 project will align with that initiative through the design and construction of the northern civic spine of the city, which runs along Donegall Place and Royal Avenue. It will include the city centre bus priority measures mentioned in the statement to deliver the commitment to a more efficient public transport network.

The 'A Bolder Vision' initiative also prioritises spaces for people who walk, wheel and cycle. As part of my commitment to the provision of active travel infrastructure, I will bring forward the design and construction of Bankmore Link to provide key linkages to the Belfast cycle network and strengthen the connection between the river and the city centre through the provision of the new Lagan pedestrian and cycle bridge.

Planning and redevelopment in the 1960s and 1970s segregated communities from each other and from the economic potential of the city core, resulting in the disconnection of the city core from communities. That also meant that no housing was built or developed in the city centre. Belfast city centre is made up of and surrounded by inner-city, working-class communities. A period of urban regeneration, through the 'A Bolder Vision' initiative, has the potential to change that by re-stitching and reconnecting the city centre to local neighbourhoods to create a tapestry that encourages living, working, socialising and active travel, as well as addressing the social, economic and health inequalities that are a huge challenge for any city.

Mr Kingston: Regrettably, that was an underwhelming statement about BRT2 in north Belfast. Given that it does not even commit to extending into Glengormley, it calls into question the political decision to select the Antrim Road over the Shore Road corridor. At that time, others and I pointed out that the Shore Road has the necessary width and bus-using population right up to Rathcoole and beyond. The announcement of preparatory works does not mention Carlisle Circus. As the Minister may recall from the response to my question for oral answer last week, the Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, said that the Clifton Gateway public realm scheme could not advance due to uncertainty about the future layout of Carlisle Circus. Can the Minister confirm whether Carlisle Circus is included in the announcement to enable the Clifton Gateway public realm scheme to proceed?

Ms Kimmins: I am disappointed that the Member feels that the announcement is underwhelming, because plenty of people in other parts of the North would be highly delighted to see such a scheme in their area. I appreciate the frustrations, and we can see the impact of underfunding on our public services across every Department. I have committed to doing what I can to secure the funding to ensure that the extension happens. The reality is that it is not viable at this point. We want to make sure that what we do is done right and that it causes the least disruption to residents and businesses.

It is very important to take all that into consideration.

Previous decisions on the route were made by my predecessor. However I am assured that all those decisions were taken after everything had been looked at in the round and were based on need. I do not agree with the Member's comments, but I am happy to work with him and address the issues that have been outlined. Hopefully, we can move this forward and, with Executive colleagues' support, secure the funding that is needed to do exactly what we have set out to do.

Mr McAleer: I agree with the Minister's previous comment: I would love to see the day that the Glider passes through Omagh, Strabane and other places in west Tyrone. Minister, do have any indication of when BRT2 will become operational?

Ms Kimmins: Delivery timescales for the full project are dependent on the availability of funding, as was outlined previously. It is possible that the north-south Glider service could become operational by 2030, but it is hoped that the initial phase could be delivered by 2027.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister, for the statement. The statement refers to active travel and park-and-ride as being means of tackling many issues, including the meeting of climate change targets, congestion, health and sustainability. Thinking specifically about bikes, what consideration is the Minister giving to accommodating active travel at both ends of a journey when it comes to using the Glider and other bus services?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for that important question. As part of the overall commitment on active travel infrastructure, we are looking at all those things because it is important that, as we modernise our public transport, we consider our commitments to active travel. I think that those are key points. When we were out this morning on the Glider, one of the issues that was picked up concerned one of the cycle racks. We will be doing that on an ongoing basis across the piece as part of the active travel plan.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her statement, and I look forward to engaging with her at the Infrastructure Committee, hopefully sooner rather than later. From the time that the Glider was launched in 2018 to 2022, almost 4,000 penalties were issued for fare evasion. As a new Minister, I am keen to hear what lessons you feel can be learned about tackling fare evasion, particularly on the Glider services and in hotspots for fare evasion?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question and his kind comments. I am looking forward to engaging with the Committee, hopefully, as you said, sooner rather than later. As someone who is new in the role, I will be looking at fare evasion, but, at this time, I am not aware of any specific plans on that issue. I am happy to follow up in writing with the Member on that.

Mr Brett: With all due respect, the statement is utter nonsense. In October 2022, your predecessor made a decision not to extend the scheme beyond Carryduff and Glengormley. A feasibility study was carried out, the Department came back to say that it was not extending the route and now you are saying that you are going to do another feasibility study. In a nine-page statement about BRT2, you cannot even give detail on the termination point on which you have signed off for the north Belfast route. Are you seriously saying that you have come to the Chamber and cannot tell us where you are currently proposing to stop the Glider route in north Belfast?

Ms Kimmins: The Member made his feelings very clear through his constant tutting and sighing throughout the statement. With respect, it is my first statement, and I am willing to provide as much information as possible. I did not have the detail to hand and asked Miss McAllister whether I could follow up with it in writing. I am keen to do that with the Member too because I am working through this as best I can.

Mr McGrath: Residents of Downpatrick, Ballynahinch and Newcastle are used to being let down by the Executive, so the statement is, if anything, consistent. Given that the statement provides no dates for the work to commence on the Cairnshill stop, states that the route will not be extended to Carryduff and indicates that there is not sufficient funding, does the Minister agree that, for my constituents, it is disappointing, underwhelming and, basically, a let-down?

Ms Kimmins: I expect nothing else from the Member, because I have heard little positivity. As I said, plenty of areas across the North would love to see that extension, and I will work with all other areas, because we have a commitment to update our public transport, and we will continue to do so.

The scheme was in place before I was in post, and it has been delayed due to the Assembly's being down. I will take on board all the comments that have been made.

Ms Nicholl: I have not had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on her new role, so congratulations, Minister.

My party was always realistic about the likelihood of the extension to Carryduff happening. What concerns us is the very real need for improvements in public transport and active travel towards Carryduff. In your statement, you said that that would be considered when funding is available. What reassurances can you give to people who live in that area who need improved public transport that the time will not just be extended further and further, with no improvements being made in the interim?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her comments and her question. I said that we will look at priority routes for Metro buses to enhance the service that is there, because we recognise the need for additional services. The Member asked about reassuring people about developing the service. We want to do that, and there is a need for it, but it is about getting it right and about putting the funding in place to do it properly. I hope that that gives reassurance, but I am happy to pick up on that later. As part of the engagement with residents, stakeholders and elected reps, we can, hopefully, start to allay some of those fears and work together in the time ahead.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

What steps will her Department will take alongside statutory partners to ensure that disruption to traffic is considered?

Ms Kimmins: We will work closely with statutory partners over the life cycle of the construction phase of the project in order to minimise traffic disruption along those arterial routes. As I said, lessons were learned through phase 1 of BRT, and we will continue to have key stakeholder forums to allow information to be disseminated on the delivery stage of the project. As with phase 1, we will establish a joint utilities working group to allow potential issues to be raised, managed and, if necessary, escalated and resolved in a timely manner in order to minimise potential delays to the road network.

At each stage of the project, we will undertake the necessary consultation as determined by the statutory processes, and we will endeavour to phase the construction works along the route to help minimise the impact on traffic, taking advantage of off-peak and seasonal reductions in traffic volumes where possible. The works will take time. Whilst they are challenging, we have a long-term vision for enhanced public transport services in Belfast, and the BRT2 project will help us to deliver that vision.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House. Communication has come up a few times. I know, Minister, that you are trying your best in the statement with the information and detail that you have at present, but what will be the Department's next steps in the communication about future works and having conversations with all the locally elected reps and local traders, businesses and residents?

Ms Kimmins: As part of the implementation phase of BRT2, a detailed stakeholder engagement plan and associated communication strategy will be developed through the identification, mapping and involvement of key stakeholders in the project and those who live along the route. Regular updates on scheme progress and milestones will be shared on the Department's website through the dedicated BRT2 web pages. Officials will start that process by briefing the business stakeholder reference group this afternoon, as I outlined, and they will schedule meetings with elected representatives in due course. Public information events will also be held as the project progresses through the detailed design stage and into construction.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I very much welcome the updates on the halts at Belfast City Hospital and Queen's University and the advancement of the works along Bankmore Link. You mentioned the Lagan pedestrian and cycle bridge. Will you give us an update on that?

I will pick up on your point about the business stakeholder reference group. You will know that the thriving businesses along the lower Ormeau Road area are concerned about the lack of places where vehicles can stop and make deliveries. How will you and your officials address that so that the works will not negatively impact on those businesses?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her question. I will come back to you in writing about the Lagan bridge, because I want to give you the most recent update on it.

We will work with stakeholders at the earliest possible stage on the issues for businesses that you outlined on delivery and loading bays in order to find the most viable solution for dealing with them as the works commence. We can take that forward, and I will ask officials to actively consider it.

Mr Durkan: I also take the opportunity to wish the Minister well in her new role. She said that, as someone from outside Belfast, it was a novelty to be able to get the Glider. For many people in more rural areas across the North, it would be a novelty to be able to get a bus. What measures will the Minister take to ensure that the investment required for these improvements in Belfast does not come at the expense of public transport infrastructure and services elsewhere across the North?

Ms Kimmins: As an MLA for a constituency outside Belfast, I am very conscious that we need to update and upgrade our public transport network right across the North. A transport strategy and transport plans are being developed by my Department. Those take cognizance of all the issues that the Member has raised. This money is ring-fenced through the Belfast region city deal funding, and I have put in the additional funding to secure this particular project. However, that is not at the expense of any other project. I am keen to see greater progress on our public transport network right across the North.

Mr Carroll: I share the disappointment of communities unable to avail themselves of public transport. I declare an interest as a regular user of the Gilder line; I used it this morning to get here.

Minister, you said that full funding is not available. My understanding is that a large sum of money is being spent on importing hydrogen from Europe for the use of buses here. Is that an area that you are looking at to provide adequate funding for an alternative local form of sustainable transport?

Ms Kimmins: The Member knows that the Department has a commitment to reduce emissions from all its vehicles. We are working to do that. We see hydrogen buses all over, and they have been working really well. Likewise, we are updating our vehicles for the Glider service to try to reduce emissions and introduce electric vehicles.

We will continue to work to see from where we can secure that funding and whether it can be found within the Department. There is a wider responsibility in overall Executive funding and external funders as well. We continue to look at all options.

Mr Speaker: No other Members wish to ask questions of the Minister, so that brings that to a conclusion.

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

Mr Speaker: Thank you. As no amendments have been tabled, there is no opportunity to discuss the Budget Bill now. Members will, of course, have a full debate at Final Stage, which is scheduled for later today. The Further Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill is therefore concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Ms Sugden: I beg to move

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

Ms Sugden: This is my first opportunity in nearly 11 years as an independent MLA to lead private Member's business. I have chosen to focus on the issue of strategic planning for an ageing population. I believe that it is the most important and necessary action that this Government and Assembly can take for the future of all public services in Northern Ireland.

This issue is not just about those in later life. It affects us all right now. The growing demands of an ageing population are already placing significant strain on our health and social care services, our workforce and our communities. This is not a problem for the future; it is a crisis unfolding today. We see it daily in every accident and emergency department across Northern Ireland, with patients waiting not hours but days to receive treatment, many of whom are older people who are weeping in pain and going without food or medication until it is their turn. As elected representatives, what are we doing — or, rather, not doing — when our hospitals are no longer safe in 2025? Public services are crumbling and, if we do not strategically plan for our changing demographics, the situation will only deteriorate further over the next decade. If we fail to act now, we are consigning future generations to a system that will have inevitably collapsed due to unsustainable pressure.

In 20 years, Northern Ireland has experienced a significant demographic shift. In 2001, the median age of our population was 34 years. By 2011, it had risen to 37, and in 2022, it reached 40. That trend reflects a growing proportion of older individuals in society, and, conversely, the percentage of children under 16 decreased from 24% in 2001 to 19% in 2021. Despite those clear demographic changes, our public services have not adapted accordingly. The current models are still largely based on a younger population profile that no longer reflects the reality of Northern Ireland today. Without strategic planning and reform, our public services will continue to face challenges in delivering effective support to our changing society. By 2040, one in four people here will be over 65, and, by 2070, for every two working-age people, there will be one pensioner. That shift presents challenges and opportunities, but what is certain is that failing to act now will lead to avoidable crises in healthcare, social care, housing, transport and the economy. The motion calls for a cross-departmental strategy to ensure that we meet the needs of our ageing society. It is a call for leadership, vision, responsibility and common sense and, critically, it is a call for action.

Before I speak to the challenges, I first acknowledge the vital contribution of our older people. They are essential to our communities as volunteers, carers and mentors and are often the ones holding families together. They are the childcare that the Executive have promised but so far not provided. They are filling the gaping holes that the Northern Ireland Executive tend to overlook, yet they continue to work, pay taxes and contribute to our economy in significant ways. Recognising their contribution is not only fair but absolutely necessary. A society that plans well for ageing does not merely support its older citizens; it benefits all generations. A well-supported older population means a stronger economy, healthier communities and a more resilient public sector.

Without strategic planning, we are setting ourselves up for failure. Right now, 80% of care packages in Northern Ireland are for older people, and the number of people living with dementia is set to treble in the next three decades, yet, instead of increasing capacity, we are seeing cuts to care home beds and domiciliary care services. Without proper planning, our health and social care system will simply not cope. This is not just about older people. More pressure on hospitals, GPs and emergency departments means longer waiting lists for everyone. If we do not plan for an ageing population, every patient, young and old, will feel the impact. They already are. As the UK's Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, has highlighted, prevention and early intervention must be at the heart of ageing population planning. Our health system is too reactive and too busy fighting the fires. We need to invest in early detection, frailty prevention and long-term condition management. Supporting people to stay healthy for longer will ease the burden on acute hospital services.

More older people need accessible, age-appropriate housing, yet demand for social housing is at an all-time high whilst supply remains critically low. Many older people live in homes that are no longer suitable, but they have no alternative. If we do not fix this, we will see more preventable falls, more hospital admissions and more pressure on care services. We already have labour shortages in key sectors such as healthcare, social care, retail and hospitality. An ageing population means fewer working-age people, and, without planning, our economy will struggle. We need policies that support older workers to stay in employment and encourage younger people into key industries.

Many older people rely on public transport to stay independent, yet services, especially in rural areas, are simply not good enough. If we are serious about inclusion, we must make transport accessible, reliable and affordable for those who need it most.

With fewer people of working age paying taxes and more individuals drawing pensions, there will be growing pressures on public finances. The Government need to act now to make sure that pension systems are sustainable and that older people are protected from financial hardship. More and more essential services are now moving online, but many older people feel left behind. We need proper digital literacy programmes and alternative ways for people to access services so that they do not fall through the cracks, which we have seen happen in Executive programmes.

Loneliness is a major issue that the Assembly has talked about at length. We know that social exclusion leads to poor mental and physical health, yet too many older people feel cut off from their communities. We need better social infrastructure, places to meet, community groups and support networks to make sure that older people stay engaged and connected.

It is deeply concerning for me, and it should be concerning for the Assembly, that the Northern Ireland Executive have failed to adequately consider the reality of our ageing population in their current draft Programme for Government. Despite clear evidence that that demographic change will impact on every aspect of public life, there is no recognition of that challenge in their current plans. The Executive's failure to address the issue is short-sighted and irresponsible. Without a strategic approach, public services are becoming overwhelmed, inequalities are worsening and economic stability is at risk. We need decisive leadership that acknowledges the long-term implications of an ageing society and that takes action to ensure that our public services, workforce and infrastructure are prepared. The Government need to prepare. The absence of an ageing population plan in the Programme for Government is a glaring omission that must be rectified in the final draft. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

The evidence is clear: our population is ageing; our public services are under strain; and, without action, we face serious consequences. That is not just a warning — I hope that this debate is not just an echo chamber conversation — it is a call for action. We have an opportunity to shape the future, to build a society that values and supports people at every stage in their life and to do something useful in the Assembly to reflect the needs of the people outside this Building. A strategic, cross-departmental plan for ageing is not just necessary but essential for the sustainability of public services and the well-being of every citizen in Northern Ireland. We must invest, we must adapt and we must act now. I urge all Members to support the motion and to commit to securing a future where we can all age with dignity, security and confidence.

Mr McGuigan: I welcome the motion. It clearly covers much more than health, as the proposer outlined, but that is what I, as my party's health spokesperson, will focus on.

The good news is that, because of science, modern medicine and better knowledge of fitness and nutrition, we are living longer, and our life expectancy is predicted to continue to increase. According to NISRA, the life expectancy of females is expected to increase from 82·3 years in 2022 to 85·4 years by 2047, and, for males here in the North, it is expected to increase from 78·4 years in 2022 to 81·9 years in 2047. For someone my age, that means that I have roughly 11,000 more days left, if I am lucky enough to reach the average male life expectancy. That sounds like a lot, but, as I get older, I use the phrase "time flies" much more often. Those 11,000 days could be my potential lifespan. That is what people used to be concerned with — how long they live for — and it is, obviously, still very important. However, there is, rightly, a growing shift towards focusing on people's healthspan. As individuals and as a society, we should work towards and focus not just on the years that we live but on the quality of our life and the years in which we can live in good health and independently, free from chronic diseases, disability or significant physical or mental decline.

The Executive therefore need to focus on the reality that, by 2027, the number of people living in the North who will be aged over 65 will exceed the number of children in our population. As an MLA for North Antrim, I represent, as does the proposer of the motion, part of the north coast, which has the North's highest percentage of the older population, so I am clearly in favour of the motion. We need to look at the strategic approach being taken and the policy being developed right across government in order to meet the demands.

Our health service currently faces significant challenges, including extensive waiting times, an escalating mental health crisis and severe workforce shortages. Those pressures are not solely because of a lack of funding. They are also as a result of the ongoing need to implement meaningful reform. We know that prolonged hospitalisation can negatively affect older people's health and life expectancy, yet we, as constituency MLAs, are also acutely aware of the problems that lots of families currently face in accessing quick and appropriate domiciliary care packages. We need to enhance home-based care so that we can reduce unnecessary hospital admissions and free up hospital beds. Older individuals generally prefer to receive care in their own home, which can lead to better health outcomes and also respects their wishes. Providing that care requires staff, and we know that the healthcare sector faces significant workforce shortages, particularly, but not exclusively, as a result of Brexit. We therefore need to find ways around those workforce shortages, and we need to ensure that our healthcare workers are paid appropriately for the work that they do.

Moreover, we can, and should, deliver more local and community initiatives. The IMPACTAgewell project, which is delivered by the Mid and East Antrim Agewell Partnership in my constituency, is an excellent example of a community-based approach to improving the health and well-being of older people. It states that, since its inception, it has saved the health service approximately £6·1 million through avoiding unscheduled care costs. There are many other examples across North Antrim, and across the North, of groups and communities coming together to help and support our ageing population. They should receive our support.

For older individuals with dementia, Sinn Féin advocates community and home-based care rather than hospital admission. We emphasise the need for adequate training for health and social care staff who deal with patients with dementia, as well as increased investment in home care supports and housing adaptations. We also acknowledge initiatives that are currently under way and that deserve our praise. The frailty pathway and the acute frailty audit programme aim to improve the journey and outcomes for older people who become acute inpatients. The ageing well public health planning team that the Public Health Agency (PHA) has established aims to enhance the health and well-being of older individuals and to reduce health disparities.

As I said, we need to focus much more on preventative measures to keep people well for longer. I attended a very informative event in the Long Gallery yesterday that had been organised by the allied health professional sector. There were quite a number of demonstrations given at that event that, if implemented, could improve the quality of outcomes for elderly citizens. I therefore encourage the Minister of Health to take a look at yesterday's event to see what he can learn from it.

Our Executive will face many challenges in the time ahead. As my party's health spokesperson, I am aware that there are many challenges in the health sector alone. It is crucial that we adopt —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McGuigan: — policies and strategies to ensure that our public services are fit for purpose in order to meet the needs of our older population. That should be a priority.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Member for East Londonderry Claire Sugden for tabling the motion, which recognises the changing demographics for age in Northern Ireland and the need to plan accordingly. The increase in average life expectancy across the United Kingdom is a great achievement. It was 46 years of age when my late granny was born, 59 when my late parents were born and 71 when I was born. It is now 82 years of age.

We are able to measure the increase in our older age groups in Northern Ireland. In the decade from 2013 to 2023, the population here aged 85 and over increased by 25%, which is a rate of increase that is more than five times higher than that for the population as a whole. By the end of this Assembly mandate in mid-2027, the long-term trend of the declining birth rate and greater life expectancy means that the proportion of Northern Ireland's population aged over 65 is expected to outnumber that aged under 15 for the first time.

Our party recognises the need to build an age-friendly society. The Democratic Unionist Party is committed to promoting the health and well-being of older people by ensuring that they have secure and safe accommodation, equal access to services, vibrant social and economic opportunities and protection against crime, abuse and poverty. One of the three missions in the draft Programme for Government is "People", with a focus on supporting:

and leaving no one behind.

The previous Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland (COPNI) stated:

Those expected demographic changes will mean that the proportion of the population that is of working age will progressively decrease while the number of people who will require services such as supported housing, social care and state pensions will increase.

There are many ways in which older people are impacted on, positively and negatively, by changes in society brought about by policy changes and technological advances. In Northern Ireland, there is a strong correlation between ageing populations, rural areas and limited access to digital services. Proficiency on digital devices is a prerequisite for many aspects of modern life, such as booking a flight or tickets for an event, accessing banking services or welfare benefits and making an online purchase. Older people, who are the last generation not to have grown up in the internet era, often need support to successfully access online services and all the more so if broadband access is limited in their area. Older people depend most on traditional forms of media, yet that is the group that the BBC has betrayed by scrapping the universal free TV licence for over-75s. Our party will continue to fight for the abolition of the licence fee, but, while it still exists, we will fight for the restoration of free TV licences for all those aged over 75.

A large number of bank branches have left our high streets. That loss impacts on older people, more vulnerable people and those who live in a rural community. Community transport, particularly in rural areas, is a lifeline for older people. We seek to give older people the confidence and capacity to live enriched and independent lives by expanding access to transport. The DUP supported the expansion of the SmartPass for older people, and we will continue to encourage its greater uptake. Older people need effective transport services in order to stay healthy and participate in society. Such services are especially helpful when people are unable to drive their own vehicle.

As time is limited, my colleague on the Committee for the Executive Office, Harry Harvey, will, in due course, expand our comments into other areas in which strategic planning for an ageing population is required, including healthcare.

Mr Speaker: I call Robbie Butler.

Mr Butler: Your timing is immaculate, Mr Speaker; it is absolutely perfect. Thanks for that.

I thank the Member who — for the first time in 11 years, did you say? — proposed the private Member's motion, and I thank her for her services as chair of the all-party group (APG) on ageing and older people. It is an excellent APG. I also thank Age NI for providing secretariat services to the APG and for its help behind the scenes with tabling the motion.

As Mr Kingston mentioned, our population in Northern Ireland is ageing. We have experienced that shift more rapidly than any other part of the United Kingdom or the island of Ireland. Today, in Northern Ireland, one in six people is 65; by 2030, that will be one in five people; by 2040, it will be one in four; and by 2070, there will be just two working-age people for every pensioner. That is a remarkable statistic.

The demographic shift is not just about older people but will affect every one of us and impact on the very fabric of our society. Too often, however, the debate around an ageing society is misunderstood. Some try to portray it as simply calling for more services for older people. That is not the case. It is about trying to achieve a system-wide approach in order to ensure that our housing, transport, healthcare and economy are equipped to support an ageing population in a way that benefits everyone. Failing to plan now will place an unsustainable strain on public services, exacerbate inequalities and leave future generations struggling with challenges that we have failed to address.

There are multiple priorities — I will not cover them all, because some of them have been covered by the Chair of the Health Committee and by Mr Kingston and the proposer of the motion — but I will talk about two, if that is OK. Housing provision is one of the most urgent concerns — yesterday, we had a debate on the issue that involved the Communities Minister. Our social housing sector is already under immense pressure, with demand far outstripping supply, but what is often overlooked is the fact that housing must be not only available but adaptable. Many older people, including those who once owned a home, now find themselves unable to afford the modifications that are essential to living safely and independently. Without strategic investment, we risk forcing more people into inappropriate housing, hospital stays or even, prematurely, into care homes at huge financial and human cost. Quite simply, we do not build enough bungalows or adapt enough ground-floor properties. We are trying to get people to bend to the infrastructure as opposed to making the infrastructure bend to people.

We must also confront the reality of loneliness, especially here in Northern Ireland, for rural dwellers, because isolation and exclusion impact on people. Older people, particularly those over 75, are significantly more likely to experience loneliness. Poor transport infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, compounds that problem. When people are cut off from their communities, their mental and physical health can suffer. A truly age-friendly society must ensure that people remain connected physically, socially and digitally. That brings me to an issue that we have to debate at some stage: our growing push for and, arguably, our over-reliance on technology. Technology should bend to people; not the other way around. The idea that some politicians are calling for an end to paper letters for vital health appointments is, in my view, parody politics. If storm Éowyn and the subsequent electricity and broadband blackout have taught us anything —.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. I am unaware of anyone actually calling for an end to letters as reminders for health appointments. However, given the prolonged and well-publicised issues with post in many constituencies, specifically mine, it is important that health trusts recognise the situation and seek alternative and additional means of reminding people — of all ages — of appointments.

Mr Butler: The Member is right.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Butler: Thank you very much. I appreciate the extra minute, because this is worthy of debate. It is a noble aspiration — most people can say that they understand it — but the reality is that technology goes down, as happened at the start of my speech: I could not count on my laptop to get me through and needed my paper copy. The Member is right, if what he is talking about is a complementary service, and that digital inclusion costs little. However, it should be digital inclusion, not digital at the exclusion of everything else, which would reduce the quality of the service that the people of Northern Ireland should be getting. Digital infrastructure is not infallible, as is clear by what happened to me today. It should be viewed as complementary and not as the holy grail. Nothing can replace written correspondence when it comes to reliability and accessibility.

The Executive must embed ageing-population planning into the Programme for Government, which ensures that our public services, housing and infrastructure are not just reactive but future-proofed. If we get this right, we not only improve life for older people but create a society that will be better for us all, now and in the future.

Ms Bradshaw: I support the motion. I very much welcome the subject matter in the motion from Claire Sugden. The Alliance Party has a manifesto commitment to include in the Programme for Government outcomes for an ageing population, so of course we will support the motion, particularly that element of it.

The motion speaks of, "pressures on healthcare, social care" and other issues. Other Members will cover those, as some have already done. I wish to emphasise one element in the area, and not just because I have just passed the age of 50. We are in what is defined by the UN as the decade of healthy ageing. We need to think increasingly of our healthcare system in terms of what is known as "50-40", which is how we ensure that people who reach the age of 50 and who can reasonably expect to live for another 40 years are supported as much as possible to do so and do not live those four decades in poor health. We have already seen some reshaping of our healthcare system, and we need to move forward on our general healthcare policy and ensure that the ageing population is at the forefront of that.

More broadly, I will focus not only on the contributions of older people but on the challenges and opportunities of which the motion speaks, in the important sense that we are approaching the stage at which our population will peak. That has significant consequences for how we adapt and change resourcing in order to sustain public services and, indeed, prioritise the right things when developing legislation and public policy.

I had not included the issue in my written speech, but I welcome the comments from Mr Kingston, Mr Butler and others on the digital inclusion piece. Increasingly, we see that people can only access public services online, and we need to be mindful of the cost and complexity of accessing information and services online. People need to pay for their Wi-Fi, computer equipment and smartphones, and we need to be mindful of the fact that pensioners do not always have the funds to do so.

The Alliance Party has long publicised its concern that older people are too often seen primarily as being consumers of public services. That presents them as being passive service users rather than active citizens. Last month, a population projection by NISRA and the Office for National Statistics suggested that Northern Ireland's population will peak by as soon as 2033. NISRA emphasised that that was a projection, not a forecast, and that there was significant evidence to suggest that the date could be rather later than that. However, the peak will surely come before the middle of the century. It is already the case that, for example, the number of children in Northern Ireland is declining, and, as we speak, we are just passing the point at which there are more over-65s than under-16s living in Northern Ireland. Indeed, already, one in six of the population is aged 65 or over, and over-65s account for most of the population growth. The motion's reference to the "wider population" hints at that and the fact that it will suffer if we do not begin planning for an ageing population now.

If we consider the issues as being about not just an ageing population but population decline, we see that we need to hone in on where the strains on the public services are, as Ms Sugden referenced in her opening remarks. However, that is not the only issue. A declining population would shake many of the assumptions that we currently include in the development of public policy. That affects not only the type of health and social care services that we offer and how those are paid for but how we adapt a host of other public policy issues, such as the design of our planning system and how we develop infrastructure so that there is less pressure for new builds. As Mr Butler referenced, we need to think about what housing needs to look like to ensure that people can live comfortably at home for longer. In fact, we need to look at things like skills development as well, so that we have the health and social care workforce that is necessary to meet the demands.

We need to ensure long-term sustainability and resilience in public services. We need to ensure that our old people are allowed to contribute and participate as active citizens for as long as possible, but they need support from government in order to do so.

Ms McLaughlin: I pay tribute to Claire Sugden for tabling the motion. I know that the issue is very close to her heart, and she is a great champion for older people. I cannot believe that it is Claire's first private Member's motion after 11 years. It is welcome that she is seeking to challenge the Executive on their failure to prepare for an ageing society.

Planning for our ageing population is not just a case of ensuring that those who have contributed to our society and economy are properly recognised, supported and valued in later life. It is a challenge of immense strategic importance for our public services, given our changing population. As others have said, by 2029, people aged over 65 will outnumber those aged under 15 in our population for the first time. That will have significant implications for three areas, which I will highlight: our health service, our infrastructure and our economy.

First, our ageing population presents clear challenges for Health. As people live longer with multiple conditions, we need a health service that can manage that complexity of need.

In 2023, 38% of respondents to an Age NI survey reported difficulties in booking a GP appointment when required. We all know the challenges that face the social care system and the enormous challenges that people across Northern Ireland experience when trying to access care more widely. A health service that is fit for purpose in later life is a promise that we make to future generations, along with a care system that works for everyone and properly values the unpaid carers who prop up that health service and social care system. There is more evidence for the provision of paid carer's allowance, which my party advocates, and for the Government to develop and integrate the expertise on artificial intelligence that can help to respond to some of the challenges for our older population.

Secondly, when it comes to our infrastructure, older people must be guaranteed support when they need it and independence when they want it. That includes proper public transport that can allow older people to stay connected to their communities; public infrastructure that can address the silent killer of loneliness; measures to boost health and well-being, preventing illnesses so that fewer people need to access the health service in the first place; and building homes with adaptions to sustain and support people to have fulfilled and safe lives in their own surroundings.

Thirdly, our economy needs to work for older people. It is no surprise that some of the highest rates of economic inactivity are among workers over 50. As Age NI has pointed out, by 2070, there will be only two people of working age for every pensioner. Others have said that, but that is a really stark statistic, and we are not planning for that future, which is not that far away. Those facts will have huge implications and must be accounted for in government planning.

In Derry and across the North, far too many pensioners face poverty. In 2022-23, that accounted for around 36,000 people. Tackling it will require effort from the Government, but, most important, it will require an anti-poverty strategy to finally be published and agreed. That strategy should help to address the cost of energy for older people, improve the quality and take-up of benefits in later life and deal with the pernicious impact of the financial scams being perpetrated by bad-faith actors.

The three areas of health, infrastructure and economy have significant implications for the delivery of our public services, but are the Government really serious about our older people? Do they have a grip on the challenge and a clear plan in place to meet it? We have had commitments on age discrimination legislation in the 2011-15 Programme for Government, the 2016-2022 active ageing strategy and the 2020 New Decade, New Approach agreement. Will the current Executive be different and deliver legislation that can protect and fulfil the rights of older people? They simply must be.

In conclusion, older people —

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Ms McLaughlin: — sometimes tell us that they feel invisible, dismissed or sidelined. The Executive must not fuel such perceptions through inaction and further delay.

Mr Speaker: I call Nicola Brogan. Thank you. Your time is up.

Miss Brogan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I did not get a sip of my water.

I thank Claire Sugden for tabling this important motion. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on it, so I thank you, Claire, for bringing it forward.

Our society's changing age profile brings with it many challenges and, indeed, opportunities. There are issues that must be addressed regarding housing, health and social care, workforce planning and training and others. NISRA statistics released last year show the extent of the changes, with an increase during the past decade in the number of over-65s, who now account for 18% of the population. The growth is higher still in the number of over-85s, with an increase of 25% during the same period. Whilst the obvious challenge that longer life expectancy presents will be reflected in health and social care pressures, forward planning is needed in many other areas, including housing and economic issues.

Current pressures on housing demand and supply are well known in the Chamber. Population shifts will continue to affect the planning that is needed for future housing programmes. The number of households has grown as a result of demographic ageing, and an ageing population will result in increased numbers of smaller households. That means that not only will more houses and housing units be required but a range of sizes will be required to cater for smaller households and a greater variety of need. The Housing Executive has previously addressed that concern, noting in 2023 that, if the social housing sector was to address the ageing population, it would need to cater for a range of households, including single, small family and older-person households. That would mean, for example, building more category 1 accommodation for older people. There are clear knock-on effects from the provision of adequate housing for older people that will, in turn, release housing for people at different stages in life and with different needs. For example, as people age, they may wish to downsize for practical reasons or for accessibility needs, which can make suitable homes available for others.

Locally, unemployment is being reported at an all-time low, at around 2%, although there are other measures to take into account, including economic inactivity. With over 35% of 50- to 64-year-olds deemed to be economically inactive, there is the potential to grow the workforce through a range of measures, including upskilling and reskilling, flexible working and increased support for health and well-being. Employers must respond to an ever-changing environment and ensure that people are afforded real opportunities to work and to remain in work. Despite the benefits of a multigenerational workforce, poor attitudes in the workplace may act as a barrier to older workers accessing jobs and feeling valued at work. Research has shown that more than one third of those aged 50 to 69 felt that they would be at a disadvantage when applying for jobs. That is often based on a suspicion that employers might see them differently because of their age, so more work needs to be done in that regard.

Our older population must be given full consideration in departmental planning, and their needs should be reflected in the decisions that are taken and the strategies that are implemented across health and social care, housing, employment and beyond. The benefits of forward planning will help to best inform policy and practice across all of those issues. Ultimately, placing value on our older generations will reduce social exclusion and increase participation in a range of sectors across society, and society will benefit as a whole.

Mr Harvey: I begin by thanking Ms Sugden for bringing the motion to the Floor of the House. For the sake of time, I will focus my remarks on the need for strategic planning for an ageing population in four key areas of society, those being health provision, employment, justice and the impact of poverty.

Health and social care provision for older people is arguably the most important service accessed by the over-65 demographic. With passing years and failing health, we all invariably rely increasingly on NHS services, be they general practice or emergency care through to acute, social and palliative care. Our health needs grow in number and frequency as well as complexity as we get older. A functioning NHS is therefore pivotal for a healthy, ageing population. We are all aware of the projected increase in that cohort in society over the next number of years. The anticipated doubling of the proportion of the population that is over 85 will further increase pressure on social care and health services generally. It is vital that preparation begins now, that services that are utilised by older people are supported with ring-fenced funding and that we begin to see evidence of transformation in the provision and delivery of health and social care.

Alarmingly, provision in some key areas has reduced in recent years, as outlined by the Commissioner for Older People. The number of care home beds, for instance, has dropped by 28% since 2008, despite the number requiring a care home bed having doubled in that time. With the increased prevalence of multi-morbidity comes an ever-growing need and urgency to integrate care across services and to promote earlier and better-informed conversations about advanced care planning. Long waiting lists and limited cross-service collaboration will hinder the development of a healthy population and lead to misdiagnosis and higher levels of advanced morbidity that could otherwise be prevented.

Healthy older people who are receiving appropriate and timely healthcare can continue to play full and active roles in society and particularly in the economy, be it in employment, volunteering or childcare. Their contribution is invaluable and often brings with it a wealth of professional, work-based knowledge. The retention of such individuals in the workforce allows for effective skill transfer to younger colleagues, ensuring that such skills, which are often highly specialised, are not lost to the local economy. In policy areas such as justice and tackling poverty, it is incumbent on the Executive to ensure that the voices of older people are heard and are driving legislative protection. The Justice Minister must redouble her efforts to address emerging threats to older people, particularly in the areas of online financial crime and cold calling scams, and to build on the success of the ScamwiseNI partnership.

Age UK has shown that 65,000 households with residents aged over 60 will have insufficient income to cover essential spending this year. The Labour Government have sought to pick the pockets of pensioners and have succeeded. I am thankful to Minister Lyons for his willingness to support our older people through a winter fuel payment this year. The DUP believes that those who have paid in should get out. We will always support our older people.

Miss McAllister: I also thank the Member for moving the motion. Sitting on the all-party group (APG), I know that she is really engaged and is leading on the issue. As a member of the APG, I cannot always attend because it conflicts with other diary commitments and other APGs, so we go where we can. However, it is one of the APGs that has the most attendance by outside stakeholders and people who are bringing forward solutions to problems in the community that are faced by older people, so it is a worthwhile APG where we can hear what the problems are and have solutions for them.

I will focus on the health and social care system. We do not have a health and social care system that meets the needs of our older population. We are seeing the reform of adult social care coming down the line, but we have been promised that for years; in fact, I believe that it was in 2012, maybe 2013, when the first changes were talked about. It was consulted on in 2014-15 and again a number of years later, and we still have not seen the effect of a lot of that change. The Alliance Party tabled a motion on social care reform in October, and we heard the Department of Health say then that reform was ongoing through work streams, but that just means more bureaucratic schemes and forms to hear the issues rather than come up with solutions. That is simply not acceptable, especially when many stakeholders have solutions, when the population is not getting any younger and when the need is so great. We need to ensure that the Department of Health in particular spends its budget to ensure that spending now saves for future years and includes investing in strategies that promote a healthy lifestyle and well-being initiatives for a healthy ageing population.

Many stakeholders get in touch with MLAs regarding motions brought to the House, and this was one of the ones with the most feedback. Age NI, for example, was in touch over the past few weeks to ensure that all MLAs were on board with the issue. It is important that we listen to the experts who engage with people on the ground every day. Age NI highlighted the current inability of the health and social care system to meet the demands placed on it, and it is likely to worsen without strategic action to support healthy ageing.

I hope that the junior Minister can take from the debate that it is about cross-departmental working. It is not just about the health service but touches on every aspect of life. Yes, health is important, but older people have much to give to society, particularly when it comes to the economy. The proposer of the motion touched on childcare: how many older people look after our children to enable their kids and grandkids to get back into the workforce?

We have an increasing number of people who are lonely. Loneliness is a disease, and it is harming and killing our older generation. Many projects across north Belfast take that issue on to tackle it at its heart, and I pay tribute to them. Good Morning North Belfast is an organisation that makes calls across the community every morning, mostly to those who live alone, to make sure that everybody is OK and see whether they need anything for the day. That is important, because they can highlight and intervene when a person needs extra help.

The CLARE project is another great initiative in north Belfast that reaches out to older people. During the pandemic, it was overwhelmed, like many others, because loneliness was exacerbated. We have local befriending services that, unfortunately, do not get the volunteers that they need. We also have a number of schools that are interacting with older people, particularly in care homes, which is a great initiative.

It is not just about Health; it is about a whole-society and Executive approach to ensure that every older person can play their best part in life. Many community hubs across Northern Ireland seek to do that by bringing healthcare providers together to assess the needs and by bringing that together with the initiatives that the Department for Communities creates in order to target and intervene at the earlier stages. However, the investment is simply not enough, because I do not believe that it is taken as a strategic approach.

As I said, I am glad that the Member proposed the motion today. As someone who was a carer for my late grandfather, I saw just how vital it is to ensure that every older person can play their part in everyday life. Whether it is through Health, Economy or social activities, we all have a role to play in ensuring that we take that approach.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Chambers: As the age-related Father of the House, I had to stop for a moment to convince myself that I did not have an interest to declare before speaking briefly on the motion. However, I suppose that we will all eventually benefit from anything that might hopefully emerge from the debate that could make life better for older people.

An old saying attributed to many authors is that, "A society is judged by how it cares for its elders". With advances in healthcare, life expectancy has increased considerably over recent years, and that has been a huge success story for our NHS. However, maybe that reality has been lost in some quarters of the Government's forward planning. The lack of forward planning for decades for the increasing number of elderly people who will require care packages in their advancing years has contributed to the ongoing issue of hospital beds being occupied by recovered patients who could be cared for in their home. I know that that issue is high on the Health Minister's radar.

The draft Programme for Government is wordy and aspirational across a wide range of sectors. I might have missed some comments in it, but I can find only one line that loosely relates to our ageing community. It states:

That clearly needs to be expanded with more detail of specific outcomes.

The motion is reasonable and worthy, and I will support it, along with my party colleagues.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for proposing the motion, which the SDLP will support. Given how important, critical, essential and relevant the motion is, please let it not be a decade before you get to make your next choice.

It is an important motion and a reality that we all need to be aware of and prepare for. How often do we hear from various leaders that the measure of a society is found in how it treats its vulnerable, including its elderly? The reality is that we are an ageing population, as has been highlighted today. At present, the proportion of those aged 65-plus is one in six; that is simply going to rise in the future, and it is anticipated that, very soon, it will become one in five.

As the Member rightly notes in the motion, that presents challenges and opportunities for public services. Although the Executive Office is responding today, the issue needs to be addressed by the whole Executive. The message that I send to the Executive today is quite simply this: if we do not invest in our older people, we are endangering our present and our future. If we do not invest in our older people and plan for the future, it will impact on our older people's quality of life and their access to healthcare and will heighten their experience of social isolation and perhaps loneliness, but it will also have an indirect impact on those who rely so heavily on them, particularly, as has been referenced many times today, for childcare.

A recent survey highlighted how more than half of households require the help of grandparents to provide some childcare. To have more than half of households relying on grandparents for childcare is a startling statistic and yet another example of our Executive's placing undue responsibility on unpaid carers. Taking cognisance of the fact that we are an ageing society, I say that what is needed right now, more than ever, is for the Executive to invest in our older people and in the various initiatives that are already in place to reduce older people's isolation and enhance their dignity. Remember that one in five people in the North currently experiences loneliness regularly. That is another startling statistic.

When I look at my constituency, I am in admiration of organisations such as the u3a and Men's Sheds. Those tireless bands of volunteers get together to try to provide some services for one another in their local communities, and they are almost peer-led. As a former youth worker, I can see what has happened since we said, many years ago, that we had to invest in young people and provide a service right across the board that they could access regardless of where they live. Given our changing demographics for age, we need to see an older people's service across the board that provides the structures and services that enable our communities to have activities to do.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Yes.

Ms McLaughlin: Does the Member agree that the first step that the Executive Office must take, and one that it can take very quickly, is to appoint a new Commissioner for Older People? That is the least that it can do.

Mr McGrath: Absolutely.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr McGrath: When I was reflecting on the possibility of there being some form of older people's service that is almost like a youth service, I felt that the Older People's Commissioner, perhaps working alongside councils, would strategically be the ideal office through which to deliver such a service in order to make sure that there are services for people across the board.

Before I conclude, I ask that the Member who proposed the motion include something in her closing remarks. The motion calls for a strategy. I hate strategies. They are all that we ever get from Ministers. They are bits of paper that are pulled together that then go on a shelf, after which very little else happens. If we call for a costed action plan with delivery timescales, we can hold people to account. That is how a Government are held to account. I ask the Executive to tell us what it is that they want to do for older people, how much they are prepared to invest and how long it will take them to do it. The Opposition and the public will then be able to hold them to account by checking that the targets are being delivered against. Anything else, frankly, is just waffle.

Mr Gaston: Several Members congratulated Claire on bringing her first private Member's motion to the House, following 11 years as an MLA. Some expressed shock at that being the case. I take the opportunity to say that the parties on the Business Committee and you, Mr Speaker, should today reflect on the fact that all Members should get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to securing motions for debate in the Chamber. My predecessor, Jim Allister, sat in the Assembly for 13 years and never had an opportunity to bring such a motion to the House. Yes, progress has been made, but there is more to be done. I trust that the Business Committee will consider what I have said. I add my voice to those commending Claire for bringing her motion to the House.

When the Member for West Belfast brought his first private Member's motion to the House, I said that it fell to this corner of the Chamber to address issues that others have failed to address, and the same applies to today's motion. Last September, the Committee for the Executive Office heard from the Older People's Commissioner and Age NI. The story relayed to the Committee was one of a section of society that feels ignored. Age NI's lived experience survey results from 2023 painted a picture of a large section of our community that feels "sidelined", "forgotten about", "dismissed" and:

Some said that they felt that they:

and that the pain that they experienced was "not treated seriously". Older people have been failed by successive Executives. The pledge in the Programme for Government 2011-15 to extend age discrimination legislation did not materialise. There has been a failure to renew the active ageing strategy, which expired in 2022. There was no commitment to legislate on age discrimination in the draft Programme for Government in 2016. New Decade, New Approach promised legislation, but, again, nothing has come forward. There is no commitment to do anything in the current draft Programme for Government.

Put simply, devolution is failing to deliver for pensioners. When one looks at the statistics, it is clear that there is an urgent need to plan for an ageing population. We have heard today the figures and projections as laid out by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency in 2022. They are quite clear, so let us break them down. The number of children aged between zero and 15 is projected to decrease over the next quarter of a century, from 389,400 in mid-2022 to 299,500 in mid-2047. That is a decrease of 23·1%. The number of people aged between 16 and 64 is projected to decrease over the same period by 4·6%. By way of contrast, the number of people aged 65 and above is projected to grow from 335,400 in 2022 to 501,700 by 2047. In light of that, the case for urgent planning is clear in health, housing and infrastructure.

I will now touch on another issue that Members have, to date, overlooked: how we, as legislators, are contributing to the problem of a lack of children and young people. We need an upcoming generation to maintain our society: people who are able to keep the economy going when we are in retirement; people to operate the social care and health system on which, as we age, we will be increasingly dependent. That brings me to the greatest shame in our Province, one which is taking place not in spite of the law of the land but expressly because of it. At the end of last month, the Department of Health published stats showing an increase of 77% in the number of abortions compared with the 2020-21 figure. The most basic step that we must take to start addressing the issues of an ageing population is to stop killing our young. Decisions taken in this place have ensured that our ageing population will continue to age.

The draft Programme for Government ignores our older population. I trust that, through Executive Office Committee evidence sessions and consultation responses, the Executive will put that right when we finally get to see the agreed Programme for Government.

Mr Bradley: Given the time, I will try to be brief. I thank my East Londonderry colleague for bringing the motion to the House. I also express my thanks to my North Antrim neighbour for his contribution a few moments ago.

As a member of the older population, I would suggest that today's motion highlights a catch-all without really identifying the immediate needs of the older population. Ageism is a difficulty that older people experience in unsuccessful employment applications, which often lead to isolation and a loss of age-gained work experiences. The Labour Government's raid on pensioners' fuel allowances has led to many making a choice between heating and eating. Many pensioners struggle to make ends meet, and, while the £100 fuel allowance from the Minister is welcome, it is not nearly enough.

Older people have complex healthcare needs. Hospital beds are often blocked through no care package being available to let patients return to their home or their loved ones. As I speak, there is a consultation to remove acute services from the Causeway Hospital, which would centralise major healthcare in the greater Belfast area and require older patients to make more costly journeys to access healthcare. The problem is exacerbated when one considers that, should Causeway lose its acute status, the nearest hospital to the Causeway Coast and Glens area would be not the Northern Trust's Antrim Hospital but the Western Trust's Altnagelvin, a hospital that is already under pressure. I learned today from an elderly friend that an important hospital appointment scheduled for this morning was cancelled because the scanner at Causeway had broken down. That person faces a wait of a further month or more to be seen.

I appreciate my East Londonderry colleague highlighting the various and many issues faced by the elderly. I hope that the motion will not be lost in a strategy and become a document sitting on a shelf but will, in fact, grow legs and start to run into something tangible.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): I very much welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion. I agree with the wording of the Member's motion: our ageing population presents "challenges and opportunities". Addressing those is a key priority. Often, we talk about our young people and future generations and rightly so, but we cannot forget the here and now, which is today's generation. They are our family, our loved ones, our mummies and daddies, and ageing will come to every one of us. We live longer, so it is essential that government policies and services adapt to support older people to live active, independent and fulfilling lives.

When we talk about older people, we are talking about our parents, grandparents, friends and family. Around 20% of our population is aged 65 or over, and that figure is projected to rise significantly in the coming decades. The demographic shift will have an impact on key areas such as health and social care, housing, transport and the labour market. Therefore, strategic planning is vital to ensuring that our ageing population is supported.

The consultation on the draft Programme for Government closed in November. Through the PFG, we are keen to support people of all ages, including older people. Throughout the consultation process, we have made every effort to meet older people and the groups that support them to hear their views. That work has paid off: a third of those who responded to the PFG consultation were over the age of 55, so we are confident that the interests of older people will be well represented in the PFG. Work is ongoing in earnest to analyse the over 1,400 responses received and produce a consultation report for consideration by the Executive.

Furthermore, the active ageing strategy is currently overseen by the Department for Communities. The strategy was initially launched in 2016 and was due to expire in 2020. However, the Executive refreshed and extended the life of the strategy to May 2022 to allow time for the development of a new strategy in consultation with all the relevant stakeholders.

The stated purpose of the active ageing strategy is:

The overall vision is to create:

Overall, the strategy achieved progress on a number of fronts. There has been:

Since the expiry of the strategy's time frame, the Department for Communities has undertaken evaluation studies and gathered data in anticipation of the development of a successor strategy that is fit for purpose in a context that is very different from that of 2016.

Engagement with the sector is crucial to the development process to ensure that the voices of older people are heard. During the lifetime of the current strategy, there was significant stakeholder engagement with older people and their representative organisations. On the basis of that engagement and the evidence that officials had gathered, it became apparent that the existing strategic framework remained appropriate. Therefore, the Communities Minister recently decided to retain the existing strategy and to create a new action plan based on its framework. The final decisions on the timings and content of any new action plan will be subject to Executive agreement.

Legislation to prevent discrimination on the basis of age in relation to goods, facilities and services would provide protection from discrimination for a range of age groups. We recognise, however, that it is a particularly important issue for older people.

I acknowledge Ms Sugden for tabling the motion, for her clear intention to bring forward a private Member's Bill on the issue and for keeping our ageing population at the fore of Members' minds in the House and the Executive. She is a true champion, but we all need to be champions for our older population. Pam and I, along with officials from TEO, recently met Claire to discuss her proposed Bill and some of the challenges around developing legislation on the issue. It is clear that the development of the Bill will require careful consideration and work to inform its potential scope, as well as the required exemptions. Our officials continue to review the current position and are liaising with stakeholders on the development of age-related goods, facilities and services legislation.

Before I conclude, I will touch on Mr McGrath's and Ms McLaughlin's comments on the Commissioner for Older People. I can say that, following the public appointment competition, an announcement on the successful candidate for that post will be made very shortly.

We concur that our older people not only make a vital contribution to our society but add to it. It is so important that we keep working together to protect their well-being and ensure that their rights are protected and their needs are fully met.

Mr Speaker: I call Claire Sugden to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I was co-opted as an MLA nearly 11 years ago, I felt that the most important thing for me to do was get out into my constituency so that I could get to know the people whom I was representing and, equally, they could get to know me. What I was struck by in East Londonderry was the number of really active older people and the community groups that facilitate them. That has driven my interest as an MLA in advocating for older people on various issues, so much so that I established the all-party group on ageing and older people 10 years ago today. We will celebrate that milestone anniversary. I am driven by that because it is important that we look after the people who looked after us. I declare an interest in that, as should everyone. Hopefully, we will all have the honour of being able to grow old some day. I expect all of us to have access to and be entitled to our public services as we grow old with dignity.

The crux of the debate is not necessarily how our public services directly impact on older people; the debate is about the strategy that the Northern Ireland Executive must take to protect all public services in Northern Ireland. Regrettably, we see public services around us crumbling due to the fact that we have never engaged in forward planning. Look at our GP services. If we had planned in that area 10 years ago, maybe people would be able to get an appointment. As Members from around the Chamber have indicated, the issue really impacts on all aspects of our public services. I recall what the Justice Minister said yesterday about prison populations. One of the reasons for the growth of our prison population is that prisoners are living longer. It is not just about health and social care or community transport; it is about how everyone is affected. It is about supply and demand: as we are living longer, there will be more of us, so our services really need to adapt accordingly.

I will not reiterate too much the comments made by other Members, but I will try to pick up on their points. It is very much about health and social care, and we see that acutely. About 18 months ago, I found myself in Antrim Area Hospital's accident and emergency department, and what really struck me was the number of older people sitting around me who were weeping in pain. Their conditions were probably as critical as those of the people who arrived after them and those of the people who arrived before them: they were just in the queue like everybody else. Equally, as well as older people weeping, children were crying at 2.00 am. I cannot emphasise enough that the debate is not just about the older people but about everyone in Northern Ireland. If we do not get a grip on the fact that we have an ageing population and on the demand that that will place on our public services, we will see that more and more.

I am really pleased that all parties have indicated that they will support the motion, but it includes a specific ask about what should be included in the Programme for Government. I appreciate that the junior Minister indicated that over one third of the consultation responses were from people over 55, and I am not surprised by that as older people are one of the most engaged and active groups in our society. However, I hope that that is not all and that we see a tangible outcome. To an extent, I would be content if we even paid lip service to that, because, at least, then we would be thinking about the future and about Northern Ireland. It is not enough to say that it is for all ages, because what I am raising is specifically and critically about age and our ageing population. The junior Ministers should feel free to intervene on that if the First Ministers have given them the authority to do so. Will we see a specific outcome-based ask in the Programme for Government so that we can start planning for this now? I am mindful that the mandate is due to end in two years and that what we can do in that time is limited. I appreciate that the Executive have already set out their policies and legislation, but let us get the wheels in motion so that we can start moving forward. The issue will not end with the current Government; it is an issue that we need to take forward with consistency.

I appreciate Robbie Butler's comments and those of other Members who acknowledged that it is not just about older people but about our wider system and services. Given that, because of d'Hondt, this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to lead on a motion — it is not the first time that I have spoken on a motion; I hope that Members realise that — I did not want to look at it as one specific issue but at how we, as a Government and as an Assembly, can do better in taking our services forward.

Every week, we hear about how this place is not performing. If we looked at it strategically, however, we could probably fix a lot of the problems that we see in Northern Ireland. That would not happen overnight — of course it will not — but it would happen in 10 years. I have been here for 11 years, and, sadly, all the problems that we are discussing now are the ones that we discussed 11 years ago, and they have got worse. That is why we need to start having those conversations now.

I appreciate Alliance's commitment to consider the older population. If everybody supports the motion, including the parties who have Members at the Executive table, we should get an outcome. We should get the issue into the Programme for Government and start moving forward. I do not want this to be a debate that is recorded with that being all we do with it. As the Member who led the debate, I will follow up the actions that the Assembly is likely to support. The matter may not be in the specific remit of those who sit at the Executive table, but, as discussed, it is a cross-departmental issue and everyone at the table has a voice, so I encourage them to take it forward. Anything that Members can do to encourage their Ministers to do that would be really helpful.

Ms McLaughlin and the junior Minister referred to age discrimination legislation. There has been a conversation about that for a number of years. We have had promises and commitments to take it forward, but it has not happened. As the independent Member, I hope to make legislation happen, subject to the Speaker's say-so. It is critical, given that we are the only region in the UK and Ireland not to have that legislation in place. There is a model that works.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way; I hope that she will forgive me. I raise the point that Mr Gaston made about devolution failing: devolution has not failed. Has the failure to have government here for five years of the past eight — of the Member's 11 years, there has been government in only six, and they have never been joined together — not been the biggest barrier to progress in Northern Ireland in the recent political past?

Ms Sugden: I appreciate that. I agree wholeheartedly. If people ask me why this place does not have the ability to do anything, I say that it is because we have never had the consistency to take things forward. If this is about improvement and change for everyone in Northern Ireland, we have to have that consistency. I will digress a little to say that devolution is the only show in town — there is nothing else — so we either have this place or we have nothing. We saw that during the six years of no government in Northern Ireland, and people need to wake up to that reality.

I will come back to age discrimination legislation. That is where we, as MLAs, really have power. We are often told how useless we are, but every one of us has the ability to write legislation and take forward things that will improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland. This is one way in which I want to do that, and I am really keen to work with the Executive Office on it, because I recognise that a lot of what I propose is very much the work that began with Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness. We will have to look at other ways of doing it, and, indeed, we have an opportunity to look at how legislation has worked or perhaps not worked in other jurisdictions and to improve it for Northern Ireland. However, if the legislation does nothing more than recognise in statute the value of older people, is that not enough? Hopefully, however, it will do more than that.

There were other, similar comments. It is about how things directly affect our older people. We heard that from Nicola Brogan, Harry Harvey and Nuala McAllister. Nuala talked to the community and voluntary groups, which is key. I outlined at the start of the debate how my interest in the issue was driven by community and voluntary groups, and we need to listen to them. They are the people who ultimately empower us to stand here and do all the good things that we can in the Chamber. That is critical. The Opposition, from official to unofficial, also talked about community groups on the ground. In u3a, we have a similar group on the north coast. Again, those people very much drive my motivation on this.

I agree with Colin McGrath: this cannot just be a strategy that sits on a shelf. It is the only thing we can get right now: there is nothing else. I appreciate that the junior Minister says that we have a strategy and it is likely to continue. However, it is not mentioned at all in the Programme for Government. That is a failure of responsibility, a failure to recognise the people whom we represent. "All ages" does not cut it: it is not enough, particularly because of the impact of that age group in itself.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Sugden: Thank you.

Mr Speaker: I know that you have waited 11 years, Claire, but you had two pops at it. In any event, thank you for bringing the motion to the House so well.

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. On return, there will be Questions for Oral Answer to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Declan McAleer will ask the first question.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): As Members will be aware, Brian Dooher, Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO), was recently asked by me to carry out a comprehensive review of bovine tuberculosis in Northern Ireland. That review, which was published in November, considered the actions contained in the 2022 bovine TB eradication strategy, along with a number of new proposals brought forward by the CVO. The proposals that he has identified are based on three key pillars: the importance of ensuring that we all — government and industry — work in partnership to reduce disease levels; proposals to limit and prevent the spread of TB from cattle to cattle; and proposals to address the transmission of bovine TB from wildlife to cattle.

I immediately agreed with one of the CVO's recommendations to set up a new TB partnership steering group to work with officials in the development of a new delivery plan. The new group has now met on two occasions to consider the CVO's review, which will include remaining actions from the 2022 strategy. The group will first focus on identifying the immediate priorities for action within the review and the steps needed to put them in place. I have asked that officials report to me on the draft delivery plan by the end of March. It is my intention that the new plan will clearly set out our priorities to be taken forward in the time ahead to tackle the unacceptable levels of bovine TB in Northern Ireland.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, at a recent budget briefing, it was indicated to the Committee that TB reactors in cattle will cost in the region of £46·5 million in this financial year. I believe that that is in the region of a £10 million or £10·5 million shortfall. How does the Department propose to bridge that gap?

Mr Muir: There is a significant cost associated with bovine TB in Northern Ireland, particularly for farmers. I understand the mental health impact that this is having on farmers across Northern Ireland, but it is also having an impact on my Department. It is no secret that, in the Budget settlement for the next financial year, we got very low levels of funding to take forward the compensation rates for TB. However, I engaged with the previous Finance Minister and got an assurance that monitoring round bids will be prioritised towards TB compensation. I am grateful for that, and I will continue to work with the Finance Minister so that we can do the compensation for farmers but also take forward the wider eradication strategy associated with TB.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, I particularly like the fact that you referenced the mental health of farmers in dealing with this crisis. What else can farmers do to reduce the risk of TB on their farms?

Mr Muir: I recognise that, when it comes to tackling TB, there needs to be a holistic approach, and that is why we are taking forward a three-pillared approach of people, cattle and wildlife. We are engaging with stakeholders so that we can bring forward that delivery plan very soon. However, there are actions that farmers can take. That does not negate the role that my Department can, and should, play in relation to this, but farmers can play a role, particularly around biosecurity by, for example, reducing the risk from slurry and farmyard manure, the risk from wildlife, the risk from neighbouring herds and the risk from buying in cattle. Those are examples that I see on farms across Northern Ireland where farmers are taking forward that good practice. We need to mainstream that and work with everyone so that we can drive down TB. I am determined to do that in partnership with others.

Mr Irwin: In other regions of the UK and in the Republic of Ireland, they have had to deal with the culling of wildlife before seeing a reduction in TB in cattle. Therefore, does the Minister accept that TB in wildlife will have to be dealt with if TB is to be eradicated in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: I accept that we have to consider wildlife as part of a holistic strategy on TB. I am also conscious of the judicial review in relation to the previous wildlife intervention and the outcome of that. Going forward, as I have said, there will be three pillars to our work to eradicate TB in Northern Ireland, and those are people, cattle and wildlife. I am very much committed to that. As part of that, we will move forward with a consultation on wildlife intervention in respect of TB.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, will you expand on your assessment of the financial impact on farmers who have to continue feeding, milking and looking after their herds for an indeterminate time after a positive test for TB?

Mr Muir: The Member touches upon an important issue: it is about not just the financial impact on farmers with regard to compensation but the wider issue around that. There is also an environmental issue in terms of greenhouse gas emissions as a result of overstocking. That is something that I am determined to deal with. I acknowledge those issues and the pressure that they put on farmers. I know that some people feel that we are perhaps moving too fast on this, but I want that delivery plan from the stakeholder group at the end of March, and I want to announce the way forward in April. This is so important to the farming community. That is why we are moving at pace. I assure all Members in the House that the way forward is based upon science and evidence, and it is important that we take all our decisions on the basis of both.

Mr Muir: I have delivered progress across a number of areas. Regulations that place climate change reporting duties on specified public bodies came into operation on 3 May 2024. Regulations that set in law Northern Ireland's first three carbon budgets for the periods 2023-27, 2028-2032 and 2033-37 and a new emissions reduction target for 2040 were approved by the Assembly on 10 December last year and set the statutory framework for our pathway to net zero.

A 10-week public consultation on the establishment of a just transition commission closed on 20 January 2025. My Department is analysing the feedback received, and the findings from the consultation will be used to inform the content of the final regulations that will establish the commission. Once the regulations are in place to establish the commission in law, a recruitment competition to appoint members to the commission will be undertaken via a public appointments process.

Now that our first carbon budget has been set, I will bring forward as soon as possible a draft of Northern Ireland's first climate action plan to Executive colleagues and seek their agreement to publish the plan for a 16-week statutory public consultation. I am fully committed to delivering a climate action plan that is transformational, evidence-based, informed by stakeholders and in line with my commitment to a just transition.

The requirement to establish a Northern Ireland climate commissioner sits under the Executive Office. The regulations to establish that body have been approved by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and a draft has been laid before the Assembly. A positive vote in the Assembly will be required to approve the regulations. The Business Committee will, hopefully, schedule the debate and a vote on the matter in due course.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your answer to my question. Will you outline the benefits of having a climate commissioner here in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: The Northern Ireland climate commissioner will be a key part of a world-leading climate advice structure here in Northern Ireland and will work alongside the just transition commission, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP). The Northern Ireland climate commissioner will ensure that issues specific to Northern Ireland are fully considered when charting our transition to net zero. We recognise that the science that we rely on in relation to climate change is constantly evolving, and the climate commissioner will have a key role to play in amplifying the key messages to ensure that new approaches and policies reflect best practice globally. The Northern Ireland climate commissioner will be a vital champion for positive climate action here by closely monitoring our delivery and making recommendations so that we can maintain momentum towards net zero.

Mr Buckley: Minister, your Department's lack of action on critical issues affecting the Northern Ireland farming community is nothing short of disgraceful. While you push ahead with costly net zero measures, you fail to address a TB crisis that is affecting farming families, and you fail to get to grips with an ammonia strategy that is strangling Northern Ireland agriculture. How do you justify the continuation of those issues whilst real challenges go unhindered? Will you finally put Northern Ireland's farming families first when considering how your Department deals with the real crisis that they face?

Mr Muir: The Member raises a number of issues. What I am doing is taking forward the will of the Assembly. The Assembly voted unanimously at Final Stage in 2022 for the climate change legislation. I am also realising the opportunities from decarbonisation. What I do not do is negate the other challenges in our society, particularly those for farming. I have spoken quite a lot about TB and the actions that we are taking to address it. On ammonia, there is significant ongoing engagement with stakeholders. What I am doing is based upon science and evidence and the need to stay on the right side of the law. It is important that I do that. These are difficult issues, and I will continue to lead on them.

Mr Muir: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will group questions 3 and 6 for answer.

I met the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in October last year to emphasise my concerns about the impact of the planned inheritance tax changes on our family farms. A letter was issued to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18 November 2024 by the First Minister, the deputy First Minister, the Minister of Finance and me that raised concerns about the disproportionately adverse impact on family farms in Northern Ireland compared with that in other jurisdictions, given that Northern Ireland has some of the highest agricultural land prices in the UK and Ireland. I have on many occasions expressed my concerns to devolved Agriculture Ministers, as well as to the Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Daniel Zeichner, who responded to me in January of this year with a letter, in which he confirmed that he had shared with the Chancellor and her office the analysis that my Department had undertaken on the impact of the inheritance tax changes. I received a response on 11 February 2025 from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury stating that the UK Government believe that their reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief get the balance right between supporting farms and fixing public finances in a fair way. I disagree.

In December 2024, my Department undertook further analysis of the impact of the inheritance tax changes on local farms. That analysis built on the original analysis that had been undertaken in November. As well as land value, it took into account the value of buildings, residential property, livestock and machinery. The analysis found that just under half of all farms in Northern Ireland have agricultural and business property values exceeding £1 million and that those farms account for around 80% of the total land that is farmed in Northern Ireland. That staggering statistic highlights why there is such overwhelming fear in our farming community.

There are actions that farmers can take to reduce future tax liability and mitigate the impact of the changes, but those will depend on individual circumstances. Farmers are encouraged to seek tax advice from an appropriate professional before taking any decisions. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 11 February this year to voice, once again, my concerns about the impact of the policy change on our local farmers and to suggest a potential mitigation measure for the planned changes to inheritance tax. I asked that he raise it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will do all that I can within my remit as AERA Minister to support the farming community in Northern Ireland on the issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, thank you for your remarks. Before I call Maurice to ask a supplementary question, I ask that you keep your responses to about two minutes, because we have a lot of questions to get through. You can ask for an extra minute, however.

Mr Bradley: I will be brief, because the Minister has answered my supplementary question, which was about what he was doing to mitigate the potential impact of inheritance tax changes on family-run farms, so well done. [Laughter.]

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister place in the public domain all written correspondence and documentation that his Department has issued on alleviating the stress and uncertainty that the decision has caused farm businesses throughout the North?

Mr Muir: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): OK. That was good.

Mr McMurray: What is the Minister doing in his Department to encourage good succession planning on our family farms?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have two minutes in which to respond.

Mr Muir: Thank you. I will stick to my two minutes. The Farming for the Generations pilot scheme, which is included in the sustainable agriculture programme, will be the policy instrument for supporting generational renewal. I am pleased to say that the scheme, which was launched in autumn 2024, has already proven to be very popular, with strong take-up reported. Based on previous experience of succession-planning interventions, the Farming for the Generations pilot scheme is an initial programme that will provide evidence for the development of the main scheme. It seeks to identify the key barriers and to propose financial interventions, thereby developing solutions that are scalable. I have asked my officials to expedite the development of the main Farming for the Generations scheme. That will be done in co-design with stakeholders, including the Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster (YCFU), and will actively consider the provision of financial support. Last week, I put on record in the House my personal commitment to ensuring that the new Farming for the Generations scheme is open for delivery to young farmers and new entrants by autumn 2026.

Mr Crawford: Minister, will you outline the specific material matters pertaining to family farms in Northern Ireland? Do you agree that there will be a significantly greater threat to farm and food security in Northern Ireland than in anywhere else in the UK?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Crawford, for your important question. My Department's analysis clearly demonstrates that there will be a disproportionate and detrimental impact in Northern Ireland, because we are made up of a patchwork quilt of family farms, and that is where the impact will be felt. I plead again from the Dispatch Box for the UK Government to rethink the policy. They need to focus on the people who take advantage of agricultural property relief (APR) and business property relief (BPR) by buying farms as a tax avoidance measure. The money can be found by doing that, not by endangering the future of farming across the UK.

Measures can be put in place to protect family farms while dealing with people who abuse the system. I have outlined that fact to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I will be happy to lay the correspondence in the Assembly Library so that Members can see it. The UK Government have an opportunity to listen to the views not only of farmers but of the Assembly and from across the UK and to find a way forward on the issue that protects family farms.

Ms Finnegan: Is any sector affected more than others?

Mr Muir: I will write to the Member to share my Department's two bits of analysis. The detailed differential impact analysis, which shows the different sectors affected, states that the dairy sector is most likely to be affected more than others in Northern Ireland. That is obviously a concern for me. Hopefully, that analysis, alongside others, will contribute to an informed debate on the issue. I am disappointed that Treasury continues to rely on its analysis, because my strong view is that it is incorrect.

Mr Muir: The Farming with Nature package is one of my top priorities. It is my ambition to scale up nature-friendly farming, with all farmers being rewarded for delivering environmental public goods alongside food production and that Farming with Nature will become an important enterprise on farms. The package will be introduced through a phased approach, with the aim of increasing the extent, quality and connectivity of habitats in the farmed landscape in and outside designated sites and priority habitat areas.

I plan to launch the first phase of the package — the Farming with Nature transition scheme — later this year. It will include measures to increase the extent of habitats and connectivity on-farm. They include planting new hedgerows, farmland tree planting, creating riparian buffer strips and retention of winter stubble and multi-species winter cover crops.

I plan to say more about the Farming with Nature package at the Balmoral show, which I am looking forward to, together with opening dates and future phases, subject to business cases and legislation being in place.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer and look forward to further announcements.

The Minister will be aware of the leading work that Riverside Farm in Ballyalton, which falls within the new Strangford constituency boundaries, has been delivering through nature-friendly farming practice. Will he join me on a visit to the farm to see its excellent work at first hand?

Mr Muir: That is probably the first invite of this calendar year to make a farm visit. I am delighted to accept it, because making such visits is a highlight of the job. I look forward to taking up the invitation.

Mr McGlone: Minister, you will be aware that a significant number of farms that had done a fair bit of tree planting have been affected by ash dieback. How might the scheme help those farms to replace trees that were lost in significant numbers and at substantial cost?

Mr Muir: I am aware of that issue, because forestry sits in my Department. The Farming with Nature transition scheme, which will come out this year, is an actions-based scheme and will help with some element of the problem. The further schemes that will roll out next year will have a wider implication for it. The Forest Service also has grant schemes for tree planting. There are quite a lot of schemes to support people with that, but I am conscious of the prevalence of ash dieback, and it is obviously of concern. The Forest Service is working through that, particularly in the context of the recent storms.

Mr Muir: Water quality in Belfast lough is assessed in multiple ways by my Department. Under the Quality of Bathing Water Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008, bathing water quality in Belfast lough is assessed weekly throughout the bathing season, which is from 1 June to 15 September, at Helen’s Bay, Crawfordsburn, Brompton, which is a candidate bathing water site, Ballyholme and Groomsport and in adjacent inflowing rivers. Shellfish water protected areas (SWPAs) in Belfast lough are also frequently monitored for microbial contamination and chemical pollutants.

The general water quality of Belfast lough is assessed under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017. The lough is assessed for several biological quality indicators and for nutrient and oxygen levels. Monitoring is also undertaken for chemical pollutants. Those parameters contribute to the assessment of the ecological and chemical status of Belfast lough, the results of which are published in official statistics by my Department.

Ms Bunting: I thank the Minister for the answer. The same programme highlighted the fact that some of the matter, when it overflows, flows into the Connswater river. The Minister will be aware that that is where the Hollow is and that events are held there and children play there. The Minister said that tests are held frequently, but he did not give us any indication of how frequently. Will the Minister elaborate on the frequency of testing? What assurances can he give the people of east Belfast that the area and rivers in which their children play are safe?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her question. I need specific areas, because Belfast lough is a large area. We can write to the Member with detail around that, because it is important to outline that to you. It is also important that I comment on the water quality more broadly in Belfast lough, my concerns around that and what we need to do to fix it.

Ms Bunting: My question was specifically on the Connswater river.

Mr Muir: Thank you. I will write to the Member about the Connswater river specifically. The water quality in Belfast lough is a concern for me. One of the key contributors to that — the Member referred to it as "matter" — is sewage. There is a need to invest in the waste water infrastructure, but that is the responsibility of the Infrastructure Minister. My responsibility in the Chamber during Question Time is the environment. I have made it clear that the regulatory regime under which Northern Ireland Water operates — the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI), which has been in place since 2007 — is not fit for purpose. I am minded to withdraw from SORPI so that Northern Ireland Water can be put on a par with all of the other polluters in Northern Ireland. That is important, particularly as it would mean that, with an understanding that everyone was being treated fairly, I could look farmers in the eye.

Mr Chambers: Does the Minister agree that, until statutory and government agencies get their houses in order to meet the climate and environmental challenges adequately — I think especially about the developing crisis in Belfast lough — it will prove difficult to ask those involved in private business, particularly in the agri-industry, to cooperate?

Mr Muir: My view from the Dispatch Box is that polluters who are polluting Northern Ireland's waterways, be that Belfast lough, Lough Neagh, Lough Erne or elsewhere, need to get their house in order. The sewage and other pollution that is happening in Northern Ireland is not acceptable. I am surprised that there is not more outrage about it, because water quality is being affected. People need to step up and sort out their operations, because, as far as I am concerned, it is not acceptable.

Mr Muir: Poultry litter is a mixture of poultry manure and bedding material that is derived from commercial poultry houses. It is classified as a category 2 animal by-product, and it must be disposed of in compliance with certain conditions in order to mitigate disease risks. It can be moved to Ireland only under certain conditions. The exporter must obtain permission from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) by way of a licence to move the poultry litter to Ireland. Once permission from DAFM — the Department in the South — has been obtained, the exporter must request an authorised private veterinary practitioner to verify and certify the poultry litter to Ireland on the relevant export health certificate. In 2024, Northern Ireland consigned 111,563 tons of poultry litter to Ireland out of a total annual production of chicken manure of approximately 380,000 tons.

Due to the current disease outbreak of a highly pathogenic avian influenza in Northern Ireland, a number of restriction zones have been established. Information on the zones can be obtained from the DAERA website. The export of poultry litter from those zones is currently prohibited. There has been no recent change in the arrangements for moving poultry litter to Ireland from outside avian influenza restriction zones.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. There is no doubt that the poultry and egg industry is already stifled by moribund planning and growth restrictions. Can the industry be confident of the Minister's support regarding further unnecessary bureaucracy not being included in the transportation of that litter? Since the Minister mentioned bird flu — I thank him for that — will he give us an update on bird flu-related matters?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his important questions. It is essential that we have transparency and accurate information about the movement of poultry litter and manure to the Republic of Ireland. That is needed for animal health and disease control reasons, as well as environmental reasons. DAFM, which is my Department's counterpart in the South, has requirements and systems in place for those purposes. If farmers want to transfer poultry litter and manure to the Republic of Ireland, it is reasonable and fair that they meet the requirements in the South. Those requirements have a purpose and are not simply an exercise in regulation. If there are specific concerns from a specific organisation, I am happy to consider them, and I will respond in writing.

You raised another issue that relates to avian influenza. I am concerned about the developing situation and met stakeholders this morning on the issue. The message that I want to send to the general public in Northern Ireland is twofold: one is the importance of biosecurity, and the other is about asking farmers to report any concerns very promptly to us so that my Department can respond. We continue to work with and support the industry on the situation, but it is one that, unfortunately, England has been enduring since the end of November. We are working at pace in the Department to respond in conjunction with the industry.

Mr Honeyford: What is the impact of high levels of nutrients on our local environment, Minister?

Mr Muir: The impact of high levels of nutrients specifically relates to water quality. That is why we are working with the industry on a way forward. I thank those who are working on some of the initiatives that were brought forward to manage poultry litter, but we need to do a lot more in that regard. That is why we will consult on the nutrients action programme in the spring.

Mr Irwin: In relation to environmental issues, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's (NIEA) response time to planning applications is dismal, to say the least. What plans does the Minister have to provide more staff to deal with the current backlog?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the challenges that relate to Northern Ireland Water being a statutory consultee in planning. We have put staff and new processes in place, but we need to do better. We are looking to recruit additional staff so that we can turn applications around more swiftly. I encourage people who are putting applications in to make sure that all the relevant information is there so that we do not have to reconsult. I know that we need to move on the issue. We want to progress many issues in my Department, and that is one of them.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Danny Donnelly. Danny, you will probably get only your first question in.

Mr Muir: I am pleased to report that the implementation of the Lough Neagh report and action plan and the environmental improvement plan has been progressing since I received Executive approval for them last year. Those reports contain a comprehensive range of actions to secure longer-term improvements in water quality across Northern Ireland and tackle blue-green algae blooms. Actions being taken forward include a review of the nutrients action programme, as well as small business research initiatives on the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry: that is the key initiative for the future of Lough Neagh.

Grant support for the water quality improvement projects has been provided to community groups through the environment fund. A recent review of the third cycle river basin management plan for 2021-27 has been completed, and, subject to Executive approval, I hope to publish the plan in the near future. My Department continues to deliver the soil nutrient health scheme, which provides farmers with soil analysis and training to improve nutrient management and water quality. In addition, the sustainable catchment programme continues to provide advisory farm visits and capital grant support to carry out works on water quality. I am committed to working in partnership across government, the public and private sectors and wider society to improve water quality in Northern Ireland but would stress that there are no quick fixes and that collective action is essential.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Danny Donnelly for a very quick supplementary question.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for that answer. What is the Minister doing to address waste water pollution?

Mr Muir: I am working to fulfil my Department's statutory obligations under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007. That will include the publication of the outstanding 2019 and 2023 reviews of sensitive areas and, subject to Executive approval, the identification of the inner Belfast lough shellfish water protected area as a sensitive area. The proposed sensitive area designation will mean additional requirements in respect of the treatment of waste water discharges to the shellfish water protected area. DAERA officials are liaising with their counterparts in the Department for Infrastructure to discuss the implications of that identification for DFI and Northern Ireland Water. I am acutely aware of the need to progress that.

I am also on the record about my position on SORPI. I am minded to withdraw from SORPI, and I have agreed an eight-week period of engagement with the Department for Infrastructure and Northern Ireland Water to inform my final decision on the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's withdrawal from SORPI and the next steps. I expect that engagement to be initiated by my Department shortly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy, for your question. Whilst I recognise that the lead responsibility for that will sit with the Department for the Economy, I recognise your concerns, because broadband, particularly in rural areas, is vital so that people can do their jobs and conduct their business, whether that means being able to work from home or doing associated tasks. I get that. I will engage with the Economy Minister off the back of the concerns that you have raised to see how we will learn lessons about provision from the storm response. I am conscious that such storms are now becoming a bit more frequent.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that, Minister. You will forgive me for saying that, "We will learn lessons" is probably one of the most abused phrases in the lexicon of the Civil Service. I do not anticipate that you will do this, but, given that your Department invested considerable amounts of money in that project, as did DFE and, indeed, the UK Government, will you be able to report back, or will it be left to the Department for the Economy to report on what future-proofing measures will be taken to ensure that people are not left stranded in a similar way, especially those in our more isolated rural areas?

Mr Muir: I am conscious of the vires of my Department and its responsibilities, but I get the issues that you raise. I will consider them. It is important that we learn lessons. Far too often in Northern Ireland, we do not learn lessons. We need to learn lessons. There are many examples of where we should learn lessons, with Lough Neagh being one of them. I will engage with the Economy Minister and write to you on that. If a meeting is required, I am happy to do that.

Ms Nicholl: It is fitting that lower-sixth students from Methodist College Belfast are in the Public Gallery for this question.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Kate, for your question on a serious issue not just for me but for the people of Northern Ireland and, hopefully, for the people in the Gallery.

At the outset, it is important to state that, on the basis of the science and evidence that I have reviewed to date, it is, unfortunately, highly likely that we will see yet another reoccurrence of blue-green algae on Lough Neagh this year and in future years. The fact that the largest fresh-water lake in these islands has been allowed to get into that state ought to be a wake-up call for us all. It is a sad and stark example of the impact of climate change and a reminder of the need to get the balance right between growing the economy and safeguarding our environment. Lots of cruel and hard lessons are to be learned from Lough Neagh.

After securing Executive agreement for the Lough Neagh report in July last year, my Department has been working to drive forward the implementation of the action plan, working in conjunction with other Departments, such as Infrastructure and Justice. The implementation of the plan requires significant investment. Unfortunately, as the draft Budget stands, I am underfunded by approximately £2 million for delivery in the next financial year. Despite that, the implementation of the plan is progressing. To date, 10 actions have been delivered, and 23 are progressing. The Lough Neagh report complements and supports the actions and targets in the environmental improvement plan, which is key to taking a strategic approach to the issues facing Lough Neagh in the context of the wider catchment area.

In conclusion, I stress that there are no quick fixes. The situation was decades in the making and will be decades in the fixing, such is the depth and complexity of the problem at Lough Neagh.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for his answer. I know how much energy and work he and his officials are putting into the matter. What discussions has he had about community ownership of the bed and soil of Lough Neagh?

Mr Muir: I had constructive meetings with the Earl of Shaftesbury on 21 February and 17 July last year, when we discussed a range of issues in connection with Lough Neagh, including ownership and the earl's recent comments that he would like to transfer his estate's ownership of Lough Neagh into community ownership. While the scope of my officials' current work and the Lough Neagh action plan is essentially on what goes into the lough, I have made it clear that I am personally in favour of community ownership of the lough.

The confirmation from the Earl of Shaftesbury, when we met last year, that, if the right model with a robust structure, stakeholders and plan were in place along with the right funding model, there would be no associated cost to transferring the ownership of the lough bed and soils was welcome. There are, however, many hurdles to overcome, including, most especially, the definition of what constitutes "the community". Good work is being undertaken by many bodies on the future of Lough Neagh, such as the Lough Neagh Partnership, the National Trust, Development Trusts NI, Queen's University and more. I welcome that, and we will continue to engage as necessary.

There is lots to do in order to improve water quality in Lough Neagh and elsewhere, and that is my primary focus. Collaboration and collective action in addressing the environmental challenges that face the lough is essential. Only by working together can we achieve the changes that are desperately needed.

Mr Muir: Thank you for your question, Kellie. That issue has been raised often in recent weeks. Many of my Department's forests suffered significant damage as a result of the storm, and its impacts were widespread across the estate. The forests that have been particularly affected include Drum Manor, Gosford, Tardree, Mount Stewart, Ballysallagh, Tollymore, Castlewellan, Lough Navar, Favour Royal, Mullaghfad and Kesh.

Forest Service's assessment of the extent of woodlands damage is based on initial reports from local managers, neighbours and the general public, as well as drone footage and aerial surveillance that was undertaken in the week following the storm across the forest estate. The full extent of the damage to woodlands has still to be quantified and will require follow-up ground surveys, mapping and analysis of spatial data. That is ongoing and will take a number of weeks to complete.

In the immediate aftermath of the storm, the focus was to prioritise the capability of the Department and the available contractors to carry out clearance works in order to reinstate access for neighbours and businesses. My Department also worked with other agencies to reopen public roads and to assist in reconnecting electricity and utility supplies. We are continuing our work, including with recreational partners, to expedite tree clearance works in the areas most affected by reduced recreational provision.

My Department's country park sites were also significantly affected by the storm, which resulted in damage to woodland areas and many fallen trees. Whilst access to numerous sites was initially blocked and some sites were closed in the immediate aftermath of the storm, contractors were engaged with my officials, and those sites are now open to access.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his answer. You mentioned Mount Stewart which, as you know, is in the Strangford constituency. Have you any more detail on the impact on Mount Stewart, and would you be willing to visit it with me to see how the National Trust is responding to that damage?

Mr Muir: I will be delighted to visit Mount Stewart with you and to engage with the National Trust on the impact of the storm. As has been reported to the general public, approximately 10,000 trees were lost in Mount Stewart as a result of the storm. That is a concern for so many people in the Strangford constituency and beyond, and I will be delighted to go along with you to see the work that the National Trust is doing in response to that.

Mr Muir: Thank you, David, for your question. Whilst it is not something that we can see, for example, in relation to water quality, ammonia is a key issue. Action on ammonia is required to support local farm businesses whilst protecting our environment and meeting our legislative requirements. We must put Northern Ireland agriculture on a pathway to meet UK national emissions ceiling regulations targets for reductions in ammonia emissions by 2030.

A draft ammonia strategy that proposed a series of measures to reduce ammonia emissions underwent public consultation from 4 January to 3 March 2023 and attracted a high level of interest. The responses to that consultation have been used to inform the proposed ammonia strategy. The strategic environmental assessment (SEA) has been completed for the combined proposed ammonia strategy and revised operational protocol. An eight-week public consultation on the strategic environmental assessment report will be launched at the end of this week. Stakeholders are encouraged to provide their views as part of that consultation, and an update will be given on the ammonia strategy.

Changes have been made to the ammonia strategy following the consultation. The ammonia strategy's vision, objective and outcomes have been updated. Targets have been revised and supporting information provided. The proposed mandatory spatially targeted measures around designated sites will not be taken forward in the ammonia strategy. A separate site-specific programme is to be developed to take forward spatially targeted measures at designated sites as part of the combined approach to ammonia. That approach will comprise three components: the ammonia strategy, the operation protocol and the site-specific approach. Further consultation on the mandatory measures in the proposed ammonia strategy will take place as part of a nitrates action programme (NAP) review. Those are occurring elsewhere and should not be a surprise to many in moving to 100% low emission slurry spreading equipment (LESSE) by 2030 and a prohibition on the use of urea fertiliser without inhibitor.

I encourage everyone to respond to the consultations that I have cited.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for a really detailed response. With regard to the consultations, will you give an update on how stakeholder engagement is happening on the issue?

Mr Muir: Thank you, David. On taking up office as Minister, I inherited a number of significant challenges, ammonia being one of them. The recent Office for Environmental Protection report sets out clearly the issues, challenges and legal requirements. I encourage everyone to read it.

Being conscious of the significance of the issue to both farmers and the environment, I have convened a number of ministerial round-table meetings with stakeholders on the issue — the most recent being last week — focused on finding a way forward that protects the natural environment, drives down emissions and seeks to address practical problems such as replacement farm buildings. I will continue to engage with stakeholders and officials to find practical solutions that ensure that we operate within the legal framework.

Comments last month by John McLenaghan, deputy president of the Ulster Farmers' Union, on the issue of ammonia were very useful, as have been the contributions of Northern Ireland Environment Link, as we work together, proving that environment and farming go hand in hand. I am quietly confident that we can step forward positively on the matter with the help of technology. The forthcoming SEA consultation is important so that we avoid any delays in progress on this important issue.

Mr Carroll: I am not sure that I will get such a long answer.

Mr Muir: That is set out in Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) HR policy. If the Member has concerns, I am happy for him to write to me, and I can consider them. However, that is the established process in all Departments.

Mr Carroll: I will look at that, Minister, and I certainly will send through any matters of concern. If, for example, when discussing issues of farming or agriculture, senior officials in your Department had a financial interest, directly or through family members, in those areas, would they have to declare those at every meeting or at some meetings, or where would that generally take place?

Mr Muir: An established process is in place for declaring interests. They are kept on a register, and it is important that that occurs. If the Member has a concern that guidance has not been followed, I am happy to consider correspondence in relation to that.

I am proud of the work that my officials do. I have confidence in them, because they are driven by science and evidence in the decisions that we make. There are lots of challenges in Northern Ireland, but we are working through those, and, hopefully, we are giving people confidence that we are determined to do that. I know that some of the decisions that we are having to take are difficult, but that is what government is about.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Butler for a short question and, Minister, an equally short reply, please.

Mr Muir: That largely sits within the Department for the Economy, but we have a role to play in marine licensing. We have been doing some work there on the fees so that we have full cost recovery to ensure that there is resourcing around that. We have a potential role to play in the Forest Service estate, and we will progress an initiative to see if there is any interest in that. We need to reach our renewable energy targets, but that should not be to the detriment of the environment. That is something that I raised with Steve Reed, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, just recently.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Butler for a short supplementary.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his short answer, and this is equally short. There is a role for methane in the gas supply: has the Minister done any work on that?

Mr Muir: Yes. I get excited about that, and I am conscious that we are coming towards 2.45 pm. There is real potential in that, but we have to make sure that there are proper regulations associated with it. Officials are engaging intensively with the Department for the Economy on that. That has real potential to allow us to view things in a different manner, and we are keen to progress that. I am conscious of the developments across the border as well.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. That concludes questions to the Minister. Time is now up. Just take your ease for a few moments while we get ready for the next item of business.

Mrs Mason: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Cathy, please open the debate.

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

Procurement regulations exist for a good reason: to ensure that there is transparency, fairness and, of course, value for money. However, as, I am sure, we will hear throughout today's debate, the current rules can be overly restrictive, creating unnecessary bureaucracy for our schools. Too often, head teachers and school leaders find themselves tangled in red tape when trying to make relatively minor purchases, whether that be securing a local contractor for repairs, purchasing classroom materials or arranging essential services.

When schools are forced to adhere to rigid procurement processes, it can lead to inefficiencies, delays and even increased costs. A principal should not have to navigate an arduous tendering process for a minor maintenance job that a trusted provider could complete quickly and affordably, nor should schools be compelled to purchase from a limited list of suppliers, if better, more cost-effective options are readily available. I spoke with a school leader who had recently set up a number of specialist provisions at their school and listened as they described the money that was wasted when they purchased simple resources through the procurement process. They could have purchased those items for almost £3,000 less had they been able to shop around.

Given the budgetary constraints that the Department faces, it seems ludicrous that we cannot address the issue. We must place our trust in school leaders. They understand the day-to-day needs of their school much better than anyone else. By granting them greater autonomy over smaller procurement decisions, we would empower them to act in the best interests of their pupils, their staff and their budget. Other jurisdictions have already implemented more flexible procurement models, allowing schools to make sensible financial choices without unnecessary intervention. The benefits of that are clear: reduced administrative burdens, greater financial efficiency and stronger support for local businesses. It is time for the North to follow suit.

Of course, any change must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards. We advocate not a complete removal of oversight but a more balanced approach that distinguishes between high-value, high-risk procurement exercises and those that are of a more routine nature. Schools should still be accountable for their spending, but that should happen within a framework that allows them to operate efficiently and effectively.

Our schools are not just centres of learning but the heart of our communities. They deserve procurement rules that support rather than hinder their ability to provide the best possible education for our children. By easing restrictions on taking smaller-scale financial decisions, we would give them the tools to make practical and sensible choices that benefit everyone. Let us show confidence in our school leaders. Let us have reform that delivers efficiency, value for money and, above all else, common sense.

In a response to my colleague Pat Sheehan, Caoimhe Archibald, the Finance Minister at the time, confirmed that there was no impediment at her end to easing procurement rules for schools. The Education Authority has the power to progress a review of procurement processes. I therefore urge all my colleagues and everyone else in the Chamber to back the initiative and to work together for a procurement system that truly serves our schools and communities. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Martin: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has 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 Martin: Perhaps we will all be singing off the same school hymn sheet this afternoon. I thank the Members opposite for bringing the motion to the House for debate. I will address some aspects of the motion. I will then move on to speak to our amendment. I hope, however, that, in broad terms, all Members can support the amendment, which encompasses the motion and simply extends it.

Like my colleague opposite, I have heard at first hand about the frustration that school leaders experience when procuring items, particularly low-cost items, for school use. Principals often rightly express their frustration when trying to achieve best value for money for purchases or for repairs to property, lamenting the administrative burdens that go along with doing so.

It is worth looking first at the slightly different ways in which schools in the various sectors purchase goods and services. Controlled schools and maintained schools have to comply with EA purchasing procedures for the procurement of works and general goods or services. The process is different for grant-maintained integrated (GMI) schools and those in the voluntary grammar sector, which retain responsibility for the purchasing of school supplies and services and paying the invoice.

When preparing for the debate, I spoke to school leaders to hear about their direct experience of the system. One principal told me that they had submitted a request for works that went to the term service contractor (TSC) in October but the request was still outstanding. To be fair to the EA, however, the same principal told me that it is extremely responsive to emergency calls. I have heard other stories about a school's guttering being cleaned at a cost of £4,500. The Member opposite mentioned similar issues.

We want to see an improvement. We all have examples — I am sure that we will hear some this afternoon — of schools being able and willing to purchase goods and services relatively cheaply and in the local area. After they have followed EA procurement procedures, however, prices can rise significantly. The Member opposite, in her opening statement, mentioned procurement. As far as I am aware, procurement policy note (PPN) 04/21, which is owned by the Department of Finance, still operates, and the Education Authority has to operate within it.

There is, however, no doubt that we in the Chamber all want to see greater flexibility for schools in sourcing their goods and services. That will provide them with the ability to access local suppliers to achieve more competitive prices and responsive services. One of the further benefits of streamlining the system is that it will allow EA to specialise its services and resources in delivering better and faster outcomes on the larger capital contracts that require tenders or quotes. It is my understanding that EA is examining those processes, and that will be welcomed, no doubt, by school leaders and provide greater autonomy for low-value works.

In the Committee, we often hear, "If we trust school leaders to deliver our curriculum in the best way they know how and they also happen to look after the most precious members of our families on a daily basis, surely we can trust them with the ability to purchase some items on behalf of their school". Our amendment simply adds a requirement for the Minister to:

I am sure that that will be extremely welcome for schools throughout Northern Ireland, as it will cover areas such as fixing a broken door or getting a room painted. The obvious benefits are not only in cost but in speed and responsiveness. Every principal to whom I mentioned the motion and our amendment was supportive, especially of powers being delegated to principals in order to see more efficient contracts for the delivery of school maintenance and minor works in Northern Ireland.

We all know the pressure that the education budget is under and the difficult choices that the Education Minister has to make in that context. Our party wants more money to be directed at schools. It wants more autonomy for school principals and a reduction in the administrative burden on school leaders that is, increasingly, a part of their job. I therefore urge Members to support our amendment this afternoon.

Mr Mathison: I support the motion and confirm that we have no issue with supporting the DUP amendment. I suspect that the debate will consist largely of Members agreeing on all of the substantive issues that we are discussing.

Before I begin any detailed remarks, I record my interest as a governor at Killinchy Primary School. Like all schools in Northern Ireland, it is impacted directly by these issues.

Members had the opportunity to rehearse a lot of the key issues in the motion last week, when Emma Sheerin brought an Adjournment debate to the Chamber specifically looking at procurement policies in the Mid Ulster context. The debate, of course, widened out to cover issues in the procurement landscape for all schools. Anyone who was in for that debate will be familiar with the direction of travel in which we may go and particularly with how the Minister may frame his remarks.

The main area on which I receive feedback from school leaders when I engage with them is maintenance. That issue is highlighted again and again. As Peter Martin mentioned, controlled and maintained schools, in particular, are in a constrained context. I will not rehearse the details of that, as Peter covered it in detail, but it seems that, invariably, the items or services procured via the EA service turn out to be more expensive — not in all cases but in many.

We all know just how constrained school budgets are. Cathy Mason highlighted that clearly in her opening remarks. We have school leaders who are rightly incredulous, as, in some cases, they stare into substantial deficits and really struggle to find levers that they can pull to resolve the issue. They are looking at having to spend additional money out of the public purse, when they know that they could secure items and services more cheaply. The principals whom I speak to are clear on this. They have many examples, and we could all list such examples, some of which are shocking almost to the point of being comical. However, they are not comical, because it is public money, and we should take how we spend public money seriously.

As I said, we all have examples. Through the EA service, one school was quoted in the region of £20,000 to paint a corridor. It is a big corridor, but that is a lot of money. The school knew that it could secure that service for a fraction of the price through a local contractor. I also know a principal who needed toilets repaired and was quoted £167 per toilet. The caretaker was able to source a part for £6 that did the job for each toilet. We cannot be operating in a context that gives good value for money.

Last week, it was positive to hear the Minister confirm that new EA maintenance service contracts have been set up and will roll out in the coming weeks. I am keen to hear the Minister specifically assure us that those contracts will deliver better value for money. However, the issue goes beyond the contracts. It is about the flexibility afforded to schools in that space. The Minister also referenced the EA's looking to roll out a new system with more flexibility for schools needing lower-level maintenance services, particularly those worth £5,000 and less. Again, that sounds welcome, but can the Minister clearly set out how that will definitely remove the bureaucracy? Can he provide assurances that it will deliver better value for money?

All Members will probably reflect that, while we are keen to see better value for money delivered and more autonomy for our school leaders, any revised system must have safety, quality and transparency at its heart to ensure that any work carried out is of high quality and that our schools remain safe environments for our children. We also want to avoid any system in which one local contractor gets all the work for one school. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that. Also, where a personal relationship between a contractor and a principal or a member of the board of governors could lead to preferential treatment, we want assurances that that will be avoided.

Aside from those concerns, I am happy to support the calls in the motion and the amendment to deliver flexibility and better value for money in our procurement system. Aside from some of the clarifications that I have sought from the Minister, I am happy to confirm my support and that of the Alliance Party for the motion and the amendment.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Members opposite for tabling the motion and the DUP for the amendment. We will support both. I declare an interest, as did the Member who spoke previously, as the governor of a local primary school in my constituency.

To deliver excellence in education, it is imperative that our schools be equipped with the tools that they need, tools that are timely, cost-effective and tailored to their unique circumstances. Schools require access to high-quality goods and services to function effectively. Yet, unfortunately, as we have heard time and time again from school leaders, the current procurement system administered by the EA is often not as streamlined or efficient as it could be.

Like the Member opposite, I totally understand that the procurement rules exist for good reason: they ensure accountability, prevent the misuse of public funds and promote fairness. The current procurement processes, although well intentioned, can create barriers that are disproportionate to the scale and needs of individual schools. When processes become so burdensome that they delay basic purchases, such as the repair of a leaking roof or the sourcing of classroom materials, they cease to serve their purpose.

Today is not just about efficiency; it is about equity. Smaller schools, often in rural areas, rely on local suppliers who understand their needs, but overly complex tendering processes lock out those businesses. The contracts and funding go to larger firms that may not prioritise local relationships or urgency. I join others in calling on the Minister of Education to conduct a thorough review of the EA's procurement processes, specifically to slash unnecessary administrative burdens, empower local school leaders with flexibility under transparent guidelines and establish regular dialogue with those on the front line. This is not a call for deregulation of any kind; it is one for smarter regulation. School leaders are not accountants or procurement specialists; they are educators. They need frameworks that trust their judgement and safeguard public funds.

The amendment also demands progress on delegating authority for lower-value maintenance works. We all agree that a leaking tap should not require regional tender. By allowing schools to procure minor repairs directly within clear spending thresholds, we can save money, time and a lot of frustration. Furthermore, introducing streamlined contracts for school maintenance will ensure consistency in value for money without sacrificing local responsiveness.

The motion and the amendment are about trust in school leaders to act responsibly; in local businesses to deliver; and in the Assembly and the Education Authority to fix systems that no longer serve the people whom they were designed to help.

Ms Hunter: I thank the party to my left for tabling this important motion. We support it and the DUP amendment. I fear that some of my comments may repeat what other Members have said, but I add my voice to those from across the Chamber to demand immediate and meaningful change in the way that schools procure essential goods and services That is a change that must deliver savings and improved outcomes for our schools and children.

First, I highlight our deep concern about the current rigid and inefficient procurement process. It is not streamlined or efficient; it fails to deliver value for money; and it causes significant issues for our schools. That failure is not just a bureaucratic shortcoming; it is a clear signal that the current system is flawed. School principals have reported outrageous price discrepancies under the current system. For example, lighting equipment purchased through the EA procurement process costs £320 whilst the same product is available on Amazon for around £54. In another case, a washing machine cost £349 through the EA, yet a high street supplier can offer it for £190. Those figures are not merely numbers; they represent the funds that we see being wasted due to the current system. That money could be better spent on our young people and on improving educational outcomes, which is something that we all want. The far-reaching nature of the issue was well highlighted during last week's Adjournment debate .

As other Members have said, the cost of maintenance services is equally alarming. For example, repairing a broken window costs £200 through the EA, yet you can get it repaired far more cheaply — for around £30 — through a local contractor. Such inflated costs really underscore the urgent need for reform in this area.

Today's discussion is about ensuring flexibility and significant savings for our schools. I am fully aware that trade unions have raised concerns about the burden that decentralising procurement may put on our teachers and our schools. Those concerns must be addressed, but the current model is clearly not delivering the benefits that we need in our schools. We must explore a balanced approach that offers greater autonomy without overburdening our hard-working school staff.

While a review is a step in the right direction — the Minister said during last week's Adjournment debate that change is on its way — our schools and our children deserve immediate action to rectify the inefficiencies. I call on the relevant people, such as the Minister, to re-examine and radically reform the current procurement process. We need a system that not only meets accreditation standards but ensures that every pound spent is an investment in the future of our young people and our education system. In his response to the debate, I urge the Minister to share what he will do about it.

Ms Dolan: I will speak in favour in the motion. My comments are being made on behalf of the schools and school leaders who are extremely frustrated about the procurement situation. Schools across the North continue to face a challenging situation in which budgets are under huge pressure, driven by over a decade of British Government austerity. Added to that pressure is the Education Authority's requirement that school principals pay above and beyond what is reasonable for their procurement services.

The safety, well-being and health of our pupils and staff throughout our school estate should be a top priority. We have all heard the stories from schools in our constituencies about mould on walls, toilets that are unfit for purpose or a boiler that does not work properly. In the worst-case scenarios, schools have gone days without heat or hot water and, consequently, have been unable to provide meals. Long delays in the maintenance process are made worse by the Education Authority's unnecessarily complex procurement processes. Schools are required to go through a tendering process that often results in work being more expensive and taking longer to complete. There is a litany of examples of the Education Authority's procurement process costing schools thousands of pounds when work or equipment could have been sourced for much less.

School principals and schools play a hugely important role in our communities. They have often spent many years building relationships, including with parents and local businesses, and are therefore best placed to source services and equipment. Ultimately, school principals should not feel constrained by a procurement process that ends up costing them more money than it needs to.

Empowering our schools to have greater autonomy over procurement decisions could be very beneficial for pupils and staff. Centralised procurement may provide a degree of consistency and central oversight; however, it has not delivered value for money, so a new approach is needed. It is, of course, appropriate to apply caution when spending public money. In any review of the Education Authority's procurement process, we need a balanced approach to the challenges. That approach should maintain robust procurement practices while being mindful of cost efficiencies. Regular engagement with school leaders should be established to identify and address ongoing challenges in procurement policy. It is vital that schools have access to high-quality goods and services that meet their needs.

The overly rigid and bureaucratic procurement process hinders schools' ability to achieve best value for money, to respond quickly to local needs and to access small and local suppliers of relevant goods and services. We need to support schools to maintain safe environments that are conducive to learning without imposing undue financial strain. I welcome Minister Archibald's clarification in a letter to my colleague Pat Sheehan MLA that the Executive's public procurement policy does not prohibit schools from directly procuring low-value goods and services. Minister Archibald also confirmed that her understanding of the issue with schools procurement is that the Education Authority has established framework arrangements that schools are mandated to use, even where the individual school can source goods and services on better terms. The Education Authority can decide to remove that requirement and allow schools greater autonomy in making purchasing decisions. I call on the Minister of Education to conduct a review of the Education Authority's application of procurement policy for schools.

Mrs Guy: It is fair to say that we are having a wee bit of a déjà vu moment after the Adjournment debate last week, but that debate was welcome, and it was helpful to hear from the Minister in advance of today's debate and to learn about the EA work that is already under way. We welcome the motion and will support it along with the DUP amendment. The motion is narrow in scope, and it is clear from the 2024 Audit Office report that we need to have a much wider and more in-depth debate about the entire school estate, including minor and major capital works and school maintenance.

It is a regrettable fact that our school estate is not in good shape. I am confident that every Member who is here has heard from a school leader who is frustrated at the quality of the accommodation in which their students are expected to learn while facing constraints on their options to procure services. Ultimately, school leaders want a common-sense and agile approach to procurement that ensures value for money. Given the pressure on school budgets, that is especially important.

In his response to last week's Adjournment debate, the Minister spoke about a new delivery model for maintenance procurement, which shows that the Department has listened to our school leaders. The model described offers hope of a more responsive service for schools, with improved mechanisms to monitor costs and poor contractor performance. Additional detail from the Minister today would be really welcome to give school leaders confidence that, after waiting several years for completion of new procurement contracts, the new approach will deliver the substantial change to the system that is badly needed.

We all recognise that there is a delicate balance to be struck between flexibility and accountability.

We want schools to be trusted with a level of flexibility to quickly procure low-value services but with clear and uncomplicated accountability guidelines. Schools do not have time for complicated processes. They have a much more important job to do that they need to focus on, and that is educating our children and young people.

Outside of the many examples provided today of schools paying over the odds for routine, small-scale maintenance and spending, schools have raised with me frustration at the pressure placed on them in schemes such as the outdoor learning project, which, I appreciate, is slightly outside the scope of the debate but is linked. Guidance for schools was issued in February, with schools required to order and take receipt of goods by the end of March. A number of school leaders told me of their frustration at being placed under pressure to spend money on particular items when they had essential maintenance that needed to be completed. One school leader said, "All the schools are trying to purchase the same items at the same time from a limited pool of EA suppliers, and this is pushing up the costs." This is another example of how the current EA framework approach works against schools rather than with them.

I welcome whatever detail the Minister can provide today, although I am concerned that the changes described are a far cry from the strategic approach to estates management recommended by the audit report and the independent review of education. In short, our education system is simply too complicated. We cannot keep tinkering around the edges. The need for an improved budget settlement is a case that we are all unified in making. Our public services are underfunded, but it is equally imperative that Minister and Department are able to demonstrate that they are using limited resources efficiently and are up for the necessary transformational change. It will take courage, but we simply cannot afford to sustain the level of complexity and disparity in how our schools are funded and supported.

I hope that the measures that the Minister has outlined are successful, and I recognise the work that has been already carried out by the EA. However, I urge the Minister to go further in our schools estate management. When the ultimate objective is to give all our children a great education and resources are as scarce as they are, difficult decisions are needed to ensure that we have a sustainable school estate. I fear that this is not the trajectory that we are on.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister. You have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I thank those who tabled the motion and welcome the opportunity to respond. At last week's debate, I forewarned the Assembly that there might be some element of repetition, which Members should expect in my response this week. Ms Sheerin got in ahead of her colleagues. I do not know whether that is leadership in action and leading the way in her party, but, in any event, she got ahead of this debate and got a lot of the scoops last week. I leave that internal management issue to her colleagues. I am sure that they are all at one on it, because it is an issue on which we should all be at one.

I advised the Chamber last week that I had visited more than 150 schools in my time as Education Minister. Last week, I added another four to that number, and I will add again to that list this week. Those visits give me direct insight into the excellent work of our school communities, as well as many of the challenges that our schools face.

One of those challenges is frustration with the current procurement processes. I fully appreciate the importance of ensuring that our schools have

including maintenance, that meet our schools' needs and offer value for money. I share the concerns of our schools' stakeholders on the need to ensure that the Education Authority's approach to schools procurement offers our schools greater flexibility and reduces bureaucracy.

I recognise that the process for securing approvals, complying with rules and regulations, managing processes and the associated paperwork can be overwhelming, particularly for our smaller schools, which, in most cases, will have less administrative support. I can advise the Assembly that I instructed my departmental officials to meet the Education Authority last year to determine what measures could be put in place or were already in motion to ease the burden on schools and allow greater flexibility in purchasing where appropriate. My officials have reported to me, and I am considering their advice on the meaningful steps that I can take to address our schools' concerns and frustrations with procurement. A number of Members highlighted that it is an issue that I recognised soon after I took up my post and wanted to see action on. Today's motion is an opportunity to re-emphasise the importance of that work.

Before we go a little further, it is important to recognise that the EA is designated as the Department's centre of procurement expertise (COPE). That means that the EA is directly responsible for the procurement of goods and services on behalf of schools and for ensuring that effective procurement practice is embedded across the sector to provide best value for money. Presently, controlled and maintained schools are required to comply with the EA's purchasing and contracting procedures for the procurement of any works, equipment, goods or services using EA contracts and frameworks, where they exist. All grant-funded schools are also required to operate within the procurement legal framework and to adhere to the Northern Ireland public procurement policy and the relevant Northern Ireland procurement policy notes.

The EA has already introduced measures to address the concerns voiced by school leaders that today's motion highlights. The EA's improvement plan for its commercial procurement service (CPS) includes initiatives for increasing the availability of core items on the EA's iProcurement shop, which is recognised by the EA and schools as an efficient method for ordering goods. In the last three years, the number of items available from the schools iProcurement shop has increased by over 70%. The EA also introduced a PunchOut catalogue with one of the largest suppliers of classroom resources that enables a direct connection between the EA's ordering system and the supplier's online shopping portal. That facility seeks to provide an efficient and streamlined purchasing experience for all users.

The EA periodically issues procurement guidance documents to schools and is reviewing those guidance documents to ensure that they are clear and transparent. Those guidance documents also refer to items that are not available on an existing EA contract and the process that schools should follow in procuring. Every two months, an EA newsletter provides schools with information on recently awarded contracts, highlighting savings opportunities and general hints and tips for schools. Those newsletters also invite schools' participation in upcoming tender exercises. I welcome the EA's engagement with schools in that area, and I strongly encourage schools, where possible, to actively participate in the process.

As I have outlined in response to numerous Assembly questions and during last week's Adjournment debate, the EA has been developing a new procurement strategy for its new maintenance and minor works contracts. That will be based on defined geographical areas and will allow schools greater freedom to engage locally approved contractors. With regard to the EA's term services contract for maintenance, which I outlined last week, for items not currently available through an existing contractual agreement, the EA is introducing schools' ability to source their own suppliers and giving schools the choice to procure low-value maintenance works — those under £5,000 — while ensuring compliance with health and safety and quality standards. That will be for maintenance works that form part of tenant responsibility, such as painting and carpeting. It is anticipated that the new delivery model will be implemented towards the end of the academic year, which is June 2025. The EA will also explore, where appropriate, the application of that delivery model more widely across the range of goods and services that it currently procures on behalf of schools.

Perhaps one of the most significant changes that will make a material difference to schools relates to the procurement control limits. The Department of Finance, through Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD) and the Procurement Board, is reviewing the procurement control limits for public bodies. Those limits determine the procurement process that contracting authorities, including schools, must follow when procuring goods and services. Any uplift to procurement control limits now provides an ideal opportunity for me and my officials to consider what changes can be made for schools that strike the balance between ensuring legislative and procurement policy compliance and addressing schools' concerns, which we are debating today.

By way of example, increasing the lowest procurement control limit for schools from £5,000 to £10,000 for non-contract spend is likely to greatly benefit schools. I mentioned last week that I want to move to that £10,000 figure, and I can confirm that that is being proposed by the Department of Finance across all Departments in response to inflationary price rises. My Department has been consulted throughout, and I welcome the proposals and the greater flexibility that it will afford to schools. I can also say that I will keep this under review, and, if I feel that it is appropriate for us to move the limit from £5,000 to £10,000, that is what we will do and what I intend to do. If it is appropriate to increase that limit further, I will keep that under active consideration. Members raised a series of issues and have their own experiences that can help advise the policy in respect of this. I am very much open to receiving that advice and keeping the threshold under consideration.

I listed initiatives that the EA has undertaken or is undertaking to remove unnecessary bureaucracy and simplify processes. Notwithstanding that, I fully concede that more can and should be done. To that end, my officials will engage with the EA and CPD to identify how schools-based procurement processes can be further improved. However, before I conclude, it is important that I highlight some of the benefits to schools that operate within the EA's procurement boundary. They include economies of scale, having the administration of procurement handled by the EA and schools being assured that they are fully compliant with all procurement legislation. It is important that we strike the right balance. Members highlighted the importance of health and safety, of standards being met and of the processes that can give us assurances around that. It is worth saying that that is something that we need to keep in mind in striking the right balance.

The EA's procurement function seeks to improve supplier risk management; provide increased power that supports the maintenance of supply in difficult market conditions; support more effective contract management; and reduce the risk of supplier non-compliance with contractual and legal obligations. However, it would be remiss of me if I did not acknowledge that those benefits do not come without significant challenges. We must therefore find ways to create a more balanced procurement process by streamlining bureaucracy, reducing complexity by eliminating unnecessary steps and introducing more flexible procedures for low-cost purchases by decentralising key areas. While centralisation works well for high-volume, low-cost items, there should be room for schools to handle procurement for specialised or urgent needs locally through more tailored solutions. Procurement frameworks should be more flexible, allowing schools to choose suppliers that better meet their needs. The final way is through having greater school input. Schools should be consulted on and participate more actively in the development of procurement policies and frameworks and share their insights and expertise.

Those are all measures that the Department and the Education Authority are actively exploring and working on. However, it will take time to see the substantial shift that is required to ensure that we create a system that is efficient, compliant, responsive and fit for purpose. Finding the right balance is key to supporting our schools in continuing to provide high-quality education.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to address the concerns that colleagues have raised through today's motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. I call David Brooks to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. David, you five minutes.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members opposite for tabling the motion. I, of course, support our constructive amendment, and I am thankful that Members around the House agree with it.

Trying to be prudent with finances not only because of a moral imperative around the good use of public moneys but because it is evidently in the interests of school leaders to use wisely the already strained budgets that they have access to is a no-brainer, yet it is clear from the interactions that we have all had with schools that, too often, the mandated adherence to EA contract procurement is a ball and chain that prevents and does not assist the procurement of appropriate, efficient and good-value services. When red tape gets in the way, we should rightly consider how to cut it back. School procurement is, first and foremost, about serving our schools with good-value products and services. As we have heard not just today but at other times in the House, school leaders, who have to work within already restricted budgets, are clearly frustrated. They tell representatives like us that EA procurement is often more costly, and, from lobbying for works on behalf of schools, we know that it is far from efficient.

I support colleagues on the Benches opposite in their call for schools to be able to access the benefits of a free market economy and be unshackled from the detriments of the drag of big government inefficiency. Joking aside, as I said, our amendment is intended to be constructive, and I am thankful that it has been viewed in that way. It simply gives more specific direction to the motion's overall intention and outlines the way in which the Minister might work, as he described, to achieve the shared aim of us all, which, as is referenced in the motion, is to reduce unnecessary burdens and provide flexibility.

We have all heard examples today. I recently visited Dundonald High School, with which, I know, the Minister is familiar. He will also be familiar with my lobbying for it and with the recent Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) report on the school. I thank the Minister for recently agreeing to visit the school at the earliest opportunity. My visit certainly opened my eyes to some of the struggles that some of our schools face. I spent a number of hours touring the school. I saw holes in the wall that, at the time, had been covered with Correx. There were issues with toilets, while science classrooms had only half of their gas taps functioning.

I could go on, but I am not telling the House or the Minister anything new or raising issues that do not predate the Minister's tenure. He is not only well aware of the issues in hand but, as he outlined to us today, keen to take action to improve the procurement system for our schools. The reality is that there has been a legacy of underinvestment that is placing budgets under significant strain at departmental level and at school level. That has led to something that is, sadly, neither uncommon nor unfamiliar across much of our public sector: resource being available only for the most urgent or pressing concerns, not for planned or routine maintenance. That is a false economy, as a lack of proper maintenance inevitably leads to bigger issues and greater costs in the longer term.

That is clearly recognised by those in charge. To be fair to the chief executive of the Education Authority, who has inherited a system that is already crippled by a lack of resource, he was remarkably candid in his response to my questions at a recent Committee meeting, telling me that he had no satisfactory answers to give and that, although the authority's inability to meet some needs is not acceptable, it is, as we know, a matter of financial reality. Whether it be grass cutting, grounds maintenance, the provision of new equipment or issues with doors, windows or heating, the EA's maintenance is evidently badly frayed. Too often, it takes too long for work to be assessed and even longer to have it done. Anecdotally, there can be further delays to follow-up work as further issues emerge and required materials are not immediately available. Work also often costs more than it needs to. With that being evident, I cannot help but feel that greater flexibility, such as that which the Minister outlined, will be a net benefit for all.

I realise that I have run out of time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Emma, over to you. You have 10 minutes.

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

In the first instance, I urge the Minister not to make assumptions about what he might do based on the origin of today's motion or last week's Adjournment topic. I do not do solo runs, and I do not need to be managed. He can take that as an indication of the strength of feeling in Sinn Féin on the issue. I am glad and relieved today to hear that that feeling is unanimous and that there is consensus in the Chamber on the need for change in how our schools manage their budgets and are able to deal with the maintenance issues that arise.

We have heard from MLAs across the Chamber today that their local schools have brought the issue to them. We tabled the motion because we hear about the issue every day from the people whom we represent. We know that our school principals, our boards of governors, our teachers, our parents and all other members of our school communities are frustrated by the time taken and the money wasted when it comes to undertaking simple processes in their school, be it getting a new door, fixing a leak in a roof or doing other simple things that should be able to be resolved within a few days, involving only a small amount of money. Work ends up costing a lot more than that in time and financial resource, however.

We know that our educators are best placed to make decisions about the school in which they work. We know how much they care about their local community. I can say clearly from a rural perspective that the small schools in my constituency that I deal with all the time care about the pupils whom they teach and about their local area. They want to make efficient decisions for the people for whom they work. We should support them in that regard.

I really welcome the consensus in the House today. This is a good opportunity to have agreement here and to take a collaborative approach that best serves all the people whom we represent. I really welcome the Minister's indication that he is looking at the issue and trying to make progress. It is not about cutting corners or removing accountability but about cutting out some of the nonsense, taking a common-sense approach and allowing efficiency in our school estates. I welcome the tone of the debate, I thank the Minister for his comments, and I look forward to seeing progress on the issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members should take their ease for a few moments before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Further to the Budget Bill's Further Consideration Stage earlier today, the Speaker is content that the Bill remains within the legislative competency of the Assembly. I call the Minister of Finance to move the Final Stage of the Bill.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Mr O'Dowd: Today's Final Stage debate concludes the financial legislative process for this Budget Bill in the Assembly. The Bill provides the legislative authority for the final expenditure plans of Departments and other bodies as set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates 2024-25, which were laid in the Assembly on Monday 10 February 2025. The Bill also provides legislative cover for the Vote on Account for 2025-26 and the Statement of Excesses for 2023-24, which were also laid in the Assembly on 10 February 2025. The spring Supplementary Estimates, Vote on Account and Statement of Excesses were debated and agreed by the Assembly on Monday 17 February 2025. I again thank Members for their time and contributions during the process. The Budget Bill reflects the same position and will enable us to continue to deliver public services for the rest of the 2024-25 financial year. The Vote on Account, which is also covered in the Bill, will allow services to continue beyond 1 April 2025, allowing the Executive and the Assembly time to finalise a Budget for the 2025-26 financial year.

The debate on the Supply resolutions was held last Monday, 17 February, and I introduced the Budget Bill on the same day. The debate on the Bill's Second Stage was held on Tuesday 18 February. Two engaging debates were held last week, and I do not intend to repeat the detail that I provided to Members. Today's debate is on the Budget Bill itself, and I emphasise that the focus is to complete the Bill's legislative passage so that we can move quickly to the conclusion of the legislative journey.

Once again, I express my gratitude to the Finance Committee for agreeing to accelerated passage. I also thank all of the Committees and all Members for the scrutiny that they have been able to bring to the process.

This is the Final Stage of the legislative process. I look forward to hearing final thoughts from Members on this important legislation.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I made it just in time. Today's business has moved a little more quickly than people expected it to. I am pleased to be able to speak on the Final Stage of the Budget Bill on behalf of the Finance Committee. I am afraid that the Minister will have to get used to long debates on Supplementary Estimates, Votes on Account and Budget Bills, because that is one of the core parts of the job of Finance Minister. I will make a few points on behalf of the Committee and then make a couple of brief comments in my capacity as leader of the Opposition.

As the Committee has often commented, it is not ideal that the Bill has proceeded in such a condensed time frame. Accelerated passage is not a vehicle that people want to use, but accelerated passage is the vehicle that has always been used. Perhaps we will get to a point in debates in the Finance Committee and the Chamber when we can avoid lamenting the use of accelerated passage and move on to more rigorous scrutiny of the actual Budget Bill and the Budget process more broadly. In agreeing to accelerated passage, the Committee is conscious that many of the time frames that the Minister and the Department work to are dictated by what goes on at Westminster. Going forward, the Committee will consult on the phrase "appropriate consultation". That phrase is used in Standing Order 42(2) to characterise the basis for the Committee's agreement to accelerated passage. Finance Committee members are considering whether that oversells the Committee's position. I should say that it is not just the current Committee's position; they are considering whether it oversells the position at which any Finance Committee can feel comfortable arriving.

We heard from a number of Members during the Second Stage debate. It was a thorough debate overall, and it was the first more normal Budget Bill debate since we returned last year, but there is much more to discuss on the Budget process. I will come on to talk about that in my political remarks.

Today's debate provides me with a final opportunity to reflect the Committee's position and the views that various stakeholders expressed to members. They told us that our Budgets would be much more strategic and better applied if they were directly linked to the Programme for Government (PFG). They also made it clear that multi-annual Budgets would provide much greater security for them to plan, invest and reform. As I highlighted at Second Stage, the Committee has been briefed on work flowing from the Budget sustainability plan and the Budget improvement road map that the Department has been doing, which should take us towards Budgets linked to the PFG and multi-annual Budget plans. That work is of considerable interest to the Committee and has the potential to provide all Statutory Committees with a much better basis for the scrutiny of Departments' budgets. The Minister may be able to give us an update on both of those pieces of work in his winding-up speech, because they are, in a sense, more interesting than some of the literal text of the Budget Bill. We should look at the strategic policy direction rather than the specific legalities of the Budget Bill, which are pretty much the same every year — or multiple times a year, because there are multiple Budget Bills.

I repeat the warning that was given to the Committee by departmental officials that the bumper Barnett consequentials of the financial year that we are about to end — 2024-25 — will not be repeated in 2025-26. Therefore, 2024-25 has been anything but a normal year. Going forward, the Committee is conscious that every Budget decision made by the Executive will be even more crucial than it has been this year. We must live within our means and move beyond the culture of having overcommitted Budgets in the hope that Westminster Estimates will come to the rescue and provide for the shortfall.

As I reflected at Second Stage, the commencement of the Financial Reporting (Departments and Public Bodies) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 has brought benefits to how financial information is presented in the Estimates and Budget Bill. The Committee is keen to build on that work in order to equip other Committees with the necessary tools to make the debates much more forensic. This point is critical, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you may agree with it as a Finance Committee member and a former Chair of the Finance Committee: there is a job to do to make what we debate more comprehensible not only to the public but to other Members in their capacity as Committee members and Chairs so that they are able to better scrutinise the relevant Department's budget. Budget scrutiny is not simply a job for the Finance Committee.

The Budget process is complex and is littered with technical terms and accounting principles. It is not easy to understand, which is a barrier to good scrutiny. The Committee is grateful to the Finance Minister and his officials for undertaking to work to simplify the process and how it is presented. Finance Committee members are keen to support and advise on those efforts. Additionally, the Committee will work with the Minister to make the Estimates and monitoring processes that the Bill authorises much more accessible.

Today, we will complete the process to grant legal authority to Departments to draw down cash and use resources. The Budget Bill signals that we are coming to the end of the 2024-25 financial year, with departmental accountants comparing their audited out-turns against the limits voted for by the Assembly.

Mr Speaker — Mr Principal Deputy Speaker — sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker — I have a few options in front of me, and I did not read out the right one. The Committee hopes that, by the time we look at the Budget (No. 2) Bill later this year, we will have received the Fiscal Council Bill and the financial provisions Bill, which will go some way to removing items from the sole authority of the Budget Act. That is the black box, which is the favourite topic of many Members past and present. The Minister indicated to the Committee that he will progress those Bills with all haste. I take him at his word on that. Perhaps he will give us a further update on that in his closing remarks.

I will now speak in my capacity as leader of the Opposition. When I went to my pigeonhole upstairs earlier today, I saw that I had received a document, as, I am sure, did all Members. That document was the 2025-26 draft Budget. I was pleased to get a hard copy, and it is now up in my room. I had, obviously, already seen the draft Budget allocations, because they were in a written ministerial statement, but, all of a sudden, the document was in my pigeonhole. I am perfectly pleased to receive it, but that speaks to the strange, haphazard way in which we do strategic budget-making in this place.

While we have been in this place for days on end, debating the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Budget Bill, we have had precious little debate on the major strategic decisions in the draft Budget, which is the main statement. I see that the Minister has a copy in front of him, so he has an advantage over us. I would be disappointed if he did not have a copy. He is quite right to have one. The Minister's predecessor released the draft Budget in December 2024. There was then a January monitoring round and a subsequent mini-monitoring round in response to storm Éowyn. We have not had the opportunity to debate or ask questions on any of those subjects. I was glad to hear the Speaker drawing attention earlier to the importance of Ministers, including the Finance Minister, coming to the Chamber to answer questions on specific allocations.

It is also the case that a decision has now been made by the Executive on the regional rate for 2025-26. There has not been any debate in the Chamber on that. There will be a debate eventually, because we will be asked to vote on it. However, I, and, by extension, the world found out that that decision had been made only because the Finance Minister responded to a question for written answer that I tabled, telling me that the Executive had decided that there would be about a 3% increase to the non-domestic regional rate and an increase of more than 5% to the domestic rate; that is, an above-inflation increase for ordinary households. Clarity and scrutiny are needed on all of those points, because we cannot come to the Chamber and debate Budget Bills without being clear with the public about the strategic plan behind them. That is the most important thing. We do not have that yet. I look forward to debating the draft Budget statement, because that, not the legal authorisation of spending, is where the real action is . I hope that the Minister can update us on that today.

I also hope that he will be able to give us a specific update on where the Budget sustainability plan is and on his discussions with the Treasury about the independent calculation of relative need, which we have heard a lot about. There has been a lot of talk in the Chamber about us not being funded according to need, and we all supported the efforts to maximise the funding that flows to this place. Last year, however, was a record year for Barnett consequentials. That was put on the record by the Minister's Department. In real terms, not just in cash terms, it got more money in 2024-25 than in any year since 1998. We expected to see a strategic plan flowing from that, but we did not get one. If we are going to have further negotiations about relative need and getting funded above the 124% level, it would be helpful to have an update from the Minister on when we will hear more on that. It would also be helpful to have an update on when the other measures in the Budget sustainability plan will be confirmed. I hope that we have all that before we debate and vote on the draft Budget.

Finally, it would be helpful to understand from the Minister when the actual draft Budget — the document that he has there — will be agreed by the Executive and when it will be brought back to the Chamber for the Assembly to vote on it. While my party will not cause the House to divide on the Budget Bill today, we will certainly look forward to debating the actual Budget and its allocations and, hopefully, a plan that goes alongside it for rescuing public services and finally dealing with the problems that face this place.

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

I think that I gave you a promotion earlier.

I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Budget Bill and for his engagement with Members during the debates on it over the past week. Like other Members, I recognise the challenges that our public services face due to historical underfunding and a decade and a half of austerity measures from the British Government. However, it is important to note that there has been progress over the past year, including the delivery of the interim fiscal framework, which has secured an additional £248 million for the forthcoming year. Some notable positives in the Budget include the doubling of funding for childcare, which will help to alleviate the financial pressure that parents face, supporting them to either remain in or return to the workforce, and investment to tackle violence against women and girls, both of which are priorities in the draft Programme for Government.

I also welcome other commitments, such as an earmarked allocation to support the agriculture sector and funding for the Mid South West growth deal, which would help to address regional imbalances, including the delivery of a key infrastructure project in my constituency, the A4 Enniskillen bypass. The additional pressure that the British Government's decision to increase National Insurance contributions will have on public-sector budgets has been highlighted repeatedly during debates on the Budget. I reiterate the call for the British Government to mitigate that pressure by covering those costs in full.

We need to see the devolution of more fiscal powers. I support the Finance Minister's efforts in his negotiations to ensure that our public services are properly funded. I also support the appointment of Professor Gerry Holtham to conduct an independent review of the North's level of need. In the longer term, we need to have more control over our own affairs in order to achieve greater fiscal sustainability and deliver the public services that our citizens deserve.

Finally, I thank the Finance Minister again for bringing the Budget Bill to the Floor.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to the House. Whilst accelerated passage is not ideal, we all understand that this is where we are if we want to keep public services running. Like the Chair of the Finance Committee, my party supports a review of the wording of Standing Orders on due consideration by the Committee.

As we debate the Budget Bill, it is important that we have collective agreement that is in the interests of dealing with the financial pressures that face our front-line services and keeping everything running. However, as we know, the Budget Bill does not deal with the full 2025-26 Budget, which is out for consultation. We will debate that at length in the future. We are applying the 45% — it is approximately 45%, as was pointed out previously — to roll forward into 2025-26.

I will make the point again about the increase to employers' National Insurance contributions. I thank the Minister for providing clarity to the Finance Committee last week that, for central government and non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), there will be an additional cost of £200 million next year and approximately £250 million when you add GPs, dentists and local government, so it is an extremely high additional pressure. Whilst there are conversations on and an expectation of Barnett consequentials, we do not yet have a formal commitment on anything. As we roll forward 45% of 2024-25 spend into 2025-26, with the expectation of a potential 60% to 70% allocation in June, we will spend money in April, May and June — we will overspend, effectively — on the increase to employers' National Insurance, which is approximately £17 million every month, until we know what we are getting. I ask the Minister to keep making that point and to remind Departments, as we remind other Committees, to keep an eye on that scrutiny, because, until we know what we will see coming into the Budget from the Treasury, we do not know what we are mitigating and we will be under incredible pressure. I urge the Minister to continue to press for as much as possible from Treasury to cover that additional cost.

The DUP will support the Bill and hopes that parties across the House also do so in order to move forward and keep our services running. We look forward to debating the full 2025-26 Budget.

Mr Carroll: An underwhelming and vague draft Programme for Government with no clear objectives went through a period of public consultation that ended four months ago, and still there is no sign of a final draft. Yet, we are here to debate a Budget Bill without a Programme for Government. It is worth taking a second to reflect on the utter pointlessness of a Bill that authorises spending in the absence of agreed spending priorities. We still wait for multi-year Budgets to address the systemic, chronic issues in our society: waiting lists, health inequalities, the housing crisis, a childcare offering that does not meet the basic needs of families, crumbling school buildings, inadequate public transport and climate breakdown, to name but a few. Next year, we might get a two-year Budget, if we are lucky, but, until the Executive muster the political courage to break with never-ending UK austerity, our public services will continue to fail every one of us.

Today, in the absence of anything concrete to debate, I will focus my remarks on the state of our public services and the draft Budget. The upcoming Budget looks set to fail everyone. Languishing on our health waiting lists, which are by far the worst in these islands, record numbers of people are using private healthcare. Winter pressures in our emergency departments are now year-round pressures. The morale of Health and Social Care (HSC) workers has plummeted almost as low as their pay in real terms, and the upcoming Budget looks set to fail everyone who is struggling to pay their rent. Some £100 million was allocated for social housing, but it is highly unlikely that that will be enough to build at least 2,000 new social homes. Of course, there are far cheaper ways to prevent homelessness, including freezing and reducing private rents, but, yesterday, the Executive and the official Opposition showed that they cannot bring themselves to upset profiteering landlords.

The Budget looks set to fail women and girls impacted by violence. Just £2 million has been earmarked to tackle violence against women and girls. That will not fund the transformative, radical changes that are needed to create a society where women are free from all forms of violence, abuse and harm.

The Budget looks set to fail people in receipt of social security. Just £47 million has been allocated for welfare mitigations, and, obviously, that is not enough to mitigate the two-child limit. Families with more than two children who are living in poverty will fall further below the breadline, and children will be punished for being born into a larger family.

Today, I met representatives of community and voluntary sector organisations that are losing core grant funding from the Department of Health. Those organisations are already running tight budgets, while providing life-saving and life-enhancing services for people in the community. They support our unpaid carers and people who live with chronic conditions or learning disabilities, as well as vulnerable babies and children and many others. They step in to provide services where the state fails to do so. When contracting services out to private companies, Departments often cover the full costs incurred by those companies. Ministers and Departments would not expect a private company to deliver services if they did not cover the full cost, but, when it comes to the community and voluntary sector, it is a completely different story. Not only are those charities and organisations operating at a loss when delivering services, they are not given support to pay staff and keep the lights on. By denying core grant funding to 94% of the organisations that applied for it, the Health Minister, the Finance Minister and the wider Executive fail those organisations and the thousands of vulnerable people whom they support.

Earlier this month, when I proposed a motion to support unpaid carers, every Executive party talked about the invaluable contribution that carers make to our society and to the economy. Not even two weeks later, the Department of Health has denied core funding to Carers NI, stripping the organisation of its ability to support and advocate for unpaid carers. I want to ask this: are those actions those of an Executive who value unpaid carers? Are those the actions of an Executive who value early intervention, prevention and support for our most marginalised communities? I would say no.

Budget cuts are a political choice, and the Executive are acting as a handmaiden to deadly UK austerity. It is a political choice, and, earlier this month, despite the Executive's relentless attempts to copy and paste harmful UK economic policy across our public services, the Secretary of State complained that Executive parties were not doing austerity correctly or enough. He should be told where to go.

The Executive are making a truly half-hearted attempt at functional governance, waving through a Budget Bill to authorise spending without knowing what the money will be spent on. I will vote against it for that reason.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr Carroll. I call the Minister to wind up the debate.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank all the Members who expressed their views in the debate and who contributed to earlier debates on the Bill and its associated Supply resolutions. I listened with interest, and, whilst I may not agree with all the arguments presented, it is useful for me as Finance Minister to hear all the views expressed.

Despite the financial challenges facing us, Ministers in the Executive have worked together to make positive differences in allocating resources to improve the lives of workers, families and communities. We have not simply involved ourselves in rhetoric. One of the first acts of the restored Executive was to prioritise public-sector workers by allocating £688 million for public-sector pay awards. The Budget provided £25 million for a range of support measures in respect of early learning and childcare. That included the local childcare subsidy scheme. Over 14,000 children have already been registered, and it is reducing family childcare bills by 15%, supporting hard-working families by making childcare more affordable. The draft 2025-26 Budget doubles the investment in funding for the childcare strategy to £50 million. That is not rhetoric; that is action; that is reality.

Close to £1 billion of funding was allocated in the June and October monitoring rounds, providing additional funding for health, education, policing, social housing and waste water infrastructure. My Department extended the small business rate relief scheme, supporting almost 30,000 businesses, and restored the Back in Business and rural ATM schemes following requests from business stakeholders. The £290 million Derry and Strabane city deal was signed, which will be transformational for the north-west. The Executive, Members of the Assembly and councils united to campaign successfully for the Treasury to lift the pause that it had placed on the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid South West growth deals. That shows what can be achieved when we work together to deliver for those who elect us to serve. My predecessor, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, signed the interim fiscal framework, which continues to deliver significant additional funding for public services.

I am determined to build on the progress made. I hope that the 2025-26 Budget can be our last one-year Budget so that we can move to a multi-year Budget and a longer-term approach, enabling us to focus on transforming public services, which is essential to put our finances on a sustainable footing.

I turn now to some of the comments made by Members. Rightly, Members will challenge the Executive and decisions made by individual Ministers. That is what the Chamber is for, but, when it comes to budgetary matters, there is an onus on Members to offer alternatives. Rhetoric gets you nowhere. It does not get you the £50 million for childcare; it does not get you the £600 million for public-sector pay; and it does not get you the 124% uplift on the fiscal floor. I am not looking just at you, Mr Carroll. You are not the only one involved in rhetoric in the Chamber. You just happened to catch my eye.

Rhetoric did not achieve any of that. Unity of purpose achieved it; the Executive working together achieved it; and a common focus on improving the lives, livelihoods and well-being of the workers, families and communities we all represent achieved that. Do challenges remain? Undoubtedly. Significant challenges remain for the Executive, but, if we continue to work together and focus on the challenges, we can continue to take those challenges head on and continue to improve the lot of our communities.

Mr O'Toole understandably raised the issue of accelerated passage and the commitment from the Committee to work with others on perhaps changing Standing Orders on that. I am, in principle, supportive of that. We are not doing anything underhand. I am not suggesting that anybody is suggesting that we are doing anything underhand, but we are following the process. We are time-bound by a number of factors in the fiscal rules that govern the Assembly and the fiscal rules that govern Westminster. However, I understand the concern of some Members about the wording of Standing Orders and why they wish to attempt to change that.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for giving way. I note his reluctance to use rhetoric. Some would say that talking about supporting workers and families may be rhetoric from his end, given that public-sector workers saw their pay decrease by 2·8% in the last year. If the Minister would address that point, I would be grateful.

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, £688 million is not rhetoric. That was given into the hands and the pockets of public-sector workers by the Executive. If you can match the £688 million worth of rhetoric, we will have a debate on it, but the record speaks for itself. The Executive have stood by public-sector workers and will continue to stand by public-sector workers as we move forward.

Again, the issue around multi-year Budgets has been raised, and it is well rehearsed. Members accept that, if the second phase of the spending review, as announced by the Labour Administration, goes ahead, we will hopefully move to a three-year resource Budget and a four-year capital Budget. If that is the case, I am committed to bringing a similar yearly Budget to the Executive for approval.

On the issue of the hard copy of the Budget, I received my hard copy today as well. I question the need for producing hard-copy documents when it comes to sustainability. I understand that some Members like to have the hard copy, but, to me, there is a sustainability issue with that.

Moving forward, concerning my engagement with the Treasury, I assure Members that I will meet the Treasury on Thursday for a joint meeting with the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments. I will press the Treasury again on a number of matters, including National Insurance contributions and the need for us to have certainty on those figures. It may be June before we have certainty, given the ending of the fiscal programme in Westminster, but I will press it on that matter, along with a range of other matters that are impacting on the lives of families and workers and on businesses in our society.

I am pleased that Professor Gerry Holtham will take forward the next phase of research on the fiscal floor here. We have a case to present to the Treasury and others on that to ensure that we get the funding required to deliver public services in this part of the world and so that we can support those who are delivering public-sector services as we move forward as well.

That is generally the broadness of the debate. Again, I thank Members for their contributions. I have no doubt that scrutiny of budgetary matters will continue at Committee and in the Assembly. I look forward to bringing a Budget Bill for 2025-26 to my Executive colleagues and to the Assembly in due course, once we have agreement at the Executive. I am happy to — I am required to — bring to the Assembly a Bill, which will also, at a future stage, include a debate about what our regional rate will look like. I assure Members that I am always happy to engage with them and discuss such matters as we move forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we proceed to the Question, I advise Members that, as this is a Budget Bill, the motion requires cross-community support.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As there are Ayes from all sides of the House, with two dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Deborah Erskine to raise the matter of a lack of dentists and out-of-hour dental services in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I call Deborah Erskine. You will have up to 15 minutes.

Mrs Erskine: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to address a matter of great concern to my constituents in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and I welcome the fact that my constituency colleagues and the Health Minister are in the Chamber to consider the issue.

We have seen a significant shift from NHS dental services to private provision. It has created a lack of NHS dentists in my constituency and, more worryingly, a difficulty in accessing services. The issue has been escalating for some time and now threatens to deepen the existing health inequalities in our area and across the region. As many know, the transition of dental practices from NHS to private care has led to a growing number of people being unable to access basic dental services. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, we have seen multiple practices reduce or completely withdraw their NHS services, leaving families and individuals with limited or no access to affordable dental care.

Coincidentally, I attended my dental practice just last week and heard that it is switching to a private model. That change does not just place a financial burden on individuals and families but risks further marginalising the most vulnerable in our society, including those on low incomes, the elderly and people living with chronic health conditions. "People will simply not show up" was the message from my dentist, who, sadly, anticipates that being the case, because the practice has had no option but to switch to private dentistry. My dentist knows that, in an area of deprivation, hard-pressed families are experiencing difficulties as a result of the financial impacts that they face at this time.

The publication 'General Dental Services Statistics for Northern Ireland: Annual Statistics 2023-2024' shows that, in urban local government districts such as Belfast, Antrim and Newtownabbey, Lisburn and Castlereagh, and Ards and North Down:

In the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area, the percentage drops to only 53% living within that distance. When the rural nature of our area and the fact that public transport is lacking are taken into consideration, we can see how the inequalities stack up. Intervention is needed now. Furthermore, in the same publication, the figures paint a grim picture. The Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area had the lowest adult registration rate, at 49%. That is 17 percentage points below the Northern Ireland average. We are a dental desert in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

I am aware that the Minister is committed to ensuring access for all to NHS services. The reality faced by constituents, however, tells a different story. Access to dental services is becoming more of a luxury than a public health provision. I therefore must challenge the Minister on that. He knows that socio-economic determinants are a key factor leading to poor oral health. Given the increase in private dental practices, what specific action are you taking, Minister, to address the critical issues that affect the affordability and availability of NHS dental care in our community? What steps will you take to ensure that NHS dentists are properly reimbursed for their services so that their practices can remain viable and continue to serve our citizens? Without adequate financial support and incentives for dental professionals, the trend towards private dental practices will only increase, leaving more of our constituents and more of the residents of Northern Ireland behind.

The cost of running a dental practice must not be ignored. I argue that the underfunding of dental services is one of the main factors that is pushing dental practices in my constituency and other constituencies towards switching to private practice or closing. I recently spoke to a hard-working, dedicated dentist in my constituency who told me that, compared with when they first opened their doors, their operating costs alone had increased by over 40%. That is before even touching on the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions that is hurtling down the track.

There are ways in which we can try to stem the flow. Other jurisdictions have dealt with the issue. In Scotland, changes were made in 2023 in the form of the dental payment uplift in the NHS. The short time that it took to do that proves that things can be done. Scotland has similar levels of deprivation to us, yet it has got to grips with the issue.

I know, Minister, that you will point to the need for a cost-of-service review. The British Dental Association (BDA) has called for that for years.

We need to see a third-party review of how much dentistry costs so that dentists can get a fair rate of return. We also need to look ahead to the key questions of where we want to be in 2027. The space between now and 2027 is key. We need urgent action to top up the fees now and to give the all-important signals to dentists to stop the mass exodus from NHS dentistry. By dealing with the funding issues, you will support dentists to stay in the system.

Minister, what further steps are you taking to ensure that we increase the number of NHS dentists? Dentists are literally waiting to make the call on what they will do. We need more practitioners; we need to see them in areas that are currently underserved, like Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider incentives like reinstating the commitment payments given to NHS dentists to stay in the system. Those were done away with in 2016, and we perhaps need to look at them again.

That brings me to another point that affects my constituency: the out-of-hours dental service run by 13 practices. At the weekend, one dentist is responsible for over 65,000 patients. They are only obliged to see registered patients, but there is no way of checking whether patients are registered. Essentially, patients rely on the goodwill of that dentist to provide dental treatment to them over a weekend. I want the Department to support the trust and my local dentists in finding a site and paying a sessional rate per patient that is the same as elsewhere in Northern Ireland.

We need to address the growing health inequalities that are exacerbated by the switch to privatisation. You cannot blame dentists, who have seen no change in their contract and lost faith in the system, nor can you blame patients, who are worried about the decreasing service and frustrated at the fact that they now have to pay for that service. It is clear that access to dental care is not equal across Northern Ireland; in fact, it is becoming increasingly determined by one's ability to pay. That will only deepen existing disparities in health outcomes, particularly in rural areas like mine. It is essential that we take urgent action to ensure that dental care is universally acceptable and affordable for all our citizens, regardless of where they live or their income level.

Dentists obviously also play a crucial role in identifying cancers such as oral cancers, incidences of which look set to double in the UK by 2035. I do not want my area of Fermanagh and South Tyrone or, in fact, any area in Northern Ireland to be a statistic for oral cancer. It is as stark as that.

We need to rebuild confidence in the system. One dentist put it like this: "Dentists do not go on strike; they leave". Do not let anybody else leave. Let us stop creating more health inequalities. Let us save NHS dentistry. I urge you, Minister, to take immediate and meaningful action to support NHS dentists, to increase the number of available services and to address the inequalities in access to dental care. The people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone deserve nothing less.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Deborah. Before I call Áine Murphy, I advise that Fermanagh and South Tyrone MLAs will get six minutes. All other MLAs will get five minutes.

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

I thank my constituency colleague for introducing the Adjournment debate. I agree with all of the remarks that she has made.

The lack of available NHS dentists and the absence of reliable out-of-hours dental services in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is not just an inconvenience; it is a full-blown crisis impacting on our constituents every day. Access to dental care is a fundamental pillar of our health service. Yet, across our constituency and, indeed, beyond, it is increasingly difficult to find a practice willing to take on new NHS patients. It is not a case of individual practices failing to provide care; it is a symptom of a broken system. More and more dentists are being forced to remove patients from their NHS lists because it is simply no longer economically viable for them to continue providing NHS treatment. It leaves people, particularly those on low incomes, without access to affordable dental care.

When private treatment is the only option available, effectively, it locks out those who cannot afford to pay, widening the health inequalities that our public health service was designed to prevent. There are fewer NHS dentists, longer waiting lists and an ever-growing divide between those who can pay and those who cannot. For those fortunate enough to be registered with a practice, routine appointments now come with lengthy delays. However, for those unregistered and in need of urgent care, the situation is even worse. Many people find themselves having to call multiple practices in the hope that one might be able to squeeze them in. Others are forced to travel long distances, often at short notice, in search of treatment. For those without transport or the means to pay for private care, the choice is grim: endure unbearable pain or put further strain on our already overburdened ED and GP services.

The people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone deserve the same standard of healthcare as those living in Belfast or Derry. That means that we need a plan to recruit and retain more dentists, particularly in rural areas. It means properly incentivising NHS dental work so that practices are not pushed towards privatisation through financial necessity. It means urgent investment in out-of-hours dental provision so that those suffering pain are not left without options.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister, in his response to the debate, to outline the steps that his Department has taken to date and plans to take in the future to address the crisis.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank my constituency colleague Deborah Erskine for securing the Adjournment debate and the Minister for attending this evening.

At the outset, I wish to say that I do not believe that any of us for one moment underestimates the scale of the problem facing dentistry in Northern Ireland. It is clear from reports in the media just last week that NHS dentistry is a problem across every corner of the UK. There is an undoubted challenge in our constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

The model of dentistry has changed remarkably in recent years. While I do not doubt that many of our dentists still work incredibly hard to help as many patients as possible, it is a simple matter of fact that, as more and more dental practitioners pivot towards private work, many people experience real and significant difficulties in accessing NHS dental services. Unfortunately, in an area as large and rural as ours, people are often left with little choice but to travel long distances.

Fortunately, despite the unprecedented funding challenges facing the health service locally, the Minister and his predecessor decided to prioritise funding for high-priority unregistered patients in need of urgent dental care. The new dental access scheme was given a not insignificant budget of £4 million, and, whilst it has helped many people across Northern Ireland, unfortunately, there is still room for further progress in the south-west. Regrettably, the number of practices signing up in our area has been low, and, whilst the Department cannot force practices to participate, I urge the Minister to continue to impress on his officials the need to proactively identify a suitable provider. After all, people in the rural villages and townlands of Fermanagh and South Tyrone deserve no less than the dental options available to their urban counterparts.

A further dental issue that continues to cause me concern is the state of children's oral health. I welcome the re-establishment of the enhanced child examination scheme, which provides children aged nought to 10 who have not registered with a dentist with an examination, as well as offering direct and impartial oral health advice and an age-specific fluoride application to teeth to prevent dental decay. Again, however, parents are, regrettably, telling me that, more generally, access for children remains a challenge.

I know that tackling health inequalities is a strong area of interest for the Minister, and I am sure that the stark inequalities that exist in oral health have not been lost on him. All the indications suggest that areas of high deprivation have much higher rates of tooth decay than wealthier areas. Fixing the many profound health problems that challenge our oral health will not be quick, and it will certainly not be easy. Instead, it will take a period of sustained policy intervention, and, while some MLAs may be reluctant to acknowledge it, it will take sustained investment. For as long as the Executive and Assembly continue to pass Budgets that fall short of independently verified levels of health need, I worry about how those sustained interventions will be delivered. Nevertheless, I encourage the Minister and his officials to continue to work with our dental colleagues to deliver the improvements in dental access that patients require.

I thank Members from Fermanagh and South Tyrone and other constituencies for contributing to the Adjournment debate.

Ms Dolan: I thank my constituency colleague for securing the Adjournment debate, and I thank the Minister for attending this evening.

The significant shortage of NHS dental places in Fermanagh has left many of my constituents struggling to access essential dental care, leading to prolonged suffering and, in some cases, the exacerbation of preventable oral health problems. In October 2023, I raised the matter with the then permanent secretary of the Department of Health, and again, in February 2024, I posed the question to the then Minister of Health, enquiring about the measures that were being taken to increase the number of NHS dentists. The Minister acknowledged that a key factor contributing to the access issues was the inadequate rates that were being paid to our dentists for treatment. He emphasised that the absence of Ministers had impeded the progression of the recommended pay uplifts for the 2023-24 period but assured me that the matter was an immediate priority.

Most dentists want to continue delivering NHS dentistry not only because they are committed to their patient base but because dental practices are small businesses. For the past decade, uplifts in fees have failed to keep pace with inflation. As a result, many dentists are being forced to reconsider their future because the numbers that NHS dentistry are based on increasingly do not add up. The current NHS dental contract, which was introduced in 1990, is antiquated and is not fit for purpose. Dental fees have no correlation with the true cost of delivering modern dental care. The contract is not reflective of the changing demographics within and without dentistry.

To increase access to NHS dentistry for patients, we must make NHS dentistry an area where people want to work and make the service financially viable. The response so far has been wholly inadequate, forcing many dentists to lose confidence in the deeply broken system. I urge the Minister to explore the reinstatement of the financial support schemes that have previously bolstered our dental services. Collaborative efforts with educational institutions to train and place new dentists in our region could also serve as a long-term solution to the ongoing crisis.

Access to dental care is not a luxury. It is a fundamental aspect of our health and well-being, so I urge the Minister to work to ensure that every resident of Fermanagh and South Tyrone can smile with confidence knowing that their dental health needs are met promptly and effectively.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Jemma, and thank you for not smiling.

Mr Gildernew: I also thank Deborah for securing the Adjournment debate, and I thank the Minister for attending. I support everything that has been said about the difficulties and challenges that exist. As my colleagues said, there is a severe lack of NHS dentists in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and in many constituencies across the North. That has been an issue for many years, and, unfortunately, we seem to be making no real positive progress on it.

Dental care is, of course, a basic healthcare necessity and absolutely not a luxury. When people are unable to see a dentist, they suffer in pain; small problems become major health issues; and tooth infections go untreated, impacting on overall health and, in some cases, leading to life-threatening complications. As mentioned, children are being deprived of early intervention that could prevent serious dental issues in the future, and they suffer in pain waiting for dental treatment. My understanding is that, a number of years ago at least, although I am not sure if this is still the case, the most prevalent reason for the admission of children to hospitals was tooth extraction.

The issue at the heart of the situation is a lack of funding. NHS contracts are not financially viable for most dental practices, leaving them with little choice but to take on private patients to allow them to maintain a sustainable business model. As we have heard, however, many people cannot afford to pay the costs associated with private dental care, and they therefore go without that essential care.

We need to see radical transformation of NHS dental contracts to make them financially viable again. The Minister needs to set out a road map to show how he intends to improve the situation and give hope to the thousands of frustrated citizens in our communities who demand to see action on such an important issue. I am acutely aware from my time as Health Committee Chair of the severe workforce pressures across Health and Social Care generally, which simply underlines the need for urgency in wider workforce planning.

Given the rurality and border location of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, we are already extremely marginalised when it comes to many health services, and that is no less true of dental healthcare, which contributes to the creation of further inequalities. While I acknowledge that the Minister has emphasised his desire to press down on and eradicate them, more inequalities are being built into the system. I urge the Minister to take that into account when he considers the need for improvement in the issue that we are debating today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Nuala, as a non-constituency MLA, you have five minutes.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to take all five minutes, but I thought that it was important, even though I am not an MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, to speak to the issues. As the Member who secured the debate stated, the issue affects all of us across Northern Ireland.

An issue that I would particularly like to highlight today is people in areas of multiple deprivation not being able to access dental services. I am sure that the constituency MLAs will recognise what I see in my constituency of North Belfast, which is that people in areas of multiple deprivation have greater need of dental treatment. Not only are they unable to pay for private treatment but their need to see a dentist results from societal issues, because of living in poverty. When we look at the convenience foods, quick snacks and things that we can buy on the cheap, we see that they, more often than not, have added sugar and other additives. That results in more need for access to dental care.

There is also an issue with the services provided by schools and Education. When I first spoke in the Chamber about access to dental treatment, it was as Health spokesperson for the Alliance Party, after a dentist had reached out to me to highlight the fact that children can and should be brought to a dentist by the time they reach their first birthday — most parents would not recognise that — yet, a lot of children have not been to a dentist by the time that they get to primary school. We see that in all constituencies in Northern Ireland now, unfortunately, because people simply do not have a choice; they do not have access to dental care.

There has been a bit of an uplift in access for children throughout our constituencies. When people contact my office, there is now somewhere we can refer them, but we cannot refer adults anywhere. I can only imagine what it is like in the more rural constituencies. It is easier for me, as I can walk down the Antrim Road in North Belfast and pass numerous dentists on my way. I cannot imagine what it is like in a rural constituency where you have to drive from village to village and to different towns because there is a general lack of services, never mind dentistry.

It is important that we speak with one voice when we talk about securing reform of dental services. On the Health Committee — I know that we have other Health Committee members here — we consistently look at that area, and we often speak to the British Dental Association. It knows that dentistry is at crisis point. When we visited Daisy Hill Hospital a few weeks ago, we heard about a pilot of dental services there that is providing a lot of the treatment being given to children across Northern Ireland. When we see its impact, perhaps it could be rolled out. The children whom we are talking about need dental services in hospital because they have waited so long for treatment or they have been so badly affected where they are based. That hospital reaches out into rural constituencies.

It is really important to focus on the situation and to give the funding model for dentistry the proper focus. I do not doubt for a second that the Minister's hands are tied by the available budget, but, where we can, we should do everything in our power to ensure that there is equity in those services across Northern Ireland. It is easier for those who live in the city and have access to public transport to travel that little bit further than for those who live rurally.

I thank the proposer for securing the Adjournment debate. I had not intended to speak, but it is important that someone who sits on the Health Committee and represents a city constituency speaks up and recognises that there are individualised issues for rural constituencies.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for raising the issue, another health issue to do with Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I am delighted, as the SDLP and Opposition health spokesperson, to support the Member, because there are unique attributes to a large rural constituency and access issues are much more difficult. It is a good and proper that the Member highlights those.

Needless to say, the principles that the Member talks about for Fermanagh and South Tyrone are pretty much the same across the board. As health spokespersons and members of the Health Committee, we regularly meet the British Dental Association and our local providers. One of the senior practising members of the British Dental Association has a practice in my town. Through conversations over the years with her, I get updates about what dentists face. Underpinning most of it, of course, is finance. Regrettably, we are almost sleepwalking towards a two-tier system in which those who have money can afford to go private and those who do not cannot afford to go private and so rely on National Health Service providers. However, most dentists say that they cannot exist by simply providing National Health Service dentistry, because the money just does not come back. It costs them money to provide that service. More and more dentists are opting out, which means that it is more difficult to get access.

Of course, there are then overall financial issues, such as the National Insurance rise that is coming in. That will impact massively, because the system of our health service is based on providers almost being independent of the Department and government but contracted to deliver the services. That means that they are seen as private businesses. They will have to find the money for the National Insurance lift, which will push so many practices over the edge, especially if they are reliant on NHS dentistry.

People tell me all the time that they hate going to the dentist, but I never get complaints about the service. A good service is being provided. If people have pain and can access the service, they get treatment. That tells me that there is a good system with good practitioners. However, all roads lead back to money. The Minister's hands are pretty much tied. He has made that point over and over again. If the budget that he is given is not enough to deliver services, it is unlikely that he will be able to provide a resolution. A conversation needs to take place between the Executive parties on where the budget goes or what transformation will be prioritised to free up money in the future.

I know that there was an oral health strategy. It was one of those 10-year strategies. I am not sure where that is. I remember talking to some practising dentists who said that they were looking for updates on it. They were looking to see whether it could be tightened up, funded out and action planned. I do not know whether that has happened in the intervening period, because it has been a few years, but it certainly looked at things like service delivery for children and young people so that they do not lose their teeth or have bad oral hygiene from a young age.

Another issue raised with me was about older people living in care homes and residential homes. There used to be dentists who went into such places to help out where they could, but it was felt that that had to go on the back-burner because of the lack of funding. Is there an update on that? We need to help those who do not ordinarily reach out for help. It is one of those things: you speculate to accumulate. If you spend money and try to assist people with their oral hygiene, it will not cost money to fix the problems afterwards. I would love to say that as somebody who has never had a tooth extracted or a filling in my life, but I am afraid that I am guilty of all those things. I will sit down quite worried about what Nuala McAllister listed as all the foods that you are not supposed to eat, because that has just cut out my dinner and supper this evening. I will have to find something else.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Colin. I do not think that you will be starving any time soon.

Minister, over to you. You have 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking Deborah Erskine for bringing the debate to the Chamber this afternoon. It is an important debate that reflects a serious problem, one of many serious problems in health and social care delivery. It is a timely debate, certainly for me, because, on 18 February, I met the British Dental Association to tease out some of the issues.

I will make some prepared remarks, but I have to put down a warning. In the short number of months that I have been in this position, I have engaged in quite a number of debates in the Chamber, but this is the one where the irony klaxon has sounded most loudly and most often. I warn Members that I will return to that at the end of my remarks.

First, I acknowledge the challenges facing many patients, particularly those who are not registered, in accessing dental care when they need it. Access to health service dentistry across Northern Ireland has reduced significantly over the last five years, and one of the underlying reasons for that is that general dentist practitioners spend less time treating health service patients and more time meeting the strong demand for private work, which, as independent contractors, they are entitled to do. I am also aware that some areas of the country have historically lower registration and treatment rates, and that is particularly true of Fermanagh and Tyrone. That is at least partly due to geography. Areas with a low population density tend to have a lower density of practices. It is important to remember that general dentist practitioners are independent contractors, so, as such, they are not required to register new health service patients, nor does the Department have a role in deciding the location of new practices. That is a business decision made by the practice owners.

One area where my Department has some limited control is in regard to dental foundation training. Recent changes to that scheme have resulted in increased applications from general dentist practitioners wishing to become educational supervisors for newly graduated dentists who are completing their training year. That increase has allowed the Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency, NIMDTA, to improve the geographical distribution of dental foundation training places across Northern Ireland, and, as a result, there are seven fully funded health service training placements in the west of the Province in this financial year compared with just one in 2023-24. Recruitment of educational supervisors for 2025-26 is ongoing. It is anticipated that the geographical spread will continue positively.

Access to health service dentistry remains a priority focus for me, and my Department has specifically targeted investment this year at improving access for priority groups across the Province. There is an investment package of £9·2 million, and that has supported general dental services (GDS) in this financial year, including £1 million for newly registered child patients through the re-establishment of the enhanced child examination scheme. That provides children aged nought to 10 who have not been registered with a dentist with an examination, individualised oral health advice and age-specific fluoride application to teeth to assist with preventing dental decay. There is £4·3 million that has funded a 30% enhancement, and that is to fees paid to dentists for health service fillings, extractions and root canal treatment to support public access to priority treatments.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Finally, there was £3·9 million for the treatment of high-priority unregistered patients through a dental access scheme.

I will give way at the end, if there is time.

Officials continue to monitor the performance of those initiatives. The indications are that they have had a positive impact.

As I mentioned, I met the British Dental Association last week and discussed the issues facing the industry. Officials held a follow-up meeting today to continue the engagement. The BDA is clear that the current system is unsustainable, so my Department is developing options to increase investment in the service next year but is doing so in the context of a Budget that is entirely inadequate to meet the needs of Health and Social Care services.

I have said before that my Department faces a funding deficit of approximately £400 million in the next financial year. That places massive constraints on my scope to take the action that we would all like to see taken to sustain and develop services across the entire Department of Health.

Although those additional investment interventions are necessary to stabilise general dental services in the short term, I am clear that GDS, in common with other services, will require a sustained effort to ensure sustainability over the longer term. My Department is therefore committed to taking forward work on the long-term future of dental services to ensure that patients can continue to access care when they need it and that the service is sustainable. As an important first step, I have approved the commissioning of a general dental services cost-of-service review that will be completed in the 2025-26 financial year. The review will, in turn, provide a robust evidence base for informing how the service will develop over the coming years. I have said many times that my vision for Health and Social Care is to see more care delivered through primary and community care and to move towards a more preventative model of healthcare that will be better for patients and more sustainable in the longer term.

GDS play an important role in improving the general health of the population and reducing pressure on other areas of the health service. Improving oral health is an important element of the future sustainability of dental services and is central to the delivery of improved outcomes for patients. For that reason, I was pleased that oral health was included in the pathfinder programme for my Live Better initiative in the north-west. I look forward to the lessons learned from that initiative informing our longer-term priorities.

As for an out-of-hours service, there are currently three emergency dental centres providing emergency dental care at weekends and on bank holidays to registered and unregistered patients. The centres are located in Belfast, Armagh and Ballymena. When they were originally established in the 1990s, it was agreed with local dentists in the west that they would provide emergency cover through local, practice-based rotas covering weekends and public holidays. In 2019, the western local dental committee (LDC) approached the legacy Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) to advise it that it was no longer prepared to operate the local rotas and requested that the HSCB commission an emergency dental centre similar to that in other areas. Although the pandemic impacted on progress on that work, an out-of-hours working group was established in 2021 to review the future of dental out-of-hours and emergency care provision across Northern Ireland. The strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) is working through the actions emanating from the working group's findings, including engagement with the western LDC and the Western Trust on future arrangements for the west. Funding those actions, however, will be a significant challenge in the current financial climate.

Mr McGrath talked about the oral health strategy. I am aware that it dates back to 2007, but many of its recommendations and much of its evidence base are still valid. Developing a new strategy would carry a significant resource cost, including having a dedicated dental public health expert or expert group, owing to the complex and extended nature of developing a new strategy and the prerequisite oral health needs assessments. For example, one oral health strategy target was to improve the then 39% of five-year-old children who were decay-free to at least 50% within 10 years. In 2013, the data indicated that we had achieved 60%, and the 2018-19 data indicated that around 70% of our five-year-old children were decay-free. That represents great progress, but I am aware that more needs to be done.

I promised to return to the irony klaxon. Mrs Erskine challenged me by asking what steps I would take to introduce financial support and incentives for dentists. The first step will be to continue to try to persuade her that she made a big mistake in voting for the 2024-25 Budget. Áine Murphy made the point that a lot of dentists were no longer providing NHS dental treatment because it is no longer economically viable for them to do so: I agree. What is the solution? We need to find more money. Where do we find more money? We find more money in the Budget, but you voted for a Budget that, you were warned, was not adequate to meet the health and social care needs of our population.

The other point and the other irony klaxon is about health inequalities. I ask Members this: which Health Minister in recent years has put more of a focus on tackling health inequalities than I have? When it comes to moving into areas of deprivation to tackle the issues and disparities, particularly those in healthy life expectancy, who has done more to put a focus on that than I have?