Official Report: Tuesday 11 March 2025

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should rise in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes in which to make their statement. I remind Members that interventions will not be permitted and that points of order on this item of business or on any other matter will not be taken until after it has finished.

Mr Gildernew: Last Wednesday, the High Court in Belfast ruled that the Executive were in breach of their legal duty to adopt an anti-poverty strategy. The ruling came on the back of a judicial review taken by anti-poverty activists, led by the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ). I thank the CAJ for bringing the legal case and congratulate it on its successful outcome. It is the second time the Executive have been found to be in breach of their legal duty to adopt an anti-poverty strategy, as activists also brought a judicial review in 2015.

The activists should not have had to take such drastic action, as we should have adopted an anti-poverty strategy before now. An anti-poverty strategy for the North was a commitment first made in the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, and it was later made a legal requirement in the St Andrews Agreement of 2007. The Minister for Communities is responsible for producing an anti-poverty strategy and presenting it to the Executive for agreement. As I understand it, Minister Lyons has, so far, failed to present a final draft to his Executive colleagues for consideration. It is unacceptable that, over one year since the return of the Executive, all that we seem to be getting from the Minister is shifting deadlines and further delays. It should be pointed out that the strategy was largely completed under the previous Minister, Deirdre Hargey, so there is no excuse for this length of a delay.

Anti-poverty activists across the North are becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of urgency with which Minister Lyons seems to treat the issue. They are also becoming concerned that the reason for the delay is that Minister Lyons has substantially watered down the draft strategy that he inherited from his predecessor. The Minister has committed to presenting a strategy to the Executive by 31 March, and he must meet that deadline, which he himself set. It is equally important, however, that the strategy that the Minister produces be ambitious and robust enough to make a real impact on tackling poverty. Crucially, it must also have the support of the activists who are on the front line every single day dealing with the consequences of poverty in our society.

Ms Forsythe: This weekend, across Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the world, people will join to celebrate St Patrick's Day. On St Patrick's Day, we embrace the way in which a former slave, who embodied togetherness, brought Christianity to this island some 1,500 years ago. In context, a single century is a brief yet significant moment in time, and anniversaries can provide a valuable opportunity to reflect on our history and explore what can be learned for today.

St Patrick was born in Roman Britain in the late 4th century, a time when Christianity was already well established in parts of Europe. However, his life took a dramatic turn when, at age 16, he was captured by Irish raiders and taken to Ireland as a slave. For six years, he worked as a shepherd, enduring loneliness and hardship, yet it was during that time of suffering that Patrick's faith deepened. He turned to Christianity for comfort, praying constantly and growing in his relationship with God. Over the course of his ministry, Patrick baptised thousands of people and established churches. He travelled extensively, often in danger, to spread the message of Christ.

Patrick's work laid the foundation for Christianity in Ireland, but perhaps even more remarkable than his achievements was his character. Patrick's writings reveal a man of deep humility, gratitude and love for the people whom he served. Despite being mistreated as a slave, he returned to Ireland not with bitterness but with a heart full of compassion and a desire to shape the hope of Christ. St Patrick's legacy is a testament to the transformative power of Christianity. His life reminds us that faith is not just about personal salvation but about sharing God's love with others, even in the most challenging of circumstances.

My constituency of South Down has close links with St Patrick's story. His grave is at Down cathedral in Downpatrick, where the occasion will be marked again this year. It is great to see so many events locally and across the world, including in America, where I will be proud to see Emma Little-Pengelly represent Northern Ireland to its very best on the international stage, maximising opportunities for us at home.

St Patrick's breastplate read:

I wish everyone a very happy St Patrick's Day.

Mr Dickson: The United Kingdom has a long and proud tradition of supporting some of the most vulnerable people around the world through its international development assistance, tackling poverty, supporting sustainable development and responding to humanitarian crises around the world. We have a reputation as a global leader in international development. Steady cuts to that budget over recent decades include the most recent and utterly devastating reduction in funding to 0·3% of gross national income (GNI). That undermines leadership and the vital work that is being carried out around the world.

The United Kingdom's leadership in international development has been widely respected, but the recent reduction to 0·3% risks undermining that hard-won reputation at a time of unprecedented global challenge. My party, the Alliance Party, has long advocated for restoring the United Kingdom's aid commitment to 0·7% of gross national income. Indeed, when our leader, Naomi Long, was a Member of Parliament, she co-sponsored the legislation that placed 0·7% on a statutory footing. Members of the Coalition of Aid and Development Agencies Northern Ireland work in some of the most difficult areas of the world, providing life-changing and life-saving support. Such work is only possible because the United Kingdom has a development fund.

Let me be clear about what the reduction will mean. It will mean that fewer children will receive life-saving nutrition, healthcare and education and that years of progress in tackling global poverty will be undone. To take just one example, 179 of Save the Children's programmes across the world will be impacted on by the cuts. Some 124 of those 179 programmes will be fully terminated. That will impact on approximately 10·3 million people globally. It will mean the closure of 33 health clinics and cash-for-food programmes. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, hundreds of thousands of people will stop being treated for diseases such as cholera, and tens of thousands of children will miss out on testing and treatment for malaria. In Sudan, some 300,000 people will not get the nutrition and food aid that they desperately need at this time.

The aid cuts, alarmingly, mirror the reckless approach taken by Donald Trump in slashing the US Agency for International Development (USAID) budget. We believe in tackling poverty, supporting sustainable development and ensuring that marginalised communities are prioritised in humanitarian efforts. With rising global tensions and increasing volatility of US foreign policy under Trump, the need for increased defence spending is urgent, but that should not come at the expense of life-saving aid.

We have a moral duty and a strategic interest in supporting the world's most vulnerable people, and my party, the Alliance Party, will continue to push back against the cuts.

Mr Beattie: As we hurtle towards St Patrick's Day, I am reminded of how that day drags together into one my sense of Irishness, my sense of Britishness and my military history. Today, I am wearing my regimental tie, that of the Royal Irish Regiment, which is green. Many argue that the colour of St Patrick is not green but azure blue. That is a fair argument, I guess: in the British system, azure blue is the heraldic colour that we use. Indeed, Queen Victoria, on forming the Irish Guards, allowed them to wear a blue plume in their busby — their bearskin — or a blue hackle. That gives a sense of the history.

The shamrock, which is also on my tie, is incredibly important to me and my sense of Irishness, my sense of Britishness and my military history. Why is it important to me? Many people look at the shamrock and see it as having many connotations, including religious connotations, but, for me, it is about something different. On 5 March 1900, after the news of a particularly bloody battle in the Boer War that resulted in the relief of Ladysmith, Queen Victoria telegraphed the following message to her victorious troops:

On 14 March of the same year, Queen Victoria issued the following instruction:

For my whole adult life, as somebody in the military, I have celebrated St Patrick's Day and worn a sprig of shamrock in my regimental headdress. Many traditions come from that, one of which is that, every St Patrick's Day morning, the warrant officers and sergeants in my unit delivered "gunfire" to our soldiers. Gunfire is tea and whiskey. Traditionally, it was tea and rum, but, being Irish, we put in the Irish whiskey. The strangest place where I have ever done that was in the desert of Kuwait in 2003. We ensured that soldiers were able to celebrate St Patrick's Day on 17 March: they had shamrocks sent across to the Kuwaiti desert, put them in their headdress and had gunfire first thing that morning.

Lots of things about St Patrick's Day are important to people: for me, it is about blending my Irishness, my Britishness and my military service.

Ms Hunter: I thank some of the local football clubs in my constituency of East Derry. I will name just a few of them: the Heights Football Club; East-End Youth Football Club in Coleraine; and, of course, Portrush Football Club. Those clubs help hundreds of children to enjoy sport and get exercise, instil in them a sense of confidence and offer them positive male leadership and role models. Many of the clubs serve the most deprived wards in Northern Ireland, with over 250 children, and the coaches often pay out of their pocket to support them. Yet, the clubs cannot get adequate access to appropriate pitch facilities in their council area.

I am deeply concerned about the lack of access to football pitches in my area to serve the needs of those clubs. I ask the Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, to engage with the clubs in my constituency that lack access to efficient funding, changing facilities and, most importantly, pitches. Specifically, I am deeply troubled that publicly funded pitches in my constituency that are created to serve the broader community are instead reserved for just one 90-minute Coleraine and District match per week. That results in those vital facilities, which are intended to promote sport and physical activity for the whole community, being left overwhelmingly idle for the majority of the week. Restricting community access is detrimental to our young people who want to play football.

I am concerned that that will ultimately have an adverse impact on those whom we must support to get into sport. That includes children, young people, women and girls, disabled people, children with autism, the LGBT community and ethnic minorities, all of whom want to engage in sport. Two of the football clubs, East-End Football Club and Portrush Football Club Youths, have been unfairly prevented from accessing these facilities, despite their ongoing commitment to provide opportunities for our community and a safe space for children.

Football clubs in and around the Coleraine area do a fantastic job. Some of them serve more than 200 children. It is pivotal that those clubs are allowed the appropriate access. Most notably, the long-established and successful Portrush Youths summer camp has been forced to cancel as a direct result of not having access to the pitches. Also, a charity match has not been able to go ahead. That stresses how important the matter is. That is not only a gross misuse of council facilities but a violation of the principles that underpin Sport NI's headline values, which say that everybody should have access to sport.

I urge the Minister for Communities to take note of the situation and to engage with those clubs and the council. It is vital that the public investment in sport delivers the maximum possible benefit for all the children and young people who are in my constituency.

Mrs Dillon: I rise to speak about a number of children's healthcare issues. I recently met two families who have children with achondroplasia, which is a form of dwarfism. At the moment, there is no clear pathway for those children when they are diagnosed. Not only that but there are no services for them. They may be lucky enough to get on to clinical trials in England or in the South, but that is the only type of service that is provided for those children.

The families understand that the condition is rare and that they therefore may not be able to have a dedicated service just for such children in the North. They ask the Minister to look at other opportunities, such as whether there is potential for an all-island service or a service that is linked with one in England, where something might be done remotely. However, at this time, there is absolutely no service. We need multidisciplinary teams so that, when the children are diagnosed, all their needs are looked at. The lack of a service will have an impact not only on the children's health but on their education, socialisation and every element of their life. I pay tribute to the parents and carers, because they are fighting for everything that those children have, and they receive nothing in return.

I ask the Minister to look seriously at our children's services and to look not only at that one condition. We heard yesterday about givinostat, which is used to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy. We need to look seriously at what services are available for those children as well. The same multidisciplinary team approach should be applied. There are a number of other services: we know that children are often unable to access the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding surgery. All those issues feed into serious concerns about the health services that our children receive.

I welcome the Minister's announcement on the new children's hospital. It is positive, a good thing and much-needed. We visited the children's hospital in the Twenty-six Counties, and I hope that excellent services will be delivered there for children right across this island. However, I want to know what will be delivered when we have our hospital and what will be delivered for children and their families before we have the hospital.

I ask the Minister and the strategic planning and performance group to look at what services are currently commissioned and what can be commissioned. Let us be innovative and deliver for those families and children. In some cases, they have life-limiting conditions. Let us ensure that the life that they live is a good life.

Mr Clarke: Members will be aware of Muckamore Abbey Hospital but always for the wrong reasons. Everyone is aware of the debacle that went on there for many years and of the abuse and scandals. The long-called-for inquiry began in June 2022. After sitting for 120 days, the inquiry finally comes to an end this week. However, it will not come to an end for the families until it reaches its conclusions. Oral evidence was given by 181 witnesses, and 45 statements from staff and patients were also read into the inquiry.

In giving evidence to the inquiry, the relatives of patients at Muckamore had an opportunity to have their voices heard for the first time.

Many of them made representations individually to each of us about what their loved ones were going through. Of course, they made many and various complaints to the trust, but those fell on deaf ears. It has taken all of this time to get to the stage where they can get their voices on the record independently at an inquiry.

Running alongside that, there was a separate investigation that started in 2017, which was by no means a small feat. As a member of the Policing Board — I declare an interest — I challenged the length of time that that was taking a number of times. Police were trawling through thousands and thousands of hours of footage to identify some of the abuses or alleged abuses that were going on in that facility. It is shameful that all of this has taken so long whilst families continue to have their loved ones placed in the care of Muckamore Abbey Hospital.

The chairman's remark that he "hopes" to present a report by the end of this year is disappointing. Given that the families have waited so long and fought so hard for the inquiry and have been diligent in their attention to it since June 2022, it is shameful that it will take so many months for a summary of that report to be concluded. However, I hope that they will not have to wait that long.

Of course, the inquiry will present its findings, and there will be concern from those who have loved ones in the hospital that they get justice for the harm that has been done. When all of that has been done, there will still be families with family members in Muckamore Abbey Hospital, as there are today. I urge the trust to move forward with its plans to get suitable accommodation and to get those loved ones out of Muckamore and placed in a proper facility that can care for their needs and afford them a quality of life that they have not enjoyed for many years while in Muckamore Abbey Hospital.

Ms K Armstrong: I rise to congratulate two long-standing organisations in my Strangford constituency that are celebrating significant anniversaries.

I congratulate Portaferry Women's Institute, which celebrated its 90th anniversary. Portaferry WI is the second-oldest surviving institute. It was set up in 1935, and, at the first meeting, members noted that they would meet on the second Tuesday of each month. Ninety years later, they still meet on that date. While the first president was Lady Nugent, I pay tribute to another lady: Mrs Betty White. Mrs White has been a stalwart of the WI and, at recent celebrations, produced scrapbooks that covered the 90 years of activity and events. I congratulate Portaferry WI on its momentous anniversary and congratulate all the women who are keeping that tradition alive.

My second congratulations are to Ballynahinch Rugby Club, which celebrates its 70th anniversary this year. Ballynahinch Rugby Club was founded in 1954, and it is affiliated to the Ulster branch of the Irish Rugby Football Union. The first team currently plays senior rugby union in All-Ireland League Division 1A, and the club fields six junior standard adult teams. Youth teams, both male and female, compete at under-16, under-14, under-12 and mini rugby levels. It is a fantastic club that showcases excellent coaching, excellent facilities and successful teams. I wish everyone well as they continue to develop the club. Here's to the next 70 years.

Mr McNulty: It is a privilege to speak today about the vital work being carried out by the Simon Community in the North of Ireland. I recently had the opportunity to meet some of the brilliant team at the Simon Community in Armagh. The dedication and compassion that they show to those in need is truly inspirational. The Simon Community is more than an organisation: it is a lifeline that provides a safe harbour for people who have fallen on tough times and helps them to rebuild their life.

While official statistics estimate that there are around 58,000 people in the North experiencing homelessness, the Simon Community estimates that, including hidden homelessness, that figure is closer to 80,000. The Simon Community recognises that homelessness is not just about a lack of shelter but about a loss of security, stability and, often, hope. That is why the Simon Community's work goes far beyond providing a roof over someone's head. It provides a comprehensive range of support and helps individuals not just to survive but to thrive.

The Simon Community supports up to 636 marginalised people every day — 636. Its work spans a variety of accommodation projects, including temporary shelters and longer-term housing solutions, as well as essential homelessness support services such as healthcare, employment support, addiction services and other help, as needed. By offering more than just a place to stay, the Simon Community helps people to regain their independence and work towards a future in which they are no longer at risk of homelessness.

What stood out to me during my visit was the deep commitment to each individual. The Simon Community does not take a one-size-fits-all approach; it understands that everyone's situation is different. It provides person-centred care that addresses not only the immediate needs but the underlying causes of homelessness. That approach is critical in helping people to move beyond homelessness, rather than simply managing the symptoms.

Of course, the work of the Simon Community is not something that it can do alone: the need for continued support is immense. It relies on the generosity of the public, volunteers and donors to continue its vital services. We all have a role to play in supporting the Simon Community's work, whether through financial support, volunteering our time or simply raising awareness of homelessness in the North. The Simon Community plays a critical role in the fight against homelessness, offering not just shelter but hope and a pathway to a better future. The work that it does is truly life-changing. I am grateful to the team for all that it does. We must all continue to support and champion its work so that no one has to face homelessness alone.

Ms Finnegan: I am profoundly concerned about the recent news of the closure of Rathkeeland House surgery in Crossmaglen. The situation highlights the severe underfunding of general practice, making it increasingly unsustainable for practices to continue operating under existing contracts. Rathkeeland House surgery has served the health needs of the community for many years and has been a vital service that many people have depended on, with over 4,500 patients registered to the practice. It is vital that the Department of Health engage directly with Rathkeeland House practice to ensure that the community of Crossmaglen has access to GP services in the future.

Our GPs and their staff have dedicated years of their lives to caring for sick and vulnerable patients, yet they are witnessing the troubling trend of more clinics closing. The Southern Health and Social Care Trust has taken on additional contracts and pays GPs exorbitant locum fees to ensure that NHS patients still receive care when they need it. That is not a sustainable solution to inadequate funding, with GPs struggling to maintain NHS contracts and patients being left behind as a result. Over a decade and a half of British Government austerity has undermined our ability to invest fully in public services, including health, despite the fact that the Executive continue to prioritise health services.

The closure of Rathkeeland House surgery leaves staff facing potential unemployment, with the uncertain hope of being retained by the Southern Trust. It could mean new contracts at lower pay rates for those who have dedicated years to caring for patients. It is particularly frustrating for staff and patients to see photos of the Health Minister from nine months ago, when he visited Rathkeeland House surgery and awarded over £100,000 to it for a much-needed expansion. Now, less than a year later, the surgery is handing back its contracts due to inadequate support from the health authorities. How could the Minister have visited those premises and not recognised the dire situation that the practice was in? What concrete steps will he take to ensure that the people of Crossmaglen and south Armagh can access essential GP services? At present, the surgeries run by the health trust appear to have little or no availability, leaving patients to suffer. What immediate actions will the Minister take to bolster GP services in our area? Our community deserves answers and a commitment to ensuring that quality healthcare is accessible to all.

Mrs Erskine: I congratulate Enniskillen Drama Festival, which is celebrating its 45th anniversary this year. It is a nine-night amateur drama festival that has been staged in the Ardhowen theatre each year since the spring of 1980. It was founded by a small group of local drama enthusiasts to showcase and celebrate the best of amateur drama and encourage such productions locally to as wide an audience as possible.

At the festival's inception, two amateur drama groups, Enniskillen Amateur Dramatic Society and St Michael's Drama Society, joined together to form the original committee. The first five festivals were held in the assembly hall of what was then known as the Fermanagh College of Further Education. The festival's home is now Enniskillen's Ardhowen Theatre. It is wonderful to see how the festival has progressed since its inception. Enniskillen Drama Festival's popularity led the way in lobbying for the funds that built the Ardhowen Theatre, so it is fitting that the festival still takes place in that same theatre.

On Friday, I attended the opening night and saw a comedy, 'The Whiteheaded Boy', performed by the Bart Players. It was wonderful to see so many in the audience escaping the realities of our everyday world to come together and enter a different world. That is what theatre is all about. It is important that we cherish and continue to cultivate our cultural offering here in Northern Ireland. However, we need to make sure that we continue to support our arts and culture in every way possible. Our Communities Minister is keen to do so and to ensure that there is regional balance in promoting and providing money for the arts, because it is only through the support of local businesses and funding from the council and DFC that such festivals can exist. They promote our local, home-grown talent, support people's mental health and are important in breaking down social isolation in our communities.

If you have not been to the Enniskillen Drama Festival, I encourage you to go along. It runs until 15 March with plays such as 'The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time' and Brian Friel's 'Translations'. I say a massive "Well done" to Dave Rees and all the organisers in continuing that wonderful event in Fermanagh.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Timothy Gaston. Timothy, you have one minute and 30 seconds.

Mr Gaston: Last week, during the debate on the Programme for Government, I contrasted the two bodies mentioned on page 85 of that document, namely InterTradeIreland and Intertrade UK. I highlighted the fact that InterTradeIreland has a budget of over £6·4 million awarded to it from the Stormont Budget. I could have added that the Food Safety Promotion Board, a body that, the last time that my party checked, did not employ a single person in Northern Ireland, got over £2·4 million from the same Budget. Intertrade UK, by contrast, did not get a single penny from this place. We have since learned that it gets precious little from anywhere. The board members of Intertrade UK — there have been some good appointments — are not even being paid. Intertrade UK has no offices and no staff. Oh yes, a secretariat is provided, but even that is made up of staff provided by the protocol fanatics in the NIO. If that was the token gesture on offer to restore Stormont, one would have to ask the DUP why it accepted such a weak body, but, in truth, we all know the answer: in its rush to return to a protocol-implementing Stormont, all the DUP was interested in was something of spin, not something of any real substance.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Education Minister announced a continuation of the childcare subsidy scheme. The original subsidy scheme was welcome, and my party worked on it with the Minister and the help of parents and others. Also yesterday, the First Minister published entirely inaccurate information suggesting that parents would be able to avail themselves of a 25% cut in costs. That information was shared widely — the First Minister has an enormous social media following — leading to falsely raised hopes for many hard-pressed parents. I appreciate that her words were not uttered in the Chamber and that the post has been deleted, but there has not been any retraction, let alone an apology. Given that the post raised parents' hopes and that the information was entirely inaccurate and false, will the Chair advise whether there is any mechanism to ask the First Minister to reflect on that, retract the information and do anything else that the Chair advises?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, and you know that it is not, but you have read your concerns into the record.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Education that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be permitted.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Today, I am delighted to launch TransformED NI, my Department's new strategy for transforming teaching and learning. Last summer, writing for the Belfast 'News Letter', under the heading "Paul Givan: Change is coming to ensure Northern Ireland has a truly world class education system", I set out my ambitious intention to begin a period of renewal and reform in our education system.

Today, that strategy sets out the most detailed and systematic programme of transformation in over a generation, which will make Northern Ireland's education system truly world leading. It provides a pathway to educational excellence that is based on supporting effective teaching and a renewal of curriculum assessment, qualifications and school improvement, all underpinned by a relentless focus on tackling educational disadvantage. Together, those elements form the cornerstone of our education system, yet they have received limited focus or investment during recent decades, and all need reflection, evaluation and improvement.

The new education strategy provides a series of coherent and evidence-based actions that will transform education in Northern Ireland, allowing us to learn from and outpace the world's best. We must start the journey to reform our system with an honest understanding of where we are now.

TransformED reforms the discussion about education within the wider international context. Put simply, many countries are improving their school systems faster than Northern Ireland is, and they have smaller gaps between the more and less affluent. Our programme for international student assessment (PISA) outcomes and evaluation of the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students from around the world show an education system that has stagnated in recent years. Our outcomes are strong in reading but only average in mathematics and science. As is the case in many systems internationally, there remains a strong correlation in Northern Ireland between socio-economic disadvantage and educational outcomes. The gap is closing, but much, much too slowly.

Notably, there are also significant variations in outcomes between schools with similar levels of disadvantage. Some schools are performing strongly but others poorly. Let us be clear: we have been overtaken not just by the East Asian powerhouses or the Scandinavian countries but by our neighbours in England and the Republic of Ireland. That is, perhaps, unsurprising, when action short of strike has left us — for many years — without inspection or effective measures of system and pupil performance. The most fundamental feature of any education system that promotes social mobility is one in which every child can attend a good school. The absence of inspection means that many schools have not been identified for the support that they need. It is incredible that we are currently without any national measure of how our children are performing in the key skills of literacy and numeracy at primary school and Key Stage 3. That is not acceptable, and it makes Northern Ireland an outlier, internationally, in being without basic performance data. Equally, we have not invested in a coherent approach to professional development, nor in curriculum review, advice or resources. It is a similar picture with our qualification system. That is simply not good enough. We are faced with what Martin Luther King referred to as, "the fierce urgency of now". There is a Chinese proverb that states:

The time for change is now, and the pace of change will be faster than it was in the past, because our children only get one chance. They cannot afford for us to bring change at a glacial pace while their life chances are limited by our inaction.

For too long, we have focused on structural issues, be they academic selection or types of schools, to little avail. The heart of education lies in the classroom. We need to put aside those tired old conversations and focus on what children learn, how and for what purpose. The new strategy represents a break with what has gone before. Make no mistake, this is a far-reaching agenda. It is a vision, a commitment and a call to action. Its message is simple: excellence for every child; high expectations of every child; and success by every child. Positive words cannot be just the title of a strategy. They must be the reality for every school.

To ensure that our education system is world class, we must be willing to look beyond our borders and learn from the best performing education systems globally. Countries such as Singapore, South Korea, Canada and Estonia have consistently ranked among the top performers globally. They have achieved excellence not by chance but through deliberate policies, innovative teaching and a commitment to continuous improvement.

Learning from international best practice does not mean copying blindly. Every country has its unique challenges and strengths, but by studying what works elsewhere and adapting it to our context, we can create a culture of continuous improvement. That is why I established an international ministerial advisory panel, which is made up of exceptional individuals with international expertise, to support our education system's transformation. Some are from countries that have already transformed their education system, while others are from countries that are beginning that process. They have helped inform the strategy.

I am not an education expert, and I do not pretend to be one, but I know that we can and must learn from what works here and across the world. Northern Ireland has some of the most highly qualified teachers anywhere in the British Isles, so we should also have an education system that outperforms the world's best. I want us to have an evidence-informed system that uses the best available research, data and evidence to shape the policies, practices and decisions that will govern our education system for the next decade. Taking such an evidence-based approach requires humility: the willingness to acknowledge what works and, importantly, what does not. The new strategy sets out our determination to learn in a sophisticated way from those countries that outperform us at present. It identifies the core elements of excellence that are common across high-performing jurisdictions and uses them to inform the way forward in Northern Ireland.

The strategy is accompanied by a 10-point plan for delivering educational excellence. Through each of the 10 strategic commitments, we aim to learn systematically from the most effective and fastest-improving school systems in the world and to tackle the weaknesses currently identified in our system.

We will review and redesign the Northern Ireland curriculum to ensure that every child enjoys an ambitious and knowledge-rich curriculum that develops their learning in a well-sequenced and explicit manner. We will invest in high-quality teacher professional learning and curriculum resources. We will introduce new literacy and numeracy strategies and a new school improvement policy based on international best practice. We will provide a new system of attainment measures for end of Key Stage assessment in order to set high standards for all children. We will take an integrated approach to tackling educational disadvantage in our schools, families and communities. We will introduce legislation to ensure that all learners remain in education, an apprenticeship or training until the age of 18. We will develop a coherent accountability framework for education in order to demonstrate value to government, taxpayers and parents. We will have an excellent teacher for every child, a high-quality curriculum for every school and a core offer of excellence for every parent.

Devolution is about making a difference, and, when delivered, the strategy will make a difference. Today is an important beginning, but, make no mistake, it is only the beginning. Over the coming weeks, I will make a series of important announcements about assessment, professional learning, literacy and numeracy, and school improvement, work on which is already at an advanced stage.

I have appointed two school principal panels — one for primary schools and one for post-primary schools — to offer insights and advice as we implement the strategy. My Department will also publish a costed implementation plan to support delivery of the strategy over the next number of years. I have asked my officials to prioritise the funding that is needed. It must be the first call on the Department of Education budget. The growing economic powerhouses of the 21st century are those nations that have placed an absolute premium on getting their education system right. Northern Ireland must do the same, or else we will be left behind. The world is indifferent to past reputations and unforgiving of frailty. Complacency is the enemy of progress.

To keep pace with the best education systems in the world, we must refresh and renew. It has been said that it is not the strongest who survive but those who are the most adaptable to change. The cornerstone of effective governance lies in our ability to make informed decisions. By grounding our decisions in solid evidence, we honour the trust that is placed in us, ensure that public money is spent wisely and, most important, create policies that genuinely improve the lives of those whom we serve.

If we value education, we must also value and support our teaching profession. I quote McKinsey's famous maxim:

As Minister of Education, I reaffirm my pledge to support teachers at every stage of their careers. I am determined to make teaching in Northern Ireland an attractive, high-status profession where every teacher receives world-class professional learning and development. From initial teacher education to ongoing professional development, we must ensure that every teacher has access to the resources, training and support that they need to excel in their profession.

Central to the education strategy is a commitment to invest in a comprehensive approach to teacher professional development. The strategy sets out a series of commitments to provide additional funding for schools to purchase high-quality professional learning, improve access to education research and pilot investment in supporting collaborative professional learning communities.

School leadership is also crucial to the success of high-performing education systems. Schools are rarely more effective than their leaders. Regrettably, there are increasing concerns that school leadership is not viewed as an attractive role, and senior leadership roles are increasingly difficult to fill. Providing the right opportunities for leadership development and the right programmes to develop future leaders is crucial in strengthening our education system. That is why the strategy sets out our intention to develop a replacement qualification for headship to support our newly appointed and aspiring principals, strengthen the provision of school-to-school support through a leaders of education programme and develop a professional learning programme for experienced principals. We will also review, strengthen and invest in professional learning for middle leaders.

Today, I want to address school leaders and teachers across Northern Ireland directly. I take the opportunity to express my gratitude for your hard work, professionalism and commitment to supporting children and young people. I recognise the challenges that you face each day and the increased pressures that have been placed on teachers and school leaders in recent years. They are the pillars on which we will build our children's future.

The strategy represents a critical commitment to invest in teachers and in teaching. I want us to work together to build a culture across our community where education is truly valued. World-class economies prioritise education. They make education a priority, having convinced their citizens that it is worth investing in the future through education and making choices that value education more than other things. I will continue to make the case for increased investment in education as a protective factor in the lives of our young people and as a key driver of improved economic, social and health outcomes.

We must be radical if our ambition is to be world-class. The strategy represents a new direction for education in Northern Ireland. We must focus on investing in and supporting high-quality professional development for our school leaders and teachers and on relentlessly improving curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. I approach the task of reform with a sense of ambition and energy. I look forward to working together in partnership with all representatives, parties and stakeholders to transform and improve education delivery in Northern Ireland. My aim is to ensure that our education system is truly world-leading, excellent, equitable, inclusive and able to meet the needs of all children and young people in an ever-changing world. Together we can build an education system that is stronger, fairer and fit for the future. Our children deserve nothing less.

I commend the statement to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call Cara Hunter, the spokesperson for the official Opposition, I ask Members who wish to ask a question to continually rise in their place. We will try to get your names down.

Ms Hunter: Minister, thank you for your statement. I welcome your commitment to tackling educational disadvantage in the North. On that matter, the National Association for Children of Alcoholics (NACOA) has published research on educational disadvantage faced by children who have parents with addiction in the home. Can you detail to the House how you will engage with such groups to ensure that all kinds of educational disadvantage are acknowledged, no children are overlooked and all are supported by your Department?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for welcoming the statement. It should unite Members across the House on what we are trying to do to support every child and every school. That is the ambition behind the statement.

Of course, I am happy to work with any organisation that wants to help our children and young people. The Member mentioned those who come from a more disadvantaged background. The strategy is absolutely driven by the desire to ensure that we give the best possible opportunity to those who are not as fortunate as others in our society. Those who are better off have the means to provide additional support outside the school setting. For those from an educationally disadvantaged socio-economic background, school is often their only opportunity. That is why we need to drive up our standards in every school and support every teacher.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I thank the Minister for his statement. There is much to welcome, but, as always, the issue will be the delivery rather than just the aspiration.

I welcome the fact that there is a focus on investment in teacher professional development. Teachers report being overworked, however, and feeling that they spend far too much of their time on tasks that do not directly impact on children's education. If the strategy is to be a success, we need teachers to be freed up to teach. How will the Minister tackle the ongoing issues around teacher workload so that the strategy can be a success?

Mr Givan: I thank the Chairman for welcoming the statement. He is right to highlight the issues to do with professional learning. Our teachers are central to the success of a child's educational outcome. They are the most critical asset that we have in our education system, and everything that we build around the system is to support our teachers. Teaching in the classroom is what will have the most impact, so we need to ensure that we have the most up-to-date international best practices in place in what we teach — the curriculum — and ensure that how it is taught reflects the best practices so that our children get the best opportunity for learning.

I want to ensure that the focus for teachers is on how they teach and that our focus is on supporting them through professional learning. Workload issues can often be important, but, if there are workload issues that distract teachers from focusing on the critical work that they do in teaching, we need to address them. That is why we have positively engaged with the unions. We have identified workload issues and have identified and committed to a timeline for how we can address them. I hope that we will be able to make progress on those wider workload issues.

Mr Sheehan: I welcome the Minister's commitments to an evidence-based approach to improving our education system and tackling underachievement. Given the overwhelming evidence against the use of academic selection from academics, educationalists, children's rights groups, charities, trade unions and others, can we expect the Minister to look at ending the practice of academic selection and rejection during his tenure?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for welcoming the statement. The statement spoke to the need to focus on what I have just outlined, which is that we support every school and every teacher. It is too easy to have a debate about the merits or otherwise of academic selection — I can engage in that, and I can provide my view — but how do we ensure that every school is supported? That is what will address educational underachievement for children in all of our schools. Let us have the focus on driving up attainment in every school. The best way to do that is detailed in the statement that I have made to the House.

Mr Martin: I very much welcome the statement. I will also reflect that it is so encouraging to see an Education Minister who is passionate about tackling educational underachievement and raising standards in the entire system. When does he expect the curriculum review, which is so clearly tied to the strategy, to report?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments. He speaks, rightly, to the curriculum review. That is absolutely important for what we teach and for making sure that the curriculum in Northern Ireland is refreshed and renewed. The last curriculum that we had was in 2007. That was 17 years ago, and the independent review of education noted that the curriculum had not been subject to a refresh and renew process. Therefore, it is timely that we are having a curriculum review, which I commissioned. Lucy Crehan has been carrying out the work on that review, which will make a series of policy recommendations on the purpose, design, specification and implementation of the curriculum. The review is due to report in May, and my officials are already engaging on what the next steps will be.

Mr Crawford: I also thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, how will your Department address current recruitment and retention challenges, and what immediate steps will be taken to make school leadership roles more attractive?

Mr Givan: Recruitment and retention is one of the key issues highlighted in the document. It is highlighted as an issue in some specific subjects, such as science and technology and design, where there is a challenge, particularly at post-primary level. Having specialist teachers in those areas is key for our young people to get the best support possible in those subjects. Similarly, where you have teacher expertise in the world around us, which is part of the 2007 curriculum, that can be very enriching. If you do not, it is not having the impact that it should.

When it comes to recruitment, we need to make sure that our society values the profession highly and that the terms and conditions are appropriate. That is why I increased the starting salary for new recruits from £23,000 to £30,000, put up pay by over 10% for all our staff last year and why I am supporting a 5·5% pay rise this year. We need to show through what we pay our teaching professionals that they are valued. The highest-performing education systems in the world recognise that through terms and conditions.

If we are to recruit the brightest and best young people into the teaching profession, they need to be given appropriate terms and conditions and to be valued by our society. They then need to be supported so that, as they go through their professional development, they continue to develop their skills and can see a clear pathway of progression to become middle school leaders and then principals. We will do that only if we can put the right support in place. That is what the statement will do.

Mr Baker: If we are serious about transforming special educational needs (SEN) provision, we must ensure that Health is at the table, working in partnership. That is particularly important with regard to allied health professionals (AHPs). I asked this yesterday during Question Time: if we are serious about giving every child the same chance, what work is under way to boost the number of qualified allied health professionals who are available to the Education Authority (EA)?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. During Question Time yesterday, I touched on the role of allied health professionals, particularly in special needs schools. I met the Health Minister, and we have our officials engaging directly with senior officials in the Department of Health, including the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO). We are looking at the provision of medical support in special schools.

The Member is right: there needs to be more accessibility, because our young people are presenting with much greater levels of medical complexities and not just educational challenges. That requires the Department of Health to be part of the solution as we seek to support children who have special educational needs.

I published a specific statement in February on special educational needs reform, and there is a delivery plan associated with that. The priority that I have given to special educational needs is evident, which is why there is a stand-alone strategy for it. Today's statement is a high-level strategic document that will be transformative for the education system, and that will benefit every child and young person in all our schools.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you to the Minister; I very much welcome the statement. On raising the age of compulsory education, it is noted in the report that jobs require a higher level of skill. Minister, will you detail what your Department has done to collaborate with the Department for the Economy to ensure that your work aligns with the skills needs of Northern Ireland and that there is the best possible outcome for every child?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. The statement rightly highlights the need for our young people to continue not only in education but in training. When that was taken forward in England, there was higher uptake among young people who wanted to continue in education, so fewer people were not engaging in education or some kind of formal training, be it an apprenticeship or training. I have already committed to introducing legislation on that. That is a piece of work that we will take forward in the Assembly.

It is vital that we align what we are doing on our curriculum. We are very much looking at that knowledge-rich approach. It is about developing a mastery of the subject matter. That is not necessarily about teaching a lot more; it is about teaching the subject matter in great detail. When you have command of a subject matter, you develop confidence and can then apply that when you are exposed to new ideas. That is very important and is embedded in the new strategy.

Mrs Guy: Thank you to the Minister for the statement. I am happy to welcome anything that has the ambition of excellence for every child — that should be our focus. The strategy highlights the intention for all learners to remain in education and training until they are 18. For that to succeed for our young people, we need to ensure parity of esteem between academic and vocational qualifications. How will the Minister's plan deliver on that?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for welcoming the document. She touches on an important issue when it comes to qualifications. We have seen an increase in the different types of qualifications that are offered in our schools. That is why I am committed to reviewing qualifications: we need to ensure that, if a young person takes up a qualification, there is a clear pathway of progression either into further education or, indeed, a career. I am concerned about the proliferation of different qualifications. That is why there will be a review of the qualifications that are available in our schools. We need to ensure that the qualifications that are offered align with the needs of our society and provide clear pathways for young people. There would be nothing worse than a young person completing a qualification and, at the end of a number of years, not having a pathway into employment, further education or training. Qualifications are an important part of the transformation, so there will be work in that area.

Mrs Mason: I will follow up on the line of questioning from the Chair of the Education Committee. Minister, professional development appears to be a key aspect of the strategy. Our teachers continue to go above and beyond despite their mounting workload. You mentioned the timeline in your previous answer. When will those workload concerns be addressed?

Mr Givan: That speaks to the issue on which we have engaged with the unions. As part of the offer to do with the increase in pay, there was a clear commitment to address workload-related issues. The Department has provided the unions with detail on how we will take that forward.

I am very much of the view that I want our teachers to focus on teaching. That is what today's statement is about. It is about placing our teachers at the centre of what we do in our education system. We provide that support. When it comes to initial teacher training, how do we ensure consistency of approach across our training providers? In Northern Ireland, we are fortunate that we have a small number of providers that deliver excellence. We need to make sure that there is consistency. In other jurisdictions, we have identified a proliferation of different providers that offer low-level initial teacher training, which dilutes the quality. We do not have that in Northern Ireland. We have a good system, but there is an opportunity to look at that again to ensure consistency of what is being taught in initial teacher training and, after that, how to get professional development, because that is a lifelong process, and ensure that teachers get that support.

A teacher in Singapore gets 100 hours a year to focus on their own professional development. In other jurisdictions, it is a higher number of hours. When it comes to teachers who engage in senior leadership roles, the time that becomes available is significant. Resource is required to provide that support. In Northern Ireland, we provide Baker days and school development days. There are 10 days for that. How do we ensure that we support teachers' professional development during the 10 days that are available, because there has not been the investment to enable schools to do that as effectively as it could be done? How do we ensure that what is provided is consistent across Northern Ireland, so that every school is able to raise its standards?

Mr Harvey: With the serious pressure on the Education budget, does the Minister expect to be able to fund the strategy?

Mr Givan: As I indicated in my statement, that has to be the priority, because the strategy will impact on every child — children of all abilities, right across all our sectors. It is very much the blueprint for my ministerial priorities. That will then align with the departmental priorities, and the resources will align with that. It will be resourced. My Department is developing a costed implementation plan. It will be in the region of £20 million in the next financial year. The majority of that will be to support teachers in their professional learning. To put it into context: we spend almost £3 billion a year on education. The most critical factor in that is our teachers. If we do not invest in our teachers, we are not ensuring the most effective use of £3 billion. That is why it is vital that we put investment into the new TransformED agenda. There is a clear, well-evidenced plan, but it needs to be resourced. That will be the first priority for my Department. It will be resourced.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you so much, Minister, for coming to the Chamber. Employers often report to us that they want students to come to the labour market with the right skills. How will you ensure that we do not reset the balance too far on a knowledge-based curriculum and diminish the skills that our young people develop? How will you ensure alignment of all that?

Mr Givan: All the international best practice now shows that a knowledge-rich curriculum is what will achieve the best outcomes for our children and young people. With detailed knowledge of a particular subject, you acquire the skills because you have the confidence to apply that knowledge. We need to embed into the long-term memory of our children and young people the fundamental things such as literacy and numeracy, which are the building blocks of our education system. A knowledge-rich approach is the best way in which to do that.

We have been able to track how other countries that do not follow a knowledge-rich curriculum have declined and how those that do are rising up the international performance measures. It is an evidence-based approach. It is not one that should be viewed through the prism of some ideology. I look with envy at what has happened in the Republic of Ireland over the past number of years. It has been able to drive up its standards. Northern Ireland has not kept at pace. In fact, we have gone backwards. I look at what has happened in England, where it has been able to drive up its standards. Then, I look at Wales. It has been regressive. Scotland, which introduced its own more skills-based curriculum, has now recognised that there are challenges with that and is looking again at the curriculum that it has been following.

Our curriculum was set in 2007. It is right that we should refresh it and look at international best practice from the various countries that apply the knowledge-rich curriculum. You can look at China. Then you can look at Norway, Finland — those Scandinavian countries. Then you can look at Estonia. You can look at Hong Kong and at Macau in China. You can see that, across the world, countries with different kinds of Governments of various shades have gone down that route of a knowledge-rich curriculum. We should not spread ourselves so thinly that schools cover a wide variety of subjects, because then we are only scratching the surface. You need to get into mastering the core subject matter, and once you have mastery of that subject, you will apply that and develop the skills. A knowledge-rich curriculum first develops your skills. That is the best way, as evidence shows at an international level, for us to develop our children and young people, which will benefit our society and also our economy.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement. In 2007, I was still at school, so it just shows the importance and the need to introduce the strategy to review the curriculum. The Minister will agree that every child deserves the best start in their education journey. With regard to the skills that are needed to equip pupils, particularly those who are dealing with dyslexia and dyspraxia, who have a lack of confidence in school and have high absence rates —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, Deborah?

Mrs Erskine: Will the curriculum review look at that?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for welcoming the statement and for her question. What we have to view within our society is that every single child can do well. We should never tolerate a view that, because you have a particular additional need, you are not going to perform well, or that somebody has an inherent talent or ability to be good at maths or they just so happen to be good at English and that is why they perform well. Every single child can perform well with clear, consistent and explicit teaching that is structured and has a consistency of approach across our schools, with our teachers supported to do that at a consistent level. That will drive up the standards for every child. Whether it is children with dyslexia, dyspraxia or other additional needs, we should be striving to ensure that they all get the best possible education, in every setting and from every teacher. That is very much what is driving the ambition that I have for our schools and young people.

Mr McNulty: Minister, your ambition to ensure that our education system is truly world-leading, excellent, equitable, inclusive and able to meet the needs of all children and young people in an ever-changing world is to be strongly commended, and I strongly support the sentiment that every single child can do well. Will you provide more information on the international ministerial advisory panel and let us know to what extent teachers, teaching assistants and school leaders have been consulted about the new approach?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his very kind comments. They are appreciated. I am only supported by excellent people within my Department. There has been a team involved in this, led by Dr Suzanne Kingon, that is driving forward the agenda that I have. I can only do what I do with the best people around me. It is the same in our schools; they can only be taken forward with the principals leading and the best people around them. Your appreciation for the work that I am doing is reflective of the people around me, so thank you for that.

The international ministerial advisory panel, as I have said, is made up of exceptional individuals with international expertise to support the transformation of our education system. The panel is made up of the following: Tim Oates, who was a director of assessment, research and development at Cambridge University Press and Assessment; Christine Counsell, a leading expert in curriculum development and a former director of the Inspiration Trust; Harold Hislop, a former chief inspector in the Republic of Ireland and the current adjunct professor at Dublin City University’s Institute of Education; Hardip Begol, a former director of assessment, curriculum and qualifications at the Department of Education in England and currently a board member of Ofqual and non-executive director at Oak National Academy. We also have Daisy Christodoulou, a renowned educational author and founder of No More Marking, a company that works closely with schools in the UK, Australia and the USA to develop new approaches on assessment; Nina Hood, a New Zealand-based educationalist who is academic director of The Teachers' Institute, a new teacher training organisation; and Jennifer Buckingham, executive director of the Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation in the New South Wales Department of Education and a well-known educational author.

The new panel brings together leading global educators to provide strategic insight, advice and guidance. They provide us with valuable insights, drawing on best practice, research and innovations from around the world, and I am deeply indebted to them for agreeing to be part of the panel. They have been able to review the strategy, and they have informed it. We are fortunate to have their global expertise.

In my statement, I indicated that I have also established two principal panels, because we have expertise in Northern Ireland as well. We have a panel made up of principals from primary and post-primary schools. They can provide us with real-time information about how the strategy would work in schools and what its impact would be. Their expertise will be critical to informing the policy and, when giving operational effect to what we are trying to do, ensuring that it is very much grounded in what will work in Northern Ireland.

Mr Middleton: I welcome the Minister's statement and his leadership in Northern Ireland's education sector. Minister, in the strategy's 10-point plan, you refer to:

How can we work more closely with our communities? Obviously, education does not begin and end at the school gates. What more can be done to ensure that communities have a say in our schools?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments and questions. He is absolutely right: when it comes to education, the most appropriate time is that spent in a school setting, but a wider contribution needs to be made and not just by parents.

All the evidence shows that parental engagement is vital to how young people engage with our education system. We looked at the approach that has been taken in London of engaging parents. That has helped to drive up parents' aspirations for what they want their young people to become as well as their engagement on school attendance and the amount of homework that is carried out.

Parents are critical to what we do, but there is also the wider community response. There are organisations that can help our children and young people outside the school setting. I referenced the importance of that. We have the RAISE programme, which will be important. In the areas in which it will operate, that programme will help to provide a whole-community response to supporting our children and young people.

Mr Brett: I warmly welcome the Minister's statement, as he shares my passion for tackling educational underachievement in areas of socio-economic disadvantage.

Minister, the strategy is, clearly, ambitious. When can we expect delivery of all aspects to commence?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments. Like many of my colleagues, he has had me visit a number of schools in his constituency. He also organised for me to meet the north Belfast principals' forum, so I know that his personal commitment to supporting our education system is real. That is reflected in comments from the principals in his constituency about his work in that area.

The Member is right about the ambitious nature of the strategy. It is ambitious, but it should be, because it is about our children and young people. They deserve the very best opportunity to succeed in life, so the strategy has to be ambitious, and it has to be driven forward. I am determined to drive it forward, and so, over the coming weeks, I will make a series of important announcements on assessment, professional learning, literacy and numeracy and school improvement. We will also publish a costed implementation plan to support the delivery of the strategy over the next number of years. That plan will identify lead organisations, delivery mechanisms and the funding required to put the strategy in place.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, there is lots of interesting stuff in the strategy; the test will be in the delivery. One place that the strategy is not mentioned is in the Programme for Government. There is very little detail, and, in fact, the word "curriculum" is not mentioned in the Programme for Government. How much of today's statement has been agreed by your Executive colleagues?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments and his open view on the strategy. We need to come at it with that fresh perspective and engage on the issues from an evidence-based perspective. That is welcomed. There will be some areas on which we may disagree, but I think that we can all agree on the direction of travel that has been outlined.

It is a high-level strategy, and, as we identify issues that may require referral to the Executive, we will follow the normal processes. I have not been restrained as a Minister by not having a Programme for Government, nor will my ambition to drive forward education in the areas that are not mentioned in the Programme for Government be restrained. I will continue to do that. The strategy is further evidence of my commitment to supporting our education system, our children and young people and our teachers.

Mr Clarke: Like others, I welcome the statement. The strategy is ambitious, and it is welcome that you are putting children first.

You referenced in your statement the difficulties with the inspection regime. We cannot wait any longer, so when will you move to reintroduce inspections in our schools?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his kind comments. In my statement, I highlighted the importance of inspection. It allows us to identify best practice, and there are some really good examples of best practice in Northern Ireland. Part of the issue with consistency of delivery in every school is that there are schools that are performing well and other schools that are performing poorly. Some of those schools, however, have a similar intake of children, including those from a more socially disadvantaged background. The question is this: why do schools with a similar pupil profile have different educational outcomes?

Our inspection regime allows us to get that information, but it also allows us to identify schools that require support. During the period in which we had inspections, following a protracted period of non-compliance for many years, we were able to identify some schools that needed additional support. Child safeguarding issues were also identified, which, Members will rightly feel, should be of significant concern. As a result of inspections, we were able to identify issues, and measures were put in place to address them.

Northern Ireland is an outlier when it comes to non-compliance with inspections. It does not happen in the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales. Inspections are a vital component of any education system. The current inspection process was changed. It was co-designed with the workforce and the trade unions, and the trade unions welcomed the change. It is deeply regrettable that, as a result of the current action, non-compliance is now taking place. I do not think that anybody in here could sustain a position in support of that, and that is why we need to make sure that inspection processes are not frustrated or restrained. When I met the Children's Commissioner recently, he shared my view. Our children have to come first, and inspection is an important part of that.

Mr Durkan: I admire the Minister's ambition to ensure that all learners remain in education, apprenticeship or training until the age of 18. Does he have any plans to review the education maintenance allowance (EMA) eligibility criteria or the rate paid, which has not changed for 20 years, to ensure that education remains affordable for all?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his kind comments about the ambition reflected in the statement. He has raised an issue about EMA funding that does not sit with my Department. I want to make sure, however, that there are no barriers to our children and young people engaging with education. Part of the reason that I introduced the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill was to make sure that no economic barriers are put in place when decisions are being taken about the schools that our children and young people go to at the transfer stage. As we bring legislation to the Executive and then take it through the Assembly, how we put into effect a compulsory requirement to be engaged in some form of education or formal training will need to be considered.

Mr Gaston: I join other Members in welcoming the statement. It is full of positive language and will require significant investment in the EA and in schools.

Minister, is the ministerial advisory panel's work time-limited? When will schools start to see access to the additional support and personal development for principals and teaching staff that is promised in your statement?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments. The initial appointments were for a year, but that can be subject to review in due course. They are in place, and, again, I very much appreciate the expertise that the panel is able to share with us as it critically reviews the policies that we are developing. What we have been able to get from the panel members has been invaluable. I get far more from them than they get out of me; I can assure the Member of that. They want to be engaged. Internationally renowned educationalists want to impart the knowledge that they have. They have been very willing to be part of that process.

I touched on professional teacher learning. Over the next number of weeks, I will be able to provide more detail on what exactly that will look like and how we will deliver on it. That is key to what we are trying to take forward: providing our teachers with that professional support. It is about attracting young people into the initial teaching colleges; what is taught in those establishments; and what professional support they receive throughout the journey of their career. It includes helping to identify those who want to become middle leaders and then senior leaders. How do we ensure that they are supported in developing themselves to take up those positions? Also, how do we secure the support of principals who may be at the end of their career but can impart great knowledge and mentor other principals? How do we harness their expertise? We have looked at examples in different countries that have been able to use that expertise, and that mentoring has been really helpful in bringing middle leaders and new leaders to a place where they have more confidence and can share their expertise.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I think that I have caught everyone's eye, so that concludes questions to the Minister on his statement.

Members, please take your ease for a moment to allow those who are leaving the Chamber to do so in an orderly fashion before the next statement.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, I am aware that there is a small issue with the sound, so please bear with us until we get that rectified.

The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Infrastructure that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be permitted.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): In compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the transport sector held on Thursday 27 February 2025. The meeting took place in Dublin and was chaired by Darragh O'Brien, Minister for Transport. I attended the meeting with Mike Nesbitt MLA, Minister of Health, who attended as the accompanying Minister.

The NSMC noted the significant progress made since the last meeting with the formal decision to proceed with the first phase of the A5 western transport corridor and that the A5, Donegal Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) and N2 road infrastructure projects continue to progress, with the Administrations working collaboratively, including on the mitigation of impacts on the River Foyle floodplain.

Ministers noted the progress on the establishment of a cross-border working group, which is expected to be operational in the coming months, to ensure successful outcomes through the planning processes.

The Council welcomed progress on the implementation of commitments on infrastructure investment that were outlined in the New Decade, New Approach agreement of January 2020. Ministers commended the progress on cross-border greenways, including the Sligo to Enniskillen greenway, the Ulster canal greenway and the Carlingford lough greenway, and the completion of the north-west greenway network. The Council noted that an expert-led review commissioned by the Dublin Government on potential cross-border greenway opportunities is ongoing and is expected to be completed in quarter 2 of 2025.

The NSMC welcomed the hourly Enterprise services between Dublin's Connolly station and Belfast Grand Central station that commenced in October 2024, with funding of €12·5 million provided through the Shared Island Fund and match funding provided by the Department of Transport. The Council also welcomed the publication in July 2024 of the all-island strategic rail review. The Council noted the ongoing review of the potential for government support for renewed viable air routes from Cork to Belfast and from Dublin to City of Derry Airport.

The Council acknowledged collaboration to date on policies and projects related to sustainable mobility and decarbonisation and welcomed a commitment to continue that work by the relevant Departments in both jurisdictions. Ministers noted that officials from both Administrations will progress agreed cross-border sustainable travel and transport projects, continue to liaise on policy development and seek opportunities for further collaboration.

Ministers noted that officials have progressed plans for an environment-themed workshop to showcase and share information on biodiversity best practice across the transport sector.

The NSMC welcomed the continued sharing of knowledge and experience between officials in both jurisdictions on the delivery of road safety measures and the agreement that future engagement between the Department for Infrastructure and the Department of Transport will include structured working group engagement between relevant officials to support the delivery of positive road safety benefits in both jurisdictions.

Ministers agreed to include an enhanced road safety item as an area of cooperation on the NSMC transport sector work programme. The Council recognised the progress that has been made in the delivery of the jurisdictions' respective road safety strategies. Ministers welcomed the presentation by Dr Kiran Sarma on mobile phone use while driving.

The Council agreed to hold its next transport meeting in October 2025. My officials and I look forward to working with the Minister of Transport and his officials in all areas of cooperation in the transport sector.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call Mark Durkan to ask a question on behalf of the Opposition, I remind Members who wish to ask a question to continually rise in their place, and we will try to include you all.

Mr Durkan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis.

We learned from the statement that the Council welcomed the publication of the all-island strategic rail review, which was published almost nine months ago. Was there no further discussion about the funding for and implementation of the review's recommendations? While the hourly Enterprise has been a roaring success in terms of passenger numbers, will the Minister comment on yesterday's embarrassing media reports that the state-of-the-art and expensive ticket machines do not facilitate the purchase of tickets for cross-border travel?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. Funding was discussed, and we hope to see further progress on that. The Minister of Transport did not provide any specifics, but we agreed to ongoing engagement.

I am happy to answer his other question, which is not related to the statement, because I have provided a response to his colleague's question for written answer. That is an operational matter for Translink, as he will be aware, which has advised that it is linked to seating arrangements on the trains and buses and that tickets can be purchased on the bus or the train or at individual ticket stands. I raised it with Translink, and it provided that response.

Mrs Erskine (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I thank the Minister for her statement. I declare an interest in relation to the A5: my husband's family are landowners along the route. Her statement references:

The AERA Committee and the Infrastructure Committee looked at that in a joint meeting. What is the composition of that working group? What are its specific objectives for ensuring successful outcomes through the planning process? For example, will it include measures to expedite planning permission on structures to support those who have been impacted on by a vesting order?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her question. The specifics for the working group are all being worked through. We recognise that engagement, North and South, has been strengthened over the past year. The working group is being set up. As more information on what the group will look like and what it will set out to do becomes available, we will make sure to share it with Members.

Mr Boylan: Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire.

Will she outline the health and connectivity benefits for border communities owing to the development of cross-border greenways?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. That is very important, particularly given that both the Health Minister and I were at the meeting. It is important to recognise that cross-border greenways encourage greater levels of active travel, whether that is walking or cycling. It takes people out of private cars. More people are getting out, and that has health and environmental benefits for all our communities.

Six cross-border corridors have been identified in the national cycle network. Informal and statutory consultations were undertaken with the relevant authorities in the North during their development. They will inform and help deliver projects that will continue to benefit people's health and connectivity not just in border areas but right across our island.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for her statement. In referencing cross-border greenway opportunities, has the Minister considered or raised the potential of linking and developing greenways that are on the Warrenpoint side of Carlingford lough on the completion of the Narrow Water bridge?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his suggestion. At this stage, that has not been considered, but it is something that we could certainly look at, given the design of the Narrow Water bridge. That is aimed at tourism and at more active travel. I am happy to consider that and to come back to the Member on it.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

The Minister is aware of the importance of the A5 road upgrade for the people of West Tyrone. I thank the Minister for her continued support of and commitment to the project. Will she outline the level of engagement that her officials have had with Department of Transport officials on the A5 road upgrade?

Ms Kimmins: Throughout the development of the A5 project there has been strong and regular engagement with the relevant authorities in the South. As I said to a Member who previously spoke, that has strengthened over the past year with the development of the new working group. We have worked very closely with the Department of Transport on the release of funding in line with the relevant budgetary and approval processes in both jurisdictions and with the Donegal national roads office on the A5 Donegal Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) projects interface. We have also been working with the Office of Public Works (OPW) on the mitigation of impacts on the River Foyle floodplain, as well as working closely with Monaghan County Council on the continued development of the N2 Clontibret to the border road scheme.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House. It mentions good work on the road safety strategy. Will she advise when her Department will publish its road safety action plan for 2025-26? The scale of the issues on our roads is very great, and, sadly, we have seen 139 people lose their life on our roads in the past two years.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. Last night, I attended the primary-school road safety awards in the Glenavon House Hotel in Cookstown. It was fantastic to see 22 schools from right across the North at that event. This morning, I attended a similar event with business chief executives at the road safety police headquarters in Ravarnet.

I concur with the Member. We have a huge job of work to do. As recently as last week we saw more road deaths. We need to work harder to tackle that, because more families have just had their world shattered before us. I do not have a specific date for publication of the action plan, but I hope that it will be made available as soon as possible. I will keep Members updated.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for her statement. I note the short paragraph on biodiversity loss in the transport sector. On the basis of that, does the Minister think that an environmentally themed workshop is enough on climate and biodiversity need, or is she aware of any more ambitious programmes to plan for the future in that regard on a North/South basis?

Ms Kimmins: I know that the Member has submitted a number of questions for written answer on that issue, and I am in the process of coming back to him in more detail. We have a number of schemes in that area, including pollinator-friendly projects such as No Mow May. There is lots of work that we can and should be doing, and I am open to other suggestions. There is always more that we can do, and I am happy to look at that in more detail. I take the Member's point, but the statement is on one meeting and does not reflect the work of the Department as a whole.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you, Minister. Minister, will you outline the similarities in the approaches to decarbonisation, North and South, please?

Ms Kimmins: Similar to the South, my Department is committed to a just transition to net zero and encourages everyone to make any little changes that they can, including the decarbonisation of private cars. That will be one of the most impactful transport measures when it comes to tackling the climate crisis, which is an issue with which we are all too familiar. My Department continues to work with other jurisdictions and the private sector to develop that process. However, we also need to provide attractive and sustainable transport alternatives such as public transport and walking, wheeling and cycling opportunities, which will give people cleaner, greener and healthier towns and cities in which they can thrive. That goes back to those points about the importance of our cross-border greenways and active travel routes. I am committed to working on an all-island basis, because we are one unit and should not be working in isolation on these important issues. I am working closely with my counterpart in the South and his Department.

Mr Harvey: As this is my first time addressing you, Minister, I wish you well in your new post. Minister, my question is on sustainable travel and transport. What further opportunities exist in that area?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his kind words and well wishes.

On further opportunities, we are considering quite a number of methods of tackling and addressing climate change through the improvement of sustainable travel and transport options. My Department is working on the transport strategy, and the transport plans are more divisional right across the North. As I mentioned in the statement, we are also improving cross-border greenways and active travel, and there is then the broader piece on the decarbonisation of our transport fleet and giving people more options for how they get about. There are lots of things that we are doing, including on the transition to electric vehicles, which is a huge amount of work, but it is about trying to change people's mindsets and help them understand the impact of their behaviour and of making small changes. Those are the things that we are doing, but they are always open to improvement, and we are looking across all jurisdictions, on a European basis and globally, to see what other options are available to us.

Mr Gildernew: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis.

Minister, I particularly welcome the reference to the development of the A5, N2 and TEN-T network, which is crucial. Will the Minister outline the benefits of all-island cooperation on road safety, particularly along those border areas?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for raising that important point, because, to me, all-island cooperation on road safety is critical and will help to reduce the number of people killed and injured on our roads, particularly in those border areas. Coming from one of those border areas, I am all too familiar with the impacts of that.

Last year, 69 people lost their lives on our roads. That is more than one person a week and more than one family a week who have had their lives changed for ever. So far this year — we are into the tenth week of the year, I think — 10 people have died, half of whom were pedestrians. Road traffic collisions have devastating consequences, and that is why it is not just an issue for one individual or for somebody else; it is an issue for all of us, as a society.

It is a priority for me, and you will be aware that, back in September, my predecessor, John O'Dowd, launched the road safety strategy until 2030 and the supporting 2024-25 action plan. The action plan contains 10 strategic interventions and 35 in-year actions, and it is led by my Department and its road safety partners, including the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service, the Ambulance Service, DAERA and DOJ.

Those partners have also joined with my Department to form the strategic road safety forum, which looks at how we can work together to improve outcomes.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her statement. Six months ago, the Planning Appeals Commission published a report that highlighted significant flooding issues on the Newbuildings to Strabane section of the A5. Minister, are you saying that the only progress that has been made in addressing those issues is the potential for a working group to be set up? We do not know who will sit on that or when it will come forward.

Ms Kimmins: A lot of work is ongoing. The specifics in the statement were about cross-border cooperation. Work remains ongoing at a very high level. I am due to receive a further update today. I can come back to the Member in writing to provide him with the most recent update. You will be aware that legal proceedings are also ongoing. The court hearing is next Tuesday. We hope to be able to press ahead, after the court decision, at the earliest possible stage. I have said to officials that we need to be ready to move as soon as we can. I am keen to do that. A lot of work is ongoing, and I will get the most recent update to you.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for her statement. I know that she attended the recent road safety awards and met Davy Jackson, who is a powerful advocate for road safety. As chair of the all-party group on road safety, I am keen to learn about the insights that the Minister gained from the presentation that she received. What learnings can be taken forward to improve road safety education here?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for raising the issue. I spoke to Davy Jackson last night. He does fantastic work, as do Monica Heaney and Tricia O'Neill, who are from my local area and were also present last night. They do phenomenal work with young people right across the board and wider society in increasing their awareness of road safety.

The presentation was fascinating. We have asked for it to be forwarded to us. It was about mobile phone use. We are all guilty of over-relying on our mobile phones in every aspect of life. We need to ask how we use the presentation to better inform people of the real consequences of simply lifting their mobile phone while driving. Perhaps we can put mitigations in place to prevent that natural reaction. Something that really struck me while coming out of the professor's presentation was that, in many cases, people make a conscious decision not to use their mobile phone while driving, but we are in the habit of using them for everything; it is not just about making calls or sending text messages. On many occasions, people use their phone while driving without even realising. It is about trying to change that culture and make people think twice before doing that. It is also about driving home the impact and consequences of that behaviour. We will see how we can use that to better inform what we do in that regard.

Mr McNulty: Minister, I was very surprised that your statement did not include any mention of the Narrow Water bridge project. You will know that that project was first conceived of by the former SDLP MLA P J Bradley, who is, sadly, deceased. Will you give us an update on progress with the bridge?

The southern end of Carlingford lough greenway has been completed for months, which is fantastic; it is getting huge uptake already. Why does progress on the northern end seem to be very slow and delayed? When will that be completed?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, there were three questions not relating to the statement, so you can answer them in whatever way you wish.

Ms Kimmins: I did not catch all the questions. We had a brief conversation about Narrow Water bridge, which, as the Member will know, is progressing really well. The fact that it is moving at pace suggests that it is going according to plan.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for making her statement to the House. Minister, will you update us on any cross-border working that is taking place in relation to alternative fuels?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, the wider piece around decarbonisation is an all-island piece of work. We have to work together as one unit. My officials are working with officials in the Department of Transport on a Shared Island project on green hydrogen. There is also Shared Island funding for an EV charging scheme for sports clubs. Projects are already taking place to look at alternative fuels, other methods of transport and decarbonisation on an all-island basis.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. You referred to the plans for an environmentally themed workshop. Who will be involved in that?

Ms Kimmins: I will have to come back to the Member in writing on that one, because I do not have all the details of who is involved. As I said, it is in its early stages. I will be happy to write to the Member when I have more detail on it.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for her statement. I welcome the discussion about air connectivity on and across these islands. Now that the Minister has taken up office, does she support the retention of airport development policy in her Department's remit?

Ms Kimmins: As Minister for Infrastructure, my powers relating to the three main airports in the North are limited to the Airports (NI) Order 1994, which includes powers around land acquisition and airport management. Aviation management matters in the North, including airline safety whilst on board an aircraft, are the responsibility of the British Government's Department for Transport, but I am committed to continuing to work with Executive colleagues and our local airports to ensure that we protect the connectivity that we, as an island, rely on. My officials, along with officials from the Department for the Economy, are engaging with airports to improve relationships and explore ways to improve communications. I am committed to continuing that work, to listening to Derry City and Strabane District Council's case for supporting City of Derry Airport and to working with the rest of the Executive to identify ways to enhance support for our airports.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, rebuilding and redeveloping our all-island rail network is one of the most inspiring parts of the cross-border agenda. We are supposed to agree on that, but people will be disappointed to see that the statement has just 15 words of a two-page statement on the all-island strategic rail review and simply notes its existence without any clear commitments to implementation. People would have expected more from a Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, Matthew?

Mr O'Toole: Minister, will you give us clarity on when you will update the House — indeed, when Dáil Éireann will be updated — on the implementation of the all-island strategic rail review? From reading the statement, it seems like it will just be left on a shelf.

Ms Kimmins: I disagree with the Member, which will be no surprise. Rail services on the island are already being developed towards the report's vision. It is ambitious, and we have discussed in the Chamber the fact that it will take a huge amount of money and work to achieve, but I am committed to doing that and to doing as much as I can within the mandate to move it forward. There has been ongoing engagement with the Irish Government on how we develop that further. Officials continue to work with their counterparts in the Department of Transport, supported by the European Investment Bank (EIB), to consider the recommendations of the review and identify the rail interventions that could be well advanced or delivered over the next decade to 2035. Translink has also conducted a number of feasibility studies linked to the recommendations which are due to report in the spring or early summer, so we hope to see the next steps on that at that stage. I will then have to consider which projects to prioritise as funding opportunities become available. The outcomes from the EIB work and the feasibility studies will help to inform that.

The work is ongoing. We have to do it right. As we have said before in the House, whatever we do on this will leave a legacy. It will be there for many decades to come, so it has to be done not only at pace but in a sustainable way so that it will be there for future generations.

Mr Kingston: The Minister reported that the Council welcomed progress on the implementation of commitments in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Did that include any update on the Yorkgate interchange in north Belfast, which is an NDNA commitment? If it was not raised, can the Minister confirm that she is committed to progressing that project?

Ms Kimmins: That did not come up at the meeting, as it was a cross-border, all-island meeting, but I am happy to come back to the Member on it. We are keen to move ahead and see progress on that. The Member will know better than I do the long history of that issue. We can take that up again.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

Under the heading, "Sustainable Travel and Transport", the Minister referred to collaboration on policies and projects. Will she provide details on what those policies and projects are, please?

Ms Kimmins: I have outlined the four key areas. They relate to the transport plans that my Department is working through currently; active travel and the improvement and enhancement of the cross-border greenways and connections; our work together, on an all-island basis, on the decarbonisation of our transport fleet; and the broader projects, which I mentioned in response to my colleague Áine Murphy, relating to alternative fuels and EV charging points. Those are the four main areas, at this stage.

Mr K Buchanan: The Minister's predecessor reduced verge cutting that improves sight lines on roads etc to improve biodiversity. It was classified as No Mow May. Miles and miles of hedgerows have been removed along the A5, and I would call that "Devastation in December". What is biodiversity best practice across the transport sector?

Ms Kimmins: The work along the A5 is about saving lives. That is why that work is happening, as the Member will be aware. There are lots of things that we can do in relation to biodiversity. It is important to look across the whole transport sector, not just here in the North but in the South, across the water and, indeed, worldwide. There are lots of good examples from which we can draw, and we will continue to do that.

Mr Gaston: I do not expect that anyone from the southern side of the border will have raised this issue, but did either Mr Nesbitt or the Infrastructure Minister raise the fact that the Grand Central station project has resulted in a 40% reduction in the takings of businesses in Sandy Row? Is there any prospect of financial assistance for them from the Shared Island Fund?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, the subject of that question was not covered in your statement. You may respond to it in any way that you see fit.

Ms Kimmins: It was not an issue for the meeting, as Madam Principal Deputy Speaker has outlined. However, I have committed to meeting residents and the community there in relation to the issues. I am sure that that will come up at that engagement.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, that ends questions to the Minister on her statement.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, and thank you. I am aware that the rules in Standing Orders oblige Ministers to acknowledge when they have ministerial accompaniment at NSMC meetings, but, in this statement, the same number of words are devoted to Mike Nesbitt attending the meeting as are devoted to the all-island strategic rail review. Is the Chair's office able to look at whether statements require such energy devoted to listing attendees versus the actual content of the meeting?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am going to get you a copy of Standing Orders. I have raised this with you before — this is the fourth time. You are constantly raising issues that are not points of order. I suggest that you, as leader of the official Opposition, use the good office of our Business Committee and go through some training in Standing Orders. Your point is recorded.

Members, take your ease.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Justice that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members, as they have been reminded throughout the day, that they should be concise when asking their question. This is not an opportunity for debate, Timothy, and long introductions will not be allowed.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the enabling access to justice programme. When I launched the programme in December, I committed to moving at pace to ensure the viability and sustainability of the justice system and, more importantly, to provide better services and supports to our citizens. I set out a route map so that we can better assure ourselves that we are addressing the fundamental principle of access to justice and protecting the most vulnerable. That is why we were elected, and that is my role as Justice Minister.

I am pleased to report that there has been a generally positive response to the programme. Work is now in train, and we are making good progress. The programme delivery plan is out for consultation, and we are taking forward work in parallel to deliver on plan objectives. That includes ensuring that those providing public legal services continue to enjoy fair, proportionate and timely remuneration.

High-quality advice and representation are critical to accessing justice, so I committed to early action on fees to ensure that the system is viable and that the vulnerable are protected. I made that commitment, and I have followed through on my pledge. I am pleased to report that we are on track to introduce a significant 16% uplift in civil, family and criminal legal aid fees in May. Delivering that has been no small undertaking and is no small step, so I am extremely disappointed that, as I provide the update, victims, witnesses and defendants are enduring yet another month of damaging service withdrawal by the Criminal Bar Association (CBA). I know that many Members will be equally concerned.

This is now the fifth month in which CBA action has continued in parallel with real progress on reform; the fifth month since I met representatives of the professional bodies to discuss the reform programme; the fourth month since I formally launched a programme in the Assembly committing to urgent action; the third month since I published the delivery programme plan and associated consultations; the second month since I appointed His Honour Judge Burgess to lead a working group to identify other potential changes to legal aid fees; the second month since preliminary engagement on the working group began; and the month in which the working group started to meet.

CBA representatives are participating in the working group, which I very much welcome, but I cannot overstate my disappointment and frustration that service withdrawal continues. The scope of the action being taken by the CBA has, thankfully, reduced, but be under no illusion: the serious damage that the action is having on the justice system, individual victims, witnesses and defendants is ongoing.

The impact of withdrawal on individuals is not mitigated by the number of cases involved. It is all too easy to reduce the narrative to numbers and costs: the number of cases affected; the cost and value that individuals attach to their services; the costs that we can afford to meet and sustain; and the likely cost of recovering from the service withdrawal, which, ironically, will impact on the resources that I have to improve the underlying system. There is no doubt that those numbers and costs are an important part of the story, but what is more important and what should be first and foremost in all our minds are the people — your constituents and mine — whom the system is here to serve and protect.

The purpose of legal aid is twofold: to protect the vulnerable and to ensure that justice is served. We cannot currently say that that is being achieved. Service withdrawal means additional delay, and additional delay means that defendants, whether guilty or innocent, must wait longer for their case to be resolved. Delay means additional stress, anxiety and often trauma for many victims and witnesses, and it must be recognised that there are some victims and witnesses who are particularly vulnerable and are suffering acutely.

Delay means a greater risk of witness attrition and of people withdrawing their cooperation. It means a greater risk of victims not receiving justice and a greater risk of justice coming a little too late for some. All in all, it means a greater risk of harm to the public and a risk that the innocent remain in custody longer than is absolutely necessary and that the guilty go free. That is not idle speculation or pessimism but a very real possibility. It is therefore disappointing that those currently withdrawing services appear not to attach the same priority to those concerns as others throughout the justice system.

I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), to its management and prosecutors and to the victim and witness care unit in particular. I also pay tribute to Victim Support, to the staff of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) and to the judiciary for their efforts to mitigate the impact of the CBA action on victims and witnesses. I understand and appreciate the enormity of the efforts involved. The work that they are doing stands as testimony to their very personal commitment to ensuring that victims and witnesses are supported and get the justice that they deserve.

I know that the withdrawal has also impacted on the work of solicitors, who, at times, have shared some of the CBA's concerns but, unlike the CBA, have engaged positively and constructively with the Department and have continued to serve their clients throughout this very difficult period. I thank them for doing so.

As Members will be aware, some solicitors who provide immigration and asylum advice have recently withdrawn from doing that work, but, unlike the CBA, they continue to engage directly with us on their alternative proposals. We have already committed to taking on board evidence produced by research on fees for immigration and asylum cases in England and Wales, and we continue to work with those solicitors, the Law Society, the Solicitors Criminal Bar Association (SCBA) and others on local reforms. In general, they are also committed to continuing to deliver public legal services in the interim while we develop a better way forward. That commitment recognises the steps that I have taken to improve the system.

Whilst I understand why the CBA has had a grievance over many years, it is more difficult to understand why it appears not to have taken cognisance of the multiple actions that are in train. As I made clear when we met, I want to ensure that they are fairly paid for the work that they undertake. We have set out not only a significant uplift in fees — at 16% — but a mechanism whereby their outstanding concerns can be addressed on the basis of evidence. It is therefore difficult to understand the motivation and expectations regarding the impact of the continued withdrawal of services. I have taken every opportunity to listen and address concerns where it has been appropriate and within my gift, but the ask seems to be ever-changing and often unrealistic.

I will take a few moments to set out for Members the work that we have done to address those concerns at each stage. As Members will be aware, the CBA initially called for the fundamental review of criminal legal aid to be published and for the recommended uplift in fees and the reform programme to be progressed. When they withdrew their services for December, they knew that those actions were imminent, and I delivered via a statement in the House.

The CBA then linked the service withdrawal to full implementation of the fundamental review, an immediate uplift in fees and the abandonment of my proposed approach to cases left on the books. Again, I responded insofar as I was able. I delayed the publication of the programme delivery plan and associated consultations to consider their representations, and, in light of their concerns, I reprioritised the delivery plan. Notwithstanding our view that the material significance for barristers' income is low, I rescheduled consideration of the issue of cases left on the books to later in the mandate. As with all other proposed actions, the policy would, in any event, always have been subject to detailed stakeholder engagement. However, if other parts of the reform package render specific action in that area unnecessary, I am happy to be informed by that. As I have been clear from the outset, the delivery plan details issues that will be explored, not final policy decisions.

I have also made every effort to ensure that fees are enhanced at the nearest opportunity: May 2025. Members will understand, as should members of the profession, that practical, legislative and governance constraints mean that an uplift could not practicably be implemented any sooner. The uplift is as recommended by the independent fundamental review. Whilst it only considered the criminal Bar, I decided that the uplift should be applied to the entirety of the Bar and the profession. That is not an insignificant step. It will mean an additional investment of £9·8 million per annum, and, following our very constructive engagement with the Law Society and SCBA, I have gone further than Judge Burgess anticipated and backdated the uplift to 1 December, when I reached my decision to increase fees. Such a move is unprecedented in the legal aid framework, where uplifts have always been prospective, not retrospective. However, I am of the view that it is justified and reasonable to apply the uplift from the point at which I accepted the recommendations, in that an expectation of improved remuneration had been created, albeit not a legal entitlement.

Notwithstanding the very damaging effects of the withdrawal of services on victims and witnesses, I have extended the backdated uplift to all members of the Bar. I did not want the members of the Bar who continue to work and deliver services to suffer any negative consequences from the CBA's action. Again, that is not an insignificant step. It represents an additional £3·5 million in fees over and above the £9·8 million annual uplift. I am also taking steps to ensure that benefits are realised as quickly as possible by introducing interim payments.

There are a few areas where Judge Burgess has acknowledged that further evidence is required to implement change, so I have appointed him to chair a working group to that end. I do not believe that Judge Burgess would have taken on that role were he in any doubt as to my commitment to delivering on his recommendations and engaging with integrity in the work. Subject to emerging evidence and departmental analysis, the terms of reference for the group anticipate that further fee changes might be effected alongside the 16% uplift in May.

The review is otherwise being implemented as recommended, so there is no reasonable cause for the CBA withdrawal of service to continue, but it does, as its ask has changed yet again. As the CBA put it to me most recently, having previously asked for the Burgess review to be implemented, the 16% uplift is now deemed not enough; in fact, it is "paltry". It is, in the CBA's view, not commensurate with the value that its members attach to their work. They want more. However, what the CBA has not specified is how much more, nor has it provided a robust evidence base for us to assess whether any further increases to any aspects of its members' fees are necessary and appropriate. Members will appreciate that such an unevidenced ask is untenable. I cannot act without evidence, even if the most vulnerable are being used as leverage. The only evidence base that we have is the Burgess report and the work done to support its implementation. The Bar and others had the opportunity to submit evidence and make representations to Judge Burgess during the 10 months of the review, and they did so. Members will appreciate that I cannot go beyond those recommendations unless further evidence supports that decision. Crucially, the working group that was established presents yet another fair and reasonable opportunity for the CBA and others to provide any additional evidence that they have.

I have been clear in my commitment to reasonable and proportionate remuneration for work undertaken, but the case needs to be made, and it needs to be robust. We are all aware of the acute pressures on all of our public services, whether in Justice or across the rest of the Executive. We are all aware of our duty to ensure that resources are used appropriately and fairly. I place on record that I am pleased that the CBA has taken the opportunity to join the working group and my personal commitment and that of my Department to continued constructive engagement, but, as Members will, no doubt, agree, victims and witnesses cannot suffer the consequences of the action indefinitely.

I had hoped that, in the absence of a full return of service, the CBA might agree a derogation in the withdrawal to allow at least some of the cases assessed as involving the most vulnerable to proceed. However, despite having agreed in principle, the first specific request for a derogation in a case where there was a real, tangible and indisputable risk to the victim was refused. That individual and the others involved in the 17 cases that were identified as critical and that, we hoped, might benefit from the derogation continue to be at risk of significant harm and of not receiving the justice that they deserve. That simply cannot continue in the longer term. I know, as will each of you, that we will now need to consider alternative models for the delivery of services currently provided by the criminal Bar. That is not a step that I wish to take, nor is it one that I would undertake lightly, but it is difficult at this juncture to see another way.

I do not know how the evolving position of the Criminal Bar Association will develop over the next few weeks. I sincerely hope that it will lead to it not only engaging with the working group constructively but restoring full service delivery at the earliest juncture. However, whatever the outcome and whatever its analysis, I am clear and have clearly communicated that I have done all that I can to meet the concerns and to deliver a mechanism to take forward any remaining concerns. There are no further steps that I can take in the absence of robust evidence. Victims, witnesses, defendants and the wider public deserve better than to be caught up in a dispute over remuneration.

Collectively, we have a moral and ethical duty to ensure access to justice, to ensure that the system can function, to ensure that resources are being used to best effect and to ensure that the vulnerable have the protection and support that the system is meant to provide. The need to look at alternative delivery models may impact on the capacity to deliver on other reform. I will take time to consider sequencing when the consultation on the delivery plan closes. Whilst that is unfortunate, it may be unavoidable. However, what will not change is my commitment to reform at pace, and I will continue to prioritise the changes that will ensure sustainability, support early resolution and ensure that citizens have access to services that address their wider needs at the point of access.

As I have said before, we have an opportunity to reset the framework for justice delivery. That is why I launched the programme for reform. That is why I have devoted resources to delivery at pace, and, as I said at the outset, we are making good progress. The programme delivery plan and the fee proposals are out for consultation. I am progressing the practical, logistical, legislative and financial steps necessary to uplift fees in May 2025, backdated to September 2024. I have appointed Judge Burgess to chair the working group to look at other areas for reform where he identified that the evidence was not available. We also continue to engage with stakeholders to shape their actions under the reform programme to improve the system and the type and nature of the support and services that we provide and to scope access interventions that will enhance service at the point of access, increase self-efficacy and enhance the use of alternative dispute resolution.

That represents significant progress over a relatively short period of time, and I intend to continue with that at that pace.

I trust that Members and Committee for Justice colleagues will continue to support me in that endeavour and will help us to take constructive action to drive that change in order to ensure a fairer, more accessible, proportionate, responsive and cost-effective system that places citizens at its heart.

I commend the statement to the House.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, it appears that you are at war with the Criminal Bar Association, and those who are suffering most are the most vulnerable in our society. We are now in a chaotic situation with criminal legal aid. Given that you and your party have overseen the legal aid system for most of the past 15 years —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question, Justin, question.

Mr McNulty: — what responsibility do you have for that indefensible situation, and what alternative models for the delivery of services that the Criminal Bar Association currently provides are you suggesting?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, just before you answer, we have said this a couple of times to everybody here: keep it to a question, and keep it sharp and focused. I am not going to have that. Minister, over to you.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I am not at war with the Criminal Bar Association. I have said that I am seeking to work constructively with it to meet its concerns. I have done that progressively over recent months, and I will continue to do so in the months ahead. However, there are lines that I cannot cross. I have a responsibility for managing public money, which is inescapable, and certain legislative procedures have to be followed. I cannot circumvent those, and nor would I wish to.

Secondly, to be clear, the Criminal Bar Association is not the most vulnerable in our society. Its clients and the victims who are waiting for its services are the most vulnerable in our society, and it is their cases that are being affected by the withdrawal of services. I have made clear my desire to resolve the dispute. I have done so not only in words but in actions. We now need to see an end to the withdrawal of service, full engagement with the working group and, I hope, a constructive resolution to any outstanding issues through that mechanism. That is best for the Criminal Bar Association and the legal profession, and, most importantly for me as Justice Minister, it is best for our citizens.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Justin Bunting. Sorry, a Freudian slip. [Laughter.]

I have Justin on my brain today. It is weird. I am sorry about that, Joanne. I call Joanne Bunting, Chair of the Justice Committee. Joanne, over to you.

Ms Bunting (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a grave step for the Minister to consider alternative models for the delivery of services that the Bar provides. Will she elaborate a bit more on what those models might be, how long they might take to implement and what the potential risks with that approach are?

Mrs Long: We are still at the very early stages, but I am clear that we cannot continue with a situation such as when I met the Bar most recently, when it said that it was, for example, unwilling to take on category A cases, category D cases involving multiple defendants or retrials because of the complexity of that work. Those are some of the most serious and involved cases, but they also involve some of the most vulnerable victims and witnesses. Therefore, it is not sustainable for us to be in a situation where that service is not provided.

Work is at a very early stage in scoping what the alternatives might be. I have to be clear, however, that my preference is not to deflect resource from the programme of work that we set out in the enabling access to justice reform programme. I want to see the Criminal Bar Association at the table with everyone else as we work our way through what is a difficult issue. I believe that the 16% uplift is justified, but I have also been clear that there are other areas to consider. When I engaged with solicitors through the Criminal Bar, for example, they highlighted issues around the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and the cost of fulfilling their requirements under PACE. That is something that we are now evidencing. If we can pull that evidence together in time, we will include it in the uplift in May, which may go beyond 16%. However, it has to be evidence-based, transparent and robust. If it is, I am not averse to considering it.

Miss Hargey: It is a bit concerning that the issue and the thrust of the statement are like a war of attrition. We are keen to see the reform programme progress. It was good when it was brought in a couple of months ago. You touched on a derogation, Minister, and one case having been refused. My understanding is that there is an agreement with the Criminal Bar Association to look at derogation on a case-by-case basis. What other work is being done with the Department to progress that? Is it not better to actively engage with the Criminal Bar Association, rather than have statements from one end to the other, to try to bring the dispute to an end and to resolve the issue for everyone? What proactive steps is the Minister taking to do that over the coming weeks and months?

Mrs Long: There are two separate issues. The first is that I have to keep the House apprised of the progress that has been made. That is part of my duty as Minister, and that is why I am making this statement today. I said that I would develop the proposals and move at pace. It is important that people are aware of that, of the progress that has been made and of our direction of travel. That is important. That does not preclude my engagement with the Criminal Bar Association. That continues, and my officials continue to engage with the Criminal Bar Association, so there is no stand-off. I am simply setting out the facts as they are. I said twice in my statement very clearly that representatives of the Criminal Bar Association attend the working group, that I welcome that and that I hope to work through the issues. What I cannot excuse, however, is the continued withdrawal of services, because I do not believe that that was justified when it was announced in December, and I certainly do not believe that it is justified at this point when so much progress has been delivered — not simply promised but delivered. People need to be balanced in their views on that.

On the wider piece, I do not think that anyone wants us to be in conflict, but when it comes to the derogation, to be clear, there were 17 cases identified not by the Department but by the Public Prosecution Service and its victim and witness care unit (VWCU). People spent a lot of time identifying those 17 cases. The first and most serious — I cannot emphasise enough how grave a situation this is — was taken to the Criminal Bar Association for consideration, and it was refused. It is a matter for the PPS how it uses its resources, but given that the most serious case was refused, there is a strong argument that further work on the derogation may be simply throwing good money after bad. Unless there is some give on the derogation issue, it is very hard to see how it will happen. We are not talking about hundreds of cases; we are talking about 17 cases in which the victims or witnesses were identified as being particularly vulnerable for very specific reasons. The fact that the most vulnerable of those was brought to and rejected by the Criminal Bar Association does not create confidence that it is serious about its on-paper commitment. If it changes its mind and decides to take those cases forward outside the rigour of the withdrawal of services, we will all welcome that. What I would rather see is a return to full service.

Mr Dickson: Minister, thank you very much for your statement to the House. Much of the commentary about the Criminal Bar Association centered on barristers not earning enough from criminal legal aid work to make it worthwhile. Minister, will you provide information on the average earnings of a criminal barrister?

Mrs Long: The earnings of barristers will vary greatly, depending on their workload and their level of expertise. We can only account for those elements of their pay that come from the legal aid system, because, of course, all barristers are also free to undertake private work and to operate outside the criminal aspects. This is only for criminal legal aid.

Between 1 April 2024 and 31 December 2024, the Legal Services Agency (LSA) paid 5,064 bills to 199 barristers, with a value of £20,412,043, for work in the Crown Court. During that period, two barristers received a total of £1·7 million. Sixty-five barristers — 33% — received at least £105,000 per annum. Thirty-three per cent of barristers received an equivalent annual gross salary of around £60,000, which equates to the top 10% of full-time annual gross pay in Northern Ireland. Thirty-eight per cent of barristers received at least £85,000. That is an annual gross salary of £48,600, which is in the top 20% of full-time annual gross pay. As I said, that is only for work in the Crown Court and criminal work. That does not cover the much wider work that barristers will take on, whether that be private work or work in other parts of the court system: it covers only the legal aid work through the criminal Bar.

I have accepted that, despite that, we still need to introduce that uplift because there has not been an uplift over a sustained period. However, it cannot be lost on many in the House that some people are earning significant amounts of money and still saying that their work does not pay. I find that there is an incongruence between those two facts.

Mr Beattie: I acknowledge the really difficult path that the Justice Minister is having to tread on that particular issue. I am alarmed about the issue of derogations that she has raised quite forcefully. Does she believe that there should be a minimum standard of delivery for the Criminal Bar Association going forward, once we have put that particular issue to bed?

Mrs Long: That is one area that we can consider. Of course, there is a wider issue about regulation of the profession, which does not actually fall to the Department of Justice. It currently falls to the Department of Finance and the legal services ombudsman, along with the professions themselves. There is a conversation to be had about basic standards of delivery. To be clear: most people — the vast majority — who engage with the legal profession in Northern Ireland are pleased with the work that it has undertaken. They find that the people whom they engage with provide them with high-quality services, professional courtesy and quality advice. We should not lose sight of that. We have a strong legal profession here in Northern Ireland. I want to ensure that we can sustain that legal profession, whilst ensuring that the money that we spend on legal aid is directed to those who are in need at their point of greatest need. That is the purpose of the public funds that are engaged in that profession. Of course, there will be other opportunities for talented barristers and solicitors to earn money through professional fees in the private sector. I want to ensure that, when a member of the public needs to access justice and could not otherwise afford to do so, the safety net of legal aid is there to ensure that they can and do access the justice that they deserve.

Ms Ferguson: Does the Minister agree that the current remuneration levels in the most serious and complex cases do not allow counsel to provide the expected advocacy that those cases actually demand and that the public deserve? Can the Minister confirm that a 10% uplift is proposed for immigration and asylum case fees, not 16%, and that no uplift is proposed for legacy inquest cases?

Mrs Long: First of all, that is not accurate. The uplift for immigration fees is different in that we have decided to take a read across from work that has been done in England and Wales. We are currently in discussion with immigration solicitors. The figure that we were looking at is significantly higher than the 16% that was actually listed because it came from a study that was done in England and Wales. I am not here to reinvent the wheel. If a study has been done that says that immigration cases are more complex now than they were 10 years ago, we will look at that evidence, because it will be no different here in Northern Ireland from anywhere else that operates through the same immigration system.

The profession has come forward with three specific asks of the Department. We are now engaging with it on those asks. I actually think that what we have offered potentially is more generous than the ask that it has come to us with, which is specific. I think that we can agree one element of it reasonably quickly, but I am hopeful that, through our engagement with the profession, which has been quite constructive, we may be able to get a resolution to that ahead of actually bringing the secondary legislation to the House in May, which will allow that uplift to be applied from that point on. I am hopeful that it can be resolved.

As for the complexity of criminal court cases, if there is evidence that the work that the criminal Bar is doing does not pay, I ask that it be brought to the working group. The profession had the opportunity to provide that evidence to Judge Burgess. He concluded that 16% was the right amount of uplift for the criminal Bar. Remember that his review was based only on the criminal Bar. We extended the 16% across the rest of the Bar. He looked only at a fundamental review of criminal legal aid. He said that 16% was the right amount. Whatever evidence the profession had clearly did not convince him, but, if it wants to come back with further evidence now and present it to me, I am open to that. Where it is evidenced, as it is, I believe, with the immigration solicitors, we are open to paying that money. I have said that I want fair and transparent remuneration. However, I also want evidence and accountability.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. Questions on the ministerial statement will recommence after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Stephen Dunne.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I would call Mr Stewart, but he is not in his place.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Tackling educational underachievement is key to improving the life chances for individuals in our society, particularly those experiencing the most disadvantage. It is also vital for developing a thriving economy that offers opportunity for all. It is the responsibility of the education bodies and, ultimately, the Education Minister to ensure that schools and teachers are supported in addressing the issue. The Department of Education has received significant increases in funding from the Executive in recent years. Its 2024-25 opening resource budget was almost £300 million or 11.6% higher than in 2023-24. That is before any in-year allocations are taken into account.

The draft Budget for 2025-26 sees the Education resource DEL budget increasing by another 9·4%, excluding earmarked funding. We know that early years intervention provides the best long-term outcomes for our children, particularly those facing disadvantage. In addition to increases in the day-to-day budget for the Department of Education, the 2025-26 draft Budget provides £50 million for the early learning and childcare strategy, doubling the amount for 2024-25. The Executive have also committed to providing a further £5 million in the June monitoring round. That funding is aimed at delivering improved outcomes for children and parents.

I also announced last week £27·5 million for the Department of Education’s proposal to support children with special educational needs (SEN) to reform services and ensure better outcomes for children. That proposal will support a suite of pilot programmes focused on early intervention and building an appropriately skilled workforce. It is for the Education Minister to identify how his Department can deliver its priorities within its budget allocation.

Mr Brooks: At a recent Education Committee meeting, the expert panel on educational underachievement expressed concern that the allocation for 'A Fair Start' in 2024-25 amounted to £2·6 million or 6% of the £41·2 million that it had laid out in its action plan, despite it having cross-party support and being referenced in many manifestos. How does the Minister intend to support the Education Minister in delivering against that shortfall, which impacts particularly on our working-class communities?

Mr O'Dowd: I commend the independent review of education on its report. The findings and the implementation of that report are down to the Education Minister. The costings in the report are at a point in time; I think that they were based on the 2023-24 Budget. The position has significantly changed since then with regard to the Department of Education. I suggest that perhaps a review of those costings matched against the current provision to Education may prove worthwhile.

As I said in my original answer, the Department of Education has received a considerable uplift. I am not saying for one second that the Department of Education or any Department, for that matter, is receiving all the funds that it requires, but all Departments have received considerable uplifts since the Assembly returned.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Minister address the underfunding of education here compared with other jurisdictions, as highlighted by the independent review of education?

Mr O'Dowd: It is often difficult to compare like for like in funding between this jurisdiction and other jurisdictions for education. As I said to Mr Brooks, the funding referred to in the independent review is at a point in time, and I think it is against the 2023-24 Budget. There has been a significant uplift in funding for the Department of Education since then, and I will continue to work with the Education Minister and other Ministers to do what I can, as Finance Minister, to support them financially. How they use the resources is a matter for each Minister.

Mr Crawford: Minister, will you update us on any bids that your Department has received from the Department of Education?

Mr O'Dowd: The only bids that we would receive are those made through monitoring rounds. The Department of Education has benefited from monitoring rounds whenever my Department has had funds available to match its needs, and it benefited from the recent transformation fund. I think that around £27 million was directed towards the Department of Education for special educational needs specifically. It has benefited from those sources.

The draft Budget is out for consultation. Once the consultation closes, the Executive will make decisions on what will be allocated to each Department.

Mr McGrath: Given the severity and scale of the numbers impacted by special educational needs and the number of commitments in the Programme for Government (PFG) for it, would it be beneficial to ring-fence some of the funding that goes to the Department for special educational needs so that there could be a guarantee of that money being directed to those who need it most?

Mr O'Dowd: Ring-fencing is an option for the Executive. I make recommendations to the Executive on the Budget, and ring-fencing allocations for specific cases in any Department will be an option for the Executive. If I were to make recommendations on that basis, I would do so in line with the Programme for Government commitments.

Mr O'Dowd: The research on the cost of doing business being undertaken by the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre (UUEPC) is on track to be delivered by the end of the month. The study was commissioned following concerns raised in the aftermath of the Chancellor’s autumn Budget. Employers, understandably, have significant concerns regarding the impact of the changes in employers' National Insurance contributions coming into effect next month. That is in addition to other cost pressures that they already face, such as insurance and energy. To assess that, the research team has been undertaking its analysis and engaging widely with over 20 sectoral and business bodies to date in order to hear the voices of those potentially impacted. The report, when finalised, will put me in a position to provide as strong a case as possible to the Treasury ahead of the June monitoring round.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for his response. Does the Minister plan to meet businesses directly? Who have the researchers consulted?

Mr O'Dowd: I am meeting the business sectors tomorrow for a round-table discussion. I look forward to listening to them about the challenges and opportunities facing their sector as we move forward. I am committed to working with them. I have already lobbied the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State quite strongly on those matters, and I will continue to engage in a way that allows the business sector's voice to be heard at all levels of government.

Ms Forsythe: I welcome the study of the cost of doing business in Northern Ireland as we look into April and the incredible pressures. The childcare sector is a key aspect of the Northern Ireland economy. Is the childcare sector represented on the group that the Minister is meeting, and will he continue to engage with that sector, as it underpins businesses in Northern Ireland?

Mr O'Dowd: Not directly, but there may be childcare businesses that are represented by the various organisations that I am meeting tomorrow, and their voices may be heard through that. It is worth pointing out, however, that, as a proposal in the draft Programme for Government, we have doubled the amount of money going into the childcare sector from £25 million to £50 million, and the Executive have committed to allocating £5 million from the June monitoring round to the sector. That will be a total of £55 million, having started from a zero base. To give credit where it is due, the Executive have stepped forward on the matter.

Mr McNulty: Minister, I welcome the fact that your Department has belatedly confirmed that rates will be included in the cost of doing business study. What specific actions will you take to reform rates in order to better support hospitality and retail, which are struggling with increased costs and repeatedly cite the crippling burden of rates?

Mr O'Dowd: Rates are the only local taxation available to the Executive and the Assembly. While I can understand the focus on rates, any changes will require legislation, which is possible. If we are to reduce the hospitality sector's rates base, however, we must ask whether we will reduce public services or add the burden elsewhere. That is the question that has be asked, because it will be the outcome of such a decision. There are ongoing reviews of a number of matters, and some reviews are about to start, but what is the impact of each decision that we make? There will be positives and negatives, but any decision must be made in the round. We cannot simply call for a reduction in the rates base for the hospitality sector without following through on the equation.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, it is welcome that the study will inform your negotiating position with the UK Government, but will it also inform your Department's position? Will we see any tangible actions from your Department to support businesses with the cost of doing business?

Mr O'Dowd: Of course it will inform my Department's thinking, and it will inform my thinking. I hope that it will also inform Members' thinking. It is vital that the decision-making process move forward on the basis of evidence and data, and the analysis that we are doing will allow us to do that. As I said in the Chamber yesterday, every financial decision has positive and negative consequences. We must then decide which element is the most important to drive forward, but no decision can be taken in isolation.

Mr Frew: The Minister is lobbying the Government for support, but what specific support can he give businesses come April?

Mr O'Dowd: It is worth noting that the Executive already have in place £275 million of rate relief for businesses. That figure is not often quoted or used, but it is important to be aware of it when we work out the equation about what we want to do next. My Department is offering significant rate relief to a range of businesses. We are working our way through the rates portfolio to review each rate, and I will bid to come back to the Assembly with decisions on how we move forward. It is also worth remembering that the money that we reinvest in our public services benefits business as well. The money that we put back into public-sector wages benefits businesses as well. In many ways, it is a circular economy, and we are playing our part in it.

Mr O'Dowd: The question for written answer to which the Member refers relates specifically to a prior rating year debt, as of 31 December 2024. A balance owing at a point in time serves only to reflect the position at that time. It is important that the Member recognise that the collection of rates is not static and that the numbers will have changed since 31 December.

It is appropriate that I provide the current position on rate collection and on the number of ratepayers with an agreed payment plan. As of 2 March 2025, almost £1·59 billion had been collected, which is the highest amount ever. Approximately £247 million is still being collected: £142 million relates to bills after 1 April 2024, and £105 million relates to rates billed in previous years, a reduction of £75 million on the March 2024 position.

Payment arrangements are measures offered by Land and Property Services (LPS) to alleviate the financial distress to the ratepayer while maintaining rate collection, albeit at a slower pace. Throughout the year, LPS staff have been contacting ratepayers directly to remind them about the rates that they owe, highlighting the help as well as the consequences of non-payment. There are 8,434 domestic ratepayers and 908 non-domestic ratepayers with agreed payment arrangements, which are worth over £12 million.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer. He is right that the cost and burden is not static and will move over time. When I tabled the question for written answer, £115·5 million of debt was outstanding, and nearly 44 properties were in arrears. The Minister has talked about the burden and about paying a fair share, but it is clear that some people are not paying their fair share. What more can he do to decrease the debt and get the money into the Government's coffers?

Mr O'Dowd: There is a variety of reasons why businesses and domestic ratepayers are not paying their bills in the timely manner that we would like, and we have to understand those reasons as we deal with each case individually. When, after working with the ratepayer, it comes to light that they are not working with us, court action will be taken. I have engagement with LPS on the matter, and we will pursue outstanding debts where there is a value on that return. We may also be dealing with businesses that have gone bankrupt with no opportunity for return. I can assure the Member that we will work with ratepayers to collect our rates. Everyone has to pay their fair share. When necessary, we will bring people to court to recover rates.

Mr McAleer: Will the Minister elaborate on what support is available to ratepayers?

Mr O'Dowd: Wide-ranging support is available to ratepayers to assist them in fulfilling their payment of rates. Starting with domestic ratepayers, I will give some examples: there is housing benefit, rate rebate, low-income rate relief, disabled person's allowance and lone pensioner's allowance. For non-domestic rates, there is industrial derating, charitable exemptions, sport and recreation relief, freight transport relief and non-domestic vacant rate relief. Therefore, there is a range of in-place assistance across the breadth of our ratepayers, and, as I said to Mr Frew, we will work with ratepayers who are facing challenges to work out a repayment plan to allow them to pay their rates. Where we have to go to court, we will go to court.

Mr Durkan: I go back to the original question on rates debt. That is on top of £65 million of rates arrears that have been written off in the past year. Yesterday, Executive parties voted for an above-inflation increase in rates. Are we robbing Peter because Paul, for whatever reason, has not been able to pay?

Mr O'Dowd: There will be historical debt that has been pursued and that, for a number of reasons, may not be collectable. For instance, I referred to businesses that have gone bankrupt and gone beyond the statutory period for return, which is, I think, six years plus one. There may be other reasons why people cannot repay their debt. At some stage, every business will have to come to a conclusion on whether it represents value for money to pursue a debt or to write the debt off. That is where you have to be. That is the position that was taken on the £65 million. Last year, around 92·5% of all rates were paid within the period specified. This year, we are setting a target of around 93%, and we will continue to pursue that. As I said, we will work with ratepayers. Each individual case tells its own story, and people, whether they pay domestic or business rates, face hardship at times. Many, many people work with us. Where we cannot come to an arrangement or where people have not worked with us, we will have to end up in court.

Mr Gaston: Following on from the Minister's comments that LPS will work with ratepayers, I have a case at the minute where the time frame given to the constituent to pay off their rates bill simply is not long enough for them to afford to pay it off. Will the Minister give a commitment that, where there are circumstances in which financial pressures dictate that people cannot make the payment within four years, six years or eight years, LPS will grant a longer period to pay off debt? It is more important to get the rate payment than to take ratepayers to court, only for them to default because they cannot make the rate payment.

Mr O'Dowd: I cannot comment on individual cases, and I can assure the Member that, as I have said repeatedly during my answers to these questions, we are willing to work with ratepayers who face hardships and challenges. If the Member wishes to write to me about the individual case, I will raise the matter with LPS.

Mr O'Dowd: The Executive’s focus must be on wider Budget sustainability. We must also look at how we can do things better by improving efficiency and focusing on desired outcomes. While income generation will be part of that, decisions must be based on the economic and social context and on the need to deliver the public services that our citizens expect. The Executive's Budget sustainability plan outlined the additional income that will be generated in 2024-25 and the possible additional income for 2025-26. The plan also committed the Executive to the completion of a strategic review of income-generation measures, and that work will commence following the finalisation of the 2025-26 Budget. However, it is also incumbent on every Minister to consider the appropriate income-generation measures for their Department, and that does not require Department of Finance-led discussions.

Mr Chambers: Have the Executive considered the mutualisation of Northern Ireland Water, or do they have other plans for providing the funding that is required to enable upgrades of failing waste water plants in the greater Belfast area?

Mr O'Dowd: The Executive have an agreed position on NI Water, which is that it will remain a government-owned company and will be funded through the general grant, as it is now.

Ms Finnegan: What does the Department of Finance view as the main factors in sustainable Budgets?

Mr O'Dowd: Sustainable Budgets are not just about revenue raising; they are about doing things better, which means, of course, being as efficient as possible and ensuring that we are doing the right things by focusing on the desired outcomes. As part of the Budget sustainability plan forward work programme, my Department is taking forward a number of key steps to improve the sustainability of our Budgets, including working with all Departments on the development of longer-term fiscal sustainability plans. That will help us to understand the trajectory of spend that is associated with the strategic direction and planned changes.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, the Budget sustainability plan sets out revenue-generation plans, some of which involve no ministerial direction or decision, are tiny and, frankly, a bit surreal. They include things such as hospital canteen charges and Ordnance Survey map charges — hardly revolutionary stuff. Indeed, in response to a question for written answer on that, it was revealed that Departments had raised more money from those measures in previous years than in the years that were covered by the Budget sustainability plan. Do you have a target for further fiscal devolution and real, meaningful revenue raising not for its own sake but to better deliver public services? That is what we are all here for.

Mr O'Dowd: It is only right and proper that Departments continually review the cost of their doing business and that, where they provide services, they satisfy themselves that what they charge covers the cost of those services and does not further burden the public purse. That sometimes requires decisions to be made on canteens, which you referred to, or on other matters, whatever they may be. In some instances, Departments have not increased charges for 10 or 15 years. That is unsustainable. We have to start by looking at those things. I suspect that, if I were to introduce new revenue-raising measures without having Departments look at them, you would, quite rightly, challenge me.

I am ambitious about fiscal devolution. I believe that the more tax-varying powers that the Assembly and Executive have, the better that it will be for our economy. They would also be good for political stability and responsibility. The Member is aware of how we are working our way through the interim report of the Fiscal Commission and of our engagement with the Treasury. We will continue that. We also have to do the day-to-day, mundane work. A lot of the Departments have done that work and have managed to secure significant revenue from it.

Mr O'Dowd: Assaults on those who are serving the public are an affront to us all. There is no place for violence in the workplace or anywhere in society. Where an assault results in sickness absence, the data that the Department of Finance holds for all civil servants does not always make explicit the cause of the absence. In the case of stress-related absences, a questionnaire is issued to establish whether the cause of the stress is work-related. However, sickness absence data does not specify whether a physical injury was caused by an assault or by an accident or whether it took place in the working environment. Where an injury takes place at work, it should, however, be recorded under the Department's health and safety policy. Of course, not every assault will result in a sickness absence, but any assault at work should be recorded for the health and safety of staff.

Health and safety at work is the responsibility of the individual Departments. There has been one recorded case of assault on a member of my Department in the past 12 months. The Department of Justice has advised that, during that period, there were 96 assaults on prison officers while they were on duty and eight incidents at Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre in which staff were injured on duty. The Department of Education and the Department for the Economy have advised me that there were no reported assaults on their staff during the period. The Department for Infrastructure has advised me that two instances of violence and aggression towards its staff were formally reported in the past 12 months.

Mr Beattie: Minister, thank you for that detailed answer. To be honest with you, I knew most of that. Here is the point: 96 officers were assaulted, while we can count the rest of the assaults on one hand. Surely it makes sense for the Northern Ireland Civil Service handbook to treat the Prison Service as separate from the rest of the Civil Service.

Mr O'Dowd: The Civil Service handbook protects all civil servants, including prison officers. It is there to ensure that there is equity and fair play for all. Every policy can and will be reviewed through time and to learn lessons, but the Civil Service handbook is the best way to support our prison officers and the rest of the Civil Service.

Mr Delargy: Minister, how are absences such as PTSD and other psychological illnesses managed under the sickness absence policies and procedures?

Mr O'Dowd: Absence management processes in the Civil Service are designed to consider and take account of the specific circumstances of each individual case. As part of the absence management procedure, all stress-related absences, including PTSD, are immediately referred to welfare support services. Alongside that, stress questionnaires are issued to establish whether the cause of the stress is personal, domestic or work related, and whether additional assistance, such as the employee assistance programme or a temporary injury allowance application, is required.

Mr McGlone: Minister, the number of working days lost in the Civil Service due to sickness went up from 72,000 in July 2024 to 81,600 in December 2024, with an additional estimated cost of £1·8 million. According to the figures, stress, depression and anxiety accounted for the largest proportion of that at 41·5%. As the Minister in charge of the Civil Service, what measures is your Department taking to introduce a safer environment for people to work in and one that is more conducive to good mental health?

Mr O'Dowd: Supporting and working with our staff is vital. Ensuring that there is an environment in which they feel cherished and valued is also important. The Department works closely with the trade union side on how we can continue to broaden that support and offer it to our civil servants. Across society and some businesses there appears to be an increase in sickness levels. That may be due to a range of issues. We have to understand the trends within that to ensure that we offer the proper remedies to it. I and my Department continue to work alongside the trade union side to ensure that we have the right policies in place to support our staff.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Joanne Bunting. Minister, you will have one minute.

Mr O'Dowd: The law concerning shared property management is complex. While it is based on land law, it also potentially touches on or concerns areas of law that are the responsibility of other Departments, such as Communities, in respect of housing policy, and Economy, in respect of consumer protection and company law. That said, scoping work by the civil law reform team in my Department is under way to review the regulation of property management companies, service charges and other issues related to shared property management. As part of the project, meetings are being held with concerned parties and stakeholders to gain insight into the issue of shared property management. If the Member wishes to engage with that team, I am more than happy to facilitate that meeting.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd: I cannot hop from being Finance Minister to Infrastructure Minister and go back and forth, but I am more than happy to answer your question as Finance Minister.

We will continue to support NI Water in the way that we have been doing over the last number of years. This year, NI Water is receiving half a billion pounds' worth of public funding — half a billion pounds' worth — and that, in itself, is a testament to how the Executive are supporting NI Water moving forward. You have only to cast your eye to England to see what the alternatives deliver for you. The alternative funding measures, which some in the Chamber may support, such as privatisation or mutualisation, have led to increased debt among the water companies, increased pollution, less service to the public and less investment in the infrastructure that was promised under privatisation. That is not the model for the way forward. We want to ensure that public money is being used effectively and efficiently in delivering the services that are required.

I refer to the point that I have made several times. In the January monitoring round, we offered NI Water £19 million, and 2,500 homes were connected. Let us see whether more schemes like that can be achieved. As part of the transformation fund, there was £15 million to deal with storm water and rainwater in a different way. You do not have to direct it towards very expensive waste water treatment works. They should be used only to treat waste water. There are different ways of doing things, and there is a challenge for the Executive and NI Water to look at how we do things differently.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, people hearing you say that we will continue the way we have been doing for the last few years in relation to NI Water will be tearing their hair out. Lough Neagh is an open-air cesspool. Your constituency faces on to it. The previous Sinn Féin Communities Minister promised 100,000 homes in the next 15 years. How in God's name you will deliver those without proper investment I do not know. You talked about comparing the situation with that in England. Nobody, certainly in the Opposition, is calling for an English-style system — far from it — but that does not mean that we should simply drift along as we have been doing.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: Are you specifically saying that NI Water will have the first call on capital investment going forward? That is the upshot of what you are saying when you say that we will continue to fund it in exactly the same way as we have done through monitoring rounds, dribs and drabs —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr O'Toole, you were asked to ask a question. You have not asked a question, and I think that you have forfeited the right to ask a supplementary question because that went on for far too long.

I call Mr Brett.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mr Brett.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have those details in front of me. I am aware of the media reports in that regard, but I have no further details in front of me.

Mr Brett: Will the Minister commit to the fact that his Department looked at the issue? This covered £1 billion of funding that was allocated by his Department to the Department for the Economy that could not be qualified by the Northern Ireland Audit Office. Given the importance of ensuring that public funding is used properly, can the Minister give a commitment to the House today that he will look seriously at the issue?

Mr O'Dowd: It is my understanding that the issues identified by the NI Audit Office through its disclaimer opinion are not about value-for-money propriety or how the Department manages its budget but relate to the complexity of the consolidation process. I will follow it up with my officials, but, at this time, I have no concerns about value-for-money propriety in that regard. However, I am more than happy to ask my officials to follow that up.

Mr O'Dowd: I think that that spend is over six years. I am proud that my Department is leading the way on equality and diversity. There should be more of it across society so that we learn to live with and respect one another. Our differences are many, and they cover many topics, but let us be different, and let us respect our differences. Let us have more equality and diversity and more training to understand how treating one another with respect and dignity benefits our entire society. Mr Gaston, as a member of a minority — a unionist — you should cherish equality legislation: it is there to protect everyone.

Mr Gaston: More wastage is what the Minister orders. Some of that money was spent on membership fees for the discredited Stonewall's Allies programme, which is used to push gender ideology. Why is taxpayers' money being wasted on that nonsense, years after the Civil Service and even the BBC recognised the need to withdraw from the scheme?

Mr O'Dowd: The "nonsense" that Mr Gaston talks about also refers to support for people with disabilities, deaf people and people with sight impairments. It is nonsense only if you do not agree with it. Is that what we are going to base it on? I am not going to base the equality work in my Department on whether I agree with it. It is about whether it is right for protecting minorities and those who are disadvantaged in our society. That is what equality and diversity legislation is about. You, as a member of a minority, should cherish equality legislation. You should protect it and insist that it be enhanced.

Mr O'Dowd: That is an area in which the Executive have made huge strides. In the 2024-25 Budget, from a standstill, we invested £25 million in early learning and childcare. The draft Budget that is out for consultation is looking to invest £50 million and add another £5 million as part of the June monitoring round. We have made huge strides. There is a lot more to be done, but significant progress has been made.

Mr Boylan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he outline how the Department is supporting childcare providers through rating?

Mr O'Dowd: One hundred and forty-one registered childcare providers receive rate relief through the small business rate relief scheme. That support has been extended by my Department for this rating year.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Carál Ní Chuilín is not in her place.

Mr O'Dowd: My predecessor engaged with the banking sector on a number of occasions, and I will do likewise. In fact, I think that we have set in place an annual meeting to discuss financial inclusion with the banking services to ensure that, to use your example, older people are not left behind.

Mr Crawford: I thank the Minister. What safeguards are being implemented to protect older people from digital fraud and scams as they increasingly access financial services online?

Mr O'Dowd: Those are matters for the financial providers. The community and voluntary sector has done good work in spreading information, particularly to older people, about being aware of the potential for scams either online or by phone. As I said, we will continue to engage with the financial sector to ensure that it does everything that it can to support the vulnerable in society.

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, I will meet the business sector tomorrow, including representatives of the retail sector, to continue discussions about how we will support high streets. The rate relief schemes that we have in place are vital in that regard. The continuing business programme, Back in Business, the extension of which I announced in the Assembly yesterday and which the Assembly supported in order to bring vacant properties back into business, opening them up and increasing footfall in areas, is vital to that as well.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for his response, and I listened keenly to his answers to questions earlier. Given the importance of our high streets, what cross-departmental engagement has taken place since the publication of the report?

Mr O'Dowd: I have been in post for only a few weeks. I have had no cross-departmental engagement on the high street task force in that time, but I am more than happy to write to the Member about any engagement that happened prior to my coming into office. As I said, I will meet the business sectors tomorrow, including representatives of retail. The tangible actions that we have taken over the past number of days in the House are about supporting business and the high street in particular.

Mr O'Dowd: As I have previously stated, the Civil Service is committed to equality, diversity and inclusion. Females made up 50·2% of the Civil Service workforce in 2024, closely matching the economically active population of 49·5%. The Civil Service has made progress on increasing its gender diversity, with the trend of historical under-representation of women in leadership roles being reversed. As of 1 January 2024, 43·8% of senior civil servants are female, in comparison with 34·9% in 2014 and just 11·3% in 2000.

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

What exactly has been done to ensure that policies are effective in meeting those objectives?

Mr O'Dowd: This year, the Civil Service will complete a gender review to assess the gender composition of its workforce and applicant pools to inform a programme of outreach activity and strengthen existing links with the education sector to promote professions that are gender-dominated, such as science, engineering and technology, with a view to attracting more female applicants; expand entry routes to the Civil Service by developing pre-employability and employability schemes; and support the career development of current female colleagues through mentoring programmes and new processes for employee mobility and job-sharing.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As Paula Bradshaw is not in her place, that concludes questions to the Minister of Finance.

Mr McGrath: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask the Speaker to reflect on the importance for a democracy of having an Opposition. Given the procedures that we have, is it proper order to silence the Opposition in the middle of their question and move on rather than allow the question put thus far to be answered? Saying a simple "Sit down" and letting the Minister answer the question might have been better for openness and transparency. It would be appreciated if the Speaker could review that matter.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr McGrath. Your comment is noted and will be suitably reviewed. We gave a degree of latitude, as you are fully aware.

Ms Bradshaw, do you want to make a comment?

Ms Bradshaw: I apologise, Deputy Speaker. I did not think that we would get to the last topical question.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Your apology is accepted. If you could find Mr Stewart anywhere to enable him to do that as well, that would be equally helpful [Laughter.]

What are Members giggling about?

Before we return to questions on the Minister of Justice's oral statement, I advise the House that I have been notified that Mr Doug Beattie will not speak to his Adjournment debate on concerns around the road infrastructure leading up to Craigavon Area Hospital. In light of the amount of plenary business today, the Business Committee has agreed that the topic will be postponed until Tuesday 25 March.

Mr Chambers? [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Sorry. Since everybody else has indulged in raising a point of order, I thought that you would like to do so as well. Thank you, Mr Chambers.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her statement earlier. I am keen to hear the time frame, if indeed there is one, for the outworkings of the working group on wider reform, which Judge Burgess is chairing. Does the Minister feel on reflection that she could have done anything differently to avoid the delays that we now have in our justice system?

Mrs Long: There are two phases to the working group's work. We hope that its first report — the interim report — will be completed by the end of March. That should allow us to package any low-hanging fruit in any of the areas that could be reformed, as well as any uplift in fees that is required in those areas, for inclusion in the secondary legislation, which we hope to bring forward in May. The working group will conclude its work in September of this year. Judge Burgess has said that it will take 20 weeks. He is working at pace to try to bring the work to a conclusion, as are we in the Department, because it is about trying to provide evidence that, as Judge Burgess acknowledged when he did his initial foundation review, is simply no longer available. We want to bottom out that work, get the information and make the changes that we can, and as soon as we can. We will have another opportunity in the autumn to look at the pieces that may take slightly longer to come together.

The Member asked how we might have approached the situation differently. Hindsight is always twenty-twenty. We have kept open our communication channels and continue to engage. I have continued to engage personally not just with the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) but with the Law Society, the Solicitors Criminal Bar Association (SCBA) and other parts of the Bar Council. It is important that we do that.

As for the speed with which we were able to bring forward the enabling access to justice programme, I will say that it is a complex and extensive piece of work. I do not think that it would have been the right approach to have hived off the criminal justice part of it. Doing so would have been to the detriment of the rest of the profession. It was important that we pulled together the stuff in the foundation review, the work that we had been doing on access to justice in civil and family cases and the wider piece of work that we are doing on reform. It was important that everything came as a package, because, to be clear, it would have been hard for me to have made the case to the Finance Minister, who, I notice, has left the Chamber — that is probably just as well, because he would probably agree — for a 16% uplift in isolation from any other changes made to the system. It is only as a package of measures that it stacks up.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for her statement. Will she please explain the thinking behind the taxation reform?

Mrs Long: As many Members will know, the issue with taxation at the moment is that it does not go through the Department's normal accountability and oversight processes. There is therefore a challenge with openness, accountability and transparency. It is important that we consider carefully how we can ensure that we have audit and accountability through normal government procedures. At the minute, there is no line of accountability to the Legal Services Agency (LSA) or to the Department's accounting officer. The Public Accounts Committee highlighted that as a concern in its 2017 report on managing legal aid. There is also very little predictability with the assessments and a very wide variance in them. That is one of the reasons that we need to look at taxation reform, which will enshrine legal aid fees in legislation to replace the current system of taxation. Doing that will make fees transparent, accountable and predictable, but, before any new system of remuneration is introduced, the usual statutorily required consultation processes will be undertaken. Relevant views and available evidence will be considered in order to ensure that the new arrangements are fully compliant with all the statutory criteria. Representative bodies have been engaged, and will continue to be engaged, throughout the reform process. The Department remains cognisant of its duty when introducing any alternative system of payment to have regard to the statutory criteria in the Access to Justice (NI) Order 2003 and the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (NI) Order 1981.

Mr Baker: Does the Minister have the funding available to deliver the proposed additional £9·8 million uplift and the £3·5 million backdated uplift?

Mrs Long: We have. For the first time since devolution, we have baselined an amount for legal aid that is equivalent to the predicted expenditure on legal aid. As Members will appreciate, around two thirds to three quarters of legal aid funding is normally baselined, and we then have to wait for monitoring rounds in the hope of getting the remainder of the money into the Department. That has knock-on effects right across the system. This year, we have managed to ring-fence the amount that we expect to spend in legal aid. Therefore, we have the resources required to be able to implement the uplifts and expenditure that we have, while not detracting from our ability to bring down the length of time that payments will take. We will be able to do both those things, which is another reason why I think that the CBA is missing the fact that we have made great progress.

One of the complaints has been the length of time that it takes to get paid. We are introducing interim payments, which means that barristers will see the results of the 16% uplift much more quickly than they might have done. We are also shortening the time frame within which we will be able to pay bills in-year, which, again, is good news for everybody in the profession. Thirdly, we are able to provide for the uplift of 16% across the board.

If I may, I will take the opportunity to mention the uplift for immigration practitioners, which your colleague Ms Ferguson had asked about. To be clear, I said earlier that we intended to uplift the immigration practitioners by more than 16%, and I will put a figure on that: 30% was the recommended uplift for immigration practitioners, not 10%. I do not know where that figure came from, but it is 30% for immigration practitioners. That is based on the outworkings of a review done in England and Wales earlier this year.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for her detailed statement. Will she elaborate on the types of victims and witnesses who are "particularly vulnerable"? I think that they are mentioned on page 7 of the statement. Also, is the Department in a position to offer any assistance to those people while they wait for legal redress?

Mrs Long: As the Member will appreciate, we are talking about category A cases, so those will be serious sexual offence cases, rape and murder. Those are some of the most complex cases, and some very vulnerable witnesses will be engaged in that process and will be experiencing trauma. They also tend to be cases that are much slower to bring to court because of the rigour of having to find all the evidence and meet the requirements. So, victims will often await trial for quite a lengthy period.

It will also include category D multi-defendant trials, which include some complex fraud, paramilitary or terrorism cases. Again, that has a particular knock-on effect on the stress of victims and witnesses.

There will also be some victims who are, in multiple ways, vulnerable. For health, medical and a whole host of other reasons, they may find themselves becoming increasingly vulnerable during trial. It can be due to age, health impairments or serious illness. In all those cases, people are incredibly vulnerable, and, often, the longer that they have to wait, the more difficult that it will be for them to be able to make their case.

The Member asked about the additional support that the Department can offer. As he knows, we fund Victim Support for the work that it does, and it has been leaning in very heavily to support victims who are waiting for a long time. I spoke earlier of the work that prosecutors and the victims and witness care unit in the Public Prosecution Service have been doing. They have had to redirect resources to that space to try to support and encourage victims, many of whom may have been reluctant in the beginning to take cases because of the intimate nature of the violence that they may have to speak about and who are considering withdrawing cooperation from the PPS, with all the consequences that not prosecuting such cases in court has not only for them but for us as a society.

Work is going on to try to support those victims and witnesses in order to ensure that we can manage and reduce the level of attrition that might otherwise be expected. However, I will be very candid: for some witnesses in some of those cases, the clock, because of their health, is literally ticking on their ability to give evidence in court, and I am really concerned that, unless the derogation is implemented swiftly, some of those cases may never reach court.

Ms Egan: Minister, what is your assessment of the regulation of lawyers, complaints about them and the quality of service?

Mrs Long: As I mentioned earlier, in the main, the public gets a quality service from the legal profession here in Northern Ireland. We have very high standards for our legal professionals, and they do very good work. That is welcome. However, there will always be a minority who are unhappy with how the legal profession has treated them or with the outcome of the advice that they received.

While the vast majority of stakeholders report feeling that the services that they have received were helpful and necessary and have been provided with care, those who feel that they have not been in receipt of such services will often also complain that they feel unable to make an effective complaint about their representative, if they feel that they need to, or that they are unaware of who to turn to when they feel that they have not been well served. I am keen to explore how governance structures for legal aid can be used in combination with the Law Society and the Bar Council as regulators and with the work of the Department of Finance and the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner to ensure that people are empowered to demand the quality of service to which they are entitled, particularly when it involves the expenditure of public money.

Certainly, I do not want to step into areas that regulatory bodies or the Minister of Finance already occupy, but it is about saying that, where we fund services for people through the Department of Justice and legal aid, we want to take responsibility for ensuring the quality of those services and that there is meaningful recourse for people when they do not feel well served. The fear for many is that, if they complain to the Bar Council or the Law Society, they will struggle to get their case taken seriously, because other solicitors and barristers make the judgement on whether the behaviour was appropriate. They may also fear that making a complaint might blot their copybook with future solicitors and barristers if they were then to look for alternative legal advice. Whilst that is a perception rather than a proven reality, it is a barrier to people's feeling confident about coming forward. There is, of course, the legal service's ombudsman's office to which people can go, but, again, we need to work with those in the profession who are already very engaged in trying to improve professionalism and the standards throughout it. We need to work closely with them to ensure that, where we can be of assistance either through legal aid or the Department of Finance, we are able to offer them that support in the work that they are trying to do.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, it feels to me that the 16-page statement can be summarised as saying, "It is not me, it is them". Given that you and your party have held the Department for the past 15 years, it is a very sorry position that you now appear to be at open war with the criminal Bar. Is bringing a statement like that to the Assembly really the best way to conduct negotiations?

Mrs Long: The Member clearly did not hear my answer to his colleague Mr McNulty, who asked basically the same question, word for word, before lunchtime.

First, as I said, I am not at war with the criminal Bar; I am in negotiation and discussion with it about how we take things forward. There is no sense that the statement is about warfare, nor is it about me negotiating with the Bar, which is a separate issue. I am engaging with the Bar. The statement is about me informing MLAs about the work that we have conducted in the Department and the changes that we have made to the programme as presented to the House in December. It is also about updating MLAs on the progress that has been made against the targets that I set out at that time. It is entirely appropriate that, whilst maintaining contact with the Bar and trying to resolve the outstanding issues, I come to the House and keep Members informed, because let us be honest about this: the Bar is quite happy to keep Members informed, so it is important that they also hear what the Department has been doing so that they are aware of the work that my officials and I have invested as we seek to resolve the issue.

Making the statement and setting out what we have tried to achieve in the Department in, I would argue, much greater detail than Mr O'Toole suggested, does not preclude me from continuing to engage with the Bar. In fact, if he reads the statement, which he summarised poorly, he would see that I paid tribute to the criminal Bar and other professionals for getting involved in the working group and that I very much welcomed the opportunity to engage with them further.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for her statement, which told us, amongst other things, that Judge Burgess is leading a working group on the issues that have been discussed today. Will the Minister give us any insight into Judge Burgess's views on her response to his recommendations and the Criminal Bar Association's response?

Mrs Long: Judge Burgess anticipated the working group when he produced the Burgess review, as it has become known. I will explain the history to Members. There used to be a direct time-and-line equation through which you could work out the length of time that people spent on things and how much they were paid. That practice was broken from in favour of the simplification of payment so that people would not have to account for every minute of every day in the way in which they previously had to. Instead, they would be paid a certain set amount for particular kinds of work.

As a result, the complexity of cases, which other Members have referred to, can no longer, in general, be measured in the same way. Of course, there are exceptions for things such as reading excess amounts of discovery. The idea behind that was to simplify the system for practitioners as well as for the Legal Services Agency and to ensure that, swings and roundabouts, people would, overall, be paid appropriately.

The issue that Judge Burgess raised was that he does not now have available to him the kind of evidence that he would need to support the uplift that would be required for the more complex cases. He acknowledged that that would be needed, and the working group is taking that forward. Otherwise, the review's recommendations have been accepted; some with the caveat that we will have to await the evidence and some with the caveat that we will need to take some time to work through the logistics. There is nothing, however, that we have rejected.

Indeed, when I met him, Judge Burgess indicated that by backdating the uplift to December, I have gone further than he recommended or anticipated, and he welcomed that. Fundamentally, however, as I said in my statement, I do not believe that Judge Burgess would continue to work with me and the Department if he felt that we were not respecting the spirit and integrity of the review or were ignoring his recommendations, which were based on his engagement with the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society and the Bar Council.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Will the Minister explain the issue that led to immigration solicitors withdrawing their services? What subsequent engagement has she had with them?

Mrs Long: The issue with immigration solicitors withdrawing their services is one that, obviously, causes us some concern. It ties in with the increasing complexity of immigration and asylum cases. As the Member will know, the landscape around immigration and asylum under the previous Government and the current Government has been constantly evolving, and the work that immigration solicitors have to do to prepare work for their clients and to be able to prepare representation for them has become much more involved, complex and time-consuming over that period.

We had looked at an uplift of 16% for legal aid work across the professions. However, we were aware that a discrete piece of work was carried out in England and Wales that looked at immigration because practitioners there were particularly under pressure. The outcome of that was the suggestion that we consider an uplift of around 30% to the fees paid to immigration solicitors. The engagement that we have had on the work that those immigration solicitors are doing has been very positive. They have set out three proposals for resolution and we are responding to those with our own analysis and calculations. It is the Department's intention to get agreement on a way forward before the end of this month and ahead of the drafting of the secondary legislation, which we hope to bring to the Chamber in May 2025. That will allow the solicitors, at the earliest opportunity, to benefit from the uplift to which they are entitled. That is my intention.

The proposed fees will not address all the issues. There are some issues that relate to supply in this area. However, this is an important first step in stabilising immigration practice. We will then need to look at some of the other consultations that we are doing on increasing retention in that space and looking at how we can provide additional mechanisms for people to get the support that they need, whether that is through legal aid or otherwise. We are engaging robustly on that at the moment, and I am hopeful, still, that we will be able to get a resolution to that well ahead of the May deadline.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement from the Minister of Justice. I invite Members to take their ease while we get ready for the statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Minister, over to you.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly on the recent confirmation of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in Hungary. I also intend to use the statement to highlight recent developments and ongoing departmental actions with regards to the highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak in Northern Ireland and the ongoing incursion of the bluetongue virus in Great Britain. Those three diseases, at present, pose a triple threat to our local industry, and we must take all possible action to mitigate them in order to protect farmers' livelihoods, our poultry and livestock and the wider agri-food economy. I will explain how I intend to keep Members apprised of ongoing developments in those areas.

An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was confirmed in a dairy cattle herd in Hungary, near its border with Slovakia, on 6 March 2025. That outbreak, the first in Hungary in almost 50 years, followed confirmation of the disease on 10 January in a herd of water buffalo in Brandenburg, north of Berlin in Germany. As many Members will be aware, foot-and-mouth is a severe and highly contagious viral disease that affects cattle, sheep, pigs and other cloven-hoofed animals. It is a notifiable disease, and failure to report it constitutes an offence. Foot-and-mouth disease is not considered to be a public health threat, and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has confirmed that products of animal origin remain safe for consumption.

In 2001, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease resulted in dire consequences for our farming community and the wider economy, costing approximately £8 billion across the UK. The emergence of the disease in Hungary, following so quickly after the recent finding in Germany, is therefore a significant concern not only for our livestock owners but for the entire agriculture sector across the UK, Ireland and the EU.

Officials in Hungary are implementing steps to prevent further spread of the disease, including the culling and safe disposal of all susceptible animals on the affected holding, and establishing disease control zones. Slovakian authorities have instigated corresponding 3 km and 10 km zones as a result of the confirmation of foot-and-mouth disease in Hungary. They reiterate, however, that they have not confirmed any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and have not had a case in 50 years. German officials have finished surveillance in the zones established in response to the outbreak there on 10 January, and, thankfully, there have been no further confirmations.

To protect Northern Ireland, we have strict import controls on the movement of animals and animal products from areas affected by foot-and-mouth disease. That means that all susceptible species and their products from disease control areas in Hungary are restricted from entering Northern Ireland. That is similar to the measures that were implemented following the case of foot-and-mouth disease in Germany. Departmental officials advise that there have been no movements of susceptible live animals from Hungary or Slovakia to Northern Ireland since the beginning of this year.

I hope to have a meeting shortly with my counterpart at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Martin Heydon TD. I am requesting urgent meetings with ministerial colleagues at DEFRA to discuss the developments, and I will seek to ensure a unified response across the UK and, I note, Ireland.

The Chief Veterinary Officer for Northern Ireland, Brian Dooher, and officials are maintaining close and frequent communication with their counterparts across these islands to facilitate a comprehensive response. My departmental officials met key industry stakeholders on Friday evening to keep them apprised of the situation. I say, "Thank you" to my officials for their work in this and many other areas.

On foot-and-mouth disease preparedness in Northern Ireland, as was outlined to Members in my written ministerial statement following the first case of foot-and-mouth disease in Germany in January, my Department has well-established, robust disease control contingency plans in place to manage the risk of disease incursions and to protect farmers and food security. The foot-and-mouth disease response plan outlines clear procedures for responding to suspected cases of foot-and-mouth disease, including rapid diagnostic testing, protocols to restrict animal movements and the establishment of disease control zones to mitigate onward spread of the disease. The plan was tested extensively during a UK national exercise in 2018 and subsequent UK tabletop exercises as recently as last year. The actions that will be taken, alongside our strong veterinary surveillance system to detect unusual disease symptoms, include prompt follow-up investigations of any suspect cases.

I now turn to avian influenza. As Members will be aware, to date this year, there have been three incursions of highly pathogenic avian influenza into commercial poultry premises, all in County Tyrone, and one incursion into captive bird premises near Magherafelt. There have also been 42 cases in England and one in Scotland. There have been no cases in the Republic of Ireland.

Avian influenza, commonly known as bird flu, is a highly contagious viral disease affecting the respiratory, digestive and/or nervous system of many species of birds, and it is essential to emphasise that failure to report it constitutes an offence. The advice from the Public Health Agency (PHA) notes that avian influenza is primarily a disease of birds and that the risk to the general public's health is very low. The advice from the Food Standards Agency notes that avian influenza poses a very low food safety risk for UK consumers and that properly cooked poultry and poultry products, including eggs, are safe to eat. Northern Ireland relies heavily on the wider agri-food industry as a source of employment. Poultry and egg production contributes significantly to the agri-food economy and is valued at over £600 million. It is vital that we protect that industry.

I will outline the measures that are being taken by my Department in response to the recent incursions of highly pathogenic avian influenza here in Northern Ireland. My Department has completed the depopulation of the four sites where the disease was confirmed. The total number of birds culled was approximately 110,000. I put on record my thanks for the engagement and cooperation of the affected flock owners during what I recognise was an incredibly difficult time for them and their families. I also thank my officials for their work on that.

My Department has also implemented disease control zones that have been placed around all premises, with the necessary surveillance activities ongoing. The captive bird monitoring zone around the premises near Magherafelt has been lifted as of 4 March. The control zones around the three commercial premises will be lifted once all the required surveillance activities are complete. All flock keepers who are within a disease control zone will have been contacted with information on the restrictions and requirements laid down by my Department for the movement of poultry and poultry-related products. A movement licensing centre has been established to facilitate those movements.

As Members will be aware, I introduced an avian influenza prevention zone (AIPZ) across Northern Ireland on Saturday 18 January 2025. The decision to introduce the AIPZ followed a disease risk assessment by DAERA veterinary officials that took several risk factors into consideration, including results from wild bird investigations. The measures in the AIPZ include stringent mandatory biosecurity measures to help prevent the spread of the disease from wild birds or another source to poultry; a requirement that poultry or other captive birds are provided with food and water to which wild birds have no access; and mandatory rules on cleaning and disinfection.

I then took the decision on 12 February to introduce a mandatory housing order across all of Northern Ireland for all kept birds and poultry, effective from 12.01 am on Monday 17 February. That was announced on Wednesday 12 February to permit time for the industry to prepare. In addition, a ban on poultry gatherings has been implemented in conjunction with the housing order. The housing order legally requires all bird keepers, including owners of pet birds, commercial flocks and backyard and hobby flocks, to keep their birds indoors or otherwise separate from wild birds. I was pleased that engagement with my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Martin Heydon, resulted in the housing order applying in both jurisdictions from Monday 17 February. The AIPZ and associated housing order will remain in force until the risk of further incursions has decreased. My Department will keep that regularly under review. My officials, including the Chief Veterinary Officer, remain in close contact with colleagues across the other jurisdictions and keep key industry stakeholders regularly updated on our response to those incursions.

The processes required have demonstrated good operational capability, which bodes well for confidence in the commitment of officials and the industry to react with the necessary actions. However, I am conscious of resource limitations should more than one of these animal disease threats impact on Northern Ireland concurrently or should we face a prolonged period of challenge.

The third animal disease threat to our agri-food industry remains that of bluetongue, which is an insect-borne viral disease to which all species of ruminants are susceptible, although sheep are most severely affected. Cattle and goats that often appear to be healthy can carry high levels of the virus and provide a source of further infection. The disease is caused by a virus that is transmitted by certain species of biting midges. Animal-to-animal transmission is not reported, except through the transplacental route. The species of midge that carries the infection is found in Northern Ireland. Bluetongue can reduce milk yield, cause sickness and reduce reproductive performance. It can also have a major impact on trade. It is a disease of animals, not humans, so there are no human or public health issues.

On 11 November 2023, DEFRA confirmed the presence of bluetongue virus serotype 3 (BTV-3) in a single cow in Kent. That follows the spread of the disease on continental Europe. BTV-3 has now been confirmed in over 200 premises in Great Britain. One case of BTV-12 has also been confirmed in England. Two cases in Wales were found in sheep that had been moved legally from the east of England. Further sampling and testing in Wales indicate that the disease is not spreading locally. The restricted zone now covers a significant proportion of the east of England. A map detailing the restricted zone can be accessed on the gov.uk website.

On Wednesday 4 September 2024, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs approved three unauthorised BTV-3 vaccines. That followed robust assessment by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and extensive engagement with stakeholders across the UK. While the approval of unauthorised vaccines is UK-wide, the decision to use them under licence is a devolved matter. At this juncture, the use of those approved unauthorised vaccines under general licence is for livestock keepers in England. Recently, the Welsh Government approved the use of the three unauthorised BTV-3 vaccines for voluntary use under general licence in Wales from 1 March 2025. Direct movement of all live ruminants and camelids from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is still suspended. The use of approved unauthorised vaccines in England and Wales does not impact on that.

At present, the disease threat to Northern Ireland has been determined as "medium", and the highest risk of disease incursion is controlled as susceptible animals cannot be imported here from Great Britain. My officials will continue to monitor developments across Great Britain and work closely with all stakeholders, including colleagues in the Republic of Ireland, whom they most recently met only last week to determine next steps and what approaches we would advance immediately in the face of any incursion. I have also been engaging with my counterparts in Great Britain and in the South on the matter since last summer. It is crucial that we work closely together to mitigate any spread of that devastating disease to the island of Ireland, in particular, which, as you know, is considered one epidemiological unit. That is of paramount importance as we turn towards spring and summer, which bring with them warmer weather and the increase in midge activity that can result in the spread of BTV from animal to animal and herd to herd. As we head into that period, my officials are planning further extensive communications on how farmers should remain vigilant for BTV. My Department stands ready to take any possible steps, in conjunction with key stakeholders, to mitigate BTV incursion and spread.
I will turn to next steps and communications. In the coming weeks, I will chair the next scheduled meeting of the UK inter-ministerial group for environment, food and rural affairs, where that triple threat to animal health, and therefore to farmers' livelihoods and economies across all jurisdictions, is to be discussed. I will also keep in regular close contact on those matters with my colleagues in the South. I will ensure that updates are provided, as necessary, to my Executive colleagues and also, importantly, to the AERA Committee in the first instance, and will be happy to return to the House if there are any further significant and serious developments in the time ahead.

My officials will continue extensive ongoing engagement with officials across all jurisdictions. They will also ensure regular and timely updates to all our stakeholders. That will cover developments across those current three threats to our agri-food industry and include engagement on many other challenges that must be heightened that are a risk to livestock in Northern Ireland, including African swine fever and the ongoing spread and maintenance of endemic diseases such as bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) and TB.

My Department will also continue to deploy wide-ranging communications reminding all farmers and flock keepers of the necessity of adhering to high levels of biosecurity. Comprehensive biosecurity guidance is available on the DAERA website, and adhering to it protects against disease spread in general and the triple-threat animal disease that our wider agri-food industry is facing. The guidance emphasises the importance of maintaining high biosecurity standards in order to help reduce the risk of transmission of the three diseases. Continued vigilance is paramount, and it is essential that private veterinary practitioners and flock keepers remain alert to any unusual symptoms and report them immediately to a veterinarian or directly to DAERA. Further detail, including photos of clinical signs of foot-and-mouth disease, avian influenza and bluetongue, is available on the DAERA website.

Although we have implemented significant protective measures, there is no room for complacency. We must continue to convey clear messages about the importance of responsible sourcing, of maintaining high biosecurity standards and of promptly reporting any unusual symptoms in order to help protect Northern Ireland's farms and wider industry. I request that Members assist me in disseminating key messages about responsible sourcing, maintaining vigilance and the need for farmers immediately to report any unusual symptoms. Those steps will further help ensure the protection of our livestock, as well as the agriculture sector, which is vital to our economy.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for your statement, Minister. I see that a good bit of it is already on the website, almost verbatim.

Will the Minister please comment on measures, particularly on animal health and welfare, being taken to ensure all-island security? Such measures worked previously. I represent an area where, unfortunately, there was a bad outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease before, which was catastrophic for the farmer concerned. At the time, however, my party colleague Bríd Rodgers worked very closely with the then Minister to ensure animal security and biosecurity.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy, for your question. Although I work with my colleagues across the UK and will be chairing the next inter-ministerial group meeting, I am very conscious that we are on the island of Ireland. We are a single epidemiological unit, and I have a very strong personal relationship with my counterpart in the South, Martin Heydon. Officials, North and South, are also constantly working together. That we rolled out a housing order to combat avian influenza on the island at the same time demonstrates that. We will continue to engage on all the measures being taken. I hope to meet up with Martin soon to talk through the situation, because it is important that we work together. All of us in the House have a role to play. Hopefully, it is a matter on which we can come together in order to disseminate the message about vigilance and earlier reporting, because it is key that we do so.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for his phone call on Friday evening to update me.

In his statement, he said that there has been no movement of susceptible live animals from Hungary or Slovakia to Northern Ireland since the beginning of the year. Were any such animals tracked before the beginning of the year, and, if so, has action been taken to ensure that the biosecurity net is tightly tied? Will he also take the opportunity to outline the risk that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease would pose to the agriculture community?

Mr Muir: We have looked at the risk window, and probably a bit before that by going back to the beginning of the year to track movements. If it will be helpful, we can write to the Committee about movements over the past calendar year.

The Member's second question is important. For farmers and the industry in Northern Ireland, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease would be devastating. That is why it was important for me to come here today to make a statement and to ask Members to disseminate the message about vigilance and earlier reporting. If people suspect an outbreak, the quicker that it is reported, the better. The fact that foot-and-mouth disease has been discovered in Hungary, further to the case in Germany, concerns me, and that is why I am here today. It is an ever-evolving picture, not just for foot-and-mouth disease but for other threats that I outlined. I hope that we can continue to update the Committee as things progress, because things are moving at a bit of a pace.

Ms Murphy: Minister, supplementary to Robbie's question, have you had any engagement with your counterparts in the EU?

Mr Muir: The UK Government are the primary liaison point with the EU. That is the established protocol, so they will continue to do that. I reached out to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and briefed him on Friday, and I am seeking a meeting with Baroness Hayman. Those are my points of contact in the UK, but I am also conscious of North/South relations, and the South of Ireland is, obviously, a member state. I am trying to cover all bases, but the primary contact point with the EU is the UK Government.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is important to reinforce the message about the threat to our farming sector. It is clear that biosecurity is key. There is a requirement for vigilance and a belt-and-braces approach from the Department and farm businesses. There will, however, be those who could spread disease unintentionally. Minister, has there been any increase in the number of inspections of what is being brought into Northern Ireland by visitors and holidaymakers, particularly through our airports?

Mr Muir: First, I congratulate you on your new post as deputy leader, Michelle.

When it comes to the issue that you asked about, I have to be conscious of the Windsor Framework (Implementation) Regulations 2024, which are largely concerned with movements between GB and NI. That issue does not sit under my direction or control. We are in a different space when it comes to that.

I asked to see some of the inspections that were occurring at, for example, the City Airport, where a sniffer dog has been deployed to identify illegal imports. That is a good measure, and I have asked for consideration to be given to whether there is any scope to increase that. I will also discuss that with Baroness Hayman from the UK Government to see whether we can bring in any further measures in relation to movement between GB and NI. I am very conscious of the risk related to that. I also want to discuss with the UK Government the border target operating model. Concerns have been expressed about the inadequacy of that model, and I want to explore further with the UK Government what they are doing about it.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you so much for coming to the Chamber today, Minister. You will know that there is a lot of fear in my constituency of North Antrim, particularly among cattle farmers, many of whom remember the first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease 20-odd years ago. If there were to be another outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Ireland, Minister, what would you and your Department do?

Mr Muir: My Department has well-established and robust disease control contingency plans in place to manage the risk of disease incursions and to protect our livestock farmers and the wider industry. The foot-and-mouth disease control strategy outlines clear procedures for responding to suspect cases in Northern Ireland. Foot-and-mouth disease is listed as a category A disease under EU animal health law. Category A diseases do not normally occur in the EU or Northern Ireland, and it is a requirement that immediate eradication measures be taken when they are detected.

In the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Ireland, the disease control actions taken by my Department are mandatory: they are legislated for in EU and domestic law. Initial actions include restricting suspect premises, conducting veterinary investigations, taking samples from suspect species for testing at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), establishing disease control zones, humanely culling suspect species on an infected premises and cleansing and disinfecting infected premises. On confirmation of disease, a protection zone with a minimum radius of 3 kilometres and a surveillance zone with a minimum radius of 10 kilometres will be imposed around the infected premises. The size of the disease control zones is based on extensive research and risk assessments to ensure that there is a minimal risk of disease spread. The effectiveness of the approach was confirmed in a report on foot-and-mouth disease that was published on 6 May 2021. It concluded that the disease control zones would:

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, as foot-and-mouth disease poses an all-Ireland threat, coordinated action and clear communication are essential. What assessment has been made of the risk posed by funding shortfalls to the all-island animal health and welfare strategy?

Mr Muir: I am approaching the issue of foot-and-mouth disease as a threat. I will discuss funding with the Finance Minister, if it becomes an issue. I am keen that we approach the matter with the seriousness that it deserves. We are doing that, and we are doing it with North/South cooperation — between Ministers and through officials — and it is important that we do that. The most effective thing that we can do at the moment is ensure that we keep foot-and-mouth disease out of the island of Ireland through effective border controls, vigilance and early reporting. We are focused on those measures.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, I spoke to a farmer in Mid Ulster about bird flu, and he was highly complimentary about the way that the Department handled it. It was a big loss to him personally, but he was very complimentary about the way that it was dealt with.

On that note, it has been a few weeks since the last outbreak of bird flu, so are you content that biosecurity is still tight enough on farms, considering that time can create a bit of relaxation?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Keith, for your kind words about the officials in my Department. They have been working night and day and over weekends to deal with the issue. They went in personally to effect the culling of the birds, and I am very grateful to them. Your words mean a lot to me.

The biosecurity requirements are legally mandated, because the zone remains in place across the whole of Northern Ireland. It is a legal requirement to adhere to them. Most premises are doing it because they understand their importance for their business. They involve simple measures for ensuring that records are kept about the people who enter and leave the premises, that the premises are properly secured and noting whether there is an issue about access by rodents. They are standard things, and there is stuff on our website about them.

It is important that I re-emphasise the importance of biosecurity, because we have a number of weeks left of migratory wild birds passing over Northern Ireland, and the concern is that the outbreak could occur again. It is important that we emphasise the importance of biosecurity.

Mr McMurray: Minister, why is it important to report cases of bluetongue?

Mr Muir: While bluetongue is not in Northern Ireland, I have a significant concern about it because of the spread that has occurred in England and because there are cases in Wales. I was in the glens of Antrim, and I know that, on a clear day, you can see Galloway clearly. That gives you an idea of how the virus can move in Great Britain. All it takes is for the wind to be directed in a certain way, and it will come to Northern Ireland. Its impact on us could be significant. If people have any concerns about bluetongue, it is really important that they report them straight away so that we can test and take action. If you speak to the farming communities in England and Europe who have endured the virus, you will find that it has had a significant impact on their trade. I want to raise my concern about bluetongue, because, while the weather is quite nice, as it gets warmer, bluetongue will become a greater threat to us in Northern Ireland.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his statement. We are in worrying times, Minister, particularly given the number of farms and food-processing companies in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. With that in mind, what arrangements are in place to compensate the farmers and families who are impacted by some of the diseases?

Mr Muir: Compensation is payable for animals culled for disease control purposes at the direction of the Department. I am guided by the vires for my Department and established policy on the issue. I will help farmers where I can, but I also need to work within the confines of 'Managing Public Money'.

Mr T Buchanan: I note and welcome the action that your Department has taken to protect the farming community in Northern Ireland. I note that your officials have discussed contingency plans for foot-and-mouth disease. Have those contingency plans been communicated to the wider farming community?

Mr Muir: There was a meeting with stakeholders on Friday evening to discuss the preparations and the reports from Hungary. The engagement with stakeholders was appreciated, and it will be ongoing not just for foot-and-mouth disease — that is an evolving picture — but for avian influenza and other matters. While I engage with my officials, Members and my ministerial counterparts across the UK and Ireland, the engagement with stakeholders is ongoing. I rang the president of the Ulster Farmers' Union on Friday as well.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, in a response to a question for written answer in January, you confirmed that your Department had only:

Do you believe that DAERA has the necessary measures in place to properly police such measures, as only one incident has been detected in Northern Ireland, which seems rather low, given the severity of the situation?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the incident, and it was widely reported in the farming press. To be honest, when I heard about the incident, I was absolutely furious. I was disgusted that someone would do that and threaten our farming community in Northern Ireland. I echo the words of the Ulster Farmers' Union and encourage people to source responsibly and stick by the rules, because we all need to stand together to safeguard our industry.

The Windsor framework implementation regulations that were made last year mean that, largely, movements between GB and NI do not sit under my direction and control but under the direction and control of the Secretary of State. That is why I requested a meeting with Baroness Hayman to discuss the issue, and it is why I let the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland know about it and continue to engage with him. One of the quirks of my Department is that it has two Ministers at Westminster.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his statement. On avian flu, the depopulation of flocks can have a huge impact on farm businesses and their cash flow. Will the Minister assure the House that his officials will work closely with those affected to ensure that farms can be repopulated as soon as possible?

Mr Muir: Thank you. I outlined earlier the vires and the ability of my Department to pay compensation. Compensation is paid for disease-control purposes. If a notifiable strain of avian influenza is confirmed on a premises, compensation based on the current market value will be payable for all poultry culled at the Department's direction. We will do what we can within our vires and established policy.

I totally understand the difficulties that farmers face when avian flu arrives. It is unexpected, and, clearly, it is unwanted and unplanned for. We will continue to work with the industry, particularly in getting on site to do the testing and to assist with the humane culling of the poultry. I am also conscious that we will provide support where we can within the legal vires and within the 'Managing Public Money' guidance. The most important thing is that our Department works with the people affected very quickly, which it has done.

Mr Blair: Following on from a response that the Minister gave a moment or two ago about reporting relevant information and being conscious of the shared responsibilities on these matters, can the Minister give us any information on how avian influenza is spread and how the spread of disease can be prevented?

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, John. A lot of people ask me how avian influenza got here, and that is one of the challenges. The disease spreads through the movement of infected birds and from bird to bird by contact with contaminated body fluids and faeces, either directly or through contaminated objects and surfaces. Avian influenza is not an airborne disease. The avian influenza virus changes frequently, creating new strains, and there is a constant risk that one of the new strains will spread easily among people. However, there is no evidence that any recent strain of avian influenza has been able to spread directly between humans.

Mr McNulty: Minister, I remember the last occasion on which foot-and-mouth disease broke out here. On our family farm — other farmers will identify with this — we had welly boot dip points at all access points. It was a crazy time, but the response was very strong, led by an SDLP Minister. Minister, you have a lot to live up to, should the situation arise again. What engagement have you had with the EU on biosecurity and the risk posed to livestock and farmers by this outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr Muir: I hope that the situation does not arise again. That is why it is important that we are here together and that we collectively work on the response. As I have outlined, the key contact point with the EU is the UK Government. That is the established procedure, and I reached out to the UK Government through the Secretary of State on Friday. I am seeking a meeting with Baroness Hayman at DEFRA, and I am reaching out for a meeting with Martin Heydon, my counterpart down South, so that we can work collectively on the issue. Let us hope that the dark days that you outlined never come back to Northern Ireland.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement and, indeed, for the measures that his Department is putting in place. As the Minister will know, I have mentioned the mental health of farmers in the Chamber a number of times. When statements such as this are made, they always raise fear. On the timing of the statement, have you noticed anything to indicate a push to make sure that we get that messaging out as quickly as possible? How often does tracking of the disease and of control of the spread take place? Does information-sharing between the different jurisdictions take place daily, weekly or monthly?

Mr Muir: We are agile on that: as the situation evolves, the Chief Veterinary Officers are talking regularly.

The point that the Member made about mental health is important. Rural Support plays a significant role in our rural communities, and I encourage anyone who is seeking advice or support to contact it.

I felt that it was important to come here after confirmation of the case in Hungary at the end of last week to outline to Members what we are doing in response and that, given that such situations evolve rapidly, my plan is to engage directly with the Committee through written correspondence. We can send that in an agile fashion to keep the Committee updated. I hope that that will be useful. I spoke to the Chair and Deputy Chair on Friday afternoon. Other situations may evolve, and we want to make sure that people are quickly apprised rather than having to wait until a Monday, for example.

I am acutely aware of the mental health of farmers, particularly those who have been affected by avian influenza. I really praise the work of Rural Support.

Mr Gaston: Minister, your statement tells us that animals from foot-and-mouth disease-affected areas in Hungary and Germany are prevented from entering NI. However, when it comes to bluetongue, you say:

Will the Minister spell out to the House why we do not suspend movements of animals from all of Hungary and Germany as we have from Great Britain and explain how the protocol prevents such action?

Mr Muir: The Member has correctly outlined the situation for movement of ruminants from GB to NI as the result of the threat from bluetongue. I have had no serious representations from the farming community asking for that to be changed. I understand the challenges that that poses, but the focus has been on keeping bluetongue out of Northern Ireland. I put people's livelihoods, jobs and the industry ahead of ideology; that is what we need to do on this.

The restrictions on foot-and-mouth disease-affected areas around Hungary are similar to those put in place in response to the outbreak in Germany. It is important to state that those arrangements have been in place. I will continue to engage with my colleague in the South on any further developments.

Mr McAleer: The emotional impact in 2001 was desperate, as herds from bloodlines that had been in the family for generations had to be culled overnight.

Minister, you referenced the fact that the island of Ireland is a single epidemiological unit: so is the island of Britain. Do you sense from your engagement with DEFRA that it is looking at using the natural sea barrier around the island of Britain to prevent the disease from coming in? Have lessons been learned from the 2001 outbreak and the COVID lockdown?

Mr Muir: I will engage with Ministers, as I have outlined, to discuss our planned approach and how Ministers from the UK and Ireland are responding to this. Lessons have to be learned. Some Members will be aware of the reports about the suboptimal nature of the border target operating model in the case of foot-and-mouth disease in Germany. Hopefully, lessons have been learned from that in recent months.

It is important to put it on record that, to protect Northern Ireland, strict import controls are in place to restrict the movement of animals and their food products from foot-and-mouth disease-affected areas, as I outlined to Mr Gaston. That means that movement to Northern Ireland of all susceptible species and their products from disease control zones in Hungary and Slovakia is prohibited. I reassure the Member that the establishment and size of disease control zones are based on extensive research and risk assessments to ensure that the risk of disease spread is minimal. The effectiveness of that approach was confirmed by the foot-and-mouth disease report published on 6 May 2021, which concluded that the disease control zones:

It is important to outline that that is our approach.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As no other Members have indicated that they wish to speak, that concludes questions on the statement. Thank you, Minister.

I ask Members to take their ease while we hand over the Table and move to the next item of business.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there be no limit on the debate. I call the Chairperson to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I request Members' support for the motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Sign Language Bill to 13 February 2026. At first glance, that may seem like a significant extension, but when we take into account recess periods — Easter, summer, Halloween and Christmas — as well as a full six-week call for evidence, we are effectively seeking around six additional months for the Committee's scrutiny and considerations.

Importantly, it would be a limit not a target. The Committee will of course work diligently to conclude its scrutiny as soon as possible. However, the Bill is unique in its scope and impact. It is not like any other Bill that has come before the Assembly, and it requires an entirely new level of engagement by the Committee. Following the closure of the call for evidence, the Committee has scheduled 10 in-person evidence sessions to run on a fortnightly basis, allowing sufficient time for thorough review and discussion. Given the importance of accessibility for the deaf community, these sessions will be interpreted in both sign languages and recorded, then clipped and uploaded to the website within 24 to 48 hours. Additionally, the Committee team will provide clear and accessible updates, including slide summaries, interpreted into Irish Sign Language (ISL) and British Sign Language (BSL) to be shared on social media. We hope that this will help ensure that the deaf community remains informed and fully involved throughout the Committee Stage. All those tasks will take additional time.

Unlike our usual approach with Bills, the Committee wants to go beyond the usual consultation process, ensuring that deaf people have the time and resources that they need to digest the evidence and provide meaningful input. For the first time in Assembly history, individuals will be able to submit their views and evidence to the Committee in their own sign language, via video. Thanks to the support of Assembly colleagues in the Information Systems, Engagement and Communications teams, members of the deaf community will be able to record their views in BSL or ISL and submit them directly to the Committee. Those video submissions will then be interpreted for us, the Committee members, and transcribed for inclusion in the official Committee report. That process should help ensure that deaf individuals will be able to express their views naturally, rather than relying on written submissions, which may not be able to reflect their full perspective. It is a significant milestone, not just for this Bill, but for how we ensure true accessibility in the democratic process. It will reinforce our commitment to equal participation and will set a new precedent for future engagement with linguistic minority communities.

There are also critical legislative concerns that demand close examination within the Bill. The Bill includes far-reaching Henry VIII powers, and, as of now, the Committee has not yet received a delegated powers memorandum. The Committee will seek legal advice from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, but we must allow sufficient time for the Department to provide the necessary documentation. Furthermore, the Committee needs to continue its weekly scrutiny of the Department for Communities, covering a wide range of responsibilities, including statutory rules, emerging policy and key strategies, budgetary matters, monitoring rounds and ministerial evidence sessions. Additionally, we anticipate that the Committee may soon have a further Bill for consideration.

This request is essential to ensure that the deaf community receives a full and transparent process that meets its people's needs and allows them to communicate in their own language, and the extension will allow us to consult, engage and legislate thoroughly and properly. I ask the House to support the motion to ensure that we have the necessary time to examine this landmark Bill thoroughly and deliver legislation that is robust, effective and fully informed by those on whom it will have the most impact.

Mr Butler: I thank the Chair of the Committee for Communities for that update. It was a very worthy and worthwhile update, and I welcome just about everything that he shared. I particularly like the way that he set out in detail how the Committee will consult the deaf community and the way in which deaf people will be included in that consultation in their own language.

Will the Committee Chair help me with a couple of issues? There is no doubt that the impact of this legislation will be that young people will, potentially, see the best and most effective change in their life outcomes. Has the Committee had any talks, at this stage, on how it can engage with members of the community who are under 18 and ensure that they have a voice? It is also about our elder community. We had a debate on that subject two weeks ago: a private Member's motion that was brought by Claire Sugden. We must ensure that we are not forgetting or neglecting our obligations towards our elders and older members of the community who are deaf. They could provide essential testimony as to the impacts and their life experiences. I understand and accept that, whilst it seems like a long extension to request, it is much better that we get it right than get it done.

Mr Kingston: I will speak briefly in support of the request from the Committee Chairman. Indeed, this had unanimous support at Committee, and we are keen that we are all learning, through this process, to ensure that there is maximum engagement with members of the deaf community, and we wish to provide the opportunity, through BSL and ISL, for their full participation in and input to this process. Therefore, we welcome the extension. Indeed, if it is possible to shorten the timescale, we will do so, but we want to make sure that there is sufficient time for the phases and for that proper communication.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Communities to make a winding-up speech on the debate.

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

I welcome Members' support and their acknowledgement of the specific nature of the request.

In relation to Robbie's request: thank you for that. I will ensure that we do feed in. We have already engaged with the sector, prior to the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill. We have also engaged appropriately with the Youth Assembly, and he is absolutely right: people at both ends of the age range have specific requirements, and we will certainly be seeking to ensure that their views are captured and reflected in our work on the Bill.

Ms Murphy: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Áine, please open the debate on the motion.
]

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

I welcome the opportunity to propose the motion. Historically, women have played a central role in our rural landscapes, working on farms, running businesses and spearheading community development, all while doing most of the domestic labour and having caring responsibilities at home. Agriculture is the backbone of our rural communities and a cornerstone of our economy. Despite their invaluable contribution, women remain under-represented in farm ownership, decision-making positions and leadership roles in the agri-food industry. Women face structural and cultural barriers that limit their full participation in agriculture. Daughters are often overlooked as potential inheritors of family farms, and, without land ownership, women struggle to access the financial resources that are necessary to initiate, innovate, expand or even sustain their agriculture activities. According to government statistics, only 5% of registered principal farmers are women and only 4% of participants in business development groups are women.

There are glimmers of hope, however. Some 53% of students in higher education agriculture courses are women. The interest and ability is there, so we now just need to harness it in the agriculture industry. Studies have shown that gender diversity in leadership results in better decision-making, increased productivity and greater innovation. By empowering women in agriculture, we can unlock the full potential of our rural economy and ensure the sustainability of the sector for generations to come.

This year's theme for International Women's Day was "Accelerate action", calling on us to drive gender equality through bold, decisive actions. The status quo needs to be challenged, as do the systemic barriers that hold back half our population. It is our responsibility as legislators to champion policies that will empower women. The need is even more pressing when we consider the incentives for female entrepreneurs and farmers in the South of Ireland. Since 2014, the ACORNS programme has been helping rural female business owners to establish and grow their enterprise. After the Women in Agriculture conference in 2023, a 12-point action plan was produced, and efforts are under way to achieve 40% female representation on state boards related to agriculture.

Support needs to be provided for women when it comes to farm succession and land ownership. We also need to develop funding streams for women-led agriculture businesses. We need to ensure that women have access to the necessary training and mentorship programmes, and that those programmes fit around their many, often competing, responsibilities. Decisive action is required in order to increase female representation in farming organisations. Targeted leadership programmes could help rectify the imbalance. Fundamentally, we need to challenge outdated cultural attitudes and make women's representation in agriculture the norm rather than the exception. The motion is not only about fairness but about using all the tools at our disposal to secure the innovation and sustainability goals that our agrisector must meet to survive. We need to empower women to help lead and shape that change.

Thankfully, my experience on the farm is one of positivity. For years, my uncle's farm has been a hub of activity, where all my cousins and I congregate to help out. Thankfully, we still do, particularly over grass season. From mowing and bailing in the summer months to calving, lambing, foddering and more, my interest was fostered and encouraged. As we look to the future, let us acknowledge that women in agriculture are not just supporting farming but leading it. By breaking down barriers, by providing better access to resources and by encouraging young women to pursue a career in agriculture, we can build a more diverse, sustainable and thriving industry.

Ms Mulholland: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sian, you will have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Sian, please open the debate on the amendment.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Having moved the amendment, I wish to support the motion and highlight the significant under-representation of women in agriculture. First, I thank the Members who tabled the motion, and I thank Áine for her eloquent speech and the stories of engagement on her family farm.

While I acknowledge the structural and cultural barriers that limit women's participation, I recognise my colleague Minister Muir's commitment to addressing those challenges and working towards practical and tangible solutions. As we have said, it is about that "Accelerate action" theme.

Women have always played a vital role in our rural communities, but, so often, their contributions go unrecognised. Women are central to family farm businesses, the agri-food industry and rural life, but they remain under-represented when it comes to decision-making, business ownership and policy influence. The barriers that women face in agriculture are so complex. Traditional inheritance practices still make it harder for women to inherit land; access to finance and training remains disproportionately difficult; and leadership roles in farming organisations continue to be male-dominated. Those barriers persist despite clear evidence that diversity leads to better decision-making, greater innovation and stronger economic outcomes.

Women in farming often say that it is not just a glass ceiling that holds them back; in a previous report, women talked about a "sticky floor". Systemic issues such as lack of childcare support, financial barriers and outdated membership structures make progression difficult, and tackling those issues requires addressing the ceiling above and the floor below. The 'Breaking the Grass Ceiling' report was a significant step forward when it was published in 2022, and I look forward to hearing an update on the actions in the report from the Minister in his response to the debate.

Some of the deeper issues were further explored in NFU Scotland's 'Diversity and Inclusion Review: Final Report', which was published in January of this year. One of the review's key findings was that no women currently sit on the NFU Scotland main board, which highlights how leadership in farming over there remains overwhelmingly male. The report recommends practical steps such as creating a skills matrix, building talent pipelines for women and establishing a dedicated diversity and inclusion committee. That committee's review of 17 Scottish agri-food organisations found that, out of 111 senior board representatives, only 16 were women. That is 14%. That under-representation demonstrates an urgent need for action. I know that the Minister is nurturing this in his Department. That review focused mainly on the Scottish agrisector, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister today about the key learnings that he will take forward, whether through the appointment of the boards of his non-departmental public bodies or through working alongside the public appointments unit in DAERA to actively nurture the involvement of women and encourage them to apply for positions.

In my North Antrim constituency, the most recent census data showed that only 9·8% of those working in agriculture-related activity were women, whereas 90·1% were men. That imbalance is not just a statistic; it reflects the structural barriers that still exist, limiting women's participation in land inheritance, business leadership and decision-making roles. A recent study by Maynooth University, funded by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in the South, identified the same barriers that exist here in Northern Ireland. The study noted that the dominant perception that a farmer is male remains — the stoic, strong decision-maker — which I found really interesting, while the woman is often seen as the helper, with the son being considered the natural heir. We hear it in the Chamber when we talk about farmers: the pronoun that is most used is "he", and comments refer to male farmers. That is just a natural consequence of the narrative.

The barriers extend beyond the access to land and succession. They are the challenges of balancing off-farm work, off-farm employment and caregiving responsibilities. Addressing those issues will require a policy change that integrates agriculture policy with tax regulations, economic frameworks and social welfare entitlements. That is why it is a cross-departmental issue that has to be tackled collectively. That is why we tabled our amendment. If we are to be fully successful in attracting and retaining more women into agri-industries and farming, we need to engage in a partnership approach that involves all stakeholders. We cannot rely on reports alone. We need action, and that action has to be rooted in partnership. If we are to make real progress, there needs to be a whole-sector approach and work in partnership with farming organisations, training bodies, financial institutions, local councils and policymakers. It is not, therefore, an issue for just Minister Muir or the Department; it is an opportunity for the entire agriculture community to come together to create meaningful change.

We also have to ensure that women are supported at all career stages in farming. That includes support not just for new entrants but for those who are returning after time spent in other employment or raising their families. Flexible learning opportunities and strong support networks can make all the difference, so we should look at the talent pipelines, such as the agricultural colleges, the universities and industry bodies, that could collaborate to develop women-focused training and mentorship programmes. DAERA has been working on flexible methods of learning, so looking at digital, e-learning or even peer learning or mentoring spaces would be useful in supporting women's learning.

Moving on to financial support for female farmers, there has to be some kind of engagement with financial institutions that creates loan schemes that are tailored for women in agriculture, ensuring fair access to the capital that so many women in the sector find difficult to access. When we are looking at childcare, there has to be a flexible working initiative. Many women in farming are also caregivers, whether that is for the generation before or after them. Partnering with rural support networks to develop on-farm childcare solutions or flexible meeting structures, such as online participation, should be looked at, as should the role of the healthcare partnerships in that.

As I said, Minister Muir has already demonstrated a willingness to engage on the issue. I welcome the steps that have been taken to date, especially on succession planning. The phrase, "You need to see it to be it" is key. The more that we champion and amplify the voices of women in agriculture and remove the barriers to succession, the more successful that we will be in retaining and nurturing women in the agrisector. If we are serious about strengthening our agrisector and ensuring its sustainability for the future, we have to remove every barrier that we can to women participating fully. As I have said before, women do not just have to break a glass ceiling; they need to rise from the sticky floor that has held them down for far too long. I hope that, today across the Assembly, we can commit to lifting them up, creating real opportunities and ensuring that the future of farming is truly inclusive. I commend the amendment to the House.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Members for tabling the motion. Despite the critical role that women play in farm businesses, rural communities and the wider agri-food sector, their contributions are often overlooked and undervalued. Often when farmers are depicted, we think of the stereotypical male farmers, which does a huge disservice to the incredible role of women in the sector. While they may not be the head of holding, women are often the glue that keeps the family business together. They are often the driving force behind the success of the business: the bankers; the accountant; the organiser; the cleaner; the cook; the carer; and, as the mover of the motion said, the extra pair of hands at lambing, calving or milking.

The agriculture sector is one of the key drivers of the Northern Ireland economy, as we know. It sustains livelihoods and builds communities. However, it appears that women remain disproportionately excluded from key decision-making roles and leadership positions. As a party, we recognise that imbalance and believe that encouraging more women to have a career in the sector whilst promoting those who are already forging ahead in the industry is absolutely critical. Traditionally, agriculture is seen as a male-dominated industry, but women have always been at the heart of our rural communities, farming families and businesses. I am always delighted when I speak to farmers to hear them talk about their daughters, the role that they play and their desire to take over the farm business. It really does my heart good when I hear that. However, structural and historical barriers exist, and we heard about them today. Those barriers include inheritance practices, limited access to finance and land, reduced training opportunities and exclusion from decision-making processes.

Despite that, many women have proven to be trailblazers in the agriculture and agri-food sectors. We have only to look at Minette Batters, the former NFU president. She is just one perfect example of how you can rise to the top. At 22%, Northern Ireland has the lowest percentage of women working in agriculture in the United Kingdom. The essential roles carried out by many women in the sector often go unnoticed, and more work is required for women to be recognised as farmers in their own right.

As a party, we are committed to supporting policies and initiatives to encourage greater female participation in the agriculture workforce. We recognise the fundamental role that women play in ensuring that farms remain productive, profitable and sustainable. Indeed, in our Assembly election manifesto, we prioritised the removal of barriers that prevent women from becoming more involved in the management and control of farm businesses. We remain committed to tackling those obstacles and to cultivating an environment in agriculture in which women flourish.

Attitudes towards women in agriculture must also change, and the proposer of the amendment was very clear about that. The recommendations in the 'Breaking the Grass Ceiling' report provide a clear road map for addressing some of the barriers that women face in participating fully in all aspects of agriculture.

We must also look at the next generation. An increasing number of young women are pursuing qualifications in agriculture at the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE), which is key to shaping the sector. However, continued investment in training pathways and opportunities for young women is needed. The Agriculture and Economy Ministers must cooperate to nurture and support the next generation of women leaders in agriculture.

The barriers that women face are often more pronounced. Long working hours, the absence of maternity leave and the lack of childcare support are real issues that prevent many women from entering the sector full time. We need to explore practical options for supporting women farmers during pregnancy and beyond. The Committee report showed how providing that support, including childcare assistance, can help to relieve some of those pressures. Initiatives such as the childcare subsidy scheme have already benefited many working families by reducing childcare costs by up to £160 per month, and they need to continue.

The new Farming for the Generations scheme, which is set to launch in 2026, gives a unique opportunity to shape the future of agriculture. Young women need to be involved in the scheme's co-design and associated financial support. Young people, including young women, are more willing to invest in sustainable farming practices and new technologies. By empowering young women to take leadership roles, we can make sure that agriculture is dynamic and resilient for future generations.

The representation of women in agriculture is not just a matter of fairness; it is a matter of future sustainability and economic prosperity. It is really positive to hear a united voice in the Chamber on supporting our women in agriculture and ensuring that they have opportunities and are given the recognition and support that they deserve.

Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the motion and thank Áine and her colleagues for bringing it forward. The barriers facing women in agriculture in Northern Ireland are well documented, and we have heard some very eloquent representations today.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) survey, which was referenced in the 'Breaking the Grass Ceiling' report of 2022, states that women comprise only 22% of the agriculture workforce in Northern Ireland, which is less than the UK average. Women also report a lack of access to funding and training and are often left with more caring responsibilities, which continues to discourage their progression in the sector. However, the biggest challenge is one that simply cannot be changed by just adding more money to the pot. A change in attitude is required to move away from the traditional male dominance of the farming industry.

As a representative for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which is a huge rural constituency, I will give you the voice of one of the farmer's wives in Fermanagh and let her speak and contribute to the debate.

The women whom I speak about today are not simply farmers' wives; they are vital assets and, without them, their farms would struggle to function.

Vicki Byers, from Ballinamallard, is one such farmer. She married into the industry but has rolled up her sleeves and learned all the tools of the trade, despite not coming from a farming family. She has even built up a social media presence on Instagram in the process. Vicki has experienced all the challenges of being a woman in farming from a lack of support groups to the male-dominated culture. She has even experienced men on social media telling her that she is doing her job wrongly. For Vicki, that culture is a huge burden on women in farming. All she wants is for her role to be recognised in parity with male farmers, as she does just as much work.

Thankfully, there is scope to be positive. Vicki says that plenty of young girls who are interested in a career in agriculture are coming through the ranks. Gone are the days when young farmers' clubs were boys-only, as many girls are now getting stuck into tractor driving, milking and lambing and, in many cases, doing it better than the boys. For Vicki, public bodies need to take action to support agriculture across the board.

Farming families have been getting it tough for too long. The onus is on the Assembly to take forward the recommendations from the 'Breaking the Grass Ceiling' report in order to help to even the playing field for women and recognise the contribution that they make to the industry, all while tackling the issues that face agriculture as a whole.

From the challenges of TB to rising costs and the disastrous inheritance tax plans, farmers are crying out for public representatives who care about their views and their livelihoods. That is why I am happy to support the motion, which calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs:

There is a need to find a solution that makes agriculture not only a safe space for women but a sustainable industry that encourages even more young women to get involved.

While I was doing my research, Minister, I looked at some statistics and was surprised to see that they classified farmers and their spouses. In that particular instance, however, when I searched for "women", they were not included in the search mechanism. That is something to take on board: that women can stand as their own entity.

I commend the motion, and I am happy to support the amendment.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas leis na Comhaltaí a mhol an rún.

Agriculture is one of our most crucial industries. It contributes to our economy, our rural communities and, of course, our food security. I concur entirely with the motion's sentiments, particularly that the under-representation of women is a major concern, despite their playing a pivotal role in the sector and in many farmhouses throughout the North and further afield.

Important efforts have been made to address gender imbalances, and I encourage more women to become involved in the sector. Notably, organisations such as the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), with its Women in Agriculture programme, have hosted important events, seminars and networking opportunities to empower women in the sector. We commend their efforts to challenge stereotypes and to encourage more women to consider farming as a viable career path. However, despite those efforts, the issue persists. Women in agriculture face too many barriers that can limit their involvement and success in the sector. As we know, the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs published its 'Breaking the Grass Ceiling' report in March 2022. It identified key challenges, including our traditional view of agriculture. We know that traditional views see agriculture as a male-dominated industry, but, as the report recommended, those views need to be challenged. Likewise, access to land and finance needs to be increased.

I listened carefully to the speech on the Alliance Party's amendment, but I am not sure at this stage that loans are high on the list in some farmhouses, especially now that they face the challenges of inheritance tax. However, we support the amendment because it crosses many fields. Indeed, the innovative work that is being done at CAFRE and some of the work that is being done in the further education (FE) colleges has to be considered and factored into any policies going forward.

As has been established, agricultural land is typically passed through male lines, and women sometimes have less access to inheritance or ownership rights. Furthermore, obtaining financial support from banks or funding bodies can be much more difficult for women, particularly if they lack experience in certain areas. Similarly, there are limited leadership opportunities for women. The top positions in agricultural businesses or organisations are frequently dominated by men, with a number of notable exceptions. Crucially, women are also under-represented in key agricultural organisations and policymaking bodies. That perpetuates problems, leading to policy bias, inequality and the reinforcement of gender stereotypes. It also reduces political engagement and trust. Such situations ultimately slow progress and prevent more comprehensive and well-rounded solutions that benefit the sector and society. Furthermore, agriculture is, without doubt, a demanding profession, often requiring long hours and a heavy physical workload. That can make it difficult for anyone to achieve a healthy work-life balance but can be particularly problematic for women, especially, as previously mentioned, those who are primary caregivers, when trying to balance work and family responsibilities.

Additionally, we need to ensure that women in agriculture have the same access to training and education opportunities to enable them to develop skills that could enhance a farm management or agri-business or make it more effective and efficient. Historically, agricultural training programmes have been tailored to men, and that needs to change. To assist, we need to ensure that there are adequate mentorship opportunities for women. Feedback that my colleagues and I have received from stakeholders highlighted a lack of networking opportunities to meet other farmers or industry leaders.

Women's contributions to farming are all too often underappreciated or, indeed, overlooked, especially if they are not considered as primary farm managers. As we have heard, the barriers to the full participation of women in agriculture are multifaceted and require urgent action. The under-representation of women in agriculture not only affects their rights and interests but undermines the development of more inclusive, effective and efficient policies and practices. The imbalance limits the sector's potential for growth, innovation and diversification.

I fully endorse the recommendation of the Committee's March 2022 "Breaking the Grass Ceiling" report, and I support the motion and, indeed, the amendment.

Ms Finnegan: I am delighted to discuss the crucial role of women in farming, an industry long dominated by men despite women's vital yet often invisible contributions. Agriculture is the backbone of rural communities, and it is essential that we address the barriers that women face in farm management. As we look to the future, we must ensure that women have equal opportunities to thrive and lead in that vital sector.

The "Breaking the Grass Ceiling" report from the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee was an important step towards gender equality in farming. Launched on International Women's Day in 2022, it shed light on the challenges that women face culturally, socially and economically, whilst recognising their invaluable role in modern agriculture. With 98% of respondents affirming women's contributions to farm productivity, the report underscored the need for targeted support, including training and financial aid. I welcome its findings and fully support its call for action, urging DAERA to implement meaningful changes that empower women and secure a more inclusive future for farming.

In my constituency of south Armagh, the Rural Health Partnership launched a project entitled "Women in Farming: More than Standing in a Gateway". The initiative challenges outdated views of the roles of women in agriculture, highlighting their vital contributions as farmers, farmhands, office managers and caregivers. The project deserves recognition as it closely aligns with the "Breaking the Grass Ceiling" report, highlighting and addressing the barriers that women face in agriculture. By tackling isolation, inequality and limited access to services, it plays a key role in strengthening rural communities and ensuring that the invaluable contribution of women in agriculture is fully recognised and supported.

Some positive changes are transforming agriculture into a more inclusive industry. CAFRE is helping to drive that progress, with more women stepping into leadership roles in farm management and sustainability. More women than ever pursue agricultural education, proving that the future of farming is diverse, dynamic and open to all. However, further support is needed, including financial resources and training. The Farming for the Generations scheme claims to support new farmers, yet it removes direct financial aid and entitlement access, creating major barriers for those without family land. That disproportionately impacts on women, who already face challenges in breaking into the industry. Initiatives such as the farm business improvement scheme and the farm family key skills programme have seen female participation, but women still represent just 4% of those in business development groups, which highlights the need for more targeted actions.

The financial support offered by DAERA for part-time students eases the challenge of balancing farm, family and education. The widening access and participation plan will further support women through bursaries and greater opportunities in agriculture. That work aligns with global initiatives such as the UN's International Year of the Woman Farmer in 2026, which highlights women's vital role in agri-food systems. Women make up 39% of the global agricultural workforce but still face discrimination in land ownership, financial access and pay. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is committed to addressing those disparities, and we must continue to support those efforts in the North.

The South of Ireland is leading the way in supporting women in farming with initiatives such as the Women & Agriculture awards and fairer tax policies. In contrast, the British Government's proposed inheritance tax changes in the North will make it harder for women to inherit or transfer land.

Living in south Armagh, I see the stark difference. Just a mile across the border, schemes such as Making Farms Work for Women and targeted agriculture modernisation schemes 3 (TAMS 3) provide real support, offering grants of up to 60% for trained women farmers, while women in the North have no such opportunities. We need an all-Ireland approach to ensure that women in farming, no matter where they live, have equal access to the support and resources that they need to succeed.

The future of agriculture depends on the full participation of women. Farming is a way of life that requires passion, dedication and resilience. To any woman considering a career in agriculture, I urge you to go for it. Farming needs fresh ideas, strong leaders and hard-working individuals, and there absolutely is a place for you in that industry.

Mr T Buchanan: For many years, women have played a significant role in our agriculture sector. However, they have never been fully recognised for the work that they have done or the support that they have provided to their family farm business. In other words, it was far too often taken for granted that that was simply part of their role as a farmer's wife. With agriculture being a catalyst for household prosperity and economic growth across Northern Ireland, not only is ensuring that farm businesses are profitable, productive and sustainable for the future essential but encouraging more women to have a career in the sector while promoting those already forging ahead in the industry is crucial.

Farming has always been and continues to be a challenging sector for everyone involved in it, regardless of age or gender, with our farmers having to work unsocial hours and contend with inclement weather, food production, global markets and all the other hurdles that they face daily. Therefore, if the House is serious about encouraging more women into the agriculture industry, action must be taken to remove the barriers that hinder them in coming into the sector. A number of those are highlighted in the motion today. However, delivering on those actions will require a change in attitude across society, and the Minister must take action on the recommendations in the 'Breaking the Grass Ceiling' Committee report. For the Minister and even the House, I suppose, to simply pay lip service to those recommendations and to fail to take action will be nothing short of an insult to women already in the sector and those planning to make it a future career.

The Northern Ireland Rural Women's Network (NIRWN) highlighted to the AERA Committee the two key issues facing women: childcare and caring responsibilities. The DUP Minister has delivered for working families through the childcare subsidy scheme, which makes working families £160 per month better off.

The Agriculture Minister must now step up to the mark by exploring options for supporting farming families as they develop and grow their business.

Reports from other jurisdictions have shown that government initiatives have borne fruit, with increasing numbers of women taking on job roles in the agriculture sector as a result. Although agriculture is an accessible career with plenty of opportunities, it nevertheless relies on new ideas and on the skills and talents of young men and women to provide it with a sustainable future. With the new Farming for the Generations scheme planned to commence in 2026, it is crucial that young women be involved in its design, as it has been proven through studies that they are more willing to invest in sustainable farming practices and technologies. Should the Minister continue to focus on an aggressive net zero policy that fails to balance the importance of agriculture production, food security and the ongoing vitality of adequate farm support, that will inevitably lead not only to women but young men leaving the industry.

Representing the West Tyrone constituency, a vast rural area that is populated with many farm businesses, I see at first hand the support that women give and the role that they play on the family farm, from doing hands-on tasks to completing paperwork while balancing a part-time job and looking after the household's needs. In many of those families, the young girls perhaps do more work than the young fellas. That happens time and again. Support for women in the agriculture sector is therefore vital. I urge the Minister to take urgent steps to address the situation by producing proposals that will provide hope, support and encouragement to women in the sector.

Ms Sheerin: I welcome the broad support across the House for the motion, which seeks to formalise the role of women in the agriculture sector, because, as others have acknowledged, we all know that women are very often at the heart of farms and very much involved in their daily operation. I can attest to that. I am a farmer's daughter and the daughter of a farmer's wife who herself was a farmer's daughter and whose mother was a farmer's daughter and a farmer's wife. Most of the time, one will find that, in such situations, that person is as involved in the farm business as anybody else in the family is. I think particularly of my paternal grandmother, who was a farmer's wife and would have been recognised as such, but she milked the cows every day, collected the eggs, reared the family and did everything else in between. She was therefore as much a farmer as anybody else in the house was. My own contribution to farming is limited. I cannot boast to being as involved as my colleague Áine behind me. My contribution is confined to standing in the gap or feeding the odd pet lamb. That is as much help as I provide. Otherwise, I would be a hindrance.

I have reflected on comments from other Members. We acknowledge that farming is a business, and, in most households, everybody ends up being involved whether they want to be or not. It is mainly the women in the household who fill in the movement books, are responsible for the tax returns and do all the other farming tasks that are as much a part of making the business a success as the hands-on, out-and-about work. Women are also heavily involved in that an awful lot of the time, yet they do not get the recognition that they deserve. Barriers are put in place for them. It is about recognising that and providing support to ensure that women can be recognised as farmers in their own right, as opposed to their being just an add-on or somebody who is —.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Like her, I am a farmer's daughter, and my mother was a farmer's wife. I absolutely agree about the support that is required. The Minister should consider what work can be done with schools and in other education settings to encourage young women to enter the sector and to ensure that they know that, when they do so, they will be given the appropriate support.

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

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for her intervention. I agree completely. That is what it is about. It is about supporting women to come into the sector, removing those structural inequalities and barriers and trying to ensure that everybody is on a fair footing and has an equal place in the industry. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Butler: Many times, when we talk in the Chamber about agriculture, we recognise that farming is the backbone of our rural economy. Farming is absolutely massive and so important, yet half of the population who live rurally face systemic and cultural barriers to entering it and thriving in it. Women are significantly under-represented across agriculture, not due to a lack of skill, passion or determination but because the sector remains shaped by outdated structures and attitudes that favour male succession, male decision makers and male workforce norms. Multiple reports, including the 'Breaking the Grass Ceiling' legacy report from my Committee, have laid bare the obstacles: limited access to land; traditional inheritance practices; lack of financial support; exclusion from decision-making roles; and, as many Members have picked up on today, training opportunities that do not account for the realities that women face. The evidence is there — the need for change is undeniable — yet, unless we deliberately challenge and change the narrative in every room where the conversation happens, we will be doomed to rinse and repeat the failures.

One of the most persistent cultural barriers is the outdated view of faming as purely heavy manual labour. Running a farm today, we know, involves far more than that: financial planning, regulatory compliance, environmental management and navigating layers of bureaucracy that are burdensome yet essential. Let us be clear: the financial pressures facing farm families have never been more severe. Women are already central to farm businesses, often taking on essential but undervalued roles while being excluded from areas such as farm leadership, decision-making and land ownership.

The problems start much earlier, beyond the farm gate. Careers advice in schools has not been fit for purpose. I will speak about a leading female farmer, a woman whom I admire greatly. Lorraine Killen is a leading voice in the sector. She spoke about the inheritance tax changes at the recent UFU conference at the Eikon Exhibition Centre. She recalled how, as a 16-year-old aspiring farmer, she was steered away from farming by her careers teacher, not because she lacked the ability but, perhaps, because she was a girl. How many talented young women have been pushed down a different path because of the same outdated thinking?

If other sectors can recognise and remove structural barriers, why can we not do it in agriculture? I will give some personal experience. The Fire Service, in which I used to work, once assumed that you could succeed only with a certain physical reach or strength. Instead of continuing to exclude capable recruits, the Fire Service designed out those barriers: it adapted ladders, reduced equipment weight without sacrificing performance and mechanised tasks where possible. What was the result? A fairer, more inclusive service without any loss of efficiency. The same can and should happen in agriculture. It is time that we asked the Minister — as we are doing — to step into that space and implement real reforms that ensure that women are not just supporting farm businesses but leading them. Let us break the grass ceiling once and for all.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister Muir, you have up to 15 minutes to respond to the debate.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members for tabling the motion. I am happy to support the motion and the amendment.

The debate comes just after we all marked International Women's Day on Saturday. I pay tribute to the women who, every day, make a difference in the Chamber, our constituencies, my Department and, of course, our agriculture, environment and fisheries sectors. The theme of this year's International Women's Day was, "Accelerate action", and there was good reason for that. It is clear that progress towards gender parity has been made in public life and agriculture, but the World Economic Forum estimates that, at the current rate of progress, it will take until 2158 — five generations — to reach full gender parity. We need to be concerned about the under-representation of women in any sector. It is right that we seek to accelerate action and drive improvement. That point was also picked up in the 2022 report 'Breaking the Grass Ceiling', as referenced in the motion, which found that 98% of respondents to the survey that formed part of it agreed that women help improve farm productivity. Only 50% agreed that farming offers equal opportunities for men and women, and, shockingly, only 15% agreed that women are treated fairly in farm succession. I assure Members that I and my Department have been playing our part not just in taking forward recommendations from the report but in looking more widely at the barriers that exist. That includes the work of our College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise, the progress that we want to make through my sustainable agriculture programme (SAP) and the work that we are doing on rural development.

I am both proud and delighted that enrolment on to CAFRE's agriculture courses continues to attract a high number of females, and I am determined to do all that we can to support women at all levels as they progress through their education programmes. Whilst that is encouraging, I recognise that some of those women will face barriers as they aspire to take over their family farm or start a new farm business. We are exploring that in the delivery of the Farming for the Generations pilot scheme. Issues with female succession were highlighted in the scheme awareness campaign and will feature in upcoming planning for succession workshops. In those workshops, the role of women in business will be emphasised, including the vital role of those women who are in jobs off the farm but who make a key contribution to the viability of the farm business. The mentor will work with all members of the farming family to support them in developing a succession plan that meets the needs and aspirations of all. The evaluation of the pilot will consider the impact of the scheme on encouraging the succession of female farmers into the business.

Across my Department, we are also working to develop a new evidence-based rural policy for consultation. I have met rural stakeholders and reiterated my intention for co-design and collaboration to form a key central element of that policy. Recognising the crucial role that women play in our rural communities, I want to work with partners to make sure that the new policy makes a significant contribution to the "Accelerate action" theme, with a particular focus on breaking down barriers and cultivating opportunities for women in agriculture. My officials continue to engage with rural stakeholders, and it is my intention that the draft proposals will be consulted on this year. I am also conscious of the importance of leading by example. We cannot call on others to play their part if we are not doing so ourselves. I am proud of the work that my Department is doing to champion women in leadership roles, and I encourage Members to review the videos that we posted on social media at the weekend that show just some of the key roles that women play across the Department.

The 'Breaking the Grass Ceiling' report called on my Department to do more to:

and to improve the diversity of representation on its boards. I confirm that the Department provides training in that area and works with other Departments on that, including through the Civil Service's diversity champions network.

We have our own departmental diversity champion, and I am proud that we also provide wider leadership in the area. One of our deputy secretaries is a Northern Ireland Civil Service gender champion, and our permanent secretary is the joint Northern Ireland Civil Service diversity and inclusion champion. We are also working hard to ensure that women are properly represented at the top of our organisation, particularly on the boards of non-departmental public bodies. I am pleased with the progress that we have made, but there is no room for complacency.

The motion and the amendment call on me, as Minister, to take action, and I have outlined my commitment to do so. Members should have no doubt about the fact that I and my Department will play our part. However, genuine equality of opportunity for women in our farming and agri-food sector must be driven not just by government but by the sector itself. That requires leadership not just by encouraging women to come forward but by creating conditions that make it possible. That means leadership in showcasing the significant roles that women play across the industry; leadership in ensuring that meetings, engagements and public events actively encourage and visibly include women leaders; and, crucially, leadership in challenging misogyny and outdated attitudes towards women.

On that issue, as reflected in the amendment, the report from the diversity and inclusion review, commissioned by the National Farmers' Union Scotland, makes interesting and concerning reading. It recognises the importance of the organisation being:

farm businesses. It highlights examples of areas in which improvement is needed if diversity is truly to be valued. Those include language, behaviours and the management of meetings and events. I invite the industry and those who represent it to read NFU Scotland's report, consider which of the findings could apply to their organisation and decide to take action to ensure that, whatever their organisation's role, they do everything that they can to challenge outdated attitudes and ensure that diversity and inclusion are not just talked about but actively and visibly embraced.

The amendment specifically references partnership working to increase women's:

Partnership is crucial if, together, we are to make a difference. I thank the Members involved in bringing this important topic to the Floor and am happy to support the amendment and the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister. I call John Blair to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. John, you have five minutes.

Mr Blair: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Sinn Féin Members for bringing this important motion to the Chamber for discussion. The debate has been constructive, featured many insightful contributions and highlighted the urgent matter of women's under-representation in the agriculture sector. Members have shared alarming statistics, telling a story of missed potential and talent. Women have long been essential contributors to agriculture, yet their roles often go unacknowledged and their voices unheard. Addressing that reality cannot be achieved overnight, but we must start by making significant strides towards change and real progress.

As we near the end of this vital debate, I will take a moment to reflect on some of the key points that Members made. After that, I will emphasise the importance of our amendment.

The debate began with Áine Murphy proposing the motion and referencing the fact that women often spearhead development and yet remain under-represented. That very much set the tone for the debate. In proposing the amendment, my colleague Sian Mulholland spoke of the lack of access to opportunities and the training barriers. She pointed out that the participation of women in agriculture in her constituency of North Antrim is 9·8%.

Michelle McIlveen spoke of the stereotype of the male farmer, despite the fact that women are often the glue that holds the farm set-up together. She spoke of historical structural barriers. Diana Armstrong said that the biggest challenge is getting the change in attitude that is required. Tellingly, she shared the voice of farmers' wives from her rural constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, quoting her constituent Vicki Byers. Patsy McGlone spoke about the UFU's Women in Agriculture programme, and there were contributions from other AERA Committee members including its Chair, Robbie Butler, although he was not speaking in that capacity, Tom Buchanan and Aoife Finnegan.

As my colleague Sian Mulholland highlighted, the Alliance amendment underscores the importance of fostering strong relationships and open channels of communication between the Department, the agriculture sector and representative organisations. That collaboration is essential for implementing effective and enduring strategies that enhance female involvement and leadership in the industry. It is crucial that there is a role for representative bodies in that. The AERA Minister has taken steps to enhance female involvement in the sector, notably through the launch of the Farming for the Generations pilot scheme. In his response to the debate, he highlighted that scheme in particular, as well as other progress that has been made and progress that is planned.

Importantly, our amendment underscores the fact that the Minister's goals cannot be achieved by the Minister or the Department acting alone. The active collaboration and participation from the agriculture sector that I spoke about is vital to that effort, facilitating a greater exchange of ideas and the sharing of resources and expertise. Although Alliance supports the motion, I hope that Members will support my party's amendment, as it will make the motion better suited to bringing about the systemic change that is necessary in order to amplify women's voices and to reinforce our dedication to a more inclusive future for the agriculture sector. It also acknowledges the responsibilities of partners and encourages their participation. I hope that, as we move forward, the House, as one, can support the motion and the amendment with one voice.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Declan McAleer to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Declan, you have 10 minutes.

Mr McAleer: Thank you. I thank everyone for their constructive participation in today's debate. I was Chair of the Committee when the 'Breaking the Grass Ceiling' report was produced. I am glad that the report has not been left to sit and gather dust but is still a live document and that the Department is progressing some of its actions.

I have many memories from when the report was being produced, but something that I remember most — everything has been touched on today — is that quite a number of females were very anxious about taking part in the study. They sourced my constituency office phone number to ring me up and share their experiences, because they did not want to be identified. The shared experience was that they had worked on the farm and were its natural inheritors; they had done all the hard yards and heavy lifting. However, when it came to inheriting the farm, they were looked over, and it went to the male in the family who perhaps had no role in the farm. The females who contacted me continued to labour under that shadow and did not want to cause any rifts in the family, but it was a source of annoyance to them. It was very sad that the women felt that they could not be heard to say that, but they still wanted their voices to be heard. Their voices are reflected in the report.

John did a good job of summing up the debate, but I want to touch on some bits. Áine mentioned that only 5% of principal farmers are female and that that is a gross under-representation, but there is hope because 53% of the students doing agriculture courses are female, and that is good. Sian Mulholland famously mentioned not just the "glass ceiling" but the "sticky floor", and that is a very memorable comment. She also mentioned the importance of partnership and the whole-sector approach.

Michelle McIlveen made the point that women are the unseen glue that holds the farm business together. She stressed the importance of continuing to invest in encouraging young women into the sector and said that the Farming for the Generations scheme is an opportunity to shape the policy.

Diana Armstrong said that the male-dominated culture and attitude need to be addressed. She gave a good example about a constituent called Vicki, who was not from a farming background but has embraced farming and become a strong advocate, which she very eloquently explained.

Patsy McGlone highlighted the fact that women face too many barriers. He concluded by saying that the imbalance is not only wrong but inhibits the growth of the agriculture sector.

Aoife Finnegan referred to her experience of the Rural Health Partnership report in South Armagh, and that was very illuminating. There may be an opportunity to forward the report to the Department, if it does not already have it, so that it can look at some of the learning. Aoife also mentioned the all-Ireland approach. She sees the example of farms, down the road from her constituency of South Armagh, where very practical measures have been put in place by the Irish Government to encourage female participation in farming.

Tom Buchanan made the point that women are taken for granted and labelled as "the farmer's wife". He said that action needs to be taken to remove the barriers and that societal change is also needed. Agriculture needs new ideas, and it is very important that young women are involved in the co-design of the Farming for the Generations scheme.

Emma Sheerin gave her experience of being a farmer's daughter and described the multitasking role that women play on the farm. They are working on the farm, but they also take on most of the responsibility for rearing the family. A lot of women do the unseen work behind the scenes, such as the administration of the herd's movements.

Robbie Butler said that the sector had been shaped by outdated structures. He gave a good example from his experience from the Fire and Rescue Service, where those structures were removed. In an intervention from Linda Dillon, the issue of schools and education was addressed. It is sad, and, in Robbie's contribution, he mentioned that, because of outdated stereotypes amongst careers teachers in some schools, many women had been put off going into farming. He gave a very good example from his personal experience of the Fire and Rescue Service.

The Minister said that the debate was timely, following on from International Women's Day, and that, if progress goes at the current pace, it will be 2158 before there is full gender parity. He referenced his sustainable agriculture policy, with Farming for the Generations looking at the barriers to women. He said that his new rural policy that is under construction is being co-designed and that that is the central feature of it. He said that that will focus on breaking down barriers to "Accelerate action" and that gender equality is a focus for DAERA. He also said that this cannot just be done by the Department or the Government but that there is a huge role for the sector with a bottom-up approach. He said that outdated attitudes must be challenged, and he also challenged organisations to read the NFU Scotland report and implement its findings. He said that partnership is crucial if we want to make a difference.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease.

Ms Bunting: 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 in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak in the debate will have five minutes. Joanne, please open the debate on the motion.

Ms Bunting: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is an important subject, and, from the outset, I commend the tireless campaign of Sandra Larmour, whose advocacy, born from a profound and tragic loss, has illuminated the urgent need for increased awareness and a reclassification of ketamine. Jeni Larmour from Newtownhamilton was 18 and on her first day at Newcastle University when, in October 2020, she lost her life to ketamine and alcohol. I have spoken to Sandra, and she has told me that Jeni was a really bright, strong, switched-on, ambitious girl with her whole life ahead of her.

Parents think that it will never happen to their child, that their child is sensible — but so was Jeni. Sandra reiterated that what happened to Jeni was so far removed from who she was and how she was raised. She was not a party kid; her nose was always in a book. She had a close circle of friends, and they socialised in one another's homes. All that changed within hours of her arrival at university, when she met her new flatmates and Kavir Kalliecharan, who was later charged with possessing drugs but not supplying them. Neither he nor Jeni's flatmates sought help; they just left her lying there that night. He was able to go on with his life: Jeni's was over.

Sandra's campaign began following Jeni's heartbreaking death. Her bravery in the face of unimaginable grief has been an inspiration. She has fought with unwavering dignity and determination, seeking not only justice for her daughter but to protect other families from the same tragedy. No family should experience that heartache and bury their child. Sandra has called for a reassessment of the risks posed by ketamine, a substance that has, in recent years, reached record levels of prevalence. From such a tragedy, however, has come something worthwhile. Education Minister Paul Givan met Sandra, and, as of tomorrow, a production that has been touring schools in Northern Ireland to educate our young people on the severe dangers of drugs will have reached over 3,500 young people across 24 schools.

What exactly is ketamine? It was developed as an anaesthetic for medical and veterinary use but has since found a new identity and is sought after by recreational drug users because of its dissociative effects. At about £20 per gram, ketamine is cheaper than other illegal drugs such as cocaine and MDMA, and that contributes to its widespread use. In recent years, the British Isles have witnessed a significant rise in ketamine use, especially among young people. Indeed, the Home Office has said that the illegal use of ketamine has reached record levels, citing the estimate that 269,000 people aged between 16 and 59 reported using ketamine in the year ending March 2024.

The effects of ketamine are apparently short-lived, so people quickly develop a tolerance, which results in them taking increased doses with greater frequency to get the same high. The problem is — I will explore this in more detail later — that it has a false reputation as a safe drug with limited potential for overdose or dependence and few side effects. That is just not true. Readily available and comparatively inexpensive, it has recently been reported as the fourth most popular recreational and sixth most commonly used drug in the UK.

Far from the perceptions of ketamine as a safe drug, we are advised that chronic use can lead to cognitive impairments, memory issues and psychological disturbances. The long-term impacts on the human body, however, are not yet fully known. What we know is that the health impacts of its abuse on those who survive can be devastating and have far-reaching effects. Ketamine use has led to serious and irreversible consequences for some. The facts are these: it is an extremely dangerous drug that can lead to severe health problems, including irreparable damage to the bladder, liver and kidneys.

I want to give some insight into the health impacts from those who have found themselves profoundly impacted by the aftermath of ketamine. I apologise that some of the descriptions are graphic and disturbing. They are direct quotes from sufferers, all in England. Matt said:

Jamie said:

George said:

This is the last one, from a guy called Jack Curran:

Additional text indicates that his bladder was riddled with ulcers and could stretch to only 30 millilitres. Normal capacity is between 300 millilitres and 600 millilitres. At 25, Jack was periodically wearing nappies.

Members can see just how horrific the consequences can be, but, as with all bad things, the problem is that nobody ever thinks that it will happen to them or to their child.

I will now speak about spiking, which is the term used when individuals are unknowingly and maliciously drugged. It is a particularly disturbing crime that often leads to serious physical and emotional harm, because victims are then vulnerable to horrendous secondary offences, often sexual, and left with little clear memory of what exactly happened. Young women are disproportionately affected by spiking. Data from the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) shows that 74% of those reporting spiking are female, with an average age of 26, but an increasing number of males have been spiked.

Ketamine is increasingly being used for spiking and is particularly dangerous when mixed with alcohol, because, together, the two have a very powerful effect that, in extreme cases, can lead to coma or death. Ketamine is one of the most detected substances in instances of spiking.

The Government are seeking advice on whether to reclassify the drug in line with narcotics such as cocaine, heroin and MDMA, so they wrote to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) on 14 January to commission updated advice on ketamine, including whether it should be reclassified to become a class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. By the way, in 2014, ketamine was upgraded from class C, and the maximum penalty for producing and supplying ketamine is currently 14 years in prison. If it is raised to class A, the offence could result in a life sentence for supply and production.

We welcome the Government's decision to commission advice on whether ketamine should be reclassified as class A. That is absolutely a step in the right direction, but we must ensure that the voices of families like Sandra's are heard in the decision-making process. It is vital that the Government listen to those who have experienced the devastating impact of ketamine at first hand and take their experiences into account.

That is where the Minister of Justice comes in. We know that it is a reserved matter, but we strongly believe that the Justice Minister has a role to play in working with the Home Office to allow families affected by ketamine and relevant stakeholders from Northern Ireland to have their voices heard and be included in the review. The voices of those who have lived through the nightmare of ketamine-related deaths should be amplified, and their experiences and insights could be invaluable in shaping future regulation. The reclassification of ketamine is not just a policy issue but a matter of protecting our communities by taking swift and decisive action. We can prevent further tragedies, support affected families and send a strong message, before it gets a grip on Northern Ireland, that the misuse of ketamine will no longer be tolerated. We ask the Minister to work with the Government to put in place arrangements for those from Northern Ireland to inform the review and any future decisions.

If the testimonies that I read aloud do not make a convincing case, consider the views of Senior Coroner Mutch from south Manchester at the inquest of a young man called James Boland. The record shows that the inquest heard evidence that Mr Boland had previously used cocaine but had switched to ketamine on the basis that, because it was a class B drug, he perceived it to be less harmful.

Sandra Larmour has shown us what it means to fight for change in the face of great personal loss. Let us honour her daughter's memory and the memory of all those who have been lost to ketamine and other drugs and dangerous substances by standing with her campaign and pushing for a safer, healthier future. On that basis, I encourage Members to support the motion.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Member opposite for opening the debate and for tabling the motion.

The pressing issue of ketamine misuse is a concern that resonates deeply in all our communities. Sadly, drug use is all too common, probably in everyone's constituency, if we are to speak openly about it. It continues to spread the disease of addiction and, of course, the risk of premature death. Sadly, we have seen that in the number of people who are losing their life to, in most cases, an accidental overdose. They do not realise how potent the mixture of drugs that they are taking is, and, as the Member said, they are even mixed with alcohol, which just makes the substances even more dangerous. While the motion emphasises reclassification, it is so important that our discourse extend beyond the legal frameworks to take into account the health aspect and the education aspect, which was mentioned, and, generally, the wrap-around support that we need to provide to people who might be struggling when it comes to taking substances in the first place.

I also commend Sandra and her family, whom I have not met. I have not reached out to them or spoken with them personally, but I want to commend their bravery and their unwavering dedication following the absolutely tragic loss of their daughter, Jeni. The campaign run by Jeni's mother, Sandra, really underlines the impact of everything that she is going through, and she is obviously trying to use her experience to campaign for better and to save lives. It just shows the impact that these issues can have on families. I work locally with a mother from West Belfast, Lorraine Brennan, who lost her son: Jack took a lethal drug and, sadly, lost his life. That was in 2021, and Lorraine has been campaigning day and night since then to try to save lives. However, it is too late for her family and too late for Sandra's. I am conscious that the Justice Minister is here, but this issue is obviously cross-cutting, and my speech may be more directed at some of the things that Mike Nesbitt can do as Health Minister.

Of course, my community in West Belfast has not been immune from any of the challenges that ketamine use presents. Reports from local organisations have highlighted a concerning rise in the use of ketamine among our young people, and it is being made worse by the drug's affordability and accessibility. The West Belfast Community Drugs Panel was pulled together a number of years ago, and, at the time, it noted that access to drugs, including ketamine, was alarmingly easy, with substances readily available on the streets, in local parks and even through online platforms. Local families have raised with me the issue of spiking, which was mentioned. I know that it is easier said than done, but we need to get a grip of this. I have heard how kids can now easily go on apps, including TikTok, and click on links. Clearly, there are premises and drug houses that constantly churn out these dangerous substances. That is probably a wider discussion, and that will be a much more difficult and longer-term issue to deal with than the review that we are talking about today.

This is not specific to West Belfast, I am sure, but, in everyone's constituencies, really brilliant work is being done by local groups to support families who are living with and battling with family members with addiction. There are a lot of good examples of that in my constituency, and it is really appreciated. Still, however, we know that, despite all the efforts of our Health and Social Care (HSC) workers and our community and voluntary sector, not enough is being done.

Ms Ferguson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Flynn: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: Does the Member agree that we need to widen access to vital health-led services here, including mental health provision and drug treatment services, particularly in my constituency in the north-west?

Additionally, how will we tackle poverty and inequality? That core area of work could have a meaningful and lasting impact, particularly in supporting people in turning their lives around.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Member for her intervention.

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

Ms Flynn: Thanks very much.

I totally agree. It is a whole-system approach. It is not just all about Justice. It is about the anti-poverty strategy, the substance use strategy, the mental health strategy, housing and unemployment — it is all of that.

Finally, I go back to what would be a positive step from a health perspective. Danny chairs the all-party group (APG) on addiction and dual diagnosis, and, at the minute, there is a proposal with the Health Department about trying to introduce a rapid drug-testing model in the North.

Such a model is used in Dublin and Cork and over in Britain. Basically, when there are lethal drugs on the streets, they are tested right away, alerts are sent out within 24 hours and people are notified that the street drugs that they may be about to take could take their life. There might be a wee bit of work to be done on that with the Justice Minister. The PSNI is on board. I think that the proposal is that it would be funded through Health for the first year as a pilot, which would not cost much money. That would be done via Queen's University and the pharmacy. The PSNI will, hopefully, also have a role to play. As a result of today's debate, we will maybe get that over the line, as well as the reclassification review.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the DUP for tabling the motion. Tragically, 18-year-old Jeni Larmour died on 3 October 2020 after consuming alcohol and ketamine on her first night at university. She was a former deputy head girl at the Royal School Armagh and clearly had her whole life in front of her. I cannot imagine the pain of such a loss. Since then, her mum, Sandra, has been campaigning for more awareness of ketamine. I welcome her campaign. It is important to raise awareness of ketamine and the dangers that are associated with its use. Ketamine is commonly used in healthcare and veterinary medicine, but it is also misused. Following a review by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in 2013, ketamine was moved from class C to class B under the Misuse of Drugs Act due to its potential harm when it is misused. We have heard about record levels of its use in recent years.

Ketamine was initially a class C drug. It was then moved to class B, and there are now calls for its reclassification to class A, along with cocaine, heroin and ecstasy. It is currently seen as being less dangerous in class B, even though it carries potentially serious health problems, mainly involving irreversible damage to the bladder and kidneys. That can cause chronic pain and issues with kidney function and urination. There is also the risk of addiction and even death. Concernedly, it is also used in spiking incidents. The UK Government have invited the ACMD to provide an updated harms assessment of ketamine and to advise on reducing harms in response to emerging evidence and, in particular, on whether the drug should be moved to class A. One incident of experimentation with ketamine can be fatal, so there is a need to educate young people about the risks.

People have used mind-altering substances almost since the beginning of time. Some were or have become socially acceptable, while others have been made illegal. Alcohol and tobacco have a long tradition of social acceptability in the majority of countries across the world. There is a clear dichotomy in that some substances that cause the most harm in our society, such as alcohol and tobacco, are legal and are even taxed by the Government to raise revenue, while other substances that are less harmful are illegal, and their possession and use can lead to criminal sanctions. During the Prohibition era in the USA from 1920 to 1933, the production, importation and sale of alcoholic drinks was marked by the emergence of black market networks and violent criminal organisations that made huge profits from distributing illegal alcohol. The policy was far from universally popular, and it was eventually repealed in 1933. It is widely seen as a failure, and there are obvious comparisons with today's failing war on drugs policies.

In the UK, drugs are legislated for under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. That is a reserved matter into which the Assembly has no input. Patterns of drug use have changed significantly over the past 50 years. The 1971 Act puts more emphasis on the punishment of people who use drugs, rather than on their rehabilitation. Drugs are widely available in our cities, towns and even villages across Northern Ireland, and online, as Órlaithí said. There are even apps via which drugs can be delivered to your house.

Reclassification would have a legal effect, but the differences are fairly minor. The class A penalties are seven years in prison for possession and life imprisonment for supply and production. The class B penalties are five years in prison for possession and 14 years for supply and production. A recent updated harms assessment by the ACMD into synthetic cathinones, such as mephedrone, which is another class B drug, highlighted the fact that there are potential disadvantages of making specific substances class A, and it did not recommend the reclassification of those substances. In particular, it stated:

That is the opposite of harm reduction. It also stated:

and that increased costs:

Furthermore, it stated:

There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that the therapeutic use of ketamine may be a safe and effective treatment for various mental health disorders, although at very specific doses.

We need practical methods to support people who are in vulnerable positions. We should be moving towards a harm-reduction model to support people who use drugs to do so safely and promote rehabilitation and recovery. Since ketamine is often used as a spiking drug, one such method could be to ensure the availability of drug-testing services, as Órlaithí mentioned, in places such as nightclubs, so that people can keep themselves safe.

We welcome the decision to commission advice, and we encourage affected families and relevant stakeholders to help inform the review. The review will help to inform the public about the risks of ketamine at a time when its use is increasing, but a different approach is needed. We need more practical solutions to reduce harm from, and address the underlying factors of, drug use. There is a need to educate young people on the potential harms of ketamine misuse, particularly the risk of addiction, irreversible bladder and kidney harm and even death, but it is for the UK Government to deal with drugs policy, and it is clear that the 1971 Act is outdated and no long fit for purpose.

Mr Beattie: Illegal drugs create many victims. Those who find themselves addicted to illegal drugs are victims. Addiction is insidious, and it destroys their lives. Their families face dealing with that drug addiction as they watch their loved ones slowly dissolve in front of them. They are also victims. Without a doubt, we must improve our addiction support services, and the Health Department plays a key role in that. There are those who lose their life through drug addiction, and the stigma of that is carried by their families long after their death. Of course, there are also those who experiment with taking drugs just to fit in with the crowd, thinking that it is safe to do so, with tragic consequences.

I welcome the DUP's motion and will, of course, support it. I acknowledge Sandra Larmour's dignity and her campaign to reclassify ketamine after the tragic loss of her daughter, Jeni. Many will argue that we must relook at how we deal with illegal drugs in our society and throughout the United Kingdom. I have some sympathy for that view and would gladly enter any discussion about it. Right now, we deal with illegal drugs through a criminal justice framework in combination with Health and Education. I am glad that the Justice Minister is here, but the responsibility does not sit just on her shoulders. We must support her and her Department.

It is clear that the Government now see a major issue with ketamine. In January this year, they sought legal advice on reclassifying ketamine as a class A substance, after illegal use reached record levels. Pink cocaine is a class A drug. It targets the young, and ketamine is often found in it. Ketamine is licensed in the UK as an anaesthetic. It can be used for short-term pain relief, but it is not available on prescription. That legitimacy, combined with ketamine's status as a class B drug, gives everyone the impression that taking it or continuing to use it is safer, but it is not. Ketamine can suppress the nervous system, particularly when it is added to alcohol. That can be dangerous and even deadly.

Sadly, the majority of ketamine users are aged between 16 and 24. Drug dealers know that and deliberately target that age group. Earlier this year, a £6·4 million shipment of illegal drugs, including ketamine, was seized by the PSNI. It is clear that, if action is not taken, organised crime groups such as the Firm, which is in my constituency, will exploit the lower classification of ketamine. The misunderstanding is that it is a safer drug, but it will create more victims.

As I said at the start of my contribution, we need to have the difficult conversation about our strategy for dealing with illegal drugs and about how we deal with addiction. However, taking into account how dealers use ketamine to exploit young people and mix it into drugs such as pink cocaine, I am absolutely in favour of ketamine being reclassified as a class A drug.

My respect and condolences are with Sandra Larmour today, as the tragic loss of her beautiful daughter, Jeni, reminds us all how fragile life is.

Mr McNulty: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. Ketamine, originally developed as an anaesthetic for medical use, has become increasingly common in recreational drug use. It has a reputation for inducing dissociation, hallucinations and a distorted sense of reality, but the consequences of ketamine misuse are far more severe and far-reaching than many realise. Chronic use of ketamine can result in long-term damage to the bladder, liver and brain, and lead to such conditions as memory loss, cognitive impairments and the debilitating ketamine bladder syndrome, which was so shockingly and gruesomely described by Ms Bunting, and which often requires invasive surgeries.

What makes the issue even more tragic is the loss of young lives. I think today of the family of young Jeni Larmour, in particular, from over the road from me in Newtown. Jeni was a bright and promising young woman, and she tragically passed away as a result of ketamine on her first night away at university in Newcastle. Her death is a stark reminder of the dangers that the drug poses, particularly to our youth. Jeni's family has been so courageous in speaking out about its loss, raising awareness of the devastating consequences of ketamine misuse and calling for action to protect others. Despite its grief, Jeni's family has become a powerful voice in the fight to raise awareness of the dangers of ketamine. The strength and resolve of the family are commendable, and we must honour Jeni's memory by ensuring that no other family has to go through such an unimaginable loss.

At present, ketamine is classified as a class B drug in the UK. However, its dangerous and unpredictable effects make it clear that that classification is inadequate. A class B drug classification means that the penalties for possession and trafficking are far too lenient, especially when we consider the severe harm that the drug causes. The rising number of ketamine-related hospital admissions, particularly among young people, highlights how urgent the issue has become. Jeni Larmour's tragic death must be a turning point. It should be the catalyst for change in how we classify and address the misuse of ketamine. Reclassifying ketamine to class A would ensure that law enforcement agencies have the necessary tools to combat its distribution effectively. It would provide the foundation for more comprehensive public education programmes to raise awareness of the risks of ketamine, particularly among young people. Prevention is vital. By raising awareness, we can reduce the chances of more lives being ruined and more families being torn apart.

Jeni Larmour's family has shown incredible courage in its grief, and its call for change should be met with a united response from all of us. It is time to act, before more lives are lost and more families suffer. The time for change is now. We have an opportunity to make a real difference, save lives and prevent other families from experiencing the heartache that Jeni's family continues to endure. Let us stand together in support of the reclassification — for Jeni, for her family and for all those whose lives are at risk.

Miss Hargey: Today's motion is important, and I thank the Members for tabling it. I, too, recognise the work of Sandra Larmour in the aftermath of losing her daughter, Jeni, in highlighting the important issue and the impact that drugs have on the user, their family and the wider community. I also take this opportunity to thank all those who are working in this area across our communities. I see the impacts daily in my community and constituency.

These debates can be emotive, as they often involve people who have been impacted on through losing a loved one, people who are living with addiction and people who know of the wider impacts on families and communities. Often, the public discourse can be around the criminal justice and enforcement approach, but we also know, from years of work at the grassroots and internationally, that that, in isolation, does not resolve the issues and the impacts. Health, education and prevention are key in tackling the issues that have an impact across society. The importance of focusing on addressing inequality also needs to be looked at. It is important that, through a holistic, health-based approach, we do not stigmatise users and those who are often impacted on by addiction. It is also vital that we do not stigmatise the ability to have an open conversation, as, often, the stigma can perpetuate the silence and disempower those who have been impacted on and the community from tackling the issues in a meaningful way.

The Amplify project has been launched in my community in the Market area of south Belfast. The project is a community toolkit that aims to break the silence and tackle health inequalities such as trauma and addiction through the power of building creative communities.

That allows the community to bring the issues to the fore and, importantly, to talk about them in an open forum. They have created a toolkit, a podcast and a community tapestry photographic exhibition, and they are in the middle of doing a play that will be shown in the Waterfront Hall later this year. All that work is being supported through the Queen's University's scheme, Queen's Communities and Place.

We are also seeing new approaches in our justice system, with the piloting of the substance misuse court trialled to help tackle the cycle of crime, looking at the root causes and providing support, such as treatment plans, alongside supervision and monitoring, to help turn people's lives around. Tackling substance use and the impact of drugs is an important issue. Of course, reviews are important, but they also must be driven by data and best practice. We must also look at how substances are used in our healthcare system, and, if changes are to be made, we need to know and understand the knock-on effects and unintended consequences. Co-designing interventions with communities is therefore vital, as we know that the opposite of addiction is connection — connection to tackling the underlying causes and building those community connections where people feel isolated. Together, let us break the silence, let us amplify our voices and let us build healthy and connected communities for all.

Ms Egan: I will start today, as many others have, by paying tribute to Sandra Larmour and her family's campaign to raise awareness on the issue of ketamine, as the motion rightly references. Jeni Larmour, her daughter, sadly passed away after consuming ketamine and alcohol, and Sandra has channelled her grief into tirelessly lobbying and raising awareness. She has publicly said that she does not want Jeni's death to become just another statistic reported on, and I could not agree more. I welcome the opportunity that has been given by the UK Government and the Home Office for a review of the reclassification of ketamine as a class A substance. I agree with the motion. We must facilitate affected families and loved ones being involved in the review. In fact, I will go further and say that previous users or victims of harm relating to ketamine must also be consulted to ensure a truly wrap-around interventionist and preventionist approach to drug use policy frameworks.

As mentioned by others around the Chamber today, legal frameworks relating to the misuse of drugs are a reserved matter, particularly looking at the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. Responsibility for the legislation is for Westminster and the Home Office. However, with that being said, it would be remiss of me not to recognise, as others have done, that all Executive Ministers, including the Justice and Health Ministers, have a responsibility to take any action they can to minimise and end the harm created by drugs. The opportunity for a review of the classification of ketamine is a welcome one. It is a highly dangerous substance, as my colleague Joanne Bunting pointed out earlier, and it is becoming increasingly popular among our younger communities. It has also often been found in the systems of victims of spiking, which is a legal area where our Justice Minister, Naomi Long, is key to strengthening.

There have been record levels of use of ketamine in recent years. Home Office statistics estimate that 269,000 people aged between 16 and 59 used ketamine from March 2023 to March 2024. Something that, I thought, would be useful to pull out is that data on users and dealers of ketamine specifically in Northern Ireland is hard to track, and a contributing factor to that is the general class B category it goes under in our reporting systems, instead of having its own specific offence code. In the outworkings of the review, it would be really interesting to explore how, operationally, in Northern Ireland, if it was segmented into a class A substance, we could aggregate police data into a wider, more accurate picture. That would be absolutely vital to producing tangible results, tracking and preventing further use and harm.

If class A status is achieved through the review, it will mean that possession of ketamine will result in seven years of prison time instead of five, but the real change will be lifelong imprisonment for supply and production instead of 14 years. Affected families and stakeholders must be consulted on those changes to affirm public confidence to our UK-wide approach. However, within all that, the Alliance Party position is that the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act is outdated and needs reviewed in the long term.

As my party colleague Danny Donnelly MLA and others in the Chamber have outlined, we need to look at other ways of supporting vulnerable people who find themselves addicted to substances. The 2021 Northern Ireland Executive substance use strategy, 'Preventing Harm, Empowering Recovery: A Strategic Framework to Tackle the Harm from Substance Use', which was led by the Department of Health, highlighted the need for harm reduction, joined-up working, early intervention and support for recovery.

I know that the Justice Minister is committed to playing her part in reducing offending, working with the PSNI to respond to community safety concerns and empowering recovery through supporting alternative approaches such as the substance misuse courts. We need to ensure that our approach to drug misuse is as person-focused as possible. The review of reclassification opens up an opportunity to discuss those matters further. Stakeholder involvement, including families who have lost loved ones and users who are themselves in recovery, must play a key role in that.

I finish by thanking Sandra Larmour again for putting the matter on MLAs' agendas and for her tireless work to ensure that no other family has to endure the pain of losing their loved one.

Mr Durkan: Ketamine can no longer be dismissed as just a party drug: it is a serious public health risk. We have already heard about its severe health impacts and its role in spiking incidents. Access to the drug, along with others such as pregabalin, is often just a click or a direct message (DM) away. Both are frequently and wrongly seen as low-risk substances, possibly or probably due to their current classification. We would like to see the reclassification not only of ketamine but of pregabalin and gabapentin.

Let me be clear: there is no such thing as a low-risk drug. Taking those tablets is playing Russian roulette. Those substances are often combined with other drugs, such as cocaine and alcohol, creating a lethal cocktail. That misuse contributes directly to the increasing number of drug-related deaths in the North, which, in 2022, stood at 154. I have questioned that statistic and the accuracy of current reporting mechanisms, as I believe the real number to be even higher. Certainly now, in 2025, in my constituency, it feels as though not a week goes by without us mourning the loss of at least one more young life.

That worrying trend is often highlighted more deftly and harrowingly on social media by devastated family members and friends. Recent data shows that Northern Ireland's rate of drug-related deaths is alarmingly high — more than five times the EU average. What are the Executive doing about it? Not much, going by the Programme for Government. Addiction was not mentioned once, and drug-related deaths do not even make it on to the list of priorities. How can Executive parties stand here today with the audacity to tell grieving families that addressing the drugs crisis is a priority for them?

This epidemic has left hundreds of parents mourning the unnatural loss of a child; young people grieving the loss of their peers; and children left to navigate the life-altering reality of life without a parent. Sadly, I am sure that we have all witnessed too many times how loved ones of the deceased begin to follow the same perilous path, sinking more deeply into their own grief, darkness and addiction. In many cases, it is a chain reaction that sets off one tragedy after another. The slow-motion collapse of a life often played out online; the excessive party lifestyle; the vulnerable people crying out for help but turning to support systems that simply are not there or take months or even years to access — all of those things are unacceptable.

I join others in commending parents such as Sandra Larmour or, more recently, Pauline Duddy from my constituency for their determination and unwavering commitment to campaigning for change and for channelling their grief into action, trying to spare other families the same suffering.

Reclassification is one part of the jigsaw. We need to see tougher penalties for supply not just being available but being used. For example, has ketamine's reclassification from class C to class B seen a reduction in its use? No. Instead, there appears to be a revolving door in our courthouses that leaves communities feeling powerless.

Danny Donnelly mentioned the war on drugs. That is a war that, sadly, we cannot win until we fight and win a war against the reasons that lead to drug dependency: adverse childhood experiences, trauma and poverty. We need to invest in better education and mental health and addiction services. If we tackle the root causes of substance misuse, we can stop the tragic and entirely preventable deaths.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister of Justice to respond to the motion. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset, I acknowledge the overwhelming impact that drugs can have across our society. When I say "drugs", I am not talking about illegal, illicit or prescription drugs, because all drugs can be dangerous if not taken under medical supervision. We need to be really clear about that, because we sometimes try to say that one drug is more dangerous than another. If people are taking a drug that is not being monitored and was not prescribed for them, it is a dangerous substance that they should not be taking. It is important that we recognise that and encourage people who are suffering from addiction or dependency to seek urgently the help that they need.

All too often, lives are blighted by the devastating consequences of taking drugs. Tackling drugs and the harms that they cause is clearly a shared priority for all of us. I also pay tribute to and commend the bravery and relentless efforts of Sandra Larmour for raising awareness of the dangers posed by drugs, following the tragic and untimely death of her daughter, Jeni. It is vital that we listen to the people impacted on directly by substance use and that we learn from the harrowing experiences of people such as Jeni and Sandra.

I recall Sandra giving an interview in the aftermath of Jeni's death and how impactful it was. I can still remember everything that she said about Jeni's experience. What young person has not experimented in some way when at university or has not done things that they might not otherwise have done? Few of them, however, would have expected that it could lead to their death. People assume that drug deaths come about as a result of extremes: extreme addiction or long-term misuse. In truth, a single dose of any of those medications can take a life, and young people need to be better educated to know that that is the case.

We have to be mindful that this is an issue, as many Members have said, that cuts across other Departments as well as the Department of Justice. My role as Minister of Justice is understandably focused on the criminal justice response. That includes enforcement of the law as it stands, and I take cognisance of the contributions from those who have questioned whether the law as it stands is right. At another time and in another way, we can have that conversation, because it is a conversation that needs to be had.

The Department is also there to take actions aimed at reducing drug-related harm and offending in Northern Ireland. That drug-related harm is done not just to those who ingest the substances but to communities, which are often bullied and intimidated by those who peddle drugs, and to people who are tortured as a result of those who seek drugs in desperation. The issue is multilayered and requires us all to work together.

Colleagues will be aware that the Department of Health leads on the Northern Ireland Executive substance use strategy, 'Preventing Harm, Empowering Recovery'. The strategy focuses on ensuring that people in Northern Ireland are supported in the prevention and reduction of harm and stigma related to the use of alcohol and other drugs, have access to high-quality treatment and support services and will be empowered to maintain their recovery.

Members will also be aware that the classification of drugs is a reserved matter, so any decision will ultimately rest with the UK Government. Leading the Executive's representations on the classification or reclassification of drugs, particularly on the health implications of any drug, would fall primarily to the Department of Health. I am sure that I speak for most Members, however, when I welcome the announcement from the Home Office on 8 January this year that it is seeking expert advice on reclassifying ketamine as a class A substance. The Minister of Health and I are entirely supportive of the planned review. While we respect the fact that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will be required to follow due process before a decision can be made, it is important that we also have a voice in the way forward.

Recently, the Health Minister and I attended a quadrilateral meeting with Ministers from all other regions of the UK on drug-related issues. During that meeting, there was a discussion on the reclassification of ketamine, and we are likely to discuss that again at future UK ministerial meetings. It is clear that addressing the harms associated with ketamine is a priority across the UK. Subsequently, the Minister of Health and I wrote jointly to the Minister of State for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention in the Home Office to convey our concerns about the harms that ketamine can cause, especially the associated serious health problems, such as irreversible damage to the bladder and kidneys, and the serious mental health problems that can be protracted after people take the drug. That is whether they take it through one-off experimentation or are addicted to it via long-term use. We confirmed that those concerns are echoed by colleagues across the Assembly. In the letter, we asked that consideration be given to putting arrangements in place to allow affected families and relevant stakeholders from Northern Ireland to inform the independent review.

Whilst my remit as Minister of Justice is limited on the issue, I will, of course, do all that I can to address the harms caused by drugs and to support other Ministers who lead more directly on it. For example, I know that ketamine is one of the most detected drugs in spiking, due to its dissociative impact and the fact that it can cause paralysis and amnesia. Members may be aware that the UK Government are bringing forward measures in the new Crime and Policing Bill that will update the legislation on spiking. My Department has engaged with stakeholders on the issue. Subject to the Executive and Assembly's approval, it is my intention to extend that new offence to Northern Ireland via the legislative consent process.

Let me assure you that there is considerable local cross-governmental work on these issues. The organised crime task force drug subgroup provides a forum for engagement between the PSNI and other stakeholders in response to the challenges posed by the misuse of drugs and related threats and to identify solutions to effectively deal with enforcement related to the supply of drugs. Indeed, when we met an Garda Síochána and the Irish Justice Minister yesterday, the cross-border smuggling and supply of drugs was part of the agenda, which was really important. The joint agency task force is also actively engaged in that area.

The harms caused by substance use extend widely to families and communities that are often left facing bereavement, despair and fear. This debate is particularly relevant following the publication of the annual Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) report on drug-related and drug-misuse deaths in Northern Ireland in 2023, which further highlights the devastating impact that drugs have on our communities. It also shows the growing issue of polydrug use, including mixing illegal and prescription drugs and alcohol.

It is worth remembering that ketamine, a derivative of PCP, replaced PCP as an anaesthetic because it was judged to be safer than its antecedent. It is a reminder that it is the misuse of that drug that is the problem. It is interesting that the Member for Foyle raised the issue of pregabalin, which was the specific drug mentioned in 67 of the 169 deaths registered in 2023. The rise of pregabalin, which is a completely legitimate pain-killing drug but which is being used without supervision, is taking people's lives, and it is often part of polydrug use, which is an increasing problem.

We must therefore be mindful that there are no easy solutions and that the issues around drugs cut across the whole Executive — Health, Communities, Education and Justice. We will succeed in improving outcomes only if we see substance use in that broader context and work collectively to target supplies, educate our young people, raise awareness and prevent the young and the vulnerable from turning to or experimenting with drugs. While a reclassification of ketamine would bring increased penalties and possibly provide an increased deterrent to its use and supply, it is vital that we address broader substance misuse in a holistic way and, primarily, as a medical issue that requires therapeutic interventions, rather than focusing only on criminal justice outcomes.

Substance use has a tragic impact across Northern Ireland, according to those most recent figures. As I say, 169 people lost their life in 2023 as a result of drugs misuse, but the impact and the ripples in our community go much wider. We can only, therefore, deal with that if we deal with it together. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure that young people who may experiment with drugs — in some cases, under peer pressure — understand that there is an extreme risk associated with taking any drug that is not prescribed. It takes only one episode to cause life-changing or life-ending harm. There is no safe level of drug consumption. If only one message reaches the public as a result of the debate, I hope that it is this: drugs can and do cause harm to individuals, families and communities. To those young people who may or may not hear the debate and to those who may or may not be suffering with their own addiction demons, I say this: do not take that risk with your health and well-being — reach out and seek support. A range of substance use-related services are available across Northern Ireland and are listed on the PHA drug and alcohol info website. Please use them. Please get the help that you need, and please keep yourself, your family and your community safe.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I call Stephen Dunne to make the winding-up speech on the motion. Stephen, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will conclude what has been a very useful and timely debate on such an important issue. I thank everyone for their contribution and the Minister for her attendance. I join others in commending the Larmour family for their tireless and courageous efforts on their important campaign. Sandra has fought with great dignity indeed to raise awareness of the dangers of ketamine and to seek its reclassification following the tragic and untimely passing of her daughter, Jeni. Her campaign is a powerful reminder that behind every statistic, policy debate and legislative decision are real people, families and heartache in every corner of our country.

Sadly, the Larmour family is just one of many families right across Northern Ireland who have had their life shattered by the devastating effects of ketamine and so many other drugs, some of which have been mentioned here. Too many families right across our country continue to face that devastation, day and daily, right throughout the year. Figures that I acquired recently from the Department of Finance show, interestingly, that ketamine was mentioned on the death certificate of 12 people between January 2020 and June 2024, with an alarming jump from one ketamine-related death in 2022 to five in 2023 and three within the first six months of 2024. It is worth noting that last week's figures issued by NISRA show a worrying increase of nearly 50% in drug-related deaths in Northern Ireland over the past decade. That should shock us all. It is certainly a reminder of the gravity of the situation and of the fact that there is still so much more work to be done.

Many young people throughout the British Isles are suffering from severe bowel health issues, which were mentioned, and various medical issues, but they would be perfectly healthy if they were not regular ketamine users and had never taken that first dose of the drug. They may have thought that it was a casual thing to do, or they may have done it through peer pressure or one of the many other ways in which people can, sadly, become addicts and have their life changed and ruined forever. I have read some shocking personal stories from users of the drug. My colleague Ms Bunting outlined some of those personal stories. They are a timely reminder to us all, bringing home the devastation and destruction that drugs can cause. I reference young people in particular, as the latest government figures show that drug use among 16- to 24-year-olds has tripled since 2016. That is, again, a very startling statistic indeed. As Members across the Chamber said, the relatively low cost of ketamine is a major concern, combined with the false perception that it may be less harmful than similar drugs. That has no doubt contributed to the startling rise in its use in our communities. I think that Members mentioned that, such is the widespread use of drugs, it happens not just in city centres but in urban and rural areas and that it is no respecter of class or colour.

We welcome the review that the UK Government are undertaking and believe that local people deserve to have their say and to share their experiences in that process. I recognise that, in response to questions for written answer on the topic, the Minister has stated and repeated today that there is a role for the Department of Health and that it is a cross-cutting issue for a number of Departments. There is an Executive-wide place and space for making change. There is no doubt that reclassification would be a positive step forward. It is something that we can all get behind. I welcome the fact that, as the Justice Minister stated, she and the Health Minister wrote to the UK Home Office. That is certainly positive. The Executive have a Programme for Government commitment to tackling violence against women and girls. The connection between ketamine and spiking incidents should further encourage the Minister to do everything in her Department's power to make sure that action is taken and real change is made.

I turn now to Members' contributions. My colleague Joanne Bunting eloquently proposed the motion and outlined a personal connection. She has spoken with the Larmour family, who should always be front and centre in our thoughts. Joanne mentioned the production in our schools, which is a positive demonstration to our young people of the dangers. It has reached over 3,000 children and young people in schools. Hopefully, it can be rolled out further in our schools to reach thousands more. She shared shocking testimonies from users that really highlighted the impact of drug use.

Órlaithí Flynn spoke about the widespread use of drugs across every constituency in the country, the role for the Health Minister, the ever-rising use and dangers of online platforms and apps and the widespread accessibility that is at the heart of drug use today. She talked about a rapid drug-testing system, which should certainly be prioritised. Anything like that that can make a difference should be considered seriously. Danny Donnelly gave his support to the Larmour family's campaign and talked about the war on drugs in the UK. That is very fitting terminology: a war on drugs is required. He mentioned how the pattern of drug use —.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dunne: Yes, sure.

Mr Donnelly: Sorry, I will just correct that. My point was that the war on drugs in the UK has failed. Drugs are available in cities, towns and villages across Northern Ireland. The war-on-drugs policies do not work, and prohibition has not worked: we need to move on and try something else.

Mr Dunne: Thank you for the intervention. I was coming to that. I note that you said that the pattern of drug use has changed dramatically since 1971. The dramatic increase in the use of drugs in that period reinforces the need for updated legislation.

Doug Beattie talked about the many victims and the tragic consequences that drug use can have. He said that it is not just those who take drugs who are severely impacted on but their families and friends. He outlined the need for additional addiction support services and said that those services must improve. Justin McNulty talked about the consequences of ketamine use and the tragic loss of young lives in his community. He said that the penalties for possession and trafficking are too lenient and he mentioned the importance of prevention campaigns and educational awareness.

Deirdre Hargey talked about the impact of drugs on her community and the importance of not stigmatising addiction. She talked about the community toolkit in her constituency, which, she believes, has had positive impacts in tackling drugs. Connie Egan said that former users should also be involved the review. That is an important point: those people have a key role to play by telling their story so that lessons can be learned. She also highlighted the fact that, ultimately, the whole Executive have a responsibility to end the harm. Mark Durkan, the final contributor, said, rightly, that ketamine is not just a party drug and that tackling such misconceptions should be front and centre. Mark talked about the severe health risks and said that there is no such thing as a low-risk substance. He is supportive of reclassification.

We have had a useful debate. I urge all colleagues to support the motion. We can send an unequivocal message that those who push and peddle drugs need to face the full weight of the law as we tackle the problem.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, take your ease for a few moments while we make a change at the top Table and get ready for the next debate.

Mr Beattie: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As 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. Mr Beattie, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Over the past month, we have watched and listened to victims, victims' families, police officers and people from the medical emergency services recount their stories of the harrowing and horrific bombing in Omagh on 15 August 1998. They have done so with clarity, courage, compassion, a sense of loss and a deep sadness. Those who have listened to the powerful commemorative hearings cannot be anything other than moved by their personal reflections. They have lost loved ones and lost life's rich opportunities. Many will live with the outcomes of that awful day for the rest of their days, physically and psychologically. No matter how many warm words we use now or in the future, we cannot give them back their murdered loved ones. We cannot erase the sights, the sounds and the smells of that day. We can try, however, to give them truth and justice, and we can strive to give them accountability. I hope that the public inquiry is the start of that process. Could the bomb have been stopped? Could lives have been saved? Were there failings in the intelligence collation? Was there human error? The inquiry will aim to find that out.

What is absolutely clear is that terrorists placed a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device in Omagh town centre and 29 innocent people were killed and over 200 were injured. They were not in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were in the right place at the right time, and they were murdered for no reason and with no excuse. The vehicle that delivered the IED to Omagh on that fateful day was stolen in the Irish Republic. The explosives were sourced in the Irish Republic. The timer power unit (TPU) was made in the Irish Republic. The IED was assembled and placed on board the car in the Irish Republic. The plan was made and rehearsed in the Irish Republic. The vehicle-borne IED left the Irish Republic, crossed into Northern Ireland and detonated, killing 29 people, before the bombers escaped back into the Irish Republic.

Yet, the Dublin Government do not feel the need to hold a public inquiry in parallel to the UK inquiry, or even a commission of investigation. They clearly do not take their commitment to victims seriously, and many victims do not trust their hollow words. They do not trust some weak memorandum of understanding on information-sharing. They have good reason not to trust them. The Dublin Government promised much to the Kingsmills families and delivered little, even though they said that they would bring in unprecedented legal measures to facilitate cooperation to deliver on their commitment. Compare that statement to the statement from the Irish Justice Minister just 10 days ago:

Unless that legislation gives the Omagh Bombing inquiry the power to compel witnesses from the Irish Republic, including members of the gardaí and the Directorate of Military Intelligence, it is pointless. That simply is not going to happen, regardless of any memorandum of understanding. From our engagement with the Irish Government around the flawed Stormont House Agreement, we know that the gardaí and Irish military intelligence will redact information before an investigation, so why on earth do we think that an MOU will make any difference? Just look at the Dublin/Monaghan bombings: another despicable instance of bombing from our Troubles. That was on 17 May 1974, with 34 people killed and 300 injured. The last time that they did a commission of investigation into that, there were missing documents from an Garda Síochána, missing documents from the Defence Forces and missing documents from the Department of Justice.

The reality is simple: the Irish Government criticise much but deliver little. Even when some were hell-bent on the Stormont House Agreement, the Irish Government never saw fit to have a parallel process. When the Conservative Government brought forward legacy legislation, even though it was disastrous and nobody is standing over it, the Irish Government brought forward nothing. They have not brought forward anything on legacy, and we are letting them away with that. We are not holding them to account while they hold our feet to the fire. I am not dismissing the sacrifice of the Defence Forces or the gardaí personnel who gave their lives fighting terrorism, but let us face the fact that the territory of the Irish Republic was used as a base to murder thousands of UK citizens.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I saw that he was nearly at the end of his speech and wanted to get an intervention in before he gets there. The Member has not addressed what the inquiry would achieve. If there is no ability to make the Irish state compellable, what would a public inquiry by the UK Government deliver for people?

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for that question. It is a very real question. Here is the issue as I see it: imagine that the UK has its inquiry and comes out with a series of outcomes. Of course, those will be redacted for security reasons — that will always be the case. I would expect the Irish Government to do the same in a parallel process, come out with something that says, "Here's where we got it wrong". While we in the UK say that we could maybe have stopped it — I am surmising — maybe they could say, "Well, actually, if we'd done this, it might never have left our territory in the first place". If they are not willing to examine that, they have no way of knowing. There is no way of having a joint inquiry, because legislation would not allow that to happen. We all know that.

The Irish Republic was used as a base to murder thousands of UK citizens, yet the Irish Government do not feel that it is right to set up their own legacy mechanisms. I do not get that. I do not know how anybody here can say that they should not set up legacy mechanisms. The reality, however, is that they have not and do not intend to. They intend to do what they have done to date, which is to have an MOU that says, "We will share information", albeit we have already seen that they do not share the information when it is required.

I will finish with three things. The UK Government have failed miserably in dealing with the legacy of our past. They have failed to show a backbone in holding the Irish Government to account for their territory being used to murder so many of our citizens. The Irish Government have failed, at every level, to do anything for the victims or anything to address that state's role in the Troubles. I think that they have sanitised themselves away from this such that they think that the Irish state did not have a role in the Troubles. Well, it did, and the Irish Government need to take responsibility for and ownership of that. They need to stop just being critical of everybody else and start looking inwards to themselves. Lastly, it is a reminder. The Omagh bomb victims deserve answers. They deserve the truth, as do the thousands of victims right across these islands, and the Irish Government must step up to help provide that information.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr T Buchanan: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buchanan, you have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr T Buchanan: Saturday 15 August 1998 is a date that is etched on the hearts and minds of many people in Omagh, throughout West Tyrone and beyond. That afternoon saw the fragile peace in Northern Ireland shattered when the Real IRA detonated a car bomb in Market Street, which killed 31 innocent people, including unborn twins, and injured over 220 others. The premeditated, murderous act of violence against humanity tore the very heart out of Omagh and left many families feeling deep sorrow and suffering. It caused the devastation of a generation of people.

For the past 27 years, many of the victims' families have suffered in silence as they continue to pursue a path to truth and justice. The announcement of the public inquiry, secured through the courts in 2021, brought a ray of hope to those families. In the past weeks, at the first stage of the inquiry, we have heard the harrowing testimonies of the victims' families and those affected by the Omagh bomb. No one could have sat through or listened to those sessions without being visibly moved. The testimonials have brought the horrors of that day to a new generation.

While, as a party, we stand with the victims' families as they fight for justice after the single-worst atrocity of the IRA's campaign of terror and bloodshed, we equally stand with the families of all the innocent victims throughout Northern Ireland, who were brutally murdered by terrorist organisations, in their quest for truth and justice. While today's motion laments the lack of any tangible effort by the Irish Government to conduct an inquiry into the atrocity, we believe that it does not go far enough, and that is why we tabled the amendment.

A memorandum of understanding between the Omagh Bombing inquiry and the Irish Government will be entirely deficient in providing answers for the victims and their families. Therefore, the amendment calls on the Irish Government to do the honourable thing, as recommended by Judge Horner in 2021, and similarly hold an inquiry with the powers to compel any person in the Republic of Ireland to provide evidence, information and material pertinent to a full and unfettered investigation on behalf of the victims and survivors.
We must not let the Irish Government off the hook on that issue. The fact remains that the Omagh bomb was planned, built and delivered from the South of Ireland. The proposer of the motion went into more detail on that issue. The Dublin Government cannot, therefore, wash their hands of those murders. The Justice Minister must ensure that she is not giving cover to that double standard. She must demonstrate practically her commitment to seeking parallel investigative mechanisms in the Irish Republic.

While the Taoiseach seeks to justify the Irish Government's long-standing position against holding a public inquiry, by stating that Dublin will ensure that there is full cooperation with the inquiry in Northern Ireland, the fact remains that the UK inquiry has no authority to call witnesses from the Republic or to compel them to give evidence.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Will the Member give way?

Mr T Buchanan: OK.

Mrs Long: The Member has just acknowledged that an inquiry set up by the UK Government, under the auspices of the Secretary of State, does not have the power to compel. Can he elucidate how he expects me to compel the Irish Government to do anything?

Mr T Buchanan: As Minister of Justice, you have to show that you have an interest in supporting and a desire to support the Omagh families in their request for the Irish Government to conduct a public inquiry similar to that which the UK Government have set up, with powers to compel people from the South to come forward and give evidence.

Whom does the Taoiseach think he is fooling with his fine words that Dublin will fully cooperate with the inquiry, without the proper powers being in place for one in the Republic? Let us weigh up the evidence, folks. We look at the Kingsmills inquest, to which the Irish Government's submission amounted to little more than newspaper clippings. Assistant Chief Constable Harris, as he was then, stated under oath at the Smithwick tribunal that he was satisfied beyond doubt that there was a leak from the gardaí to the IRA that led to the murder of Ian Sproule in Castlederg, yet both the Dublin Government and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman blatantly refused to sanction an investigation of that murder. Does anyone in the House today believe that, without the appropriate mechanism in place in the Irish Republic to compel evidence gathering about the Omagh bomb, things will be different this time around? I challenge the Taoiseach and the Irish Government: will they provide the same cover for the perpetrators of the Omagh bomb as they provided for the perpetrators of Kingsmills and of all other such atrocities throughout Northern Ireland? The facts and the evidence speak for themselves.

We must listen to the voice of the victims, engage with them and not run away from our responsibility to help uncover the truth. The Republic of Ireland Government cannot therefore continue to ignore their overriding moral and legal duty to conduct an inquiry into what was the deadliest atrocity of the Troubles. It was orchestrated, planned and delivered from their jurisdiction. The victims and their families deserve truth, accountability and justice on both sides of the border. I commend my party leader and MP colleagues for raising with the Prime Minister the need for the Republic to step up to the plate by holding a public inquiry similar to the inquiry that the UK Government have initiated. No inquiry will bring the loved ones back. No inquiry will fill the empty chair at the dinner table. No inquiry will ease the trauma resulting from that dreaded knock on the door. Every decent and right-thinking person, however, should listen to the families and heed their call for an inquiry in the Republic of Ireland that has the power to compel people and papers in order to bring the families the truth and justice that they deserve.

In closing, I want to remember from that day the members of the security forces and the medical support who were left to deal with the aftermath of the bomb. They saw scenes and dealt with things that no one should have to deal with. Afterwards, having received no professional help to deal with their trauma and the effects on their mental capacity, they simply had to get on with their job. So often, the people who provide such help are forgotten about. Today, we should remember them. I commend the amendment to the House, and I trust that the signatories to the motion will accept it.

Miss Brogan: I speak today as an elected representative of Omagh and of West Tyrone and as a member of the wider Omagh community. It is a community that has suffered greatly and has felt real hurt and pain and dealt with it since the atrocity of the Omagh bomb on 15 August 1998. I have spoken with the families of the bereaved and with survivors, and I have attended hearings of the public inquiry. Other members of Sinn Féin, including our senior leadership, have also engaged with the families over the years and have endorsed, with their full support, the demands of truth and justice for the Omagh families.

I again take the opportunity to acknowledge publicly the strength, courage and compassion of all the people who told their stories and described their experiences of that awful day throughout the public inquiry and after it. Their pain and anguish was palpable as they relived the trauma of what happened in Omagh almost 27 years ago. The suffering and the sense of loss will haunt the families for the rest of their lives. The pain and distress of the injured will remain with them for the rest of their lives. Despite their pain and loss, the families have remained steadfast in their ongoing pursuit of truth and justice for their loved ones. Their persistence in continuing with their campaign over the years is the reason that the inquiry was established. Time and again, when the path to truth and justice was blocked, they carried on regardless. They used every legal option open to them until they attained their objective of a public inquiry that has given them the opportunity to examine the fundamental question that has exercised the minds of the families for so long: could the attack have been prevented?

The Irish Government's Justice Minister has outlined his support for the public inquiry into the Omagh bomb and said that they will do everything possible to assist the inquiry. Minister O'Callaghan said that a central point of contact has been established in his Department to ensure the timely and effective management of all requests from the inquiry.

The motion calls on the Irish Government to conduct their own inquiry into the atrocity. The families called on the Irish Government to carry out a parallel but separate inquiry, but they ultimately want maximum cooperation between the Irish Government and the inquiry that has been established. Last month, Sinn Féin president, Mary Lou McDonald, again supported that call. She agreed with the Omagh families, who have been calling for that cooperation from the beginning, and urged the Government to fulfil their role to ensure that the inquiry is successful.

The enormity of the atrocity and the impact that it has had on the lives of the victims, survivors and families and on the wider Omagh community mean that the motion should have a singular focus on the Omagh Bombing inquiry and not stray into contested legacy issues. We owe it to the families, who have carried the burden of their campaign for 27 years, to grasp the opportunity to send out a united and powerful endorsement of support for the Omagh families in their quest for truth and justice.

Ms Bradshaw: I pay tribute to the families of those killed or injured in the Omagh bomb for their long campaign for the public inquiry. As others have mentioned, it is harrowing to listen to the testimonies. I am sure that the families are relieved that it is happening but are really reliving that tragic time.

I very much share the sentiment behind the motion, although I have some difficulty with the call that is in it. My party sought an amendment with a clearer call for action from both Governments to recognise and act in their role of addressing legacy issues, not least in the case of atrocities with a cross-border element. Further to that, we feel that a duty should be placed on the First Minister and deputy First Minister actively to seek that in the interests of victims and survivors.

We in the Alliance Party feel that it is important to reflect that the Government of Ireland need to take more seriously their role in inquiring into and investigating their own role and that of their agencies during the Troubles. We see little merit in the political attempt to shift responsibility for the matter to another Department, as in the DUP amendment. Responsibility for external affairs and for victims and survivors rests squarely with the Executive Office. Members of the party that proposed the amendment therefore need to take the issue of demonstrating action in the interests of victims and survivors to their colleague the deputy First Minister. They also need to work with all parties towards the outcome that they claim to want, namely much more active cooperation from the Government of Ireland in the quest for truth.

According to evidence provided to the Committee for the Executive Office by Kenny Donaldson from the South East Fermanagh Foundation (SEFF), it is estimated that over 550 murders during the Troubles — about 15% of the total — had a cross-border element. The Omagh bomb, which, of course, came after the agreement, was another horrific example. Mr Donaldson went on to say that the Government of Ireland see themselves as having been an observer of the Troubles rather than the participant that they were. I wonder whether anyone, on objective reflection, can disagree with that assessment.

We have heard a lot of evidence at our Committee from victims' groups, some of them dealing with other dreadful aspects of the past, such as institutional abuse of children, while others deal directly with the Troubles. On occasion, they take different approaches to issues such as redress, acknowledgement and, indeed, what actually happened. However, what is consistent is that they say that there will never be true reconciliation on this island without full truth. The idea that Northern Ireland is a sealed unit on its own makes no sense. It is defined by its relationship with its neighbours, including the rest of Ireland, as it always will be. That is the case socially; it is the case economically; and it is the case environmentally. The idea that it was entirely some place apart during the Troubles and that the Government of Ireland could play a role as an observer set aside from what was happening up the road or, indeed, in its own jurisdiction, on some occasions, is purely ridiculous.

I will leave it there, but it is important that we prioritise the needs of victims and survivors in the pursuit of truth.

Mr O'Toole: I welcome the fact that we are able to debate the motion.

The first and most important thing is to locate everything in empathy and solidarity with the victims of Omagh and their needs. The 29 people, plus two unborn children, who were callously murdered that day in the middle of Omagh deserve nothing but justice. The public inquiry that is now happening is a reminder of the barbarity of that day, but it is also a clarion call to all of us to ensure that the victims get clarity, decency, justice and all that they are entitled to.

Hume's words on that day, when he described the perpetrators of the attack as "undiluted fascists", remain as clear and resonant now as they were then. The families have been extraordinarily resilient and dignified in their campaign for truth and justice over the past 27 years. It is extraordinary that it has taken 27 years.

At the beginning of my remarks, I will say that the SDLP has always been clear about the immorality of the acts that took place in the conflict and about the obligations that fall not just on the non-state actors — the paramilitaries who undertook violence — but on the two states. The British state and the Irish state must do right by the victims of the conflict. Paula Bradshaw is correct when she says that it is wrong to characterise the conflict as something that was simply cut off from the rest of this island and, indeed, the rest of these islands. Those two states — the British state and the Irish state — have a moral and legal obligation to do right by the people not just of Northern Ireland but of these islands who were caught up in that conflict.

We can go back to 2001, when the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland concluded that the RUC ignored warnings before the Omagh bomb. There has been a consistent failure on both sides of the border in both jurisdictions not just to protect the interests of the families but to properly pursue and investigate the perpetrators of the Omagh bomb. Those families have been failed consistently. We are clear that both Governments need to accept their responsibilities, and that includes the Irish state.

I welcome the fact that there have been new commitments from Minister O'Callaghan, but we support the call for the Irish state to do more. We have a slight concern with the motion in that it calls for the UK state to compel the Irish state to do something purely because they do not have the vires. It is not entirely clear that they would be able to compel the evidence that we all want.

Mr Beattie: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will happily give way.

Mr Beattie: That might just be my clumsy words. The point that I am making is that, by not having an inquiry down South, we cannot compel people from south of the border to give evidence. I am outlining the problem, and that is the solution that —.

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

Mr O'Toole: There is a solution to that, which is why there is merit in the DUP amendment, which specifically calls for the Irish state to initiate its own parallel inquiry. We in the SDLP have called for that, and we have no difficulty agreeing with it. We would not have used the precise wording that the DUP uses in the amendment, but, given the importance and gravity of the issues at stake, we will support the DUP amendment.

Let me also say that, when we talk about these issues, it is important that we ground all our contributions in honesty. The victims of our Troubles still today face double-talk and evasion from states, non-state actors and certain political parties, it has to be said.

The Omagh bomb was a grotesque and squalid act. As somebody who passionately believes in a new Ireland, I find it grotesquely offensive that someone could think that planting a bomb in the middle of a town with innocent people around was a legitimate or effective way to achieve a united Ireland. However, it must also be said that, if that act was grotesque and illegitimate in August 1998, it was grotesque in August 1997, 1996 and for many years before that. The Good Friday Agreement was an extraordinary and transformational thing on this island, but it did not magically legitimise car bombs being placed in towns, with innocent children and shoppers. That point has to be made.

The Irish state and the British state need to do right by victims. The squalid Legacy Act passed by the previous British Government needs to be replaced in full. We need to have a human-rights compliant legacy process that does right by victims in this place. That has to include the Irish Government and the Irish state being clear and absolutely transparent and engaging in a public inquiry in relation to Omagh, but, more generally, engaging on any cross-border components of issues that have arisen.

We would not have tabled this precise motion or amendment, but the gravity of the issues at stake and the seriousness with which our party takes its moral responsibilities to victims of our Troubles mean that we will support the amendment, albeit, as I said, we would not have phrased it in that precise way. We should all be attempting to move this society towards reconciliation and beyond our brutal and horrible past, but that does not mean not being honest and clear about that past, and it has to include states and state actors.

Mr Dickson: I begin, as others have done, by recognising the courage and resilience of those involved in the Omagh Bombing inquiry. The bravery and testimonies shared by victims and those affected have been deeply moving and serve as a powerful reminder of the human costs of the Troubles. It is essential that, as we reflect on that period of our history, the priority is the voices of the victims and their families and ensuring that the pursuit of truth and justice remains at the forefront of our discussions. One week before the bomb, at the same time and in the same street, my wife and I shopped in Omagh. One week apart.

As we all know, the Troubles and the violence of the past was an incredibly dark chapter for everyone on these islands. Significant progress has, as Members have said, been made since the Good Friday Agreement. The subsequent efforts and the work on reconciliation and truth recovery must continue. It is in that context that I share the concerns raised by my colleague and the Chair of the Executive Office Committee, Paula Bradshaw, when she talked about the need for the Irish Government to fully acknowledge the complexities of their role during that period. While the UK Government's decision to establish an inquiry into the Omagh bombing is an important and real step, the cross-border nature of that atrocity means that a comprehensive approach involving the Irish and British Governments is important. That is why we had tabled an amendment that would have recognised the role of the Irish Government in addressing the legacy of the Troubles, not in isolation but as part of a collaborative and comprehensive effort involving the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and, crucially, the victims and survivors.

We are calling on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to engage with both Governments to support legislation for a Historical Investigations Unit. That unit would be tasked with examining Troubles-related deaths, including those with a cross-border element, as part of a broader package of measures designed to meet the needs of victims, survivors and their families. Testimonies to the Executive Office Committee, on which I sit as Deputy Chair, from people like Kenny Donaldson from the South East Fermanagh Foundation, suggest that many incidents during the Troubles had a cross-border dimension — to the tune of nearly 15%. In some of those cases, families have raised concerns about the level of information sharing and cooperation between the authorities.

Given the intense sensitivities surrounding these matters, it is crucial that any discussion remains firmly rooted in evidence and respects due process. The British and Irish Governments have a responsibility to work together in addressing the legacy of the Troubles, so I ultimately welcome the UK Government's renewed commitment to dealing with the past, including their decision to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which, as we all know, was opposed across our island, North and South.

It is important and necessary that the UK and Irish Governments take further steps to engage with these issues in the spirit of cooperation and reconciliation. Truth and justice should not be bound by jurisdiction. The establishment of an appropriate investigation unit, with full cross-border cooperation, would represent an important and significant step forward. It is only through openness, partnership and a shared commitment to genuinely addressing the past that we can move forward together.

Mr Gaston: I commend the Ulster Unionist Party for bringing this important motion to the House. It is particularly pertinent that these matters should be raised on 11 March, which is a day on which people across Europe pause to remember the innocent victims of terrorism.

The record of the Irish Republic when it comes to legacy is quite sickening. To date, it has sat back and acted as some sort of independent party that can equality-proof proposals from the UK Government. The reality is that, throughout the 30 years of terror, the Irish Republic was very much an active participant. I mentioned that today is innocent victims of terrorism day. Yesterday, I held an event to mark the occasion. Afterwards, a member of the public passed a member of my staff a booklet entitled 'Newry and a Border between "Truth & Justice"'. It contains many interesting facts and statistics, but I will highlight just one: a table obtained from the National Archives of Ireland containing stats supplied by the British Embassy in Dublin showing that, between 1976 and 1984, between 66% and 100% of the commercial explosive finds in Northern Ireland were manufactured exclusively by Irish Industrial Explosives Ltd. In 1976 alone, over 540 kg of Irish industrial explosives were discovered in Northern Ireland, accounting for almost 90% of the total that year. The Irish Republic has never answered questions as to why explosives from its jurisdiction ended up in the hands of republican terrorists in Northern Ireland and were deployed to murder and maim people with whom its constitution claims it wants to unite "in harmony and friendship".

It is worth touching on the fact that, because the Irish constitution enshrined the aspiration of a 32-county republic, it was frequently and successfully deployed by terrorists who fought extradition to face justice for crimes here in Northern Ireland. The facts could not be clearer: between 1973 and 1997, there were 110 requests for extradition from the Republic of Ireland by the UK. Of those, just eight were successful. There has never been an investigation by the Irish Republic into how it operated as a safe haven for terrorists. There has never been any regard for the lives of the people of Northern Ireland who were murdered by IRA bombs. All of that was in the name of the 1916 proclamation, which claimed to cherish:

There was not much cherishing of children when, in 1988, the Hanna family — Maureen, Robin and their six-year-old son David — were blown up outside Newry when returning from Disneyland via Dublin Airport because the IRA said at the time that it had the wrong description of a car. Who gave them that description? It was suggested at the time that the information came from the gardaí. However, to this day, Dublin has resisted demands that it come clean. When Smithwick concluded that he was satisfied that there was collusion in the murders of RUC officers Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan, there should have been a wider investigation of the links between the gardaí and the IRA. There has never been one.

The Chairman of the Executive Office Committee quoted Kenny Donaldson, who made the point that, on the basis of research, there are between 550 and 570 killings that have a cross-border element. He added that, chillingly, victims of republican terror in border areas are, effectively, stateless when it comes to justice. To put it bluntly, Dublin does not care, and London does not want to rock the boat. Frankly, it is sickening that the Irish Republic, where the majority of republican attacks were planned, is the place from which incidents such as the Narrow Water ambush were executed and to which killers fled for sanctuary. The Irish Government continue to wash their hands of their role in the years of IRA terror while all the time presuming to pass judgement on the UK state. The Omagh bomb relatives deserve truth and justice from the Irish Republic, and so do the relatives and families of the 550 to 570 people whose murders were carried out with a cross-border element.

Mr Brett: On European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism, I commend the Member for Upper Bann for bringing this important issue before the House.

The Omagh bombing and surrounding incidents hold a special place in our household. My father was one of the first responders to the Omagh bomb. As a paramedic, he was called and airlifted to Omagh to find a scene of utter devastation. He returned home to our house in Glengormley the next day and never again uttered a single word about what he had seen that day. That was the tragedy, the mayhem and the murder that he witnessed. He stayed in close contact with the Gallagher family and other members of the Omagh families, and they repaid their debt of gratitude to our family when terrorism visited us.

I commend the work of my colleague Mr Buchanan, who, for years, has proudly championed the cause of a public inquiry here in the United Kingdom and in the Irish Republic. I had the pleasure of being with Mr Buchanan and members of the Omagh families when our party publicly committed itself to supporting their call for a public inquiry here in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland.

The House has an opportunity today to send a clear and unequivocal message that all parties, be they here in the United Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland, need to step up to the mark. The leader of the Opposition perfectly articulated the fact that, whilst Members of the House may disagree with parts of our amendment's wording, its intention is to make clear that no person, state actor or Government should be able to avoid their moral duty to the families of the Omagh atrocity. I wish, however, to call out some of the hypocrisy that has been generated here today. It is welcome that all Members of the House have made clear that there was no justification for the Omagh bombing, but, if there was no justification for the Omagh bombing, how was there justification for the Shankill bombing or the bombing at La Mon? As other Members have rightly articulated, all terrorism, regardless of where it came from — loyalism, republicanism or those pretending to act in the interests of anyone in Northern Ireland — was wrong in 1985, 1995 and 2005. That should be the message that comes from the House today.

This has been a respectful and important debate. Members of the Omagh families are listening to what we are saying, so let the House send a clear message and support the amendment that was so eloquently articulated by the Member for West Tyrone.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the list of Members who wished to speak. I call on the Minister of Justice to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion on this important and sensitive issue. Initially, the Executive had not intended to provide a ministerial response to the debate, given that the issues engaged in the motion fall entirely outside the devolved space. However, in recognition of the amendment's specific call on me, as Minister of Justice, I felt that it would be discourteous to Members and, most importantly, to the victims of the Omagh bombing not to acknowledge the debate and respond to it insofar as I can, albeit I do so solely in a ministerial capacity and, therefore, may be more restrained in what I say than would otherwise be the case were I participating simply as leader of the Alliance Party.

The UK Government have responsibility for determining how to deal with the legacy of the past, which, as we all acknowledged in the debate, is a complex and sensitive issue. It includes engaging with other Governments, including the Irish Government, on any role that they might need to play in the process. I have made my position on their wider approach clear on many occasions, both in my capacity as Justice Minister, where it impacts upon my Department, and as a party leader, more widely. I do not intend to rehearse all those points today.

The Omagh Bombing inquiry is:

The inquiry is charged with considering the adequacy of the measures taken by a number of state authorities, including the RUC:

leading up to the Omagh bombing.

In 2021, the High Court determined that the state had an obligation to conduct an article 2-compliant investigation into allegations that there was a real prospect of preventing the terrible atrocity. Therefore, it would, obviously, be for the Secretary of State to formally engage with the Irish Government in relation to the Omagh Bombing inquiry, given that it was set up by him, and that it relates to terrorism and international relations, which are reserved and excepted matters respectively.

While my Department has no role in the conduct of the inquiry, I, like many of you, have been deeply moved by the witness testimonies that have been given thus far. They have been harrowing and distressing to hear and, no doubt, to recount. The unimaginable pain and suffering, as well as the grief, that people have carried as a result of their exposure to such reckless and wanton violence are hard to comprehend. I fervently hope that victims and their families are able to access justice through the process that the Secretary of State has established.

I also acknowledge that it is important for all of us in Northern Ireland to have full confidence in the inquiry, that the inquiry is able to access all the relevant data and information and that anyone who has information provides it to the inquiry and be fully cooperative with it.

Whilst there has been considerable discussion about the compellability of testimony and evidence from the Irish state, I hope that the Irish Government live up to their commitment to fully cooperate with the inquiry, and that such compulsion should not be required. When we are aware of information that could bring someone else truth and justice, it is a moral obligation that falls on all of us that we disclose that information and cooperate in every way that we can. When raised with my counterpart, the Irish Justice Minister, Jim O'Callaghan, during an engagement that I had with him, just yesterday, I was somewhat reassured by the fact that he reiterated, on behalf of the Irish Government, their commitment to cooperate fully with the Omagh Bombing inquiry that is under way. However, as many have stated in the Chamber today, that commitment will only be fully reliable once it is put into action. Words count for very little in this space when confidence is so low and trust is at a premium.

The issue of whether there is a separate inquiry in Ireland is, again, a matter for the Irish Government and not one into which the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland can intrude. However, one issue that was raised by the Irish Justice Minister yesterday, in response to the question, was his concern, which, to some degree, I share, that an entirely separate inquiry could result in putting people through an often-traumatic process of recounting their experiences for a second time. It is therefore sensible to fully explore whether a suitable mechanism can exist by which people will be sufficiently reassured that they will get full accountability and full truth from the inquiry that is taking place.

At all times, we need to be fully mindful of the impact on the victims, witnesses, first responders and wider society of being re-exposed to and having to recount some of the most traumatic experiences that they have ever endured. Whilst any such inquiry is not within the vires of my Department, and I cannot compel another state to hold their own inquiry or, indeed, fully cooperate with the current inquiry, I, nevertheless, fully understand and have sympathy with the concerns and sensitivities involved, which have been raised in the Chamber today. We will be able to judge fully only when we are sighted of the arrangements that are put in place to give that information to the families and the victims.

I am aware that the Irish Government are now actively engaging with the Omagh Bombing inquiry team about finalising the memorandum of understanding that will govern their engagement and information sharing with the inquiry. I hope that that may go some way to providing the confidence that the families need so that, through the inquiry, they will finally be able to achieve the full transparency, truth and justice that they seek and that they truly deserve.

As I bring my remarks to a conclusion, my thoughts this evening are with the Omagh families, who have suffered unimaginable heartbreak and borne the loss of their loved ones, as a result of what was a barbaric and cowardly attack, with the utmost dignity. I hope that, at the end of the process, they will receive the truth and the justice that they deserve, whether as a result of the British Government's inquiries and engagement or as a result of the Irish Government's inquiries and engagement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. I call Joanne Bunting to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Ms Bunting, you have up to five minutes.

Ms Bunting: I, too, am conscious that today is European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism. The accounts that we have heard in recent days about the atrocity in Omagh have been heart-wrenching and distressing, and I commend the families for their fight to secure their inquiry and for their bravery in recounting the worst times of their lives. The impact on them, as it is on so many others in our society as a result of terrorism, is lifelong. I am hopeful, rather than expectant, that they will receive the truth and information that they seek.

As Mr Buchanan said, our amendment stems from a concern that a memorandum of understanding would be completely inadequate in providing the answers for victims. It is therefore imperative that the Irish Government instigate their own public inquiry into the Omagh bomb, as per the Horner judgement of 2021, in which Justice Horner stated:

We concur that there should be such an inquiry, with powers to compel any person in the Republic of Ireland to provide evidence, information and material that is pertinent to a full and unfettered investigation. The families deserve truth, and any inquiry must have, and must use, the power to compel people to participate. It must have the power to interrogate individuals and to compel them to provide any and all information and evidence that they hold. To our minds, that would be a much better and a more valuable and meaningful method of the Irish Government demonstrating their cooperation than have them sign a document.

Cooperation is entirely subjective and completely insufficient. As has been said, the families of Kingsmills saw exactly what cooperation from the Irish Government looked like when it amounted to the inquiry being sent newspaper clippings as part of disclosure. That has created a genuine concern among the families that key evidence from the public may never be examined, and key evidence is exactly what it may be, given that the bombing was planned in the Republic and that the bomb was built and transported from there.

For us and, I hope, the rest of the House, it is unacceptable that the Dublin Government are refusing to provide a structure that would help bring the Omagh families answers. The victims and their families deserve truth, accountability and justice on both sides of the border, and our party leader Gavin Robinson has raised that matter with the Prime Minister. Truth and justice must be delivered for the families of those who so needlessly lost their lives to Irish republican terrorism. We all, the Irish included, must listen to the voices of victims, engage with them and not run away from our responsibility to help uncover the truth. The Republic cannot, should not and must not ignore its duty in that regard.

It is difficult to understand how or why the Dublin Government are ignoring the comments of Justice Horner, yet it is not surprising. For years, there have been double standards when it comes to legacy and something of a say-do gap in their approach. They are ever content to tell His Majesty's Government what they should be doing while doing nothing themselves, failing to investigate repeated allegations of collusion and harbouring those who perpetrated heinous acts of terrorism and fled over the border to safety, and then refusing to extradite them to the UK.

Just for the record, between 1973 and 1997, 113 extradition requests were made to the Republic concerning terrorist-related offences, but only eight people were extradited. Between those same dates, 296 extradition requests were made that related to non-terrorist offences, which resulted in 124 extraditions. Interesting, is it not? Yet, as a member of the Europe Union, the Republic, too, is subject to the articles and obligations of the European Convention on Human Rights, including article 2.

It was noteworthy to hear from Lord Caine, in an answer to Lord McCrea, that the then Secretary of State wrote to the Irish Deputy Prime Minister in January 2024 challenging the Irish Government's approach to addressing legacy issues, including the number of Troubles-related prosecutions that had been brought in Ireland since 1998. The Labour Government need to do much more than they have done so far: merely and meekly welcoming cooperation and stating that a decision on any inquiry is for the Republic. It may well be, but our Government need to exert pressure and influence, and they need to bring that influence to bear to ensure that there is a concurrent inquiry.

Over the years, we have heard countless criticisms from Dublin about perceived failures when it comes to dealing with the past. Now that the Irish Government have been presented with an opportunity to live up to the standards that they have so often demanded of others, we will watch and wait with anticipation. It is our hope that the Justice Minister will commit to seeking parallel investigative mechanisms in the Republic. I thank her for her response today. Ms Bradshaw indicated that that should be directed to TEO. I am certain that the deputy First Minister will make that case, but so should the Justice Minister.

There need to be concurrent inquiries with the necessary powers to get to the truth. Without that, we worry that any MOU could be proven to be toothless and worthless, that millions will be spent and that the families will be no further on at the end. That would be truly shameful.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member should bring her remarks to a close.

Ms Bunting: Our amendment builds on and strengthens the UUP motion, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Mr Butler, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the final debate of the day. It is serious, and it is incumbent on all of us to remember those whom we are here to represent and speak on behalf of. I am a bit nervous: to be fair to those who have spoken thus far, the debate has been respectful. I hope that those who are watching will understand the intent of our motion in respect of seeking truth and justice for innocent victims of terrorism.

I will touch very briefly on the amendment. I thank the DUP for tabling it. It is useful, except that it is a bit clumsy towards the end. In reality, when we bring a motion to the House and are looking at the vires that we have for instructing any other legislature, whether that be Westminster or the Republic, it is important that we do that with a collective voice — that is accepted. The Justice Minister, however, has no more of a fist in this game than the rest of us. I believe that she set out quite well that she has been on record previously on the matter.

I was looking through and listening to some of the testimonies at the inquiry in Omagh so far. I make no excuse for this, but a former colleague of mine gave testimony at the inquiry. I joined the fire service in February 2000, and Paddy Quinn, who was a retained firefighter in Omagh, joined on the same day with me. Unbeknown to me — it was a long time before Paddy shared his story — he was one of the first emergency responders to attend the Omagh bomb site on that day. Much of his story — he told it to us in broken fashion — was not revealed until this year. He revealed, for instance, that, on that day, when he turned up to the site, he found that his mum had been caught up in the explosion. She was standing with a toothbrush and the shards of a plastic bag that had been ripped out of her grasp in her hand. As they looked around the scene and saw what looked like, in Paddy's words, "a scene from Vietnam"; it looked as though a napalm bomb had destroyed the centre of their town. The horrors that those people faced — this was four months after the Good Friday Agreement and the work that had been done to deliver peace — showed that there were still those who were so bound by fear and hate that they would perpetrate such a violent act.

I thought that Doug Beattie proposed the motion very well. He laid down a lot of irrefutable facts about that fateful day. He explained where the vehicle came from, where the explosives were, perhaps, made — certainly where they were stored and where the timer was attached — where they were assembled and where the plan of escape was made from and to. All of that is irrefutable.

A stat was fired out that had never struck me before. I think that it was from Timothy Gaston, so I thank you for that, Timothy. I think that it was you, but perhaps not; maybe it was Paula Bradshaw. The statistic was that 15% of the violence over the period of the Troubles was related to the border, but the reality of that was that, if you lived on the border, 100% of the violence was perpetrated in your area. If the violence happened in Belfast or Lisburn, you were slightly detached, but, if you lived in a border area, your life was completely different from that of someone who lived in a town or city.

For anyone who has any recollection of the Troubles and can remember what it was like, Omagh, because of its scale and ferocity, is simply unimaginable. There were 29 deaths and over 200 people injured, and many more lives were shattered. The people who died in that bombing were from not just Omagh. There were international visitors and people from different towns, so the legacy spread way beyond Northern Ireland. The fact that that legacy of pain spreads beyond Northern Ireland means that the Government in the Republic of Ireland need to act.

A number of years ago, I wrote to the Justice Minister in the Republic about the matter, and I got a response. The words were warm, and the ink was dry, but it was very evident in the response that there was no intention of entering into a meaningful recovery of truth for the innocent victims in Omagh. Much like some of the calls from Members today for active engagement, that is not enough. It is simply not enough, and one of the reasons why we are here today still talking about it is that active engagement is not enough. We need to tie this down; it needs to be codified; and that needs to be done in an agreement between the UK Government and the Irish Government.

I will run through some of the points that were made, because I genuinely appreciate that Members of all the parties represented today spoke and spoke so well.

Nicola Brogan of Sinn Féin said that she had attended sessions of the inquiry, met family members and recognised their pain and anguish. She also recognised the persistence of the victims' campaign. I was reading some of the work that was done in 2010, 2011 and 2012 when false hopes were raised. I think that it was Theresa Villiers at that time who declined to hold a public inquiry. However, persistence does and will pay off, because the situation has to change and the Irish Government will have to act. However, it is not enough that there would be warm words and dry ink. It needs an inquiry in the Republic of Ireland.

Paula Bradshaw paid tribute to the victims of the Omagh bombing. I agree that the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Executive Office absolutely have a role to play in this, as do all the politicians in the Chamber.

Matthew O'Toole talked about the immorality of terror. He said a number of times that the two states had a moral and legal obligation to do the right thing. Someone talked about a contested narrative for the past. I am sorry, but I cannot accept that Omagh has anything to do with a contested narrative of the past. There is nothing contested when it comes to the murder of innocent people.

Matthew O'Toole also talked about the "squalid Legacy Act". It just shows that, sometimes in the Chamber we can get it right. Sometimes we can coalesce around doing the right thing, and the move to reconciliation is needed perhaps more than ever so that the failures of our past can be learned and evidenced.

Stewart Dickson spoke of the bravery and the testimony of victims and about prioritising our victims. That should be at the forefront, so that point is absolutely welcome, Stewart. He also said that the UK and the Republic of Ireland need to take further steps. We need to be clear, however, that the message that we send out from the Chamber is that there needs to be either a parallel inquiry or stand-alone inquiries. Warm words will not cut it.

Timothy Gaston reminded us that today is European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism. It is absolutely appropriate that that is the case. He highlighted where the failures were manifested and evidenced in the past. This statistic is incredible: of 110 requests for extradition that were sought by the UK Government from the Republic of Ireland, eight were successful. Why is that important? It is important to just about everybody in this room, I would hope.

On 7 December 1989, I made the journey from a butcher's shop to another part of Lisburn. I came out of the shop to witness a policeman waving at me. I had just walked past a car. I kind of knew that it looked suspicious, so I ran past it. Around 40 seconds later, a 500 lb IRA bomb exploded behind my head. In Omagh, sadly, people did not get the chance to run. They did not get the warning that they should have got. I am the lucky one. I am lucky to be standing here. I think about what could have happened, and I am sure that many people in this room have had something similar happen to them. The people in Omagh have been left without truth and justice, and somebody knows what happened. If a Government know and are holding on to the information that would give relief and release to those people, shame on them. I mean it: shame on them.

I have not seen the documents that have been mentioned that have redactions and stuff removed or the articles that have been sent. I will not pretend that I have been in this game long enough. However, in 2025, there is absolutely no reason why the Government in the Republic of Ireland should not do what our Government in the UK do, which is fess up and provide the absolute truth for victims of terrorism.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As Members were advised earlier, I have been notified that the proposer will not speak to the Adjournment topic on the Order Paper.