Official Report: Tuesday 10 June 2025

Mr Speaker: I have been advised that the Minister of Justice is unwell, so she will not be in the Chamber to respond to the motion on improving sentencing practices or to the Adjournment debate. The Ulster Unionist Party has indicated that it does not intend to move the motion or proceed with the Adjournment debate, given that there will be no ministerial response. The Business Committee will reschedule both items of business.

Mr Speaker: Sian Mulholland has been given leave to make a statement on the unrest in Ballymena, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted. I caution Members to be mindful not to stray on to the topic of specific cases that are the subject of active legal proceedings.

Ms Mulholland: I rise with an extremely heavy heart following the disturbing scenes that unfolded in Ballymena last night. First, I pay tribute to the family and the young girl who are at the heart of this. My heart goes out to her.

What began as a protest — a peaceful protest — with hundreds and hundreds of people lining the streets, sparked by a legitimate concern and by emotion, was quickly overtaken by violence, destruction and fear. Let me be clear: there is absolutely no place for that kind of behaviour in our society. The following scenes played out: homes were set alight; vehicles were overturned; missiles were thrown at police; and streets were turned into battlegrounds. The voices of those who gathered peacefully were drowned out by the chaos. That is not protest. That is not justice. Violence has no place in our society. It undermines the very justice that we all claim to seek, endangers lives and destroys the peace that so many have worked tirelessly to build over years, particularly in that area of Ballymena.

I condemn, without hesitation or qualification, the violence that erupted. No matter how strong the feeling or how deep the anger or grief, violence is never the answer. Let us remember that families and children had to flee their homes last night. I spent the night on the phone to a family with three young children who had to barricade themselves into their attic, as they heard people rampage through the downstairs of their house and were in fear of being attacked.

When law and order break down, it is always the most vulnerable who suffer most. To those responsible, I say this: you did not act in the name of justice. You did not protect your community; you endangered it. The same people who say that they are protecting women and girls allowed for women and young girls to be locked in an attic or barricaded into their bedrooms for fear of being burnt out of their home. It is only by the grace of God and the actions of the PSNI and the Fire and Rescue Service last night that we are not looking at something more serious.

I am not trivialising the issues that are behind this, but violence is not the answer. I understand that people are angry and that there is deep concern and pain in our community, especially following the reports of serious sexual assaults. The justice system must be allowed to do its job. It is already in motion. The scenes that played out last night do absolutely nothing to ease the pain of the family. We cannot stop at condemnation; we have to call for calm. I urge every representative and community leader to call for that tonight. We cannot have a repeat of what happened last night. Please use your voice.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up, unfortunately.

Ms Mulholland: No problem.

Mr McGuigan: The first thing that I want to do is appeal for calm in Ballymena. The scenes of violence last night were disgraceful and do not reflect the vast majority of the people who live in Ballymena town. The violence needs to be condemned by everyone. Political leaders must use measured language and avoid stoking tensions. At the centre of it all is a victim. Violence against women and girls anywhere in our society is reprehensible and must be eradicated. We must let the PSNI conduct its investigations thoroughly and let the courts do their job. Together, we must unite and say, "Enough is enough" and do everything that we can to bring violence against, harm to and abuse of women and girls to an end.

The thugs who set out to cause havoc and misery last night must be brought to justice and face the full force of the law. Racism and the sickening behaviour behind it are abhorrent and have no place in our society. I urge politicians to consider the serious consequences of using inflammatory language, whether in the media or elsewhere. Labelling certain communities or conflating entirely separate issues can play a dangerous role in stoking tensions on our streets.

Mr Frew: I condemn the violence that took place in my home town of Ballymena last night. I feared that it was going to happen. I have been warning that there has been a lot of tension in Ballymena over the past number of weeks and months. Alas, those warnings have come true. It is with a heavy heart that I say that we know people in my home town and the surrounding villages who have been affected grievously over the past 24 hours. That is wrong. Violence is wrong. I have fought and campaigned my whole life against violence of every hue. We must condemn the violence of last night.

That should not dilute the message from the thousands of people who turned up last night in Ballymena to protest against violence against women and girls and to show solidarity and sympathy with and support to the families and victims affected by the heinous crimes that have taken place in the town over the past number of weeks. The answer is our justice system. Violence is not the answer to anything. Violence is wrong, no matter what quarter it comes from and no matter whom it targets. My sympathy goes out to everyone who has been affected by violence, sexual or otherwise, in my constituency over the past number of weeks and months. It has to end. People must feel safe in their home towns and in the streets that they have to walk when they go to work, when they socialise and when they meet friends. Violence from every quarter has to stop.

Mr Crawford: Like many in the House, I attended the peaceful protest in Harryville last night to show my support for and solidarity not only with the young girl who was sexually assaulted at the weekend but with other young girls and women from previous weeks. My thoughts and prayers are first and foremost with all victims. I offer them my prayers and sympathy as they journey through what they are going through. No child should ever have to endure such brutality, and no family should ever have to suffer that pain.

Without doubt, the scenes in Harryville and the surrounding areas last night were deeply concerning. There is no doubt that justice must be delivered in the court, not on our streets. Peaceful protest is anyone's right, and we are all entitled to exercise that right to demand justice. However, we must never allow anger to spill over into violence: that helps no one, least of all the victims. We must give space and time to allow the police to do their job. I appeal for calm, cool heads over the next few days and nights.

Mr O'Toole: First, it is important to remember, as others have done, that, at the centre of this, there is a young girl who has suffered a traumatic and appalling assault. There is also a police investigation and a justice process that must be followed: that is the absolute core of a civilised society and a democracy based on the rule of law. When appalling violence happens, the response needs to be legal, it must be respected and it must be undertaken by the lawfully constituted authorities.

It is also the case that people who are appalled by violence are entitled to stand peacefully in solidarity, as others have done across this island, reflecting the crisis of violence against women and girls that has unfolded and manifested itself in numerous appalling murders and assaults. We have only to think of some of the appalling incidents that we have seen in the past number of years to know why the ending violence against women and girls strategy is so important. It is critical to say that those who wanted to make their voice heard peacefully and to stand in solidarity with a young woman are in no way represented by the tiny number of people who engaged in appalling violence. Sian Mulholland gave vivid testimony of the impact on her constituents: people who felt unsafe in their homes; people who could have been killed in their homes; and a town torn apart by violence and set alight. That is no kind of response to an awful act that is being investigated.

It has to be said that words matter. Political leadership matters. Words that have been said matter, including those said by the MP for the area, a former Member of this Chamber. It has to be said that he said disgraceful things, talking about the context of the violence and conflating a range of issues in a way that was deeply irresponsible and unhelpful. No one should seek to minimise or to trivialise people's concerns about any issue of public concern, but those of us who have the privilege of being elected to office have a particular responsibility to use our office and platform wisely, to give leadership to people who want leadership and not to use an appalling act of violence against a young woman to inflame tensions. That, I fear, is what has happened and might continue to happen. I ask those who have indulged in that kind of rhetoric to think carefully about the people whom they were elected to serve, the communities that, they say, they care about and the broader public good.

Mr Gaston: Last night, I attended a peaceful demonstration in support of a young girl who was the victim of a serious sexual assault.

My party has been in contact with the family, and we were acutely aware of their concern in advance of the protest that violence must not overshadow the legitimate outrage and heartbreak that the local community feels. They wanted people to have a way of expressing their anger peacefully. I stood last night on the streets of Ballymena with thousands, including women and children of all ages. It is a matter of deep regret that the actions of a few individuals, many of them not from Ballymena, it must be said, have caused further pain to innocent people.

Some in the House may not want to hear it, but you cannot say that you have not been warned: there is deep concern in parts of Ballymena about the significant demographic change in recent years, particularly due to the resettlement of Roma families, with their often having arrived in large numbers from the Republic of Ireland. Those changes have created tensions that have not been acknowledged, addressed or discussed. Those tensions have often been ridiculed in the House. They have been allowed to fester. The tragic events of the past weekend have brought them to a head.

Let me be absolutely clear: I deplore racism, and I abhor violence, but I care about community. I care about cohesion. I care about respect: respect for the values, identity and traditions of the people who built the communities that I am proud to represent in the Chamber.

Yesterday, we debated the Budget. Only I pointed out that almost £5·5 million has been allocated specifically to address immigration issues, yet the Assembly will not even introduce the legislation that our Budget guidance states should underpin that spending. Why? It is running away from the very issues that are being talked about in every working-class street and housing estate in the Province. That is not just procedurally wrong; it is a dereliction of duty. It is political cowardice. It fails the Protestant and Catholic working-class communities who live beside the hostels and who send their children to the same schools and wait in the same hospital queues. They were never asked whether they wanted the changes. They were never consulted. They were simply told that it was happening.

The House must decide whether it will keep running from those conversations or finally have the courage to speak for the people whom it is meant to represent.

Mr Clarke: I join Members in condemning the actions of last night. This time yesterday, we were all aware of one family who were suffering the consequences of what happened in Ballymena. They had a protest last night and were right to do so, as many Members have recognised today, but, as the night unfolded, there were more victims. No one has mentioned the police officers who put themselves on the line last night

to try to restore calm and peace. Sorry, maybe —. I apologise.

I listened to the radio on the way here this morning and heard that 10 police officers were injured. Those 10 police officers left their families yesterday to do a day's work to protect our communities. They put themselves on the front line to restore calm and order on the streets of Ballymena last night. Unfortunately, those 10 officers were hospitalised or went home with injuries. That is despicable, and we call for calm, but we still stand in solidarity with the family who called for the protest last night, as they were entitled to do.

The actions of a few, as Members have remarked, are unacceptable. They need to stop — stop quickly — before this gets out of hand.

Mr Kearney: Antrim and Ulster Gaels have waited patiently for the delivery of the promised modernised, fit-for-purpose sports stadium at Casement Park. We call on the British Government to honour their commitment to ensure that Casement Park, as Ulster GAA's provincial stadium and home to Antrim GAA, is built for the next generation of Gaels: to build on Casement's historic memories and sporting legacy and deliver a long-awaited "field of dreams" for the future. It is an extreme understatement to say that that project is overdue. We know that the delay in delivering that flagship project has already denied economic and sporting opportunities to the greater Belfast area and this region. We must ensure that such opportunity and potential are not squandered again.

A redeveloped Casement Park will undoubtedly bring some of the biggest sporting events to Belfast city, stimulating unparalleled sporting and economic opportunity. The associated investment for west Belfast will bring significant economic growth through job creation and associated commercial and business catalysts. Building Casement Park will make a huge investment in the infrastructure of this region. It will attract thousands of visitors to west Belfast and greater Belfast with money to spend in our hotels, shops, bars and restaurants.

Tomorrow's comprehensive spending review announcement will be a pivotal moment. It will be an acid test of the British Government's economic and social policy commitments to this region. It will also be a test of their support for our power-sharing Executive in helping to deliver this key flagship project. It is time to end the delays, honour commitments and deliver Casement. Build Casement now.

Mr K Buchanan: Wednesday 28 May 2025 marked a truly important and historic event as the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service's new state-of-the-art learning and development college at Desertcreat, just outside Cookstown, was officially opened. The event was more than the unveiling of a new facility; it represented a bold and forward-looking commitment to the future of our Fire and Rescue Service and, most importantly, the safety and well-being of our communities across Northern Ireland. It is a place where courage meets preparation, where tradition meets innovation and where our dedicated Fire and Rescue Service personnel will be trained, developed and supported to be the very best that they can.

The facilities at Desertcreat are among the finest in Europe. From the cutting-edge academic building to the technical firefighting facility, the mock fire station, the floodwater facility and the call-out village, every element has been purpose-built to simulate real-life emergencies. These environments ensure that our personnel are not only prepared but equipped to respond with skill, confidence and resilience. This college is more than bricks and mortar. It will foster a culture of lifelong learning, adaptability and continuous improvement. Just as importantly, it will strengthen collaboration with the Fire and Rescue Service's partners in other emergency services and statutory agencies to ensure a more integrated and effective response when it matters most. Let us honour the vision, dedication and hard work that brought the college to life, and let us continue to support the brave men and women of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, who stand ready every day to protect us all.

Ms K Armstrong: I welcome the fact that it is Carers' Week. The theme for this year is Caring About Equality. It is not only a celebration of the invaluable contributions of unpaid carers but a call to address the profound inequalities that they face every day. Across the UK, around 5·7 million people provide unpaid care to family members, friends and neighbours in need. Their dedication sustains our health service and social care system. They save the Executive, this House and all of us a fortune every year, yet many carers face significant challenges.

Unpaid carers are disproportionately affected by poverty. In the UK, 1·2 million carers live in poverty, with 400,000 in deep poverty. The poverty rate among unpaid carers is 50% higher than it is among those who do not provide care. In Northern Ireland, one in three unpaid carers has had to leave paid employment to carry out their caring responsibilities. The physical and mental toll of caregiving is substantial. One in four unpaid carers report not being in good health, and 36% of carers report that they have had bad or very bad mental health. That figure rises to 59% among those carers who also confirm that they are struggling financially.

Caring can be an isolating experience. The demands of caregiving often lead to reduced social interactions, leaving carers feeling disconnected from the community, and this isolation exacerbates mental health challenges and diminishes overall well-being. Caring should not come at the cost of a carer's health, financial stability or social connections. This Carers' Week, I call for the Assembly to recognise the vital role of unpaid carers in our society, support policies that provide financial assistance, respite care and mental health services, and ensure that carers have access to flexible working arrangements and opportunities for social engagement. By addressing those inequalities, we not only honour the dedication of unpaid carers but show that the Assembly has listened to those carers. I thank those who attended the Carers NI drop-in event yesterday in the Long Gallery, where a lot of organisations that support carers were available to discuss the type of help that they provide. It is very sad that some of our Departments do not provide the same type of support.

Remember that it is those carers who are saving our health service. If we had to replicate what they deliver, we would have a bankrupt health service. We need to ensure that carers' needs are met and that their equality is not ignored.

Mr McNulty: I have a deep sense of duty and an even deeper sense of moral obligation to speak on behalf of the family, friends and neighbours of the late Sean Brown.

Sean Brown was a good man: a husband, a father, a Gael and a proud member of the Bellaghy community. On the night of 12 May 1998, just weeks after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, Sean Brown was brutally abducted and murdered by loyalist paramilitaries as he locked the gates of Bellaghy GAA club. His killing was an act of unimaginable cruelty, but what has followed over the past 27 years has compounded that cruelty.

The truth of the case has been denied not only to Sean Brown's family but to us all. After almost three decades of delay, obstruction and obfuscation, the British Government now seem determined to defy a court ruling that found their refusal to hold a public inquiry into the killing to be unlawful — to be unlawful. No family should have to fight for this long or this hard for the truth. No family and no community should be asked to simply move on while justice is being withheld. No Government who claim to uphold the rule of law and the promises of the Good Friday Agreement should tolerate such an affront to basic decency and dignity.

There is now no viable route left other than a full and independent public inquiry. Such an inquiry is not a luxury, nor is it a matter of political expediency; it is a moral necessity. It is required for Sean Brown's family, who deserve to know why their loved one was targeted and why those responsible have escaped justice; for the integrity of 21st-century policing and justice so that collusion, where it occurred, can be acknowledged and addressed; and for the people of the North, who must be able to believe that, in a civilised and democratic society, no life is expendable, no victim is forgotten and no truth is too dangerous to tell.

In the Assembly, we often offer lofty words about reconciliation, human rights and promises of the peace that we have built, but reconciliation without truth is a lie, rights without accountability are fragile, and peace without justice is hollow. We must refuse to turn our backs on the Brown family's pain. Let us honour not only the memory of Sean Brown but the values of democracy and decency, which we all claim to support. There is now only one path by which we can honour those values: a public inquiry. All parties and all traditions across the Assembly must find the moral courage to demand it. Bridie Brown, at 87 years of age, and her family, after 59 court cases, cannot have justice or truth denied to them any longer.

Mr McHugh: Beidh Lá Domhanda na nDeontóirí Fola ann Dé hAoine. Beifear ag ceiliúradh ar fud an domhain an lá sin, a Cheann Comhairle, ag moladh na milliún daoine a thugann a gcuid fola go deonach gach bliain le beo daoine eile a shábháil, daoine nach gcasfar go deo orthu, is dócha. Lá atá ann le buíochas a ghlacadh leis na deontóirí flaithiúla sin uile go léir, ach, ina theannta sin, a Cheann Comhairle, lá atá ann le béim a chur ar an ghéarghá atá le deonuithe fola atá rialta, sábháilte.

Is é téama an lae i mbliana an dóchas: an dóchas a thugann deontóirí le gach deoir fola dá dtugann siad. Ó tharla na milliúin othar ar fud an domhain ag brath ar an fhuilaistriú lena mbeo a shábháil, is amhlaidh gurb iad na deontóirí a ndóchas. Is iad cuspóirí an fheachtais i mbliana ná feasacht na ndaoine a ardú ar an ghéarghá atá le deonuithe fola agus plasma agus ar an difear a dhéanann na deonuithe sin do shaol na n-othar; daoine atá ina ndeontóirí cheana féin agus deontóirí nua a spreagadh le fuil a thabhairt go rialta sa chruth go mbeidh soláthar buan, dóthanach fola ann; tacaíocht a fháil ó na Rialtais agus ó pháirtithe foráis le hairgead a chur isteach i gcláir náisiúnta fola ionas go mbeidh teacht ag gach aon duine ar fud an domhain ar an fhuilaistriú.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na deontóirí fola uile go léir atá againn, molaim iad as a bhflaithiúlacht, agus iarraim ar gach duine is féidir smaoineamh ar fhuil a dheonú. Den dóchas an deonú.

Ms Forsythe: Last year, we all got a nasty shock when one of the first things that the new Labour Government did on taking up power was to cut the winter fuel payment to pensioners across the United Kingdom. They cited the financial black hole and the need for cuts, but why the winter fuel payment? It cut deep to the heart of our society, taking from our older generation, from those who have worked all of their lives through many tough times and paid their contributions. Now, in later years, one of the few things that they received was the winter fuel payment to give them a boost for their heat and comfort through the winter. If ever there was a sore blow, it was that one, hitting hard at some of the most vulnerable.

I say "vulnerable", but I will tell you something: most were up for a real fight on this one. I am sure that constituency offices across the country were, like mine, inundated with people expressing outrage at the move. We all know people who were affected, including our neighbours, our family members and our friends. The lack of transparency of the Labour Government was terrible. There was no mention in the manifesto and no warning; they just hit our pensioners hard.

In Northern Ireland, our Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, found that unacceptable, and he took steps within his already tight budget to reduce the impact by giving one-off £100 support payments to Northern Ireland pensioners. That was welcome but did not fully replace what was lost.

The Labour Government have made some really poor decisions, with huge impacts, since they took power. They have hit our pensioners, family farms and small businesses hard, and I am glad to see the U-turn on the winter fuel payment. I hope that it is the start of further U-turns. The decision to reverse the cuts to winter fuel payment will see pensioners with incomes of up to £35,000 receive £200 if they are under 80 years old and £300 if they are aged 80 and over this winter. Gordon Lyons has confirmed that his officials are already working with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to understand how the changes that have been announced will be implemented to ensure that Northern Ireland is ready to follow suit. Our pensioners deserve better, all of them. No one who has worked hard all of their life and contributed to society should be left worrying about how to heat their home.

The question that has to be asked is this: why was it necessary to deny hundreds of thousands of pensioners support last winter? The excuse that it has been reversed because of economic improvements does not bear scrutiny. There has been no change, and, later this week, we will see that the Government are still trying to deal with the fiscal situation when they cut budgets for Departments. It is good to see that, even with a huge majority, whilst the Labour Government may be able to force some things through Parliament, they still cannot ignore the overwhelming views and protests of the electorate. The DUP supports and values our pensioners.

Mr Dickson: Cancer is a disease that does not wait. It does not care where you live, how old you are or how much money you have in your bank account, but, in Northern Ireland, how fast you get seen and whether your cancer is caught early can depend on those things. A recent audit report on imaging services lays that out in black and white. Our system is falling behind in staff, scanners and basic capacity, and it is patients who are paying the price.

In the past four years, almost 1,800 people were waiting more than two weeks for a red-flag cancer scan, and almost 9,500 waited four weeks for an urgent diagnosis scan. That is not a delay; that is a death sentence. We know from published studies that a four-week delay in cancer treatment increases the risk of death by 13% to 16%. We also know that 35% of patients in Northern Ireland are waiting for more than 26 weeks for an MRI scan, yet, in England, less than 5% wait longer than 13 weeks. That is not just a postcode lottery; it is a completely different healthcare system. What is the Department's response? Repeated reliance on non-recurrent short-term funding that comes too late to make real differences.

The Minister tells us that he has permanent solutions, such as a Northern Ireland imaging academy. That is one of his priorities, but it has not been allocated any funding, and no timeline for it has been set. It is not a plan for change; it is simply another idea from the Minister. While we head towards having the worst radiologist shortfall in the United Kingdom, patients and consultants wait longer and longer for the answers that they need. Scandalously, 16% of imaging equipment is already obsolete, and that percentage is rising. We are still diagnosing cancer with machines that have been used since before some of our junior doctors even started secondary school, yet the Department has allocated only £3 million annually for the replacement of equipment, when the real need is up to £25 million. That is not an efficiency. It is unsafe and unfair.

We need to ask why we have not made imaging reform a clear part of our cancer strategy. Why is Northern Ireland still using outdated scanners, and why do we still have unfilled workforce posts? I ask the Minister this directly: when will funding be secured for the imaging academy? When will there be regional plans to replace scanners that are now past their safe use? When will we see clear public targets to bring Northern Ireland's imaging waiting times into line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom? We need action, we need investment and we need leadership that stops talking and starts delivering.

Mr McGuigan: Is tosaíocht ag cách an tsláinte agus seirbhís mhaith sláinte. Dá bhrí sin, má bhíonn cúram sláinte uile-oileáin ann, is amhlaidh is fearr a bheas na torthaí d’othair. Luíonn seirbhís sláinte uile-oileáin le ciall. Níor thug Rialtas na hÉireann ná Rialtas na Breataine tús áite riamh dár seirbhísí sláinte poiblí. Tá an comhrá faoin athrú bhunreachtúil ag méadú. Tá glúin úr atá líon lán de thallann, de fhuinneamh agus de mhisneach ag teacht chun tosaigh le hÉire nua a chruthú.

All-Ireland cooperation and planning makes sense. It is the responsibility of the Irish Government and the Executive to work together to improve health services for the people of Ireland. They should also give the health and care community the necessary space to deliver improvements in a fair and shared way and without regard to the border.

Má tá borradh ag teacht ar na comhráití ar an chuma bhunreachtúil a bheas ar Éirinn sa todhchaí, tá an borradh céanna ag teacht ar an díospóireacht faoi sholáthar na sláinte.

Last Friday, in the Eileen Howell Centre, I attended Sinn Féin's Commission on the Future of Ireland's conference on health and care in a new Ireland. Ghlac breis is 100 gairmí sláinte páirt sa chomhdháil. Labhair na painéalaithe ar an taithí atá acu ar an tsoláthar cúram sláinte agus ar na bearnaí atá sa chóras faoi láthair.

The conference voted in support of a citizens' assembly on health as part of a discussion on healthcare in a new Ireland. On an island of seven million people, which is less than the population of most of the world's great cities, it makes no sense to have two separate health services, with no all-Ireland healthcare plan. A national health service linked to a growing all-Ireland economy that is providing new jobs and higher wages and raising living standards and providing additional tax revenues for better public services, including health and education, can successfully overcome existing health inequality.

Mr Brett: I raise my deep concern at the rise in sectarian hate crimes aimed at the community of lower North Belfast. This weekend, my young teenage constituent Cooper Mason was set upon by a group of two dozen masked individuals armed with sticks and a knife. Cooper spent the weekend in hospital with a fractured jaw and broken bones, and, only for the intervention of a passer-by, he could have been in a much worse situation.

In recent weeks, Alexandra park has been used as a means for attacks on the community of lower North Belfast. I pay tribute to Belfast City Council and to the police, who have now listened to requests from my party colleagues Brian Kingston and Dean McCullough and from me to close those gates in order to protect that community. I am calling on political parties and community leaders in all parts of North Belfast to call that behaviour out. When we see other incidents of disgraceful sectarianism in North Belfast, our party rightly calls it out.

The media give coverage to some elements of that but are deathly silent when it comes to attacks on the community in lower North Belfast. I make it clear that Mr Kingston and I will continue to stand up for that community. We will give a voice to it and ensure that it is given the same protections as any other part of North Belfast. Sectarianism may be uncomfortable for some, but it must be called out. As a party, we will continue to stand by the families that were subjected to those disgraceful attacks.

Mr Allen: Across Northern Ireland, we have individuals and families not knowing where they are going to sleep tonight. We have children who are unable to attend school due to having been moved to temporary accommodation that is far too far away from a local school to which they can travel. We have individuals and families relying on the goodwill of their friends and families, pushing relationships close to the brink. We have debated multiple times in the House through Adjournment debates and private Members' motions how we have a housing crisis and that we need to provide more social and affordable housing to deal with that crisis. Whilst the interventions that the current Minister for Communities and his predecessors made are welcome, they do not go far enough. They do not address the scale of the problem and do not deliver for the tens of thousands of people who are hoping that a broken system will come through for them.

As was said, tomorrow we will hear from the Chancellor about her comprehensive spending review. There is much speculation that it may well deliver an increased capital budget for this place. If it delivers increased capital funding, there is no doubt that the Executive must prioritise pressures. They must look at where that funding is most needed, and, for me, it is in housing. I have been an MLA for 10 years, and, I am sure that, like me, no Member can deny the fact that, in that time, they have been approached daily by constituents hoping that they can deliver housing for them. Frankly, in most cases, we cannot, because the housing system is not fit for purpose.

The current housing build will deliver only 1,000 new starts this year, which, I repeat, is nowhere near enough. If additional capital funding is delivered, it is imperative that the Executive get around the table, look at how they can deliver increased investment in social and affordable housing and accompany that with the investment in water and waste water infrastructure that is required to enable that build.

Mr McCrossan: Last week marked the end of a remarkable and very successful season for Strabane Athletic Football Club. The club has done the Strabane community extremely proud in a year that will live long in the memory of players, supporters and the community. The club has won three major honours, which is an extraordinary achievement by any standard. It is this season's league champions, O'Gorman Cup winners, Crawford Cup winners, and it has secured its long-sought elevation to the Premier Intermediate League. That is no small feat, and it represents the culmination of years of hard work, commitment and belief. After narrowly missing out last year, manager, Raymond Foy, and his squad returned stronger, hungrier and more determined than ever.

The club's achievements go beyond silverware. They speak to a broader story of a town with a rich footballing tradition. Strabane has long produced talented and skilled footballers and great teams. Football and sport in general are woven into the identity of the Strabane town centre area. Strabane Athletic is carrying on that tradition with great pride. The club is inspiring new generations of young people, showing them what is possible with dedication and teamwork. The club's successes are not just on the pitch but in the role that they play as community builders, role models and leaders.

A special word must go to the volunteers who make the club what it is. To the gatekeepers, stewards, catering teams and ground staff I say that your efforts often go unnoticed but are invaluable. It is important that I mention the great Rene McElroy, who has not missed a game in many years, and Pat Henderson, who looks after all the teams. It is also important to mention Seamus McElroy, the club chairman, who lives and breathes the club's success on a daily basis.

Strabane Athletic now faces a new challenge in the Premier Intermediate League. No doubt it will be tough, but the club carries with it the pride and backing of an entire town and wider area. For now, though, it can and should bask in the glow of this historic season and great success. On behalf of myself, the SDLP and the people of west Tyrone, I offer Strabane Athletic my heartfelt congratulations and every success for what lies ahead.

Mr Buckley: In politics come priorities, and, in light of tomorrow's comprehensive spending review announcement, many examples of priorities have been cited in this place. We can all smell the burning rubber as the Chancellor makes a handbrake turn on many of the taxes that she imposed on the people of the United Kingdom last year. Who would have thought that punishing pensioners, farmers and small businesses would be so unpopular? The Chancellor, however, has to live in the real world.

I was once taught that, in anything in life, you must get the basics right. It is one of those basics that I want to talk about today: the condition of our roads. I do not believe that, in my time as an elected representative, I have ever been more concerned about the condition of our roads across Northern Ireland. Potholes are left gaping wide, sometimes for months on end. Roads are unpassable. Cars are diverting around potholes into the flow of other vehicles. The dangers are unending. Like many representatives in this place, I imagine, I have reported them many times and been told that they would be fixed, only to be met with the statutory response, "We will get to it when the budget allows".

I call on this place to be sensible with any additional funding that it receives from the spending review. We must get the basics right. In 2023-24, the system noted that there were 103,746 surface defects on our roads. That was only scratching the surface: those were only the faults that Members and others outside the Chamber reported. That figure did not take into account the vast number of defects that went unreported or disappeared off the system day in, day out. It is not acceptable for DFI Roads to be told that we could be facing increases in road deaths only to be met, again, with silence. I call for a targeted plan that allows us all to ensure adequate road safety. What is the point of drivers paying road tax for their vehicles only to be met with roads that are substandard and, in fact, in many cases, third-world standard? I call on the Infrastructure Minister, along with her Executive colleagues, to ensure that we can make our roads fit for purpose.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, you have one minute.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Last month, the results of a LucidTalk poll, which were published in the 'Belfast Telegraph', revealed that 72% of Northern Ireland's population supported the Supreme Court ruling that affirmed that the term "woman" refers to a biological woman. That overwhelming majority transcends political divides. Sinn Féin lauds an Executive Office strategy on ending violence against women and girls while its leader in this House cannot even tell us what a woman is.

Just a few weeks ago, the Justice Minister defended a policy of housing men in female prison spaces. Sinn Féin, Alliance and the SDLP members of the Executive Office Committee all recoiled in horror when the Women's Rights Network bravely stood up for 51% of the population. To quote one member of the Committee:

Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance are out of touch with science, common sense and the people whom they claim to represent.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Gaston.

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Despite rising to speak on the Matter of the Day today and yesterday, unfortunately I was not called while other parties were called multiple times. Can you indicate to me, but, more importantly, to my constituents, why that was the case?

Mr Speaker: Yes, I can. Some time ago, I spoke about a dress code, and the dress code in this place is business attire. If you are dressed in business attire, you will be called.

Moving on —

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Speaker. Can you indicate to the House what business attire is?

Mr Speaker: If the Member comes to the Speaker's Office, we will have that discussion with him.

Mr Kingston: On a point of order, Speaker. I apologise to you and the House because my phone was not on silent at the start of today's proceedings during Prayers.

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that questions should be concise.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Mr Speaker, with your permission and in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make a statement regarding the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) Language Body meeting that was held at the NSMC joint secretariat offices on 10 April. The Executive were represented by me and by junior Minister Reilly, as accompanying Minister. The Irish Government were represented by Dara Calleary TD, Minister for Social Protection and Minister for Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht. The statement has been agreed with Minister Reilly, and I make it on behalf of both of us.

The meeting dealt with issues relating to the North/South Language Body and its two constituent agencies: the Ulster-Scots Agency and Foras na Gaeilge. A number of topics were discussed, with decisions being taken where appropriate. As part of the opening remarks, Ministers acknowledged the work of the language body and the positive impact that the agencies have had in the language and culture sectors on both sides of the border. Following the opening remarks, the chair introduced a number of items, which form the basis of this statement.

The first item discussed was the language body progress report. The Council noted the progress reports, which were received from the chairs and CEOs of the Ulster-Scots Agency and Foras na Gaeilge, along with the key achievements of the language body since the last sectoral meeting.

The second item to be addressed was corporate governance matters. The Council addressed a number of governance issues, including the approval of the language body business plans and budgets for 2025, which were completed in accordance with guidance issued by both Finance Departments and agreed by the sponsor Departments and Finance Ministers.

Ministers noted that discussions have begun between the body and sponsor Departments about the 2026-28 corporate planning period, which will include a collaborative review of a range of governance and procedural matters in the agencies. The Council also noted the language body's consolidated annual report and accounts for 2022 will shortly be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the audit of the 2023 accounts is near completion.

The next item to be addressed was board appointments. The Council appointed board members to a number of North/South implementation bodies, including the North/South Language Body. The incumbent chair of Foras na Gaeilge was reappointed for a second term, whilst a new chair was appointed to the Ulster-Scots Agency board.

The final issue to be addressed was the date of the next meeting, with the Council agreeing to hold it in autumn 2025. I commend the statement to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Daniel McCrossan on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for the statement. Minister, can you outline whether the budget for the North/South Language Body was increased in the current round? What is the breakdown of the contributions from the two Governments?

Mr Lyons: The total approved budget for the North/South Language Body in 2025 was just over £17 million. The Department for Communities provides £5·67 million of that funding, and the Irish Government provide the remaining £11·34 million.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Minister, there is a huge concern in the Irish language community about the support being provided for the Irish language. It has been reported in the media that a one-off allocation of €630,000 was made by the Irish Government to Foras na Gaeilge. The allocation is welcome, but its one-off nature means that, without a change of approach, the same difficulties could be faced this year. What work have you done to help to address the issue and ensure that the Irish language in the North is supported by a fair and sustainable funding model?

Mr Lyons: First, there was an increase from the Irish Government due to outstanding pension issues that go back some years. There will be a review of funding in the coming months because there is considerable work that needs to be done on that and other governance issues. However, we are all operating in constrained budgetary environments at this time. We all need to ensure that we make the best use of public resources. As the Member will be well aware, I have pressures in other parts of my Department, such as housing, arts, sports, culture and many other issues. Therefore, we have maintained the funding at last year's level. We will consider what additional funding, if any, can be provided in the future.

Mr Brett: The Minister will be aware, from a series of questions for written answer that I have submitted to him, of my concern about the disparity in funding between the two language bodies and the underfunding of Ulster Scots here in Northern Ireland. The Minister has made some progress on that through a further award to the agency. Was there any discussion at the Council meeting about how we can ensure fairness and equality and that those languages that are important to all communities in Northern Ireland are fairly funded?

Mr Lyons: That is absolutely right. I acknowledge the concerns about the Ulster-Scots Agency, which, of course, is focused not just primarily on language but on wider issues around culture, history and heritage. There has been a change: I have moved £103,000 from departmental funding into the North/South language bodies. As a result, an additional £34,500 has been generated. That means that, this year, there has been a total increase of £137,500 in the Ulster-Scots Agency's allocation. I hope that it will use that wisely so that we can continue to promote Ulster-Scots language, culture, history and heritage.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, do you accept that, in this time of fiscal constraint that you just referenced, it would be prudent for you and your colleagues not to block the amendment to the North/South funding agreement that would supply additional funding to Foras na Gaeilge without a reciprocal contribution from the Northern Ireland Executive and your Department?

Mr Lyons: There was an outstanding pension issue that was dealt with through the discussions that we had. Ultimately, there needs to be agreement. We need to have agreement North and South on the arrangements that are in place. Those arrangements were put in place and the funding criteria were agreed back at that time, and there needs to be consensus before they are changed.

Ms Ennis: Following on from the previous question, I am aware that the Irish Government are prepared to put additional funding into the North/South implementation bodies, which would be a welcome injection of funding to help them to continue to deliver. Surely the Minister agrees that we should avail ourselves of the offer of additional funding to help public services.

Mr Lyons: As I said in my response to the previous question, the quotas and arrangements were agreed back in 1998, and they have served us well. There are opportunities for additional funds to be made available for bodies if they are doing specific work in their own jurisdiction, and that has happened in the past. However, you cannot simply change the funding arrangements for one body on the basis of the in-year circumstances that you find in one financial year. A much wider piece of work on that will be taken forward.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, you talked about:

You have just referenced the fact that the budget helps that to happen. Will you give some of the positive impacts that the agencies have delivered?

Mr Lyons: Both agencies have been involved in a number of projects that promote language and culture. The Ulster-Scots Agency has supported the Belfast International Tattoo. There was £80,000 for community festivals, flagship school programmes and the first Belfast Tartan Day. Foras na Gaeilge has run language planning conferences, awareness campaigns and scholarships. Those are examples of some of the work that takes place.

Mr McHugh: Minister, since the NSMC meeting, have you had any engagement with the Irish language bodies to discuss the challenges that they currently face as a result of the financial context in which they find themselves?

Mr Lyons: It is important to note that there has not been a reduction in that funding this year. Those are challenges that are faced and shared by many people right across the public sector. My door is open, and I am always happy to meet any groups that want to discuss issues of concern.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, to move the Consideration Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. I propose therefore by leave of the Assembly, to group clauses 1 to 8 for the Question on stand part, followed by the Questions on the schedule and the long title. As there have been no objections, I will put the first Question.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your objection has been noted, Mr Gaston.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your objection has been noted, Mr Gaston.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Bill therefore stands referred to the Speaker.

Members may take their ease for a moment.

Miss McIlveen: I beg to move

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

Miss McIlveen: Often, when we debate motions in the Chamber, we face the criticism, sometimes correctly, that we are not discussing the big issues. Today, we are debating an issue that will decide the future of our rural economy, our food security and the very people who feed us, many of whom are with us today. Undoubtedly, we will face the usual barrage of unsubstantiated, pejorative comments about being anti-environment or not caring about Lough Neagh. However, you can disagree with the nutrients action programme (NAP) proposals without being anti-environment, and you can seek a more pragmatic way forward while still caring about the quality of our water.

The nutrients action programme currently proposed by DAERA is not just flawed, it is dangerously disconnected from the on-the-ground reality. The measures laid out — stricter phosphorus (P) limits, mandatory low-emission slurry-spreading equipment (LESSE) and compulsory buffer strips — are not just challenging, they are unworkable, unaffordable and unjust. They amount to an economic sledgehammer being brought down on one of the most productive sectors of our economy. This is a cross-cutting and controversial matter that has ramifications across sectors, communities and our economy. The consultation comes with a £40 million price tag in new costs: £33 million for LESSE alone, and £7 million for phosphorus separation systems at anaerobic digester plants. That does not even include the £3·6 million each year for inspections, databases and added bureaucracy. However, DAERA has failed to carry out a proper economic assessment to go alongside those proposals.

A minimum of 3,500 local farms will be affected by one of the toughest new measures: phosphorus balances. Those measures, while, on the face of it, seemingly well intentioned, fail to recognise the economic realities faced by our farmers. To comply with the P rules, some farmers would need to double the land that they currently use for slurry spreading. That land is simply not available, and, if it were, its price, thanks to the proposals, would be pushed up to such a degree that it would be utterly unaffordable to the average local farmer. The only alternative is reducing livestock numbers — a forced contraction of our agri-food sector that would hit local food production hard and drive a greater dependence on imports.

The Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) has expressed deep concerns about the financial implications of the proposals, particularly for smaller farms and those located near designated sites. Low-emission slurry-spreading equipment is prohibitively expensive, never mind the availability of the machinery at the scale required, and the requirement of buffer strips could reduce the land available for productive use, further straining farm incomes. Those are not green investments, they are shackles. Small and medium-sized family farms, especially beef and sheep producers, cannot absorb those costs. The dire situation already faced by many of those farms has been starkly laid out in the Chamber on numerous occasions over the past year. Put bluntly, LESSE is totally impractical without proper financial support. Given that agriculture contributed £2·87 billion to the local economy last year and food and drink processing contributed another £6·5 billion, it goes to the core of our economy.

The DUP believes in evidence-based policymaking, but what we see here is evidence distortion, not evidence direction. Previous NAPs were designed around robust scientific evidence, with the data published and peer reviewed. While the measures being added under the proposed regulations are referred to as being based on scientific research, much of that has not been provided to be examined, which is a failure in the consultation process. There are concerns about the gathering and analysis of water quality monitoring data, and, in the DAERA NAP review, no statistical analysis was presented to support the conclusion of increased concentrations of nitrate levels in surface freshwaters between the reporting periods.

The proposals suggest a new, reduced maximum limit for nitrogen fertiliser, with no scientific rationale behind it being offered and no discussion with stakeholders having been had in advance, yet that limit would significantly reduce the competitive advantage of Northern Ireland's ruminant livestock sector, which is based on high yields of grass. Research by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) has shown that growing high yields of grass removes more P from the soil. Other AFBI research concluded that grazing systems emit less ammonia than indoor house systems, yet, perversely, the NAP proposals will limit grazing systems. Specifically on new grazing limits that are included in the consultation paper, AFBI stated that it:

The new chemical limits are not even covered in the draft regulations that have been provided. Bizarrely, the proposals ignore the time required to evaluate ongoing initiatives such as the soil nutrient health scheme (SNHS) and the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry (SULS) project, both of which are intended to provide industry with solutions to help with nutrient redistribution in Northern Ireland. Let us see the outworkings of those initiatives before layering on more regulation.

There is concern that the changes to NAP derogation will also provide the derogation with limited value. It will impact on the take-up of derogation, because of the necessity to incur additional costs and bureaucracy. Furthermore, the Department proposes lower fertiliser rates for derogated farms, despite no evidence being presented to support that action. That will ultimately negate the positive environmental impacts that have been observed on derogated farms to date.

We are seeing a continual pattern of abrupt policy changes and inadequate consultation that undermines the trust between DAERA and the farming community. The consultation paper is evidence of a rushed job, with inaccuracies and inconsistencies between proposals and the draft regulations making it difficult for stakeholders to comment. Farmers are being asked to invest in expensive equipment and to make expensive and significant changes to their operations without clear guidance or support, which creates an environment of confusion and frustration.

We believe in taking a balanced approach to environmental protection that should recognise the vital role played by agriculture in our economy and society. We must tackle the pollution that is affecting water quality in Lough Neagh and our rivers, but that must be done in a way that is fair, workable and supportive of our farmers. The Alliance Party wants to paint that as a binary choice: either one cares about Lough Neagh or one sides with polluters. That is unfair and untrue. Our farmers live and work on that land. The health of Lough Neagh and its surrounding catchments is not just a policy concern but personal. Farmers want clean water. They want to protect biodiversity, and many already do. For example, our dairy sector has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 37% per litre of milk since 1990. Instead of recognition, however, it gets blame. Instead of support, it gets red tape. Instead of collaboration, it gets consultations written without it. That is not how change is built. Rather, it is how resentment builds.

While farmers are hounded, other sectors face little scrutiny. Where is Northern Ireland Water (NIW) being held accountable for repeated untreated discharges into our rivers? Where is the accountability for the construction sector, for councils and for industry? The consultation reads like an exercise in scapegoating, whereby farms are being asked to bear the cost even though the problem is much more complex. The DUP's position is clear: we support a multi-agency, cross-sectoral response; we support serious action on waste water treatment; and, yes, we support enforcement action against deliberate polluters. We cannot and will not accept agriculture being treated as the sole culprit. Over 1,000 farmers came to the Greenmount campus last month, and the Minister was nowhere to be seen. There was palpable anger, and it should not be ignored. The Minister has been in his role for 16 months. From the farmers' perspective, he has failed to grasp the TB crisis, has offered no robust ammonia strategy and now offers a nutrients policy that is so tone-deaf that the entire agri-food sector is united in opposition to it.

It is not anti-environmental to oppose the proposals; it is pro-common sense. The DUP believes in balancing sustainability with survival and environmental action with economic reality. We are not asking to abandon water protection; we are asking for a different approach that is rooted in partnership, practicality and progress and a plan that engages with farmers instead of lecturing them; supports adaptation instead of mandating unviable change; invests in waste water infrastructure; uses actual field data, not flawed modelling; and builds consensus, not conflict. We need to stand with our farmers today. We need to stand with the keystone of our local economy and the thousands of rural families who —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close, please?

Miss McIlveen: — put food on our tables.

Mr McAleer: No one in the Chamber denies that there is an urgent need to tackle pollution in Lough Neagh and in rivers across the North. The environment is in decline. Environmental decline is real, and we must act. The question is not whether we act but how we act. The NAP proposals for 2026-29, which include stricter phosphorus limits, mandatory low-emission slurry-spreading equipment and compulsory buffer strips for arable and horticulture land, threaten to impose heavy costs, increased red tape and impractical conditions on farms of all sizes and not just the 3,500 farms that are mentioned in the motion. The proposals risk devastating agriculture, especially that for small family farms that are already stretched by tight margins, rising costs and existing regulatory burdens.

Across the North, the farming community is embracing environmental innovation. The soil health scheme, for example, is helping farmers to manage nutrients, improve soil quality and sequester carbon in a data-driven, science-based way. The sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry project is another example, giving promising solutions for better nutrient use without forced compliance. The soon-to-be-opened Farming with Nature scheme will also provide on-farm solutions to manage nutrients, increase biodiversity and protect our waterways.

Farmers have reduced their use of artificial nitrogen fertiliser compared with five years ago, demonstrating a positive shift towards more sustainable and environmentally responsible farming practices. Many farmers have already invested in low-emissions slurry-spreading equipment through the farm business improvement scheme. That shows a willingness to act, but those changes must be funded, workable and fair. We have serious concerns about the consultation process and whether it meets the Department's legal commitments under the equality scheme and the Rural Needs Act 2016.

First, public participation was undermined. We have had reports of people being unable to join online webinars due to broken links, denying them a voice and a chance to ask questions. That is not acceptable, especially for policy changes on such a scale. Secondly, no economic impact assessment was carried out. With significant new obligations being proposed for thousands of farmers, that is a failure to evaluate the financial and practical implications, especially for rural communities. Thirdly, there is an inconsistency between the consultation document and the draft regulations. The consultation document states that the new phosphorus balance limit will apply to all farms that exceed 150 kg of nitrogen per hectare whether by production or import, but the regulations refer only to production, not import. That creates confusion and undermines the integrity of the process. If the final rules differ from the consultation document, it will call the whole exercise into question.

Fourth and most concerning is the fact that the equality impact assessment (EQIA) fails to assess how the proposals disproportionately affect rural communities. The policy is described as technical and unrelated to section 75 groups, but that ignores reality. In many areas that are more than an hour from Belfast, farming is the backbone of the local economy. DAERA's figures show that nearly half of businesses in those areas are tied to agriculture, forestry or fishing. DAERA has acknowledged that the measures will hit rural areas harder than urban ones, yet the equality impact assessment does not reflect that, nor does it meet the Department's statutory duty under the Rural Needs Act 2016, which requires consideration of the social and economic needs of rural communities.

Furthermore, the proposed nitrogen fertiliser cuts are not only unworkable but based on guidelines that do not reflect the North's conditions. AgriSearch warns that those limits could slash grass yields or force costly concentrates use or even herd reductions and, perversely, increase phosphorus run-off by over 200 tons a year. The Department must revisit its economic, rural and equality assessments and work with farmers, not against them. We need policies that are practical, proportionate and based on evidence, not blanket rules that could drive farms out of business.

Mr Blair: It will come as no surprise to Members when I say that the Alliance Party firmly opposes the motion calling on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to withdraw the consultation on the nutrients action programme 2026-29. The motion fundamentally misunderstands the urgent need for action to protect our environment, particularly in relation to the ecological crisis that we are trying to overcome at Lough Neagh. It also appears to undermine the very purpose of public consultation.

Agriculture is a cornerstone of our economy and a way of life for many in Northern Ireland. It is vital for feeding our communities, supporting jobs and protecting our rural landscapes. However, we cannot ignore the stark reality that our agricultural practices have contributed to significant pollution of our waters, including, as I have mentioned, Lough Neagh. The alarming rise of blue-green algae in that vital waterbody is a clear sign that our waters are under severe threat. The nutrients action programme, which has existed since 2007, is not just a set of regulations; it serves as an essential framework for change, providing a solution that balances agricultural needs with environmental responsibilities. Importantly, the NAP consultation is science- and evidence-based, which reinforces its necessity.

At this stage, I point out, as clearly as I can, so that we do not hear again what we have heard today, that we know that there is a vital need to address nutrient pollution not only from the agri-food industry but from waste water. The Minister has not been found lacking in that regard. The Infrastructure Department must also take action in parallel with DAERA to address waste water pollution.

Supporters of the motion will argue that the proposals could devastate our agriculture sector. However, the reality is that we cannot afford to choose between a healthy environment and a robust agriculture industry: the two are interconnected. That point was made clear by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) when it briefed the Committee a couple of weeks ago. It stated clearly that our agri-food sector is not sustainable in terms of our environment and must reduce its impact on our natural resources. The OEP has clearly communicated its position on the NAP consultation. In its guidance to the Department, it states:

It pointed out the insufficient progress made so far and stressed the importance of upholding and effectively implementing the NAP regulations in a timely manner. The OEP also indicated that, given the gravity of the situation, any failure to improve in the area may lead it to consider enforcement actions, which will, of course, lead only to further pressures on the Department.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: Once, perhaps. I am stuck for time. Go ahead.

Mr Butler: I was at the same meeting with the OEP. One of the things that the OEP alluded to was the fact that it has a particular responsibility for the environment. However, the Minister's responsibility is for agriculture and rural affairs as well. That makes it complex for the Minister: the OEP has a single-minded objective, but that is just one part of the Minister's remit.

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

Mr Blair: I will respond quickly by saying that the environment, with the OEP in its governance role, should be a pretty significant part of the discussions.

There are farmers who already face the consequences of poor water quality, which threatens the viability of their operations. If the water in Lough Neagh continues to suffer from nutrient overload, it will affect not only those who farm the land but those who rely on clean water for drinking and leisure. It is crucial to recognise that the failure to address the nutrient overload in our waterways will lead only to a worse situation regarding food security; nor should we discount reputational damage to our products.

I must also address the misunderstanding in the motion: while the motion calls for the immediate withdrawal of the consultation to allow for stakeholder engagement, the consultation is, in itself, a platform for such engagement. It invites farmers, environmentalists and the wider community to contribute their insights. Instead of opposing the consultation, we should welcome it as a pathway to collaboration and genuine engagement that extends wider than sectoral interests.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Blair: I will not give way.

I stress that the Minister has made it clear that no decisions related to the NAP have been finalised. Instead, the Minister has taken the initiative to try to establish a stakeholder group made up of agri-food and environmental experts. The group will review the proposals outlined, if it goes ahead, in the NAP, along with feedback from the consultation. Therefore, for clarification, a public consultation should not be seen as a final version, as the feedback from participants in the consultation will, of course, eventually shape the policy proposals and outcomes.

I urge the Assembly to consider the consequences of not translating our words into action, as that is, ultimately, what the programme, along with other initiatives and strategies from the Minister, facilitates. Too often, parties call for more action to address Lough Neagh and protect our natural environment, yet, when it comes to making the difficult decisions directly, they pull back. To do nothing or slow down are not realistic options. The evidence shows that.

Average soluble reactive phosphorus levels in our waterways have increased by 55% since 2012. That, perhaps not coincidentally, corresponds directly with the introduction of Going for Growth. Research shows that 17% of farms produce 55% of manure nitrogen. Consultations on those matters in the context of the threat to our water quality should not be seen as controversial; they should be expected. If we allow the status quo to continue —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Blair: — we risk further deteriorating water quality and the perpetuation of a cycle of pollution that will affect all walks of life in Northern Ireland, including our agri-food sector.

Mr Butler: I rise on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. We will support today's motion. We tried to improve on it, but, hopefully, our words will bring some clarity. The motion rightly reflects the deep concern and, in many cases, rising frustration that is felt in our farming and agri-food sectors regarding the direction and detail of the nutrients action programme consultation 2026-29.

There is no doubt that improving water quality in Lough Neagh and across our rivers is essential. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber or, certainly, in the rural communities that I have spoken to denies the scale of the problem. However, we must be honest: the proposals that are on the table risk alienating the very people whose buy-in we require. Their expertise and practical action are essential to achieving real and lasting change.

The motion talks about the 3,500 farms that face the prospect of stricter phosphorus limits, but the more I talk to farmers, the more they realise that they will all be impacted, whether they are involved in arable farming, smaller-scale farming or hill farming, and that the programme risks affecting all of them negatively. The proposals are not being made in a vacuum; they come at a time of immense financial pressure, workforce stress and a growing sense of disconnect between policymakers and those working the land.

Only last Sunday, at a service of remembrance, hundreds gathered to honour those who had died on farms through tragic accidents or by suicide. That reality is a sobering reminder of the toll that pressures are already taking on our farming community. With serious and real pressures growing on family farms in Northern Ireland, we must, without doubt, face up to our environmental responsibilities — we absolutely have to — but we must not break farmers in doing so.

Ms D Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Yes

Ms D Armstrong: Does the Member agree that this has been a difficult year for farmers and that having to deal, first, with the family farm tax and, now, plans for the nutrients action programme is taking a profound mental toll on farmers up and down the country?

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

Mr Butler: Thank you.

I thank the Member for reminding the House of that. That draconian tax by the Labour Government has been a topic of great debate here. There are also the unmet pressures of bovine TB, the tariffs and the nutrients action programme. In reality, we need to step together, because, as I have said, the environmental responsibilities are shared and should not be shirked. That is why I support the call for the withdrawal of the consultation at this point. I do so not to abandon progress but to create space for a better, fairer more joined-up approach that is evidence-based, co-designed and genuinely multi-sectoral.

I regret that the motion in its current form does not go far enough in recognising that agriculture is not the only source of pollution affecting Lough Neagh, nor is it the only sector in need of reform. Water quality in our rivers and lakes is being degraded not just by nutrient run-off but by inadequate waste water treatment infrastructure, industrial discharge — we had an incredible debate yesterday about what was happening at Mobuoy — climate change, temperature rises and invasive species such as zebra mussels that have an effect on the ecology of Lough Neagh. The question of whether to dredge or not to dredge also remains contentious. Those wider factors must be part of the conversation and not simply pushed to the sidelines. If we isolate agriculture, whilst ignoring those other pressures, we risk making the same mistakes again. Worse still, we risk losing the confidence of rural communities, the communities who want to be part of the solution but, too often, feel as if they are being treated as the problem.

On Mr McAleer's point about rural communities. Farming and agriculture uphold way more than just family farms. I accept that that interconnectedness makes it difficult from your perspective, Minister, in designing those things. However, the industry is absolutely clear about where it is going. That is why we need a reset and a strategy that respects farmers, rewards best practice and reflects the collective responsibility that we all share in protecting our environment. That includes collaboration between the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Minister for Infrastructure, particularly around the chronic underinvestment in waste water infrastructure, which continues to contribute to pollution across the region. As legislators, we must make sure that any statutory body that we have sets the pace. We are asking our family farmers to lead the way. We need to lead the way. Let us take this opportunity not just to withdraw the flawed consultation but to start again better. Let us involve farmers, environmental groups, scientists, rural communities and industry in a co-designed, evidence-led approach that balances sustainability with viability. What we need now is not blame or bureaucracy but a shared pathway to recovery that restores confidence, protects our waters and secures the future of farming in Northern Ireland.

Mr McGlone: As I stand here, my initial thoughts are about what I found out recently about Lough Neagh. The eel-fishing industry has been a core part of the economy for a lot of people on the lough. It has sustained many families. It is part of our history and culture going back many years. Indeed, it was part of a very detailed court case that was fought largely with the assistance of my predecessor on Cookstown District Council: the late, great Paddy Duffy. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber denies that the condition of Lough Neagh is contributing to the demise — I hope, temporarily — of Lough Neagh fishing, particularly eel fishing. I hope that that is not the case. However, it is one of the first symptoms that we see, aside from the numerous phone calls that many of us were getting when it was at its worst: "Can we drink the water?" or "Can we take our dogs near the water?" Wildfowlers were not able to conduct their normal practice on the morning of 1 September. Those are the real effects of what is going into the lough.

Everything from algal blooms to fish deaths demands action. It demands partnership, innovation and shared responsibility across all sectors. While I agree that agriculture must play its part, I am rather disappointed that our amendment was not accepted. It dealt with key issues such as collaboration, education, support and financial incentivisation, which I will come back to, as part of any nutrients action programme. Ours is a vision that is rooted in partnership, not punishment. It balances environmental urgency with fairness, recognises the scale of the crisis without scapegoating farmers, and affirms that any sustainable nutrients policy must be co-designed, not imposed.

The motion, while rightly concerned with water pollution, calls for the immediate withdrawal of the current nutrients action programme consultation. In my view, that is both premature and counterproductive. It is a consultation, not a conclusion. Withdrawing it now risks silencing voices rather than amplifying them. We should be pushing for deeper engagement, not cutting it short. Our amendment called for a multi-agency working group, which is exactly the kind of collaborative step that we should be taking. Farmers have real concerns about what is being proposed, including stricter phosphorus limits, mandatory low-emission slurry-spreading equipment and compulsory buffer strips. Regulation alone will not succeed; it must be accompanied by support. It is not enough to say to farmers, "Do better"; we must ask them, "How can we help you to do better?" That is exactly what our amendment sought to do through financial incentives.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: I have not finished my point just yet, Timothy.

On that last point, I would like to quote from a letter to the Minister from Dame Glenys Stacey of the Office for Environmental Protection, which states:

Point 6 of the annex to that letter states:

— that is the OEP's view —

Again, "incentives, advice and guidance" is the key message. My message to all the Executive parties is this: clarify today whether you will commit to the incentivisation — the financial underpinning — that is required. I ask that of DAERA and all the parties that are in the Executive. Will you commit today to that integral incentivisation and on-farm support, which will be required for the transition for the farming community in particular?

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. When we met representatives of the Ulster Farmers' Union yesterday, they very much agreed with the Irish Government's approach to incentivisation, which is to engage with each river basin or catchment. Does he agree that other parties should support that approach?

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

Mr McGlone: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I agree, absolutely. In the South, we have seen the Government there working with the farmers. Look, it is not an easy process. In some circumstances, equipment worth £10,000, £15,000, £20,000 or more will be required for spreading slurry. That is just one example. If you are a farmer with an average income, which, as has been outlined, is £37,000 per annum, and you do not have huge acreage — these are not people with huge amounts of land — where are you going to get the money from for that? Those people need that support and incentivisation. Again, the question to the members of parties in the Executive who are speaking today is this: will you commit to your Executive colleagues underpinning the process with the support that is required to see it through? Otherwise, today is just about grandstanding. The approaches taken in the Republic have delivered real gains, because they have built trust rather than resentment and shown what is possible when farmers are part of the solution. Let me be clear —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr McGlone: OK. Thank you very much.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we continue the debate, I remind Members — I think that we have had this from two parties — that it is not appropriate to refer to the fact that your amendment was not selected. The people to whom I am referring are old enough and bold enough to know that, so please do not do it.

Ms Finnegan: As a Sinn Féin representative for Newry and Armagh, I support the motion and speak on behalf of the family farms that play such an important role in helping to protect our natural environment. They deserve to have sustainable livelihoods during this impactful time of transition. My constituency has many small farms. They are the economic backbone of our rural community and have suffered from the challenges posed by climate change and the pollution of the environment. They want to help. It is in their interests, as much as anyone else's, to do so. It benefits every single one of us to tackle the unacceptable levels of pollution in our environment and the very real threat of climate change that is upon us. It benefits everyone to clean up the water in our loughs and rivers, especially in Lough Neagh, from which 40% of the North's drinking water comes. It benefits everyone in the Chamber, every household and every family farm to have a source of clean drinking water.

It is clear that many challenges arise from the continued outworkings of multiple factors, which have caused the pollution of the lough and the destruction of its natural habitats and biodiversity.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Ms Finnegan: Not at the minute.

Protecting our environment and Lough Neagh are critical priorities for Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin firmly supports tackling the issues that harm our natural environment and wants to support the Minister as he does so. I extend solidarity, personally and on behalf of my party, to Minister Muir and call out the online abuse that he recently received over the issue: it was abhorrent and unacceptable. Whilst we have healthy debates and disagreements in the Chamber with the intention of making our policies better, it is wrong to abuse and bully in any format. That toxic behaviour must be called out, especially by political leaders and representatives. Let me be clear: Sinn Féin wants to support the Minister in creating initiatives to protect the environment and the future of Lough Neagh. Sinn Féin also wants a nutrients action plan, but it must be workable, realistic and fair. The current nutrients action programme proposals have the potential to be extremely harmful, especially to the livelihoods of small family farms that are already overexerted by regulation and ongoing rising costs. Unfortunately, the consultation process has been a missed opportunity. It is disappointing that the Minister's approach has led to the programme being undeliverable.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Ms Finnegan: There was not enough consultation of our farming communities or consideration of the disproportionate cost that will be imposed on smaller farmers, who would need to purchase very expensive — for many, unaffordable — equipment to deliver the action programme, or be at risk of huge penalties. I will add that that machinery is unsuitable for small farms and hill farms in areas of natural constraint (ANC), particularly in my area of south Armagh. I am reminded of the Rural Needs Act 2016, which requires us to consider the social and economic needs of our rural areas.

Sinn Féin is up for the work and for working together as we endeavour to tackle the climate crisis, but we want to ensure that the transition is fair, just and affordable, especially for the communities that are most affected by it, which have an important role to play. It is imperative that the environmental damage to some of our inland waterways, such as Lough Neagh, be addressed. Our farming communities are vital and willing stakeholders and should be treated as such. I therefore call on the Minister to review the consultation and work towards a more deliverable action plan that will deliver on the ambitions to protect our natural environment and clean up our drinking water for the benefit of all: a plan that works with our farming communities and includes proper support for farmers to transition fairly and carry out the necessary actions in a realistic time frame.

Mr T Buchanan: Today's debate is on one of the more important issues to come before the House. The motion calls on the Minister:

on the NAP proposals. I know that the Minister would see that as a U-turn, but I remind him that he did a U-turn on continuing support for the mushroom sector during the Committee's deliberations on the Agriculture Bill. We welcome that — there is no shame in it — and I encourage him to do likewise today by withdrawing the consultation. The proposals, if implemented, would have devastating consequences for the agriculture industry, forcing many small family farms out of business and damaging our agri-food sector, which, today, is the envy of many around the world.

The lack of engagement of the Minister and his Department with the farming community on the proposals — blatantly ignoring its concerns — is nothing short of appalling. When the Minister responds to the debate, he may well claim to be the farmers' friend and that he is working for them. He may beat his breast when declaring that he, the farmers' advocate, is championing their cause, yet actions always speak louder than words, and his actions to date contradict his words. The Minister may seek to hide behind the consultation process, but, with proposals that will cause huge damage to our local agriculture sector, risking jobs, cutting livestock numbers and threatening Northern Ireland's ability to produce food, he is fooling no one. The consultation must be withdrawn.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr T Buchanan: For far too long, our farmers have been made environmental scapegoats.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr T Buchanan: The consultation fails to deal with the real issues. Our farmers live and work on the land and are fully committed to good environmental practices and improving water quality, as they have been for the past number of years. However, the NAP proposals are totally unbalanced and completely disconnected from the reality of farming in Northern Ireland. Farmers are not ignorant of their environmental responsibilities: they want to be part of the solution when it comes to protecting our environment. However, they need a fair, balanced and workable plan, which they, alongside environmental groups, community groups and other agencies, have had input into, in order to develop policies that are fair, practical, workable and sustainable for the industry and the environment.

What we have in the NAP proposals is far from that.

The issue requires a constructive working relationship with the Department and other agencies that is built on understanding, trust and mutual respect. Unfortunately, the Minister has closed the door of engagement on the NAP proposals to the farming community. Rather than investing in practical support and building trust, he is on the road to creating more red tape and penalties and increased bureaucracy in an already complicated system with which our farmers are doing their best to comply.

The NAP proposals are all about what farmers must do. When you look at the consultation, you see that it is all about what they must do. They must do this, they must do that, and they must do the other thing. I have seen no proposals or recommendations about what NI Water must do about the huge amount of pollution that it pumps into our waterways, yet our farmers are continually targeted. As I said in Committee, a University of Oxford study has shown that the sewage that was coming from water companies and NI Water into our waterways was causing much more damage than anything that was coming off the land. Yet, there are no proposals or recommendations —.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr T Buchanan: I will.

Mr Clarke: Does the Member accept that it is strange that, given that the Minister is responsible for it, it is in his gift and power to take action himself through the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), as opposed to passing the blame on to the Department for Infrastructure over what it is doing?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Minister — the Member has an extra minute. Sorry, I nearly promoted you, Tom.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Yes, I fully agree with the Member. The Minister is failing in his responsibility to take on the issue and deal with it. Minister, it is time for you to wake up to reality and —

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Mr T Buchanan: — begin to show some support for the farming community, which is the backbone of our rural economy, rather than continue to devise plans to destroy it completely. To date, Minister, you have failed to get to grips with the TB crisis and the delivery of a robust ammonia strategy. It is time that you began to take accountability for the significant failings of your Department on your watch. I have been a Member of the House since 2003, and I have never seen a Minister from any Department bring forward proposals to do with any sector under their Department's remit that have such devastating consequences for that sector as we have here.

Folk around the Chamber, I say this to you: it is time that we stood shoulder to shoulder with the farming community by supporting the motion. Let us put politics to the side. It is too important.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr T Buchanan: Let us stand shoulder to shoulder with our farming community in opposition to the proposals.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members are aware, as are those who sit in this Chair, of the convention that, if a Member does not decide to take an intervention on at least two occasions, it is not normally the procedure to keep rising in your seat to try to raise an issue. I am certain that Members will follow that convention, and, when I am in the Chair, I will not accept otherwise. Thank you.

I will move on to the next Member. Eóin Tennyson, over to you.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When Andrew Muir took up office as Minister last year, he made clear his unwavering commitment to improving water quality and turning the tide on the ecological crisis unfolding in Lough Neagh. Indeed, just weeks after the Executive were formed, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister stood by his side on the shores of Lough Neagh, talking about it as a collective priority and about the need for immediate action. The motion exposes those sentiments from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister as mere weasel words, because it is fallacy for any Member to claim that we can improve water quality and tackle blue-green algae in Lough Neagh without a robust plan to deal with nutrient run-off. The nutrients action programme is a core part of the Lough Neagh action plan, to which all parties on the Executive and, I think, in the Chamber signed up. The Office for Environmental Protection has been crystal clear:

for our drinking water, our industry, our agriculture sector and our fishermen, who have already had to deal with the suspension of eel fishing this year.

I have heard criticism in the debate about the level of engagement. Aoife Finnegan talked about a lack of consultation. The irony is there for all to see that what parties are calling for today is the suspension of consultation, an opportunity for organisations, farmers and citizens to engage on the issues. They want that to be prematurely shut down so that farmers cannot contribute to the debate about how the proposals could be made workable at farm level.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will give way to the Member.

Mr Gaston: The Member talks about the consultation. In previous NAP reviews, the industry was consulted, whereas, in this NAP review, the Minister has gone with his own ideological vision and enforced proposals on the farming community. Previously, Ministers worked in conjunction with the industry —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: Why has this Minister —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: — decided that he knows better than the industry?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, will you take your seat? Members, you will all be heard, but, if you are going to make an intervention, make it short. This will be a full debate, and we have a time limit, even if we apply a short additional amount of time at the end.

Mr Tennyson, back to you. You have an extra minute.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If previous NAP proposals and strategies were so effective, Lough Neagh would not turn green every summer. Perhaps that is a reflection of the reason why the Minister has taken a different approach on this occasion.

Mr Buchanan talked about the failure to tackle TB, the failure to deal with ammonia and the crisis that our farmers now face with Lough Neagh. Those are all issues that this Minister inherited from Ministers from Mr Buchanan's party who failed to be honest about the trade-offs and choices that exist. Perhaps the truth is that the DUP and Sinn Féin are uncomfortable with a Minister who no longer allows government policy to be written by only one select group of stakeholders but, rather, chooses to consult openly, honestly and fairly with all farmers, all organisations and all citizens about the way forward.

It has been said that the NAP proposals ignore waste water infrastructure, but the Minister has been clear on his intent to remove the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) arrangements, which is the so-called bye-ball that has been granted to NI Water. Alliance has consistently called on the Infrastructure Minister to take more robust action where she has responsibility.

We have heard about financial support, and it is true that financial support and grant support will be necessary in order to make some of the changes practical at farm level. The DUP and Sinn Féin hold the purse strings of the Executive, so I will take today's debate as a firm commitment from those parties that they will make that funding and grant aid available to the farmers who need the support.

The parties that are supporting the motion do not have a good story to tell on Lough Neagh and our environment. Through Going for Growth, industrial sand dredging and so many other missteps, they have walked our community, our farming industry and our society into an environmental catastrophe. Earlier this year, the same parties blocked a proposal that would have seen increased fines and penalties for those breaching environmental regulations. What message does that send to the farmers who abide by the regulations and by the law? What message does it send to our constituents who are drinking foul-smelling and foul-tasting water in summer months or the businesses that cannot operate and make a living when there is algae on Lough Neagh?

The public are watching the debate. They know that the situation in Lough Neagh will not be addressed through mere warm words and photo opportunities. It will require strong leadership and, yes, difficult decisions. Instead, we hear from parties in the Chamber the same old inertia and neglect that contributed to the situation and the crisis in the first place. MLAs who walk through the Yes Lobby today are wilfully and knowingly signing the death warrant for Lough Neagh [Interruption.]

I urge all Members to take their responsibilities to our environment seriously and reject the motion and, instead, engage in good faith in the consultation process so that we can get to a place where we have a NAP that will serve our environment and our farmers fairly while dealing with the issues in Lough Neagh.

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

Ladies and gentlemen, calm it down a wee bit.

Mr Boylan: I rise to voice the growing concern shared by thousands of farming families across the North, including my constituency of Newry and Armagh — concern not just about policy but about the future of their livelihoods, their communities and the land that they have cared for across many generations. We are all united in the belief that water quality in our rivers and in Lough Neagh must be protected and improved. Pollution must be tackled — no one disputes that — but, when the solutions proposed are far removed from the realities of family farming, we must ask who exactly is being listened to.

The latest nutrients action programme, for 2026 to 2029, has landed like a hammer blow to small and medium-sized farms. It proposes to make low emission slurry spreading equipment mandatory, to impose tight phosphorus fertiliser restrictions and to introduce more buffer strip requirements on arable and horticultural land. Those changes are not minor, technical tweaks; they are a fundamental shift in how farms operate, and they come with serious costs.

Let me be clear: family farms are not the problem; they are part of the solution. For more than two decades under earlier NAPs, farmers have changed their practices. They have invested in new infrastructure, they have adapted and they have worked with government. They cannot be expected to keep absorbing the financial and operational burden of every new regulation, especially when the support to do so is either insufficient or non-existent.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Boylan: Yes.

Mr Clarke: The Member makes an interesting point about the support. The issue is that, even if they had the financial support, that support means that their inputs will be less. They are being asked to invest money in their farms to bring in less.

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

Mr Boylan: I accept the Member's point.

As the Ulster Farmers’ Union has said, the latest proposals feel more like enforcement than partnership. There is too little emphasis on education, collaboration or real-world feasibility. That is a dangerous direction in which to travel.

Take hill farmers, for example. The idea that every field is accessible for trailing shoe or injection slurry spreading is simply unrealistic. They are not flat, open lands with large gates and gentle gradients. They are sloped and rugged, often with wet conditions, making it impossible to use machinery without putting safety, animals and soil at risk. A blanket rule applied to all farms without exception will leave many unable — not unwilling — to comply.

We also hear the argument that reducing fertiliser use is essential, but the proposed limits could drastically reduce grass yields. For many small dairy farms, that means having to feed more concentrates, which not only increases costs but could lead to greater phosphorus run-off, completely undermining the intended environmental benefits. Real-life case studies and farm trials show that meeting the new phosphorus-balance target will be nearly impossible for high-yielding dairy herds without either cutting stock numbers or expanding land, neither of which is realistic for most family farms, which are already stretched to capacity. Let us not forget that more than 90% of the North's farmland lies within 7 kilometres of a protected habitat. That means that even minor errors in paperwork or location disadvantage could see a farmer lose their derogation or face more restrictions. Compliance should not be a game of chance.

We need policy that recognises the good work that is already being done. Programmes such as the soil health scheme, funded slurry innovation pilots and voluntary investment in low-emission equipment are all examples of how farmers are leading change. They are not looking for excuses; they are asking for practical, science-based support. Environmental progress must not come at the cost of rural collapse. The idea that we can achieve sustainability by hollowing out the most sustainable food-producing sector that we have is not just flawed but dangerous.

If local food production declines, we will simply offshore it to countries with lower standards and less oversight. That is not environmental leadership; it is environmental hypocrisy.

I urge those who are crafting these proposals to take a step back and engage meaningfully with our farmers. They should not lecture them or penalise them but work with them, because, if family farms are lost, it is not only a way of life that will disappear but a key part of our food security, our rural economy and our environmental stewardship. Let us not allow good intentions to be undone by poor execution. Let us work together for a future that protects our —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Boylan: — land and those who farm it.

Mr Irwin: First of all, I declare an interest as I am a partner in a farm business.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this very important issue in our agriculture community in Northern Ireland. The feeling amongst our farming community and the wider agri-food sector is illustrated by the joint letter recently signed by stakeholders. It is one of concern, frustration and mounting anger. The Minister must open his ears and eyes to the dissatisfaction that the NAP proposals have generated and withdraw the consultation. As our motion clearly says, that will allow time and space to chart a course towards an arrangement that recognises duties towards the environment and also the duty to nurture and promote our agri-food industry rather than decimate it with poorly thought-out policies.

I know that the agri-food industry is very aware of its obligations to protect our environment. However, the sources of pollution impacting on our waterways are many, and any proposal requires a broader scope and recognition of those sources and practical solutions. The NAP proposals as tabled, if implemented, will do immeasurable harm to our industry, and that, in turn, will directly impact on the livelihoods of thousands of people and will severely limit and drastically impact on our capacity in food production. Farms will ultimately be decimated, and, again, thousands of jobs in our agri-food sector will go.

The pressures facing farming at this time are considerable and varied, and the NAP proposals do not seek to lessen that burden in any shape or form. Rather than stay the ill-thought-out proposals, the Minister seems intent to further pile the pressure on our farming community, and that is simply not acceptable. This is not about ignoring our environmental responsibilities — far from it. Rather, it is about finding a sensible way forward that protects our countryside and supports the people who work very hard, day by day, to feed us. The Minister will, of course, be acutely aware of the depth of feeling on this issue and the fact that hundreds of people turned out to voice their opposition at Greenmount recently. They sent a clear message that farmers will not be ignored on this most important issue.

I urge the Minister to take a long, hard look at his proposals, withdraw them and come back with proposals that will command the support of the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland. Producers cannot be laden with rules that will require millions of pounds to be spent to comply with. That will only result in catastrophic damage to one of Northern Ireland's leading economic performers. Progress will only be achieved when the Minister shows an understanding of our farming community, and I urge him to urgently act in the interests of the industry.

Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important debate. Indeed, before I continue, I declare an interest, as I am a farmer's wife. I also pay tribute to the UFU and the many farmers who are here at Parliament Buildings today. We look outside and see the array of their endeavours and hard work — the machinery that they have brought here as an example of the machinery that they use in their day-to-day work. You are very welcome here this afternoon.

This issue is causing much concern to the many thousands of farmers across Northern Ireland and, of course, to those involved in the family farms in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. No one disputes the need to protect our waterways. Lough Neagh and our rivers are vital to our ecosystem, our communities and our economy, but the proposals that are on the table risk doing more harm than good, especially to the very people who have been the stewards of our land for generations. The imposition of stricter phosphorus limits, mandatory low-emission slurry-spreading equipment and compulsory buffer strips may sound like progress on paper, but, on the ground, they threaten to devastate an industry that is principally family-run, passed down through generations and already operating on tight margins. The proposals do not reflect the reality of the agri-food sector or the resilience, innovation or ambition of our farmers — farmers who want to grow, not just survive; farmers who want to invest in their land, their livestock and their future, but who are now being told that they must do so under a mountain of red tape and draconian, unaffordable mandates.

When my father, Harry West, served as Minister of Agriculture in this place, he understood that real progress came not from punishment but from partnership. He championed one of the largest investments in the agri-food sector, preparing farmers for the future with the skills, tools and support that they needed to thrive. That is the kind of leadership that we need today. We cannot lock future generations of farmers out of opportunity. We cannot afford to undermine food security in the name of sustainability. We need a nutrient management policy that is fair, workable and built on genuine collaboration with those who know the land best: our farmers.

I urge the Minister to listen, engage and rethink, and then to return to the table with a co-designed approach that balances environmental responsibility with economic reality. We can protect our waterways, but we must not lose sight of the fact that farmers are facing unprecedented challenges, rising operational and veterinary costs, a narrowing window of good weather and the continuing fallout of the family farm tax. To all the farmers out there, the Ulster Unionist Party stands behind you. Now let us protect our farms, our food and our future.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Having taken all relevant factors into consideration, I have decided to apply a grace period of up to 15 minutes to accommodate the remaining five Members who wish to speak. During that time, however, Members who are called to speak will have up to three minutes, and I will not be able to give them any additional time if they take interventions. I call Emma Sheerin. Emma, I am sorry that you have only three minutes.

Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Tá tú maith go leor

any longer than three minutes anyway.

Like my colleagues, I support the motion. People will know that this is very close to my heart, coming from a farming family as I do. In the area that I represent, the issue of water quality is also very close to my heart. People may remember that I raised on several occasions in the Chamber, last year and the year before, the issues with the water that was coming from Lough Neagh, which affected many of my constituents. Therefore, I am clear that we need to address the issues of water quality. We know that the factors that have caused that problem were long in the making, with years of underinvestment and mismanagement of the lough. I attest very clearly that blaming a population that is already working in a volatile industry, and which is a very vulnerable group within society, is not the answer. As somebody who comes from a hill farm in the Sperrins, I can see, through generations, that our farmers have, on many occasions, had to respond quickly to different policy directives — often written by people with limited experience of agriculture or understanding of the factors that affect the average farm — and change their way of life on that basis. I speak specifically for hill farmers, who are always the last to benefit and who always work in the most difficult conditions.

For example, some of the things that have been laid out in these proposals regarding the low-emission slurry-spreading equipment that will be mandatory by 2029 — as my colleagues have already pointed out — are not going to work on the average hill farm. It is not going to work on rough ground, it is not going to work in the sort of mountain area that I was reared in, and it is completely unaffordable for those farmers to have that cost put on them. We are talking about a group of people for which our way of food production has changed and moved to a more intensive type of farming to cater for what society has asked for. We have seen a reduction in the number of cattle on the hills, which meant them turning towards the only viable means of farming. That required compensation, but those farmers have lost their ANC payment, which was the buffer that allowed them to continue. I do not want to see that group of farmers being punished further, so I ask the Minister to consider what has been said, look towards more sustainable solutions, work with our farmers and listen to what they are telling us and give a clear direction that will —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask the Member to draw her remarks to a close

Ms Sheerin: — help everybody involved.

Mr Dickson: This debate has been diminished by the appalling threats against our Agriculture Minister.

I start by calling out the rank hypocrisy that is at the core of the motion. It says that we:

Yet, the very same party that sponsored the motion has launched a campaign to scrap the nutrients action programme proposals. The programme was first established in 2005 to help address agriculture-related water pollution. It is therefore highly irresponsible to suggest that we should scrap the NAP. The mature and responsible thing to do is to engage in the process, highlight your concerns and contribute constructively. We in this Chamber are supposed to be legislators who are committed to democracy; we should not seek to undermine the established policy development processes and deny the public the opportunity to have their say. I urge the DUP to bring forward its alternative ideas for reducing nutrients in the agriculture sector.

As Members have said, we heard what the Office for Environmental Protection said last year. It stated:

That was reiterated last week at the AERA Committee by the chair of the OEP, Dame Glenys Stacey. She said that the issues at Lough Neagh will become a common experience across many more sites in Northern Ireland and the UK and was clear that business as usual is no longer an option. It is a fact that agriculture contributes significantly to poor water quality. The latest research confirms that over 60% of phosphorus inputs into Lough Neagh originate from agriculture. Yes, we need to look at other sources of pollution in Lough Neagh and our waterways and we need to deal with our waste water infrastructure. That is an issue that other Ministers in the Executive need to get to grips with. Clearly, however, the overwhelming burden of pollution in Lough Neagh is coming from our agriculture sector.

While good work continues to be done by farmers, with the vast majority playing by the rules and rejecting those who do not, it is clear that our lakes, rivers, streams and coastlines are increasingly suffering from the effects of pollution. Lough Neagh is a stark example of the environmental and societal consequences of poor water quality. The Minister is clearly on record as saying that no decision has been made. This is a genuine consultation. Therefore, today's motion quite simply puts the cart before the horse. A consultation is a process of inviting people to share their views on an issue in order to help inform decision-making. Consultation is about listening to stakeholders. In this case, they include the farming —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Dickson.

Mr Dickson: — and agri-food sectors.

Mr O'Toole: I have very little time, so I will be brief. I have been struck by two personal memories that get to the heart of what we are debating. Although I represent an urban constituency, my father grew up on a farm and farming is close to my family background. One of my earliest childhood memories is sitting on my grandfather's Davy Brown tractor on a rural farm in County Down. I know how deep farming goes in our psyche on this island and in Northern Ireland: it is inherent to who we are and what we are. Rural communities deserve proper consultation and support in order to deliver the environmental change that we need. I am also struck, however, by the memory of summer 2023, when I and others in the Chamber went down to the shore at Lough Neagh and saw the blue-green algae there, which looked like a scene from a sci-fi movie. It looked like someone had sprayed the entire lough with highlighter-coloured foam. That is ecological breakdown.

The Minister's consultation is about looking for ways to address one of the major drivers of blue-green algae: agricultural run-off. Saying that is not demonising farmers; it is scientific fact. It is hugely problematic if people in the Chamber cannot accept that that needs to be dealt with. It is not demonising farmers. Tabling a "to note" motion on a consultation, however, is selling farmers a pup.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I have very little time.

I am not surprised that the DUP tabled the motion, which we will vote against, but I am genuinely shocked to hear Sinn Féin stand alongside the DUP. We all care about farmers. The SDLP wants to see better consultation and a support and financial incentivisation model that is more like what has happened in the South [Interruption.]

Mr Clarke is chuntering.

I cannot believe that, after the First Minister went to the lough shore and promised action on Lough Neagh and Declan Kearney talked about the ecological catastrophe engulfing the lough, Sinn Féin will vote today to bin a consultation. It is, by the way, not even the final plan; it is the ability to have a consultation on how we do these things.

The consultation is a consultation. I am not endorsing everything that is in the consultation, nor am I predetermining an outcome. However, if we cannot get real at some point and confront the issues, what good are we? It is, frankly, ridiculous to come into the Chamber and constantly say one thing and do another. At some point — Ms Ennis is laughing — the difference between the rhetoric that her party comes out with and the things that it does when it has power will have to be called out. It is important that we be honest with farmers and protect our agriculture industry, but it is important that we do not condemn our greatest natural resource to empty populism from parties such as Sinn Féin.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr O'Toole: We oppose the motion.

Mrs Erskine: I have little time, but, at the outset, let me say that no one in the Chamber denies the environmental and water quality issues that we face. However, we are entitled to question why one section is being demonised without proper account being taken of others. A blind eye is turned to others that constantly create problems in our waterways. The algal blooms choking Lough Neagh and the pollution that I see there are symptomatic of wider issues.

I have just come from a briefing by the Fiscal Council on the sustainability of Northern Ireland Water. What did they raise? Major pollution incidents caused by NI Water. The NAP proposals risk devastating our agriculture community when many in that community are operating on razor-thin margins, and our agri-food sector is a cornerstone of the community. They are not the enemy in the conversation.

We cannot afford to have any more top-down diktats that ignore the reality on the ground. I will quote the chief executive of Northern Ireland Water, Sara Venning, who, at her first Infrastructure Committee meeting, said:

I asked the AERA Minister about the monitoring of overspills, which create pollution, and, indeed, about SORPI. Northern Ireland Water confirmed that more than 20 million tons of untreated sewage and waste water spill into our waterways annually. There are 76 waste water treatment works around the inner edge of Lough Neagh and 10,000 septic tanks that, I should add, NI Water is aware of.

The Minister knows that we are not monitoring overspills effectively, and I raised that with him last July. Back then, there were 724 storm overflows, and only 60 of those were deemed satisfactory, and only 260 had been assessed. I asked the Minister whether he would jointly fund event duration monitors so that we can truly monitor overspills, which would arrest the pollution incidents that result from our waste water treatment works, rather than skewing the data. Has the Minister followed that up with the Infrastructure Minister?

The moves to end the SORPI arrangements are not happening quickly enough. In fact, NAP provides no details of the water quality measures that are proposed for river catchments. We cannot scapegoat one sector while allowing other sources of pollution to persist unchecked. Therefore, like my colleagues, I call on the Minister to immediately withdraw the current public consultation on NAP. The Minister must know that it is not just the DUP calling for that: over 4,000 people have done so via our petition. There is a strength of feeling in the Chamber today. People from my constituency have come to show their frustration —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close?

Mrs Erskine: — at the NAP proposals.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mr Gaston. Timothy, you have three minutes.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the penny will finally drop today that, as well as losing the confidence of the farming industry, Mr Muir has lost his political cover to force farmers to destock farms under the guise of his nutrients action programme proposals.

Prior to today's debate, I decided to do a little detective work that turned up some interesting facts. The earliest time to which I was able to trace pollution issues in Lough Neagh was September 1923, when there was a 'Mid-Ulster Mail' article with the headline "Discolouration of Lough Neagh". Environmental science was in its infancy back then, yet the causes that were identified are strikingly familiar: sewage effluent, land drainage and warm, calm conditions encouraging algal bloom. Does that sound familiar, Minister?

Let me now add some context. Slurry became a liquid by-product on Northern Ireland farms only in the 1950s, yet here we have evidence of algal blooms back in 1923. Discolouration was reported again in 1937, 1969, 1971, 1975, 1977, 1978 and repeatedly throughout the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. To suggest that it is a new phenomenon caused solely by modern farming is historically illiterate.

Last October, I raised the issue with the Department and pressed the Minister on the fact that the Department for Infrastructure and Northern Ireland Water were major contributors to the pollution of Lough Neagh. What did the Minister say back then? What was his response? It was this:

Tell that to the farming community, Minister. My goodness. In the form of your nutrients action programme, we now see farmers being blamed for complex environmental problems, while their vital contributions to food security, rural economies and environmental improvement are ignored.

There is an ideological edge to the narrative. The Minister's former membership of Greenpeace is a matter of public record. It is hard to believe that that outlook does not shape the policies coming from the green welly brigade in his Department. Water quality has improved, especially in agricultural catchments, thanks to real and costly investment by farmers, who are the custodians of the land.

Minister, a message from farmers: farmers are not the problem; they are a vital part of the solution. In light of your comments last week, farmers do not care about sexuality, political outlook or religion. They want a Minister who will work for them and with them to tackle the pressures that they face. They want a Department —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr Gaston. Will you draw your remarks to a close?

Mr Gaston: — that will work with them to address environmental issues —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — to ensure that viable farms can be —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — passed on to the next generation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Just one second, please, Minister.

The Business Committee — sorry, your point of order, Minister.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. In his comments, Mr Gaston made what I consider to be despicable comments about officials in my Department. I put on record my complete opposition to what he said and my support for them.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, thank you. Your remarks are on the record.

Mr Clarke: It was not a point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Sorry, I will not have barracking of a Deputy Speaker and chuntering from a sedentary position, ladies and gentlemen. This is —.

Mr Blair: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Yes, Mr Blair.

Mr Blair: You are on your feet, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am, because my leg is particularly sore. [Laughter.]

Please do not take my standing as some kind of procedural position. Over to you.

Mr Blair: I did not want to breach any of your rules.

During the debate, the Member for West Tyrone Mr Buchanan referred to a University of Oxford report on water quality in rivers. For the House's information, the same point was made at a meeting of the AERA Committee. I had it clarified at that Committee meeting and written into the record that that report refers to four rivers in England and has nothing to do with Northern Ireland or the NAP. Is it misleading in any way or an example of presenting misinformation to bring such information to a debate in the House when it has been clarified at a Committee meeting that it is not relevant?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you for the point of order, the question and the clarification. I will ask the Member who raised that issue to contact the rest of the Committee later and, indeed, the Assembly to check those details and that information to see whether that is the case. At present, I do not have that information. Your point has been made, and we will examine it to see where it comes to.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after the ministerial statement, when the Minister will be called to respond to it.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): The development of a support scheme for renewable electricity generation is an action in the Executive's energy strategy. In 2023, my Department published a consultation on design considerations for the scheme. In the same year, Aurora Energy Research was contracted to provide the technical expertise needed to formulate the high-level design. The high-level design and the Government response to the consultation were published in 2024, outlining the wider policy objectives and providing an illustrative auction road map for renewable generation to be supported. Further technical modelling and a financial impact assessment have been conducted, alongside the consideration of the legislative and state aid pathways and the institutional roles and responsibilities necessary for delivery. The final scheme design will provide a comprehensive update, including eligibility criteria, delivery roles and responsibilities and an outline of the contract allocation process.

As per the energy strategy action plan for 2025, the final scheme design is due to be published in quarter 2 of 2025. I then plan to bring primary legislation before the Assembly this year, with subordinate regulations to follow as we move towards the first auction in quarter 3 of 2026. That will contribute to the Climate Change Act 2022 target of 80% electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2030.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for her detailed update. However, when it comes to energy in the Department for the Economy, dither and delay seem to be the order of the day. Tomorrow, the Committee will receive an update from the Department and Invest Northern Ireland on the pausing of the capital grant energy scheme, as a result of concerns that the scheme is supporting questionable energy efficiency practices. When will the Minister get to grips with the energy division?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I disagree with his characterisation of our development of policy in the energy division. He will know, from his role in Committee, that an awful lot is going on at the moment in that division, in parallel, across a number of policy areas. He will understand that the development of the final scheme design is highly complex and encompasses multiple interdependent elements and technical considerations. Some of those are still under consideration within the Department by officials and me. The Member will also know that we have the energy strategy action plan for 2025, which sets out all the actions that will be taken within this calendar year. We are on track with those, and, hopefully, he will see the updates as they come forward.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, to ensure a just transition to net zero, will the renewable electricity support scheme deliver community benefits?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I fully support the principle of community benefit and encourage all developers, whether participating in the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme, when it is launched, or pursuing alternative routes to market, to adopt best practice and ensure a return for local communities.

Different approaches to delivering community benefits have been considered. Those include a voluntary guidance approach in which a voluntary model would apply to broadly all renewable energy projects, including those already in development or operation, rather than being limited to the relatively small number that will secure contracts under the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme. However, voluntary contributions, by their nature, are not guaranteed and offer limited assurance that benefits will be directed to communities located near to renewable developments.

The other models include a mandatory contribution model, whereby, again, by its nature, it is a mandatory requirement that community benefit will be part of the support scheme. That would involve significant administrative complexity and cost, estimated at around 10% of total scheme costs, which would add to the strain on departmental resources. There is a potential alternative model in which deductions are applied directly to electricity bills through a discount on charges to households located near new renewable projects. The discounts would be socialised across all electricity consumers. That is my preferred option at this point, if it is possible. Officials will further explore the operational requirements of that concept in collaboration with key stakeholders and delivery partners to assess its feasibility and potential impact.

Mr Honeyford: At a recent Committee meeting, the Minister's officials directly answered a question that I asked, saying that there was no plan and no strategy for the overall transformation towards renewables. Will the Minister reassure the House, even at this late stage, that a plan and a strategy will be brought forward to enable the sequences of grid, interconnection and the renewable energy support scheme, so that we do not risk seeing the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme Mark 2?

Dr Archibald: Yes. I can assure the Member that there certainly is a plan. As he will know from his role on the Committee, and as I said to Mr Brett, policy development work is going on across a range of areas. That is really important to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose energy system. The specifics of the renewable electricity price guarantee scheme will be brought forward in the near future. All the other work alongside that will continue, including, for example, an interconnection and storage policy, for which policy development work and research is ongoing as well.

Dr Archibald: Tourism is a vital contributor to my economic vision and is key to creating prosperity across the North, enriching our communities and bringing social benefits to our towns and cities. It also creates opportunities in rural areas and is a source of pride for local people.

My Department launched a tourism vision and action plan in January that set out our ambition for growth in our tourism sector over the next decade, including a strategic goal that the tourism expenditure from our overnight visitors will exceed £2 billion by 2035. The action plan identifies 17 activities that are critical to achieving that ambition in a way that promotes regional balance, raises productivity, creates good jobs and lowers carbon emissions.

In addition to job creation and the generation of substantial export earnings in the form of visitor spend, the outworking of the vision and action plan has the capacity to cultivate and showcase local history, culture and our natural and built heritage. All of that will make the North a great place not only to visit but in which to live.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. As she has said, for the economy to fully realise the benefits of tourism, it needs to reach into our town centres. That could mean linking tourism to a renewed and restarted high street task force. Will the Minister consider that, along with other Departments, to aid her tourism strategy?

Dr Archibald: There is certainly a key role for tourism in supporting the regeneration of our villages, towns and cities. I recently established local economic partnerships across all our council areas so that local areas can develop their economic plans and visions for themselves. Tourism NI and other partners can be involved in the development of those plans, and I actively encourage that. The role of the local economic partnerships is to bring forward plans and to leverage support from all Departments to realise them. There is a key role for tourism as part of those plans to aid the regeneration of our towns and cities.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, how does the positive work of Tourism Ireland contribute to our economy in the North?

Dr Archibald: Tourism Ireland, as an organisation with the responsibility for marketing Ireland overseas, has a compelling holiday and business events programme. Tourism Ireland undertakes a range of activities that have a hugely positive impact on my Department's tourism policies, from the large number of marketing campaigns and events that ensure a seasonal spread of visits, to Ireland to maintaining a continued focus on sustainable development of the sector in collaboration with Tourism NI and Fáilte Ireland. Tourism Ireland is focused on growing the value of overseas tourism, benefiting local economies and communities. A recent study estimates that, for every £1 of Tourism Ireland's marketing investment, £25 is spent by overseas visitors. Overseas tourism has doubled in value between 2010 and 2024, growing from £319 million in 2010 to over £633 million per year in visitor spend in 2024. In addition, over 70,000 jobs depend on tourism. Of those, six out of 10 depend on overseas tourism specifically, meaning that overseas tourism is a key opportunity for our economy. That clearly demonstrates the value that the organisation brings to tourism as a vital revenue-generating industry bringing jobs into local communities across Ireland.

Dr Archibald: Anything with the potential to undo the harms of Brexit, smooth trade flows and reduce regulatory divergence is to be welcomed. On 19 May, broad heads of agreement were announced between the British Government and the EU. We have a significant agri-food sector, so I welcome the commitment to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement. While that agreement would extend only to Britain, it should result in significantly fewer regulatory checks and controls on animals, plants and related products moving east to west. It is also welcome that the British Government and EU will continue to work on a youth mobility scheme. It will be important to understand how those high-level positions are translated into legal text and then implemented in practice. At this stage, we have few details, including on time frames. Clear and timely communications will be important for individuals and businesses. I continue to make those points to the British Government.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, does your Department accept the assessment that recent trade agreements still leave significant barriers for agri-food exporters in border regions? What targeted support will be provided by your Department to businesses in areas such as Newry and Armagh?

Dr Archibald: Clearly, Brexit damaged trading relationships between this island and Britain and beyond. It was a key reason why my party and others opposed Brexit. Unfortunately, we are where we are and have to deal with the consequences. We have the protocol and, now, the Windsor framework, which recognises our unique circumstances and also provides us with a unique selling point — dual market access — that we continue to promote. As I said in my original answer, there is a clearly a long way to go in negotiations on the SPS agreement and other areas. My perspective, and the perspective that my party has brought to all the negotiations to date post Brexit, is that anything that smoothes the frictions, east-west and North/South, is a good thing. More work needs to be done there. Certainly, I am willing to play my part in that.

Mr Dickson: Minister, do you agree that dual market access represents a unique and significant opportunity for businesses across our economy here? Can you tell the House specifically how you are working to develop that trading relationship for small and medium-sized businesses in Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: I agree with the Member that dual market access offers us huge potential and opportunities. There is more work to be done to communicate that to our own businesses here that are already in the position to take advantage of that and also to attract investment to create new jobs and grow our local economy. My Department continues to do that work, along with Invest NI and InterTradeIreland, to try to make the most of the potential that we have.

Mr McGuigan: In her previous responses, the Minister touched on dual market access and its importance. What impact will the agreement between the EU and the British Government have on dual market access?

Dr Archibald: As I said, I welcome the progress that has been made. I also welcome the fact that the British Government and the EU have recognised and are committed to maintaining our privileged, dual market access. We can see that privileged position in our recent export performance. In the year ending 2024, total exports of goods from the North increased by 1%, while exports from Britain decreased by 5·6%. Our imports increased by 1·8%, while overall imports to Britain fell by 3·5%. The agreement does nothing to undermine our unique position, which I have put front and centre of my economic vision. When implemented, it will smooth trade frictions, mainly for agri-food and horticultural products. That will further strengthen our unique offer rather than diminishing it.

Mr Buckley: What the Minister is outlining is trade divergence rather than potential. The Minister has talked about "privileged, dual market access": we are now six years on from hearing of the unicorn of dual market access from the Minister and her party. Will she give one concrete example of FDI in Northern Ireland that is due to dual market access?

Dr Archibald: I am sure that the Member will recognise the years of uncertainty that were caused by post-Brexit negotiations and his party's position on that. I have outlined the real-world, tangible impact of dual market access, which can clearly be seen in our export performance. We see huge interest in dual market access. It is a particular selling point for our local economy and continues to attract investment and attention from investors. It is something that I, along with my partners in Invest NI and InterTradeIreland, continue to promote.

Dr Archibald: By connecting people, supporting our tourism offering and delivering economic growth, improving air connectivity to the North from within these islands and further afield has an important role to play in the delivery of my economic priorities. That is why I am investing £3 million per year in the City of Derry Airport.

The Dublin to Derry air route has the potential to provide significant benefits to the north-west of Ireland. It will help to unlock the tremendous potential of the region and, importantly, to exploit the significant investment that my Department, the Irish Government and others across the private and public sectors are making here. My officials are also engaging with their colleagues in the Department of Transport in Dublin and the Department for Transport in London, which both have policy responsibility for public service obligation air routes across the relevant jurisdictions.

My predecessor Conor Murphy and I have engaged with the Irish Government to seek firm commitments to reopen the Dublin-Derry route. I am pleased to report that ministerial approval in Dublin has been provided to undertake the preparatory work necessary to establish Dublin to Derry air services in 2026. A meeting led by the Irish Department of Transport is planned with stakeholders in the north-west in the coming weeks. I will continue to work closely with both Governments to support delivery of this important initiative.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for that answer and for the £3 million investment in the City of Derry Airport. The SDLP has long been calling for that investment, and I am glad that it has now happened, to the benefit of her constituents and mine.

Minister, you have outlined the actions by the Irish Government, and they are welcome. What plans do you have in place to ensure that the airport remains sustainable? Will it receive any further investment from your Department for expansion?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As he outlined, we have committed to the investment in the City of Derry Airport over the next four years. That enables the airport to plan for growth in future years. We will work with partners locally in the north-west and further afield to support the economic development of the region. Clearly, the efforts that have been made are bearing fruit, and there have been many positive announcements over recent weeks. That clearly shows the potential of the region, and I am certainly keen to support it. I am happy to continue to work with partners to ensure that that continues.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for her commitment to the Derry airport. It is really welcome. What is the Minister's assessment of the recently published report, 'A Pathfinder for Irish Aviation'?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. My officials are considering that recently published report by Irelandia, an Irish aviation investment group. The report makes recommendations for various policy initiatives that, Irelandia contends, will strengthen the Irish aviation industry. In the first instance, I want to consider the applicability of those recommendations to the North and, if they are applicable, consider how we can work with the Irish and British Governments to drive implementation.

Dr Archibald: Local economic partnerships are a critical part of my regional balance agenda, and I am pleased to see the progress made in setting up partnerships across the North. The majority, including Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon, which met just yesterday, have met on several occasions already and begun the important work of agreeing local economic priorities and developing action plans for the first year. Each partnership will decide on the economic issues that matter most in its area. My Department will pivot itself to address those issues and encourage other Departments to do likewise.

There is also a £45 million fund that will allow the partnerships to pump-prime and co-fund projects that are important to them. My Department and Invest NI are working closely with all partnerships to support them in bringing forward projects. While my Department has provided guidance to the local economic partnerships about the type of projects that they might want to consider, that is not prescriptive. Partnerships will know what is needed at a local level. I am committed to ensuring that the work is taken forward as a genuine partnership with councils and other local stakeholders. That has meant listening to feedback and refining our approach. I am confident that we are building the right foundations to ensure maximum impact in the years ahead.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Minister for her answer. The projects are almost two months behind schedule. As part of June monitoring, the Minister's Department has indicated a reduced requirement of £8·9 million in relation to the economic regional growth fund. This is the first year of that fund, and, already, she has indicated a significant underspend. That delay and underspend are symbolic of the Executive's continual failure for the subregions, particularly the north-west. Why has that happened?

Dr Archibald: I do not agree with the Member's characterisation. The establishment of the local economic partnerships is a new approach that brings together my Department, Invest NI, councils and other key economic stakeholders in local areas. While there has been some slippage due to factors such as my Department working through the business case approval and councils establishing each partnership, a great deal of progress has been made. With approval secured for the regional balance fund business case, I look forward to seeing the partnerships bring forward innovative proposals to address economic issues that affect their areas.

Miss Dolan: Will the Minister provide more information on the guidance that has been issued to local economic partnerships?

Dr Archibald: Fundamentally, they are partnerships between the Department for the Economy and a range of stakeholders, and my officials have had back-and-forth with councils and other partners on issues and how best those can be resolved. My Department has provided formal and informal guidance on a range of issues, including the establishment of the LEPs' membership; project guidance; staffing; high-level objectives for the regional balance fund; the use of consultancies, state aid and subsidy control; and working with other Departments. In this phase of the partnerships, as they meet and identify projects, I anticipate that further queries will be raised to which my officials are likely to respond with further guidance. An action plan template has also been provided to councils to assist them.

Ms K Armstrong: The Minister talked about local-level priorities. How is she ensuring that strategically important and high-growth sectors in my Strangford constituency and across Northern Ireland are supported and developed through the work of the LEPs to achieve economic development?

Dr Archibald: Local economic partnerships are part of the drive towards regional balance. Alongside that, we have three other priorities in the Department: the creation of good jobs; improving productivity; and decarbonisation. We have identified seven priority sectors, which the Member referred to as "high-growth, high-potential sectors", each of which has an action plan to address the challenges and to support its potential across a range of areas, including skills. There is a key crossover in how LEPs might try to utilise and support the priority sectors. It is for each LEP to identify the ones that are most applicable in their area. To some extent, power has been given back to local areas to decide what their economic priorities are and for them to align and to leverage support to develop them.

Dr Archibald: I assume that the Member is referring to the Utility Regulator (Support for Decarbonisation Preparation) Bill. The draft Bill, which was developed in conjunction with the regulator, has been subject to a public consultation, the results of which have been shared with the Committee for the Economy and published on my Department's website, along with all consultation responses received. We have received legal confirmation that the Assembly has the legislative competence to introduce the Bill. My officials are working through the remaining legal issues.

The Bill has been designed to provide the Utility Regulator with additional powers to support my Department as we move towards our future decarbonised energy system. I assure Members that the policy development work to deliver the energy strategy continues. Additional powers for the energy economic regulator are included in the various pieces of legislation that will be introduced on new policy areas.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for her response. Minister, it is your Department's responsibility to ensure that we reach 80% of electricity from renewables by 2030. Can you assure the House that changes to the role or remit of the Utility Regulator will support the delivery of "80 by 30"?

Dr Archibald: The intent of the Bill is to give the Utility Regulator powers over decarbonisation as one of the considerations in respect of investment. The Bill will therefore be really important in supporting us to meet our targets for renewable electricity and our climate obligations. As I said in my answer, along with that initial legislation, the powers that are necessary across different policy areas will be progressed through the Assembly. Delivery across a range of energy policy areas will be crucial in supporting us to meet our energy targets in the coming years.

Dr Archibald: My Department is developing AI policy to maximise the benefits of the technology for our people and our businesses. That work will build on existing initiatives such as the Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre (AICC) to ensure that our workforce is equipped to utilise AI; that businesses can adopt it safely; and that the necessary infrastructure is in place to support implementation. Stakeholder engagement is central to that process. Officials have already engaged with industry and academia and will broaden that outreach in the coming weeks and months.

I recently met Professor Helen McCarthy, the Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA), who is leading efforts on the public-sector adoption of AI. That includes forming an AI task force consisting of government, academia and industry representatives to advise on opportunities and principles for adoption throughout the public sector. My officials have also met her office and will continue regular engagement to ensure alignment. Policy development will also be informed by relevant evidence, including the recent AI adoption report from Ulster University's strategic policy unit.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for that response. It is important that we have cross-sectoral engagement on the matter. Are you confident that the AI strategy will be delivered this year?

Mr Speaker: Briefly, Minister.

Dr Archibald: As I stated previously, officials in my Department have commenced work in that area.

We recognise the importance of and urgency in seizing the opportunities that come with AI, but it is equally important that we implement the right policies and actions to ensure that AI is adopted in a way that delivers maximum value in a safe and responsible way while adhering to my economic priorities. It is a key area of policy development for us that we will continue to focus on.

Mr Speaker: We now come to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I am not sure whether I have the information about the budget allocations in front of me, but I would be happy to share it with the Member in written correspondence. I understand that we provided the Committee with figures on student places for the incoming academic year, but I can share those again with the Member if necessary.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I acknowledge and welcome the fact that you sided with the SDLP in opposing the raising of tuition fees. However, that stance alone will not solve the underlying financial crisis that faces our universities. When will you finally publish the overdue higher education funding review, and, crucially, what fully costed options will you bring forward in this term to deliver a sustainable settlement that will spare our students and institutions ever again having to bridge gaps that have been created by the Department's lack of funding?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. I expect to receive the draft terms of reference for the review of higher education in the very near future. That will, of course, will be shared with the Economy Committee after I have taken decisions on it. We all recognise that we face a really constrained budgetary situation that puts pressure on all our public services. From my perspective, it is important that we have a sustainably funded higher education system. However, that needs to be done in a fair way that ensures accessibility for students and for people of all ages so that they are able to access the type of education that delivers to them the skills that they need and helps them to reach their potential. That is the challenge for us in undertaking the review. We have to let the work be done, and we will take decisions when it has been completed.

Dr Archibald: I was really pleased to have the opportunity to meet the representatives of the Border Region Manufacturing Cluster when they visited last week. I know that they also met representatives of the Economy Committee. At our meeting, they shared a policy paper with us, which was entitled 'Strengthening Regional Resilience for Manufacturing Businesses: The Strategic Role of the Border Region Manufacturing Cluster'. The paper outlined their vision for gaining greater recognition for the cluster and establishing formal communication channels with the Department. They expressed a strong desire to work closely with my Department to support collaboration on key issues that matter to that vital cross-border cluster. We also discussed some of the challenges that they are facing in order to support growth, particularly the challenges in the skills sector, where they are not unique, and in the need for improved infrastructure, where, again, they are not unique.

As a next step, it was agreed that my Department will follow up with BORMAC to ensure continued engagement and support. It was explained that, given the growing momentum around clusters, my Department is actively exploring the potential benefits of adopting dedicated cluster strategies. Officials have already begun work on that through engagement with stakeholders and industry partners and through initial research. We are clear that any strategy must be developed in close coordination with businesses and must align with and strengthen our wider economic goals.

Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat.

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, will you outline your approach to clusters more generally, including how it relates to all-Ireland clusters?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I certainly believe that the all-island economy has tremendous unrealised potential. Collaboration and trade are key to the growth of our economy. I am pleased to welcome and support The Competitiveness Institute's prominent global conference later this year, which will promote clusters across the island of Ireland on an international stage. Given the pace of organic growth around clusters, my Department is exploring the value and benefit of adopting a cluster strategy, as I mentioned in my opening answer, and work has started on that.

Business clusters are not a new concept. A whole breadth of research has been undertaken in that area, globally and locally. Officials are using that existing research to help our understanding of how a cluster strategy can support economic growth here in the North. We have continued to engage with cluster parties and various stakeholders. We have also liaised with British and Irish Government officials to understand their approach to clusters. I want to ensure that our approach is coordinated, evidence-based and aligned with the strengths and ambitions of our economy and that it adds value to clusters and potential clusters here in the North and all-island clusters. We are keen to understand how we can further develop those and support them. That work needs to be underpinned by collaboration with all involved.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The Department is working on a number of biomethane actions as part of the 2025 energy strategy action plan. That work includes progressing action 6, which will support the sustainability of biomethane being utilised in the gas network. Key areas of focus include progressing support mechanisms, consulting on options for gas network connection costs and investigating standards and certificates. That is an area of active policy development in the Department.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for her answer. What discussions has the Minister had with the Agriculture Minister in the development of the nutrients action programme 2026-29 consultation, given the potential impact on rural jobs and the fact that potential solutions are being developed as a consequence of work in her Department?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I am not sure that I have had any discussions with the Agriculture Minister in relation to the nutrients action programme, and I am not sure that the previous Minister had any before I was in position. I am sure that officials across Departments have been engaging, as they do on a whole range of issues, including in respect of biomethane policy development. Clearly, it is cross-cutting and involves the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and my Department.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As recently as this morning, I met trade union representatives from Spirit, along with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and I have given them assurances of my support in ensuring that we protect those jobs. I have been engaging with everybody whom you would expect me to engage with to ensure that that happens, including in the highest levels in the British Government.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Minister. I am grateful to hear that you met the unions this morning. An important part of all that is skills. What update can you give the House today on how your Department is helping to deliver the skills that Spirit AeroSystems needs to fulfil its work and grow as a business and a globally recognised brand?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Support for skills — skills in general — is a key priority for my Department, particularly in respect of apprenticeships and key trades to support the priority sectors that we have talked about this morning, one of which is advanced manufacturing, which, clearly, Spirit falls within. Spirit has a really active apprenticeships programme, which the Department works with it on and supports. It is really important that we continue to ensure that we have pathways for people of all ages to gain the skills that are needed for our economy. As I said, that is a key area of focus for me and my Department.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. He will, of course, know that, in the Adjournment debate, I unreservedly condemned those actions. I think that there is no place for them. They are damaging infrastructure and are having an impact on local communities, on businesses and on people's everyday life. As the Member will recall, a number of examples were given that day of people who had faced real challenges as a result of not having mobile phone coverage. There is no place for that, and it needs to stop.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for her answer. Given that numerous reports, including from the World Health Organization, have found no evidence of adverse health effects from 5G masts, will the Minister go further and call on those who can assist the police to bring those responsible for those attacks to justice to provide that assistance to the PSNI?

Dr Archibald: Again, I thank the Member for his question. Of course, if anybody has any information on those attacks, I urge them to bring it to the attention of the police. On the point that he made about 5G and the concerns that some people have had, off the back of the Adjournment debate and some of the media reporting, my Department, along with others, is looking at how we can support the communication of those key messages to assist in dealing with the misinformation that is out there.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I certainly am confident that the Dublin-Derry route would help to unlock tremendous potential across the region and, importantly, help to exploit the significant investment that my Department has made, along with the Irish Government and others, across the private and public sectors.

Officials are engaging with colleagues in the Department for Transport in London and the Department of Transport in Dublin, as I mentioned to Mr McCrossan earlier. Both of those have responsibility for public-service-obligation air routes across the relevant jurisdictions, and I have been supportive of the restoration of that route for many years. Both Conor Murphy and I engaged on seeking firm commitments to reopen the Dublin-Derry route, so I am pleased that that preparatory work has been undertaken to re-establish that route in 2026. My Department will support the work of the Irish Department of Transport and stakeholders to ensure a successful outcome to that important initiative.

Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire.

Minister, can you provide an update on the expansion of Magee, which is also a catalyst for greater prosperity in the north-west?

Dr Archibald: Yes, of course. Ulster University's Magee campus represents a significant strategic investment and has the potential to deliver substantial economic benefits for the north-west and, of course, the whole region. Since the task force launched its final report and action plan in December, work is progressing at pace towards the expansion of Magee to achieve the 10,000-student target, in line with New Decade, New Approach and PFG commitments.

My Department, in partnership with Ulster University, has now secured all the private-sector lands for teaching accommodation to reach that 10,000 target and has contributed almost £21·5 million of capital expenditure to support that planned growth. The recent acquisition of Timber Quay has been successfully completed, and that will allow Ulster University to accommodate 375 new students from September.

A number of members of the task force have been working with officials to progress a range of activities to inform the programme business case, which is due to complete in September. Those activities include a dedicated marketing campaign to attract students to Magee, proposals to maximise the economic impact of the expansion for businesses and widening access and participation initiatives. Work is also under way on addressing the student accommodation requirements to support the expansion.

Dr Archibald: Of course, my Department has an Irish language policy — a dual-language policy — and that is reflective of the action that is in the business plan. That is being rolled out across our arm's-length bodies as well in respect of the need to support the Irish language, particularly in the further education sector.

Mr Speaker: That brings Question Time to a conclusion. I noted yesterday with the Minister that we got through all the questions and that 27 Back-Benchers asked questions. Today, we had 16. Sometimes, Ministers think that the two minutes is the target: I think that they should aspire to give more Back-Benchers the opportunity to ask questions. That should be the target.

Mr Speaker: Before we move to the next item of business, I advise Members that the ministerial statement on the winter fuel payment will be taken after we have disposed of the UUP's motion on improving sentencing practices in Northern Ireland.

Members should take their ease until the Deputy Speaker moves into place to take the next debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, it is over to you. You have 15 minutes.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. In considering this debate, I will hopefully give a comprehensive response to the points raised. I will also review Hansard, and, if there are any points that I have not covered in my response, I will seek, where appropriate, to deal with them in writing.

We have a crisis with water quality in Northern Ireland. It is not just Lough Neagh: Lough Erne, Belfast lough and many other waterbodies across Northern Ireland are now in a critical state. As an Executive, we stood up and made a promise in the Programme for Government that we would protect Lough Neagh and the environment. If we cannot take difficult decisions to address the crisis in Lough Neagh, frankly, our Programme for Government is not worth the paper it is written on.

It is not lost on me that 40% of our drinking water comes from Lough Neagh. Improving water quality is vital not just because of the importance of our waterbodies to local businesses, recreation and tourism but for basic public health reasons and because of the need to ensure a supply of safe, clean drinking water without the taste and odour issues reported in the last two years when algal blooms were at their worst. We must address the crisis before it is too late. Our constituents expect no less, and, if we are to succeed, the status quo is not an option.

The vital need to protect our water quality is the reason we have the nutrients action programme (NAP). Simply put, the NAP fulfills a legal requirement to reduce water pollution from agricultural sources. That is not new. The first nitrates action programme to apply across the whole of Northern Ireland was introduced in 2007. The nitrates action programme established a range of measures and controls on livestock manures and chemical fertilisers, and there is a legal obligation to review it every four years. The current NAP was due to be reviewed in 2022. We have therefore already fallen behind that time frame because it has taken time to make sure that this complex issue is underpinned by science and evidence and the necessary environmental assessments.

The constant cycle of crisis and collapse of our institutions and a lack of political leadership has also had an impact on the delivery of the NAP and has seen our environment fall short across the board, as evidenced by a number of recent investigations by the Office for Environmental Protection, which is closely monitoring progress with regard to the NAP review. Last Friday, the Office for Environmental Protection published its letter of advice on the NAP proposals. The letter is on the OEP website, and I encourage you to read it. I welcome that advice, which highlights the need to strengthen existing NAP measures to ensure that we meet our environmental obligations. I take heed of Dame Glenys Stacey's warning that the consequences of failing to address nutrient pollution in the round are grave, including for our drinking water and our agriculture sector. That is why I am committed to continuing with the consultation, and it is important that I reiterate that it is a consultation on revised NAP measures for the next four years. No final decisions have been taken. It would be entirely improper to shut down a consultation and deny people their say, as the motion requests.

When the consultation closes on 24 July, all the responses will be considered. To ensure that that is done in an open and inclusive way, I gave a commitment last week that my Department will establish a small stakeholder group. That group will be in addition to the existing stakeholder group and will bring together relevant organisations, such as the UFU and Northern Ireland Environment Link, to consider the consultation responses, the measures that will be taken forward and a time frame for each. That will help us to move forward together on the issue. Hopefully, it will help us to come to an agreed position so that I can take final proposals to the Executive later this year.

Since the NAP consultation launched in May, I have listened to feedback and commentary on the proposals. I recognise that there are concerns about the impact that the proposals could have on agri-food and the impact of delay on our environment. Just last week, I met representatives from the UFU and Northern Ireland Environment Link.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes.

Mr McNulty: As someone who comes from a farming background, I spoke with the Ulster Farmers' Union. I also spoke with the director-general of the Irish Farmers' Association (IFA), and he said, "Do nothing without consulting with farmers. The Water Forum in the South is a very useful mechanism to move things forward, and to ensure proper engagement with and financial support for farmers". He highly recommended an all-island approach. Surprisingly and disappointingly, Sinn Féin did not suggest an all-island approach. Does the Minister agree that, instead of the DUP and Sinn Féin holding hands —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Justin.

Mr McNulty: — with this bluff and bluster motion —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Justin.

Mr McNulty: — they should get down into the weeds and into the whins and do something meaningful for farmers?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, interventions should be short and to the point. The Minister has 15 minutes, and he has a lot to get through. If you wanted to contribute in the debate, you had ample opportunity earlier to put your name down to speak in it. That is not something that we expect in the Chamber. You know better.

Minister, over to you.

Mr Muir: Thank you. That will be the last intervention that I will accept because I have lost a significant amount of time as a result of that intervention.

I believe in an all-island approach, which why I am engaging with my Irish Government colleagues.

In the spirit of openness and transparency, I will ensure that a letter confirming the outcome of last Tuesday's meeting is deposited today in the Assembly Library. There is no doubt that that meeting was frank and challenging, and I would like to address some of the concerns that arose from it in the next few minutes.

First, I will address the issue of source apportionment. Much has been said about the source of nutrients, particularly phosphorus, which comes from waste water and sewage. I have already been very clear in stating that it is important that everyone plays their part in finding a solution. The current situation, where sewage is pumped into our rivers, lakes and loughs, is a complete and utter disgrace and requires tougher regulation and enforcement. I am the first Minister to face up to that challenge and address the unacceptable permission to pollute granted to NI Water on its establishment in 2007. It is not lost on me that my predecessors did not go near the issue. I want Northern Ireland Water to be treated like all other polluters in Northern Ireland. It is wrong that it is given special status in that regard. NI Water and the Department for Infrastructure have until 7 July to come back to me on my proposal to end the bye-ball granted under what is known as "SORPI". As Minister, I will not be found wanting in dealing with all forms of pollution in a fair and balanced way.

Moving beyond sewage pollution, we cannot ignore the fact that there is validated scientific evidence that agriculture is a major source of the phosphorus that is polluting our water bodies. We must remember that the nutrients action programme is the legal framework for tackling water pollution from agricultural sources, and the narrative around that must not be sidetracked.

Next, I will address the concerns that I have heard about the potential impact of the measures on the agriculture sector. Let me be clear: the nutrients action programme is about managing nutrients in a way that reduces water pollution. Its foundation is on a code of good agricultural practice. It is about efficient farming and environmental sustainability. It is not — not — about reducing livestock numbers. The consultation is accompanied by an initial regulatory impact —.

A Member: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I will continue.

The consultation is accompanied by an initial regulatory impact assessment of implementing the proposed measures. It sets out the initial monetised costs and non-monetary benefits of the proposed measures. I can assure the House that, following the NAP consultation, my officials will undertake a full economic impact assessment of the final measures. That will ensure that any decisions on draft proposals are informed by a full and complete understanding of their potential impact.

The third issue that I would like to address is the discourse on the science and evidence that have been a significant factor in the development of the NAP proposals. I note that questions have been raised about the science, and I assure Members that my Department has processes in place to seek independent, expert scientific advice and to commission external peer reviews of any issues that may emerge from the consultation. I mentioned earlier that I will establish a small stakeholder group. That will be an excellent forum in which to address any issues that are raised and to reassure anyone who has concerns about scientific evidence.

A programme of stakeholder engagement events and meetings took place last year and in recent weeks. They have been informative and helpful. However, the consultation is the most important way for all stakeholders to be heard. I encourage everyone to respond, and I am committed to listening to the concerns of all stakeholders, including farmers and the agriculture industry more broadly, on the proposed measures and the impact that they may have on their businesses. I am also committed to hearing the views of organisations and citizens who are concerned about declining water quality. I reiterate my commitment to moving forward collaboratively and inclusively to make sure that all voices are heard as part of the consultation process.

I want to make it clear that the time when one sector, essentially, writes government policy is over. Going for Growth was a mistake. The issue of reducing the nutrient pollution to which Going for Growth helped to contribute is urgent. The Office for Environmental Protection rightly expects that NAP regulations will be updated and effectively implemented in a timely manner. Making the changes and improvements that are needed will require collective action across the agri-food sector, including feed and fertiliser suppliers and processors. It cannot be left to the Department and farmers. We need to work across the sector to support farmers and get to a more sustainable position on nutrients and water quality.

My Department has been delivering a range of funding schemes and initiatives to help farmers to improve water quality and nutrient management. It has rolled out £97 million in support since 2017. We all know that farmers have been working for years with the Department on water quality. We need to build on that and reduce surplus nutrients through an effective NAP. There is much more that needs to be done. Going forward, there will be focused knowledge transfer, education and support to help ensure the effective implementation of the NAP. I acknowledge that some of the proposed measures in the NAP consultation will, of course, require investment. Officials in my Department will consider how we can meet that funding need in the time ahead. Taking today's contributions into account, I look forward to a bumper budget in the years ahead.

I recognise that time frames for the implementation of measures are important. Therefore, any decisions around time frames will be informed by the feedback from the consultation and the considerations provided by the small stakeholder group. It is vital that, in making improvements to address our water quality, we develop solutions that, as well as meeting our legislative requirements are evidence-based, workable at farm level and have realistic time frames for delivery.

I turn to the issue of compliance with the current NAP regulations. As Minister, I know that the majority of farmers are good custodians of our countryside who play by the rules and do what is right when it comes to water quality. That is what I see regularly when I am out and about. The small minority who break the rules and bring the whole sector into disrepute do not reflect all the others who are farming with nature.

Some of us in the House may be aware of the reported fraud in slurry movements that occurred in the Republic of Ireland and recent moves to address the issue by requiring movements to be logged every four days, not by January of the following year. As Minister, I am seriously concerned that such fraudulent behaviour around slurry movements is also likely to have occurred in Northern Ireland, where reported exports do not, in fact, occur. I am limited in what more I can say, as active investigations are under way, but be assured that among the proposals in the NAP consultation is the introduction of an enhanced online system to require the prompt reporting of exports and imports to crack down on that entirely immoral behaviour.

I urge every Member who is considering voting to support the motion to fully consider the consequences of their actions. Those who back the motion under the DUP banner of "Scrap the NAP" are willingly and consciously consigning Lough Neagh to becoming a dead lake. I do not say this lightly, but it is true: we have an environmental catastrophe on our doorstep. The scenes of blue-green algae are being repeated year after year. The challenges being experienced by the Lough Neagh Fishermen's Co-operative Society are now, sadly, well known.

When it comes to Lough Neagh and water quality in Northern Ireland, it seems that some parties are happier with empty promises and hollow words in manifestos. You cannot govern by sound bites and photo opportunities. People deserve honesty about the issues that we face. They deserve open, genuine public consultations and a focus on actions.

As Minister, the easiest thing that I could have done would have been to make tokenistic gestures and talk around the problem, but I owe it to everyone to deliver on the Lough Neagh action plan, which was agreed by all Executive parties in July of last year. The political opportunism from those other parties, which signed up to the plan yet now seek to distance themselves from it and to work to drive a wedge between us, is profoundly disappointing. There is nothing unusual or unscheduled about the NAP consultation that is under way. It is action 22 of the Lough Neagh action plan, which states:

The position of our official Opposition is also disheartening. On the one hand, the SDLP has urged me to save Lough Neagh decisively. On the other hand, on Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, the SDLP has called for the return of Going for Growth, with all its clear environmental consequences.

In conclusion, the NAP consultation is not only necessary but urgent.

A Member: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: I am going to continue.

The responsible management of nutrients is critical for the sustainability of our agriculture sector and the protection of our natural environment. We face serious water quality challenges at Lough Neagh and other waterways, and we need to turn the curve. That is why I am committed to continuing with the consultation on the revised NAP measures for 2026-29.

As I have said, time and time again, until I am blue in the face, they are proposals. No final decisions have been taken. If we cannot even consult on proposals, I fear for the environment in Northern Ireland. I recognise the challenges, but together we can and must overcome them. As Minister, I am firmly committed to safeguarding our environment and to securing the long-term sustainability of our agriculture sector. Collective action on both is absolutely essential.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mr Buckley to make a winding-up speech. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset, I declare an interest, as I have family members who work right across the agriculture sector.

I pay tribute to my colleague Michelle McIlveen, who, despite some of the accusations in the Chamber about the intentions behind the motion, has always been a champion and friend of the rural environment, the rural community and the farmer. The motion reflects the sense of anger and despair that exists across Northern Ireland, which has been displayed over recent weeks, because of a Minister who is simply not listening.

Today, Members have had their say, and farmers are having their say. I recently attended a consultation meeting at the Greenmount campus, at which there were hundreds of farmers in attendance. When asked from the floor to raise their hand if they supported Minister Muir's NAP proposals, not one did so. We are having the conversations, and the farming community is having the conversations, but the question is this: will the Minister actually listen?

I cannot believe the response that I heard from the Minister. It is quite apparent that he has no intention of listening, and, to quote him, we can say it until we are "blue in the face", Minister, you are tone-deaf on the issues that affect farming. You are disconnected, and yours is a reckless approach to agriculture, which is a stable block of this society. Farmers are not just fighting for their livelihoods but fighting for our culture, our food security and our very identity. Every new rule, every inspection and every page of paperwork piles more stress and pressure on men and women who are already at breaking point.

Minister, a top-down, heavy-handed approach serves only to tighten the screws. Where is the collaboration? Where is the respect for the people who know the land best? A four-week extension to a consultation was a crumb, not a solution.

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment. Make no mistake: the farmer wants and supports clean water. I have lived at the foot of Lough Neagh all my life. I have never once met a farmer who does not support having a clean water supply. In fact, when we look at history, as Mr Gaston noted, be it 1923, 1937 or 1967, we see that blue algae was in existence when the farmer was still using a horse and plough. However, I do not hear one single member of the Alliance Party today referring to the fact that some type of industrialised, intensive slurry operation or, indeed, agriculture caused blue algae in those circumstances. No, it did not. Your demonisation of agriculture is not lost on a cross-community cross section of the House, and it is not lost on the wider community. You have failed them, and you continue to single them out.

We have seen a quick move on NAP. Where was the move to address a TB crisis that, in the past five years, has resulted in over 90,000 beef and dairy cattle being culled? Where was prioritising dealing with that by this place or the Minister? What about an ammonia policy that is stifling the sustainable growth of the agriculture industry? What about bringing on new blood and farm succession planning? There has been no focus on those issues from the Minister, just obstacles.

Over 3,500 farms now face proposals that will impose stricter phosphorus limits and enforce mandatory use of, in some instances, costly low-emissions slurry-spreading equipment, which, as has been noted, is impractical in some parts of our countryside. Those measures, as we all know, will only add costly regulation and costly —.

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will give way at this stage, because the Member wants to have his say.

Mr Blair: I was tempted to congratulate some Members on getting as far as the 1920s and the plough in a debate on environmental matters, but that would be mischievous.

The Member referred a moment ago to the consultation. The proposer of the motion commented that the consultation was built without "them"; I assume that "them" is "the sector". Will the Member, on behalf of his party, clarify whether the consultation should be led by science, written by officials and fronted up by a Minister? Given the public interest and the public funding that are involved in this matter, will he clarify that no sectoral interests should be involved prior to a public consultation?

Mr Buckley: OK. It is a speech on the matter. Sorry, Mr Blair. It has been 20 minutes. Sorry, Mr Blair.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gentlemen, you will be aware of my earlier ruling relating to another Member about prolonged interventions. The Member agreed to take the intervention. The clock has stopped.

Mr Clarke: It has not.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): It continues up there. I determine whether or not the clock stops. We will restart it. I have noted the comments about interventions being overly long.

A Member: Plough straight on. Plough on. [Laughter.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Yes, sir.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: In one moment. I want to address that intervention directly. That is typical of the condescending, sneering attitude of Alliance members towards anybody with any form of concern about their environmental extremism. They come to the House to tell us that we are the bad people who are causing pollution in Lough Neagh and, indeed, across Northern Ireland, but there is absolutely zero recognition of the very men and women who built this country. The Member talked about the 1920s and the horse and plough. I argue that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of just how generational farming is in communities across the country. He talked about scientific evidence. He will understand that there are debates about the very evidence that the Minister has put forward. I remember the words of Sinclair Mayne, who talked about the very shaky ground on which the science is presented. In fact, in many cases, it was absent when farmers wanted to quiz officials on exactly what was behind the policy intent. I will take no lectures from the Member.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Yes.

Mr Clarke: It would be wrong for the Member to make that point without identifying for many in the Chamber today who Sinclair Mayne is and what position he previously held in the Department.

Mr Buckley: He had quite a senior role in the Department. In fact, when he was at the meeting and addressed those who were gathered at Greenmount, there was a shirking away by those departmental officials who knew about his impeccable record and, indeed, conduct whilst he was in the Department. It is those voices — indeed, the voices of those in this very Building; those who came up to Stormont today to place on record their concern — that the Minister and his party fail to take into consideration.

We talk about the devastation of agriculture and livestock reduction. I noticed that the Minister was very hot and heavy when he said that this is not a reduction of agriculture. Let us read the room. Calculations suggest that farmers will potentially need more than twice their current acreage to deal with some of these conditions. To do that is not based on any reality, and, looking at it from a point of practical common sense, farmers are being forced into herd reduction as a result of the policy. It is herd reduction by stealth. We cannot make more land: that is a simple, known fact. However, to pursue a policy such as this will devastate agriculture in many ways.

Northern Ireland is responsible for 20% of the UK's food production. That should be a badge of honour. It is at the heart of food security. Policies in this place, in the past, ensured that farmers had fair representation and helped to grow our economy. They are still an absolutely integral part of the agri-food sector. This proposal, taken to its natural conclusion, could result in tens of thousands of jobs being lost. I did not say those words: look at the joint letter from the industry. The industry is very clear that the policy is unworkable and that we need to step back, remove the consultation and have a genuine moment of engagement, cross-sector and cross-party, to ensure that we can protect those in the agri-food sector. It is a crucial economic pillar, a lifeline for rural communities and a crucial component of national food security. At a time when global supply chains are constrained, food costs are rising and we are being told to buy local, we must provide help.

The motion will be passed by the Assembly. Many farmers, Minister, want your P45.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Buckley: Today's motion puts you on notice. Heed the warning. Listen to the people, and stand up for the farmer. Stop being the myopic Minister; a man with tunnel vision, careering down the dead-end path of NAP, leading to the inevitable consequence, which will ultimately result in the devastation of the only original industry that we have left in this country. It means a lot to the people of Northern Ireland to have a Minister whom they know has the back of the farmer. Work with them. Let us get —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Buckley: — through this situation and ensure that we have a sustainable future. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much indeed for the debate and the cut and thrust.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The motion has not been moved. Let us move on.

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

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I wish to make a statement to update the Assembly regarding winter fuel payments in Northern Ireland.

Last year, the Labour Government announced changes to the eligibility criteria for the winter fuel payment, restricting payment to pensioners on pension credit and other means-tested benefits. Since then, I have consistently made clear my total opposition to the changes. I raised my concerns directly with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and a number of Labour Ministers. Additionally, I, along with other Executive colleagues, wrote to the Prime Minister, urging him to reverse the changes that had been announced.

I recognised the need to act quickly when that announcement was made and engaged with ministerial colleagues to determine how we might be able to help pensioner households in Northern Ireland. Members will be aware that I successfully bid for and received an additional allocation of £17 million, which I used to make a one-off £100 fuel support payment to pensioner households in Northern Ireland. Almost 250,000 payments were issued, as promised, to most Northern Ireland pensioners by the end of March 2025. While that one-off payment helped to support pensioners last winter, many of them remained anxious and worried about their energy bills this winter and beyond. I therefore welcome Treasury's announcement yesterday to reinstate the winter fuel payment to everyone over the state pension age who has an income of or below £35,000 a year. That increased threshold means that no lower- or middle-income pensioners will miss out.

My opposition to restricting eligibility for the winter fuel payment has been absolute, and I am glad that the Labour Government have now recognised that they made a mistake. I know that many of our pensioners are still anxious and worried about what yesterday's statement means for them. Therefore, I have acted quickly to provide clarity and certainty about what will happen to the winter fuel payment in Northern Ireland. After yesterday's announcement, I asked my officials to engage with DWP to understand the impact on Northern Ireland. I also met Torsten Bell MP, Parliamentary Secretary at the Treasury and Parliamentary Under-Secretary at DWP, along with the Finance Minister, John O'Dowd.

Today, I engaged with Executive Ministers, and I am pleased to announce that pensioners in Northern Ireland will be able to receive a winter fuel payment in the same way as their neighbours in England and Wales. For clarity, the criteria are as follows: everyone over the state pension age in Northern Ireland will receive a winter fuel payment this winter; and pensioners with an income of or above £35,000 a year will have their payment automatically recovered by HMRC. That threshold is well above the income level of pensioners in poverty and is broadly in line with average earnings, thereby balancing support for lower-income pensioners with fairness to the taxpayer. There will be an option to opt out, however, and work is ongoing to finalise a solution, which will be announced at a later stage. My officials will take forward the necessary subordinate legislation for Northern Ireland. That is expected to be very straightforward and to be completed by the end of July.

HMRC will bring forward the changes required for the recovery process in the Finance Bill. This is a reserved matter, so DOF and His Majesty's Treasury (HMT) will engage to agree the legislative process for Northern Ireland. Winter fuel payments are worth £200 per household or £300 per household where there is someone over the age of 80. For those with an income of £35,000 or above, the payment will be recovered from individuals via HMRC, and that will be based on their individual taxable incomes. For example, in a couple household where both pensioners are under 80 and not in receipt of pension credit, each will receive a payment of £100, ie £200 per household. If both have an income of £35,000 or above, HMRC will recover the £100 payment from each individual. If one has income below £35,000, they will keep the £100 payment, while the other £100 will be recovered. Payment will be recovered via PAYE for the vast majority. For the minority who file and pay their taxes through self-assessment, it will be recovered via their tax return. HMRC will work closely with representative bodies to ensure that the process is as simple as possible, with clear guidance for taxpayers.

Importantly, the additional winter fuel payment costs are covered through annually managed expenditure (AME), so there are no additional costs to the Northern Ireland block grant. My officials continue to work with DWP and HMRC officials to determine the number of pensioners in Northern Ireland impacted on by the announcement, particularly the number who exceed the £35,000 threshold.

At this early stage, it is extremely important to say that, already, a number of scams asking pensioners to provide their personal and bank account details have been circulating since yesterday's announcement. Let me be absolutely clear: pensioners do not need to do anything to receive the winter fuel payment this year. If anyone gets a suspicious email or text from an address ending gov.uk, the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department for Communities asking for bank details, they should report it to Action Fraud. They should not respond or click on any links. Neither DWP nor the Department for Communities will ask for bank details by text or email or send a link to click on within a text or an email.

I have consistently said that the winter fuel payment changes announced by the Labour Government last year were a mistake. I have taken every opportunity since then to call on the Government to reverse their mistake, and I am pleased that they have listened. I acted quickly last year to provide the one-off £100 fuel support payment, and I have acted quickly again to provide clarity and certainty to every pensioner in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I commend this statement to the House.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for his statement. To many across Northern Ireland, it is a welcome announcement. It will come as a great comfort to those who were worried and stressed about the removal of the winter fuel payment. Minister, you said previously that every pensioner in Northern Ireland should get the payment. Are you still of that view? Do you believe that millionaires should benefit from such a payment or just those most in need?

Mr Lyons: I never said that millionaires or billionaires should benefit from it. I said that the most simple and straightforward way was to ensure that the universal nature of the payment was kept. That was not because I was trying to support those whom the Member describes. Rather, my focus was on those who were on the borderline: those who were not in receipt of pension credits or other means-tested benefits but were not able to qualify. There are many people in that category. There are many people across our constituencies who are in need and are not considered rich in any way. It is right that those people are now covered and that middle- and lower-income earners will get the support that they need.

As the Member will have seen, that is having to be done in a convoluted way. The payment is having to be given out to everybody and then reclaimed from some. That is why I said what I said previously about wanting the process to be as simple and straightforward as possible. This is not the most simple or straightforward way, but it will help those who need it most. That is what I set out to do, and that is what I have done.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): The U-turn that the Labour Government announced yesterday will have been welcome news for thousands of pensioners across the North. The announcement is a recognition by the British Government that they called it wrong in their initial decision to cut the winter fuel allowance. The Minister said that he is working on assessing the figures. Does he have an approximation of how many pensioners here's allowance will be reinstated at this stage?

Mr Lyons: Yesterday, I asked the Department for Work and Pensions for that information. That is not information that we hold but information that HMRC holds. DWP has said that it will provide the information to us. The estimates are that 75% of people in England will be eligible. My understanding is that the percentage will probably be a little bit higher in Northern Ireland, because of the lower pensions and lower incomes of many of our pensioners compared with those of pensioners in the rest of the UK. That is an estimate and thus comes with a warning. I will, however, be more than happy to share the information with the Member and the House when it becomes available.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House. I also thank him for his quick action to provide clarity and for his continued commitment to the winter fuel payment for our pensioners. Will he confirm that pensioners in Northern Ireland will have the payment delivered at the same time as those in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr Lyons: That is absolutely my ambition. There is a lot of confusion, and there has been a lack of clarity since the UK Government originally made their decision. That is why I acted so quickly to find out what legislative changes were going to be needed and what interaction with HMRC was required. That work has been done, and that is why I am able to confirm today that, all being well, and I think that all will be well, pensioners in Northern Ireland will get the payment at the same time as everybody else in England and Wales. That is to be welcomed, because it certainly was not inevitable. It is only by getting in early, getting the information and ensuring that we put the legislation in place that the payment can be delivered, and I am determined to do that. I am fed up with Northern Ireland often being left behind when decisions are made. Unfortunately, I found out about the announcement through the media rather than through the Government. I hope that that is not something that will continue into the future. It is, however, good news for pensioners in South Down and across Northern Ireland.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. I am pleased, as others have said that they are, that Labour has done a U-turn. I am also pleased that those who are very wealthy will have their winter fuel payment reclaimed from them. In your statement, Minister, you said:

will

Given that the Assembly will be in recess at that time, what procedures will you use?

Mr Lyons: It is legislation that can be done by way of statutory rule (SR). It does not require Executive agreement, and it is not required to be voted on in the House. That is why it is so straightforward, and it is why I gave the assurances that I did to Diane Forsythe. I believe that the subordinate legislation will progress very quickly, because the changes are minor and do not require further approval.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his statement and for the pace at which he moved to provide it. I welcome the U-turn by the Labour Government. The increase in the income threshold is something that my party pressed for, as, I know, did other parties. Minister, you highlighted the new income threshold, but what engagement have you had with the UK Government on increasing pension credit? If I am not taking liberties, Mr Deputy Speaker, will you, Minister, outline whether you will bid for additional money in the same way for non-pensioner households that also need support?

Mr Lyons: I have engaged and will continue to engage on pension credit with the Government. We have seen quite a significant increase in the uptake of pension credit, which is good to see. However, it is another reason why it was not a very clever move by the Government from an economic and fiscal point of view, because they will not save as much as they originally thought that they would, especially now with the changes and the additional number of people who have come on to universal credit.

I will always bid for additional resource to help those who are most in need. That is why, even though I am in a constrained budgetary environment, I am keeping the discretionary support payments in place. I understand the need that some people have for help in that way, but I recognise that there are many other people who do not fall into the pensioner category but are still in need. We will always seek to help those who are in difficulty. That is why, in addition to the anti-poverty strategy, I am bringing forward a fuel poverty strategy later this year to tackle the root causes of those problems. I would far rather give people money so that they can better insulate their home, for example, than just give them money to pay their bills. That is where we can use money smartly, which is what I am determined to do.

Miss Dolan: I welcome the Minister's statement. Minister, as you mentioned, there has been an increase in the number of online scams. What more can your Department do to protect vulnerable people from scammers?

Mr Lyons: The Member is right to highlight that, and I hope that it came across strongly in my statement that we need to ensure that we deal with it. It is an issue of concern. Many people out there are vulnerable, especially to some of the online scams. We continue to work with various organisations, including financial institutions and others, to ensure that people are aware of them. Raising awareness is the greatest thing that we can do. That has been part of my media communication plan for this measure. I encourage the Member and, indeed, all Members to make sure that they use their influence and reach to warn people about those scams. It is disgraceful that, less than 24 hours after the announcement, people are already trying to take advantage of others. That is wrong. We should do everything that we can to make people aware of the rules. They do not need to fill out an application form or submit any information, including bank account details. I hope that that comes across very strongly today.

Mr Kingston: Minister, if a constituent of mine received £100 from your scheme last winter, will that have any impact on their eligibility for the forthcoming winter fuel payment?

Mr Lyons: No, it will not. It is very important to note that that will not count in any way. People can rest assured that that is not something that they need to be aware of or pay back. Indeed, in most cases, it will automatically go into people's bank accounts. HMRC will do its work through self-assessment or PAYE to claim back the money from those who are not entitled to it. That is not something that people in Northern Ireland need to worry about.

Mr McHugh: Minister, you will know that pensioners and older people always want certainty. I think that you said that, hopefully, the legislation will be in place by July. When are people likely to receive their winter fuel payment?

Mr Lyons: We do not have the exact details, but it will be at the same time as it normally occurred in the past. I think that it was previously paid out in October or November. I hope that it will happen at the same time not just in England and Wales but in Northern Ireland. We will have confirmation of that closer to the time and will be able to provide those details at that stage.

Ms Ferguson: I also thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House. It is welcome news for all pensioners who will receive the winter fuel payment this winter. I commend our older people's advocate groups, which have relentlessly campaigned for the payment to be reinstated. Do you, Minister, foresee any logistical or implementation issues with the payments in relation to the option to opt out?

Mr Lyons: I also thank the many organisations across Northern Ireland and, indeed, the UK that made the case to the UK Government. It is clear that they came under political pressure. That political pressure was put on Labour MPs and others, and they have recognised the error of their ways. In large part, that was down to the groups that ensured that that pressure was put on, the facts were presented and people were aware that it was not about rich pensioners getting money; often, it was about people in genuine need. I am pleased that that happened.

I turn to the other issue that the Member raised. We do not have any detail on the opt-out, other than to say that the Government are looking at that option. I do not know how many people will avail themselves of that or how or when it will be made available. Some people might take up that option if they are clear that they will be above the threshold every year and do not want to have deal with it through self-assessment or through PAYE. I am certainly happy to share that information with the House if and when the Government provide clarity on that issue. All that we have been told is that there will be an option to opt out, but we do not know any more details about it right now.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement. The scrapping of that disastrous policy by the UK Government will, of course, be warmly received by pensioners, but it is cold comfort to the many thousands of working-age householders who live in cold homes. The Department's own modelling showed that, in 2022, over a quarter of households here were living in fuel poverty. Will the Minister give us an update on the fuel poverty strategy? When can we expect to see it?

Mr Lyons: As I have said before, it will be ready by the end of the year. I look forward to bringing it forward. The Member is absolutely right: this is a key issue. Others may have met representatives from Asthma and Lung UK today. We see the ill effects that poor housing and the inability that some people have to heat their home has not only on their comfort and well-being but on their health, including their long-term health. That is why I am absolutely determined to do everything in our power to address the issue. I talk about this all the time, but, again, that is why it is so important that the Housing Executive gets into the position of being able to borrow against its assets once more so that it can not only build better homes but help with social homes that are under its care and need extra work. I am absolutely committed to helping our pensioners, yes, but also everybody in Northern Ireland to ensure that they live in warm, safe homes.

Mr Carroll: I welcome the backtrack as well. I pay tribute to all who campaigned against the Labour Party's decision and the Minister's decision to cut the winter fuel payment. In particular, I pay tribute to Unite the union, of which I am a member, and its retired members branch. Pressure from below clearly worked.

Minister, you talked about recovering payments from people who earn over £35,000. In the past, you have talked about IT costs and other aspects of benefits. There will be an administrative cost to the clawback: do you have any idea of how much it will be?

Mr Lyons: We have been told that there will not be an administrative cost to the Northern Ireland block grant, because it will be done by HMRC through Westminster. It is not a Northern Ireland solution or one that is unique to us; it is what is being done in England and Wales. We would not have been able to do it ourselves in Northern Ireland, because, although we will have some legislative work to do around the winter fuel payments that will come to people in Northern Ireland, we do not have the data or ability to recover payments through the self-assessment process or PAYE as HMRC and the Treasury do. It is convoluted. It is a little complicated. It will take additional administrative work, but I have been told that that will not be at the expense of the Northern Ireland block grant.

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

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My question about the opt-out was covered by Ms Ferguson. I am content.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mr McNulty. You do not get twice as long, Mr McNulty.

Mr McNulty: Minister, last winter, pensioners were stressed to the hilt about going cold in their homes. Will the Minister commit to them here and now that the winter fuel payments will be made in a timely manner? When will the payments be in pensioners' bank accounts?

Mr Lyons: I refer the Member to answers that I have given to other questions already. In case he had fallen asleep, I am happy to confirm to him that it will be done as soon as possible. I still believe that it will be done when they are normally done. That will be done because of the quick action that I have taken to ensure that we have the legislation in place to do what we need to do at our end so that DWP and the Treasury can do what they need to do at their end so that pensioners here are treated on the same basis as those in England and Wales.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As you were advised earlier, I have been notified that the proposer will not speak to the Adjournment topic in the Order Paper today.