Official Report: Tuesday 01 July 2025

Mr Delargy: I rise to raise the issue of postal delays in Derry. On a recent visit to a Royal Mail sorting office in Derry, I was informed by staff that letters can sometimes wait for nine or 10 days before they are delivered. [Interruption.]

Sorry?

Mr Speaker: Continue.

Mr Delargy: OK. Staff noted that they have been told to prioritise parcels, overtime has been curtailed and holiday periods are often left uncovered. That creates an untouched backlog of mail for staff to deal with when they return from leave. As a result of parcels being prioritised, constituents are missing letters that contain details about vital hospital appointments, financial information and other time-bound and sensitive information.

I therefore recently wrote to the Consumer Council and Ofcom, requesting that they look into the following six critical issues that are impacting on people in Derry: the extent to which Royal Mail is meeting its public service obligations to its customers; the potential health impact of missing vital hospital appointment letters, particularly those related to cancer, and the resultant delay in diagnosis and treatment; the potential financial impacts, including loss of earnings, of receiving letters on financial and insurance matters significantly later than expected; the potential judicial impact of missing jury service and pressing legal letters; the potential financial impact of late bill or fine payments as a result of not receiving letters in a timely and efficient manner; and the impact on small businesses of not being able to effectively and efficiently send or receive letters in a timely manner.

There are countless other issues that we can rehearse, but this is about changing the system. It is about Royal Mail recognising the problem and putting in place strategic and robust measures to change. People in Derry will not accept a second-class system from Royal Mail. People are often left waiting on vital healthcare letters, in some cases missing appointments because they have received the appointment letter days after the appointment was due to take place. Our office has been contacted by people who are waiting on a cancer diagnosis and are, obviously and naturally, worried about the impact that the postal delays will have on their treatment options.

It is also deeply unfair that our postal staff, who work tirelessly in all conditions all year round, are bearing the brunt of decisions taken by Royal Mail management. Royal Mail needs to meet its public service obligations. It needs to get mail out to people in Derry in a timely manner, and it needs to take responsibility at management level to make that happen.

Mr Kingston: On this 1 July morning, I rise to commemorate the 109th anniversary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. The battle resonates throughout history for us due to the sheer scale of casualties among Ulstermen on the first day of what became one of the bloodiest battles in human history.

The battle was intended to be a decisive blow against the German forces. In preparation, the British artillery fired constantly for six days to destroy the German front-line trenches, with over 1·5 million shells fired. However, that bombardment did not have the desired effect. At 0730 hours on 1 July, whistles blew, and thousands climbed bravely out of the trenches to cross no man's land under enemy fire. By the end of that first day, the British forces had 57,470 casualties, with 19,240 dead. The Germans suffered 10,000 to 12,000 casualties, equating to roughly 5:1 losses for the attacking forces.

The 36th (Ulster) Division was the only division of X Corps to achieve its objectives on the opening day of the battle. That came at a heavy price, with the division suffering over 5,000 officers and men killed, wounded or missing. When news of those losses reached home, the Lord Mayor of Belfast, Sir Crawford McCullagh, requested that all business be suspended for a civic act of remembrance lasting five minutes. He was the first person to be recorded as publicly calling for a period of silence for the remembrance of fallen soldiers. That event is portrayed in the stained glass window in Belfast City Hall that honours his many years as lord mayor.

Of nine Victoria Crosses (VCs) awarded for action on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, four were awarded to 36th Division soldiers. One VC was subsequently awarded to a soldier in the 16th (Irish) Division, which served nobly later in the battle alongside the 36th (Ulster) Division. The battle ended on 18 November 1916. By then, there were over one million casualties: 420,000 British and over 500,000 German. By the end of the battle, the British had advanced 7 miles.

As we remember those who gave so much in that battle, let us remember all those who have given so much in all conflicts for the freedoms that we and others enjoy today.

Some Members: We will remember them.

Mrs Guy: The shortest speaking slot that we are generally allocated in the Chamber is three minutes. That is how long the Minister of Education gave to address special educational needs (SEN) placements in the Chamber yesterday. Last week, we all wondered where the Minister was on the issue: it turns out that he was in Florida. What message does that send to the children and families who face an uncertain summer waiting for a school place?

The Minister and the Education Authority (EA) have done all that they can to frame the issue as the fault of schools, but the responsibility for planning and allocation of resources lies absolutely with the Minister, his Department and the EA. The fact that we still have over 100 children without an allocated place on 1 July is a crisis. It is a disgrace, and it has been allowed to happen not because schools have not stepped up but because the education leadership has prioritised other things. We are now watching a last-minute scramble to get a handle on the issue, with suggestions being made that the Minister will force schools to comply. Imagine being the child who is told that they have a place in a school that does not want them.

The Education Minister is not shy about coming to the Chamber to trumpet and announce the things for which he wants applause. Real leaders, however, step up and take responsibility when there is a crisis. They do not simply look for someone else to blame. Tacking on a statement to the end of another SEN-related debate on restrictive practices — another issue that the Minister has not delivered on — is contemptible. It undermined the important issue that we were there to debate and sent a message to the children without a place that they are not worth his time.

The number of children not allocated a place is only one part of the scandal.

Arguably, the bigger failure becomes more obvious when you try to probe how many of those children with an allocated place will have a physical classroom to attend in September. We know that, in October 2024, 139 children were still waiting to access their allocated place due to building works. Then we get into the issue of the appropriateness of the places that are allocated. At the Education Committee, we have heard evidence from school leaders who have stepped up to take on specialist provision but have not been supported adequately to give those children an equitable education experience relative to their peers. In some instances, they have told us that the best that they can do is to keep them safe in school. No wonder schools are reluctant to step forward in that context. We will continue to ask questions and do what we can to support our SEN families, but they are failed, too often, and it cannot go on.

Ms Finnegan: I rise with a heavy heart not only as a public representative but as a woman, a mother and a witness to the deep and lasting scars that coercive control inflicts on women and children. Since 2020, 27 women have been killed due to domestic abuse, with Sarah Montgomery — a pregnant mother of two — the latest to be lost to that type of violence. We often speak in the Chamber about protecting women and children, but the truth is that protection cannot exist only in words or the safety of a well-written policy: it must exist in reality, and that reality is often brutal, complicated and hidden behind closed doors.

Coercive control is a form of abuse that strips a woman of her autonomy, her voice and, often, her children: the psychological violence is quiet but lethal. It is the manipulation of the systems to isolate a mother, erase her from her child's life and paint her as unstable or unworthy, all while appearing respectable to the outside world. We do not speak enough about the impact that that has on children: children who are used in battles that they never chose; children who are shaped by control, fear and silence; children who learn to second-guess love; and children who carry confusion, guilt or false loyalties into adulthood. Those children grow up believing that love is conditional, that safety is unpredictable and that truth depends on who has the power to tell it. Protecting women and children means more than responding to physical violence. It means recognising when a mother is being erased from her child's life through manipulation, gaslighting and legal intimidation. It means having the courage to believe her, even when her story makes us uncomfortable. It means looking deeper, because coercive control does not always leave bruises.

If we are serious about protection, we need to stand with those women before they are broken. We need systems that understand coercion, protect maternal bonds and treat emotional abuse with the same urgency as physical abuse. There needs to be a cultural and systemic change through each of our Departments and society. I say this today not just to raise awareness but to call for action, because there are women and children who need more than sympathy. They need justice; they need truth; and they need to know that someone is willing to say, "That is not love. It is control, and we will not let it win".

Mr Clarke: During yesterday's Members' statements, I listened to the Member opposite from South Down talk about Warrenpoint; indeed, one of my colleagues has talked about Warrenpoint and the waste that is rotting on the quay. Many trucks arrive daily from across the Province to dump waste in Warrenpoint.

That brings me back to last week's judgement on the A5, when climate targets were key. The best way to describe those who supported those targets is "environmentally illiterate", because there were options, but they decided to support targets that have made things much more difficult in Northern Ireland. On the one hand, they are climate fanatics, and on the other hand, they are climatically irresponsible.

The SDLP had an opportunity to deal with waste in Northern Ireland, but, on two occasions, it interfered in a planning process that would have allowed a site to be built on this island to deal with waste. That energy-from-waste plant would have dealt with all the waste and would have meant that people from Warrenpoint, Cottonmount and your constituency, Mr Speaker, did not have to suffer the stench from landfill sites, but, no, those representatives chose populism. They chose to take the waste to Warrenpoint and ship it from Northern Irish shores to other parts of the world. They chose to put the waste in a boat, which is environmentally irresponsible given the amount of fuel that is needed to transport it for miles, and dump it at sea, as evidenced by a documentary some months ago. It a case of out of sight, out of mind. They interfered in the planning system because of Nimbyism: not in my back yard. There was a perfectly good solution in Northern Ireland that would have served us all and got the best value out of waste — people would have benefited from the energy from waste — but, no, they chose another option.

I say this to people in Warrenpoint, Mullaghglass and Cottonmount: go and rap on the doors of your representatives who, on the one hand, say that they support the climate, but on the other hand, are climate deniers, because they would rather that that waste rot and cause a stench in our areas than deal with it properly.

Mr O'Toole: Today is the last day that we will sit in a plenary meeting before the summer break. In the past couple of weeks, families will have been looking at their children's report cards; they will have been looking at how their kids have been doing in school and college and thinking about how best to support them in the next stage of their education. Therefore, it is the right time to look at how the Executive have done.

We are now more than 500 days in to the new Executive, who were formed in February 2024 after a two-year delay. When the Executive were formed, they promised the people of Northern Ireland that they would take action on health waiting lists, social housing and the disgraceful ecological catastrophe in our biggest natural resource: Lough Neagh. Critically, they promised that the life-saving A5 infrastructure project would be delivered. Gaels and people who want to see the development of west Belfast were promised that Casement Park would be delivered. Parents who are struggling with the cost of childcare were promised not just some support but a comprehensive childcare strategy. I am afraid that I, as leader of the Opposition, have to report today that none of those things has been delivered by the Executive. In fact, they are nowhere near to being delivered. The public deserve so much better than what they have received from the Executive.

In the spirit of being detailed, I will go through where we are with some of those things. The Programme for Government promised 6,000 social homes by the end of the mandate. This year, if we are lucky, barely 1,000 will be built, so that target can be written off. On the A5, the then Infrastructure Minister — the now Finance Minister — failed to get the paperwork done. That project has been thrown into severe jeopardy. Who knows whether it will ever be built? It certainly will not be built in this mandate. On Lough Neagh — our biggest natural resource is an open-air cesspool — Sinn Féin joined the DUP in voting against the critical, fundamental action proposed in the Lough Neagh action plan. We heard a couple of weeks ago about an additional allocation from the UK Government for Casement Park, but, as yet, there is no plan. There is no sense of where the rest of the money is going to be found or of when the project is going to be delivered. There has been some funding for the childcare strategy, but that has been wiped out by the additional rises that families have faced. There is no comprehensive childcare strategy as yet.

My SDLP colleagues and I promised to be a constructive Opposition, and we have been. Being a constructive Opposition means standing up for the people of Northern Ireland, who deserve so much better than the sound bites, photo ops and nonsense that they have received from the Executive. The First Minister claimed yesterday that she would not deliver the A5 by sound bites. In that case, I do not know how she is going to deliver it, because all that she has at the minute is sound bites.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: I worry that our public are going to become totally disillusioned. We deserve so much better than what we are getting from the Executive.

Mr Gaston: The Assembly is supposedly built on the principle of accountability. Ministers are meant to answer to the House, not ignore it, but we are witnessing a calculated culture of obstruction, silence and secrecy from the Executive Office. We now know that the First Minister and deputy First Minister blocked the release of information about their £54,000 trip to Washington in 2024 for over a year. The flights, hotels and taxis were all racked up from the public purse but were hidden from the public record. Civil servants prepared answers to questions for written answer that were ready to go, yet they sat on the desks because Michelle O'Neill and Emma Little-Pengelly refused to sign them off. It is deliberate, it is political, and it is a disgrace.

Let me remind the House of Standing Order 20C, which states:

Not 280 days, not a year — 10 working days. That is not a suggestion, it is a Standing Order of the Assembly that is routinely being ignored.

The answers to hundreds of questions for written answer on spending, foreign engagement, equality and civic engagements have been buried. Assembly Members from every party have to chase replies for months. Often, when an answer finally appears, it is just a sentence or two with the same excuse: there is no joint agreement. It is time for some joint accountability.

When Ministers dodge questions, they are not just being evasive; they are breaking the rules of the House. The Speaker has rightly said that not answering a question for written answer for a year is clearly not acceptable. Ministers are not above the Assembly. They do not get to choose which questions they answer or when. It is not a private office; it is a public Government. If the Executive Office will not respect the Assembly's procedures, then we turn to you, Mr Speaker, to assess it. Scrutiny is not optional. Transparency is not up for negotiation. The public, who foot the bill, have the right to know how their money is being spent.

Ms Flynn: Members, today at 12.30 in the Great Hall, I will stand alongside Sinéad Boyle. Sinéad is a mother whose son Seán tragically died by suicide in June 2020. Sinéad is calling for urgent action to see crisis intervention services made available to all who need them, regardless of where they live. She has contacted all Members and all Ministers to ask them to support her calls for the regional mental health crisis service to be implemented. As you will know, that plan was first published in 2021, but we are still waiting on the funding to fully deliver the plan, and that is an urgent need.

Sinéad's son Seán was just 24 when, sadly, he lost his young life to suicide. He always struggled with his mental health, and he also, sadly, struggled with substance use. Seán wanted to live, and he asked for help. We have heard that about a lot of cases that have been mentioned in the Chamber, but he had asked for help multiple times. Unfortunately, the help that he required was not there when he needed it most. Sinéad told us that Seán often said:

Those words will stick with her for the rest of her life because he is now, sadly, gone.

Today, I encourage all Members of the Assembly to listen to Sinéad's specific call for each and every one of us to listen to her request to get the regional mental health crisis service over the line and fully implemented. Sinéad Boyle and her family firmly believe that Seán's death could have been prevented if he had been given the immediate and appropriate crisis intervention services. If those services had been available to him, he might still be alive. The need for the service is urgent. The solutions are well known, but the human cost of inaction is far too great. Today, in Seán's name, and the names of all those whom we have lost too soon, we ask you to support the regional mental health crisis service plan and to support Seán's law.

Above all, support those who are still fighting to this day: those who are still alive and in crisis, silently fighting for their lives.

I urge all Members, if they have the time, please to come to the Great Hall any time from 12.30 pm to show their solidarity and to sign the pledge. Sinéad would greatly appreciate your attendance and appreciate having a wee chat with individual Members so that she can speak a bit more about Seán.

Mrs Erskine: Today, I launch the public consultation on my private Member's Bill, which will seek to tackle a long-standing and deeply frustrating problem for many homeowners and communities across Northern Ireland: unadopted developments. I urge the industry and homeowners to get involved by giving their views. The Bill is not about restricting housebuilding or the housing market but about fairness for people who bought their home in good faith, believing that the appropriate infrastructure would be available outside their front door.

The Bill is the product of my listening to constituents, residents' groups, colleagues, developers and even officials from the Department for Infrastructure. The common message is that the current system is broken. Too many homeowners find themselves trapped in housing developments that they had been promised would be fully completed and adopted, with the associated roads, footpaths, street lighting and green spaces, yet, years after moving in, they are left with unfinished infrastructure, uncertainty as to where the responsibility lies and very few answers. Mr Speaker, I declare an interest as someone who lives in an unadopted development.

It is unacceptable that families who pay their rates and mortgage — who do everything right — are left to live in a development with street lights that do not work, with roads that are not resurfaced and with basic public services being withheld, because, for a variety of reasons, the development was never adopted by the relevant authority. In many cases, residents feel abandoned. They are caught between developers, the Department for Infrastructure and Northern Ireland Water (NIW). All the while, their quality of life suffers, and the value of their home may also be affected.

My Bill is not about punishing developers or shifting the burden on to local authorities. Rather, it is about creating a fair, transparent and enforceable system that ensures that developments are completed to an adoptable standard before the keys are handed over. Crucially, it is about restoring residents' trust in the Government and the private sector. We need to send a clear message that developments must not be left in limbo and that homeowners should not be left to foot the bill for unfinished work. I thank residents from across Northern Ireland who have contributed to the process so far, particularly those from Fermanagh and South Tyrone, by sharing their first-hand experiences.

The issue cuts across urban and rural areas. It affects people from all backgrounds and has persisted for far too long. Today, we take the first step towards ending the inertia. Hopefully, by getting the public's views, we can start to build a system that is fair and enforceable and, above all, that puts residents first.

Mr McGrath: Last week saw the launch in Parliament Buildings of a report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH). The report is an absolute wake-up call to us all. The facts are stark. Between September 2020 and September 2023, the number of children who were waiting for community paediatric services in Northern Ireland soared by 86%, rising from just over 5,300 children to over 10,000 children. The number of children who were waiting more than two years tripled, reaching 2,223. Behind those numbers are children who are waiting too long for help, parents who are struggling to get answers and families whose children are losing critical development time.

Delays to accessing support for autism, ADHD, developmental disorders and mental health concerns do not just affect the here and now but shape educational outcomes, life chances and future economic contribution. If we miss the intervention window, we will not only fail children but add more cost and pressure to the adult system down the line. Moreover, there is a postcode lottery for services across trusts. That is unacceptable. The RCPCH's report shows that there are huge inconsistencies in provision, pathways and waiting times.

The Belfast Trust alone had 600 children waiting more than two years for community paediatric care at the end of 2024.

We also have to remember the workforce. Of the paediatricians surveyed, 88% said that demand outstrips capacity. Many described persistent shortages that predate COVID. Recruitment struggles, underinvestment and burnout are the hallmarks of a system that feels that it is being left behind. The royal college calls for a regional action plan, sustainable investment, real data, better coordination and integrated neurodevelopmental services. Those are not new ideas, however: they are common-sense, long overdue and utterly essential.

I say this clearly to the Health Minister and the Executive: why are our children waiting for over two years for basic care? Why is there no regional strategy for community paediatrics despite repeated warnings? How many more reports, reviews and statistics do we need before we see some action? Our children deserve better. The report shows what must be done, and we now need to see the political will to do it.

Mr Speaker: I call Peter Martin. Please confine your remarks to a couple of minutes, Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will do my best.

I am delighted to congratulate St Columbanus' College on being named as one of the seven finalists in the secondary school of the year category in the 'Times Educational Supplement' (TES) Schools Awards. That outstanding achievement reflects the dedication, innovation and inclusive spirit at the heart of that exceptional school. Whilst ultimate glory eluded it, simply getting to be one of the final seven schools was a remarkable achievement.

I extend my congratulations to principal Maria Flynn, whose leadership steered the school to that remarkable national recognition, and I had better mention Liam Perry, the previous principal, or he will never speak to me again. I congratulate the teaching staff on their commitment to the school, I congratulate the support staff — the school has a pastoral ethos — and, to the pupils, I offer massive congratulations: you deserve that recognition for your dedication, resilience and enthusiasm. The recognition in the TES awards is testament to their passion and teamwork and to the hard-working values that define the school's Christian ethos.

I wish final congratulations to the principal, Maria Flynn, and all teachers, staff and pupils on reaching that incredible milestone: I wish you every success in the years ahead, and I hope that you build on that fantastic achievement, but, Mr Speaker, school's out for summer.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 20C, questions for written answer should be answered within 10 working days. Through a freedom of information (FOI) request, I have established that there are multiple examples of draft replies being prepared by officials for the First Minister and deputy First Minister and then sitting on their desks, awaiting political sign-off, for 50, 100 and even 270 days. That is not the fault of civil servants. The problem in that office sits at the top. Transparency is being evaded. What action will you take to compel Ministers to fulfil their obligations to the House, and will your office undertake to study the FOI material that highlights the problem?

Mr Speaker: Thank you for raising that, Mr Gaston. We will look at that over the summer and see what more we can do to address the issue. As a Minister, I was constantly aware of trying to answer questions on time. I am also aware, having done the Health job at one stage, of how many questions you have to answer and the pressure that you are under. That does not mean that you cannot do it: you can do it.

The Executive Office is different, because you have to have the agreement of the two Ministers before something can be moved off. One might give them a bit of latitude; nonetheless, up to 283 days is a tad extreme. We will look at that and see how we can address it in the next session.

Mr Donnelly: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to correct the record. During yesterday's Second Stage debate on the Adult Protection Bill, I said:

I was getting ahead of myself; I should have said that the Committee had agreed to request an extension to March 2026. I hope that that corrects the record.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for that, Mr Donnelly.

Mr McGrath: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to add to Mr Gaston's point of order. I know the points that have been made on the matter, but could an assessment be carried out? Agreement should not be required on a simple and factual piece of information. The cost of a hotel is the cost of a hotel; it is not up for debate or discussion. The First Minister and deputy First Minister's disagreement is over the release of the information — they do not want to release it — not the piece of information itself. Mr Speaker, you made a valid point about the Department of Health, where it can take a long time to gather swathes of information. Reading a number from a bill does not take long. It would be appreciated if you would consider that as part of your deliberations.

Mr Speaker: OK. The Member has made his point about that, as has Mr Gaston. Anybody else? No. Good.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): With your permission, Mr Speaker, in compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, I will make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) inland waterways meeting, which was held at the North/South Ministerial Council joint secretariat headquarters in Armagh on 12 May 2025. The Executive were represented by me, as Minister for Infrastructure, and junior Minister Pam Cameron from the Executive Office. The Irish Government were represented by James Browne, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The statement has been agreed with junior Minister Cameron, and I am making it on behalf of both of us. Minister Browne chaired the meeting, and the following is a note of what was discussed.

We welcomed the achievements of Waterways Ireland since the previous meeting and the valuable contribution that it continues to make through its various activities, including the developments that it has made in four strategic projects — the Ulster canal, Carnroe weir, the Tullamore centre of excellence master plan and the Dublin port master plan — and in its major projects, such as Camden lough, Barrow navigation and Connaght harbour. We welcomed the significant developments on the Royal canal greenway and the Grand canal greenway; the completion of an initial public consultation on route options for the Limerick to Scarriff greenway; the roll-out across the organisation of an emergency response service; and the achievement of accreditation to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) health and safety standard by Waterways Ireland. We also recognised the achievements of Waterways Ireland, which included finishing as a finalist in the category of green public-sector organisation of the year at the Green Awards 2025; being shortlisted at the Public Sector Digital Transformation Awards; winning the large website and overall website categories at the National Digital Awards; and being selected as a United Nations sustainable development goals champion for 2024-25.

We welcomed Waterways Ireland's response to climate change, biodiversity and sustainability issues and noted the themes in its 'Heritage and Biodiversity Plan 2030'. We also noted the update from Waterways Ireland on embedding sustainability in the organisation. We approved Waterways Ireland's business plan, recommended budgets and grants for 2025. We noted that the Waterways Ireland's annual reports and accounts for 2023 have been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas and that the annual report and accounts for 2024 have been submitted to the Comptrollers and Auditors General in both jurisdictions.

We consented to a number of property disposals. We welcomed a presentation from Waterways Ireland that outlined the current position with the Ulster canal restoration project; the completion of the repairs to Carnroe weir; its plans for its current premises in Tullamore; the planned relocation to a purpose-built depot; and its plans for the Grand canal dock and the canals and docklands area of Dublin. We also approved the reappointment of Mr John McDonagh as CEO of Waterways Ireland. Officials from Louth County Council presented to us on the progress that has been achieved on the construction of the Narrow Water bridge, which is located between Cornamucklagh, County Louth, and Warrenpoint, County Down.

The Council agreed to hold its next inland waterways meeting in late 2025.

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

I also thank her for the update on her meeting with Minister James Browne, the hardest working man in politics. Will the Minister give us an update on the Ulster canal restoration project? I am particularly interested in the phase of work that will be carried out in the North. Can we have an update on that, please?

Ms Kimmins: The Ulster canal project is being progressed in three phases, as the Member may be aware. Phase 1, which is the channel from Lough Erne to Castle Saunderson, and phase 2, which goes from Clones to Clonfad, are both now complete and open for navigation. Work on the third and final phase of the Castle Saunderson to Clonfad connection is in progress. Feasibility and pre-construction work, including vesting of lands and renewing planning permission, is under way. Phase 3 is subdivided into four sub-phases, and the current estimated completion date for all sub-phases is 2028-29. I am fully committed to supporting the completion of that very ambitious project, which is transformational to communities and businesses in the region. All funding for the project to date has been provided by the Irish Government, including through the Shared Island Fund, with further commitments in place.

Mrs Erskine (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I thank the Minister for her statement. Like the previous Member to ask a question, I will focus on the Ulster canal, particularly as it relates to Fermanagh. It is good to see development. Obviously, the Ulster canal touches on a number of counties. It is important for tourism in the area as well. How much is the Minister thinking about taking a joined-up approach to an integral transport system for the area, making sure that people are able to access the Ulster canal with public transport networks whenever they use it? That will also help to boost tourism. What work is she doing with the Economy Minister on that?

Ms Kimmins: That was not discussed at the meeting per se. We recently launched a transport strategy, and that feeds into that broader piece on what we are looking at with our transport right across the North. It also looks at how we are linked to the rest of the island. That is an important point, and we can look at it in greater detail as we are going through that work. I encourage the Member to feed into the consultation, and that is something that we could point to in the feedback from that.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for her statement. In recent weeks, the AERA Committee met in County Fermanagh, where we met Waterways Ireland and heard about its many plans and the great work that it has been doing. The Minister mentioned the Ulster canal. Has Waterways Ireland delivered any other projects in the North?

Ms Kimmins: Quite a significant amount of work has been done with Waterways Ireland. We can talk about the different phases of the plan for the Ulster canal. We have also looked at Waterways Ireland's responsibilities and at what else it does to see whether there is anything that it can do around Lough Neagh. Unfortunately, it does not have responsibility for that at present. We are keen to see what else it can do and what we can keep within its remit, and that is what some of the discussions that we have been having with officials are about. The main focus in the North is on the Ulster canal restoration.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Minister, you mentioned the roll-out across the organisation of an emergency response service. I am curious to know what that service would entail and what functions it would be likely to perform.

Ms Kimmins: An emergency response concerns the assets that are within the remit of Waterways Ireland and how we can address those as issues arise. We can probably provide more detailed information on that. It was alluded to in the meeting, but I can come back to the Member with more specifics about it, because I think that what it will look like in reality probably is quite technical. I recognise the Member's interest in that service, particularly for our waterways and what it means right across the North.

Mrs Mason: Minister, thank you for your statement. You mentioned that you received an update on the progress of the construction of the Narrow Water bridge. As you know, that is a key economic and tourism project for the wider south Down and County Louth area. Minister, what work is your Department doing with Louth County Council and, of course, the Irish Government on the delivery of the Narrow Water bridge?

Ms Kimmins: Again, as it is closely linked to my constituency, I know how important that scheme is. As the Member will know, the Irish Government approved Shared Island funding for the total cost of the project, based on the successful tender, which is €102 million plus VAT. It is being led by the Irish Government and managed by Louth County Council with support from my Department for the connection to the parts of the North that it is relevant to. We had a very comprehensive and detailed presentation from officials from Louth County Council to show the progress to date and where they have got to with it.

The bridge is a major investment in landmark cross-border infrastructure and will provide for car, cycling and pedestrian traffic that connects the north and south of the island. Construction started in May 2024, and the planned completion date is October 2027. It is a 195-metre long cable-stayed structure that will link Omeath on the southern side with Warrenpoint on the northern side. It will help not just economically but from a tourism perspective. The bridge will be maintained by Louth County Council, which will be responsible for the maintenance and operation of the lifting aspect of it. Officials continue to be engaged with the Irish Government and Louth County Council during the construction phase and are also involved in the project oversight group to assist in the successful delivery of the project in connection with the roads network in the North.

It is an exciting scheme, and, for those who live close to the area, as the Member will know, it is fantastic to see the construction progressing at such great pace. The bridge presents a real opportunity for us all.

Mr Brett: Minister, when it comes to North/South bodies, there seems to be a struggle within the organisation to account for its spend of public money. As your statement outlines, it has only now submitted annual accounts to this House for 2023. We are two financial years past that deadline. If that had been Northern Ireland Water, you may have called in forensic accountants once again. Will the Minister explain why public money is not being accounted for properly by those bodies?

Ms Kimmins: Just to outline the arrangements for the governance of the body, Waterways Ireland is accountable to my Department as well as to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the North/South Ministerial Council. Ministers discharge their oversight responsibilities for Waterways Ireland through their respective Departments and the NSMC, and that includes consideration of and agreement on its budget and corporate and business plans in progress to its agreed targets and project milestones. Quarterly monitoring meetings are held, chaired by senior officials from the relevant Departments. The chief executive and appropriate directors from Waterways Ireland attend to account for business performance and corporate governance. It has an independent chair and two external members on its audit committee to ensure that it is also properly audited.

On its current accounting position, Waterways Ireland has submitted its annual accounts for 2024 to the Comptroller and Auditor General in both jurisdictions for audit. When those accounts are signed off by the Comptrollers and Auditors General, they will be laid before the Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas and then published on the Waterways Ireland website. That demonstrates the layers of governance that are required for its accounts and the processes that have to be gone through to ensure that sign-off.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for making her statement to the House. Which specific properties were approved for disposal, and were any in Northern Ireland?

Ms Kimmins: Both properties approved for disposal are in the South of Ireland. They are a way leave in Ballyconnell, County Cavan, and a way leave at Foigha, County Longford.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for her statement. My question relates to Lough Neagh, which you touched on earlier, and the River Blackwater. It may not be directly under Waterways Ireland, but there are safety and navigational issues there where no boats can pass safely. Were there conversations about that?

Ms Kimmins: Not specific to that issue. There is no statutory navigation authority for Lough Neagh, although councils enforce the rules and regulations in the vicinity of their marinas and facilities. I am happy to take further detailed questions on that issue, if the Member wishes, and maybe we can get responses from those who do have responsibility for that.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, there appears to be some doubt or a question about the Executive's ability to extend the Fáilte Ireland brands, which, particularly for waterways, would include Ireland's Hidden Heartlands and Ireland's Ancient East. Have you had conversations with the Minister for the Economy about that, because that touches on critical waterways, in particular the Erne and the Shannon?

Ms Kimmins: Not to date. However, I take the Member's point that that is an important issue, and Fáilte Ireland plays an important role in that, so I am happy to look at that with the Minister and, where relevant, see what we can do to support that.

Mr Gaston: Minister, why are the details of the 2025 budgets and grants not available in this statement or even in the communiqué, and where can MLAs find them? As of this morning, I could not find them on the website. Will there be a further opportunity in the Assembly to question you properly about the matter? After all, the Assembly is here to hold Ministers such as you accountable, especially when it comes to the spending of public money.

Ms Kimmins: As I said in response to another Member, there are a number of layers of governance that have to be gone through. I assume that those details will be available when they are ready. There is nothing to suggest that they will not be available as soon as they are ready.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Today marks the beginning of the most dramatic expansion yet of the "Not for EU" labelling regime under the Windsor framework. On 5 June, the Government, in paragraph 5.11, stated:

In plain language, that threatens supply chains and discourages GB suppliers from continuing to serve Northern Ireland. What steps have the Executive taken to prepare for the expected supply chain disruption?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, from what I have just heard, that is not a point of order, but I am happy to refer it to the Speaker.

Mr O'Dowd: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call on the Minister of Finance to open the debate on the Bill.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to move the Second Stage of the Fiscal Council Bill and open the debate on this important legislation.

Members will be aware that the Executive agreed to the formation of the Fiscal Council in March 2021, when it was established as a non-statutory body. That followed a commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' to set up a body to bring greater transparency and independent scrutiny to the current and future state of our public finances. I am sure that Members will agree that, since its establishment, the Fiscal Council has made a significant impact in improving the transparency, scrutiny and understanding of our public finances. Its work has also been hugely impactful in supporting my predecessor's negotiations with the Treasury last year to agree the interim fiscal framework, which we built on in further negotiations with Treasury, ahead of the spending review earlier this month.

The Fiscal Council Bill, which, I hope, will gain the support of Members, will establish the body on a statutory basis and provide a legislative framework to underpin its work. That is in line with international best practice for fiscal institutions. The Bill will safeguard its independence, as well as ensure its continued access to information, both of which are vital to its role.

I will now consider the Bill's provisions in more detail. The Bill will put the council into statute as a body corporate. The council will initially be established based on the nine broad principles that were recommended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for independent fiscal organisations. Those principles have been taken into account in the Bill.

The functions in the Bill provide the council with a very broad remit to assess and comment on our public finances and their sustainability. In line with the OECD principles, it will be for the council to determine its own work programme within that mandate. However, the Bill requires the council to publish a budget assessment report and a fiscal sustainability report each year. In addition, the council can publish other reports as it considers appropriate. The legislation provides the flexibility that, should the council wish to examine areas of public finance beyond those referenced in the Bill, it is able to do so.

Like with other independent fiscal institutions, the role of the Fiscal Council is expected to expand in time, and the Bill allows for that. Non-partisanship and independence are prerequisites for a successful independent fiscal institution. The Bill, therefore, has been drafted to provide the council with discretion to present its analysis with objectivity and free from the direction and control of others, including from a political perspective. That safeguards the operational independence of the council, which is one of the nine OECD principles.

Another important aspect of the independent fiscal institution is the clear separation between analysis, which is the role of the Fiscal Council, and policymaking, which is the responsibility of Ministers and their Departments. The Bill is clear on that distinction.

While the council chair and members have indicated that they receive the information they need from Departments to perform their functions, the Bill will place a duty to guarantee in legislation the council's right of access to government information in the timely manner required for its purposes.

To ensure transparency, the Bill requires the council to publish all the documents that it produces. The council already does that, having published over 20 reports since its formation four years ago. That will continue to build trust and credibility with the public, alongside informing the wider debate on public finances.

The Bill also sets out the details of the membership, staffing and other operational matters of the council, including arrangements for evaluation of its work.

That concludes the detail of the Bill, and I look forward to the Chair and the wider Committee's input and, indeed, input from other Members on this important legislation.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak first as Chair of the Finance Committee, and then I will make some remarks in an Opposition context. I am pleased to say that, in the Opposition context, I will be more constructive today, because it is, broadly speaking, a good thing that we are progressing the Bill. It is important, when we do constructive, sensible things, that we acknowledge it, and I am pleased that we are debating the Second Stage of the Fiscal Council Bill. The Committee, I think, genuinely looks forward to getting on with its work of scrutiny.

First, I thank the Minister for his comments and the relevant departmental officials for their work in keeping the Committee updated on the progress of the Bill and making themselves available for pre-legislative scrutiny. While the Committee is disappointed at the length of time that it has taken for the Bill to be brought before the House — it was in last year's legislative programme — it is, I suppose, better late than never. It is here now, and the job of scrutinising it is in front of us.

I also note and acknowledge the work of the previous Finance Committee, which carried out significant scrutiny in the area. I should declare an interest, because I was on that previous iteration of the Finance Committee, as were a couple of other members of the current Finance Committee. I hope that that will give us a bit of a head start in the scrutiny of the Bill, as a few of the Committee members will have already scrutinised some of the principles of the Bill in the previous mandate.

The 'Report on an independent Fiscal Council' from that Committee was published in July 2021 and will be a reference point for our Committee throughout the process. The previous Finance Committee made 26 recommendations across seven areas: function, discretion, powers, independence, competence, credibility and Assembly engagement. In addition to recommendations across those seven areas, the Committee made recommendations on the unsatisfactory information and timescales attached to the current Budget process; on the timing of Budget debates after the Executive had made decisions and how that limits the Assembly's ability to scrutinise and challenge; and on consideration being given to amendments to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by the UK Government in order to require reciprocal cooperation between Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and the Fiscal Council for Northern Ireland. That will be a really important point in enabling the Fiscal Council to do its job, because it needs to be able to get and to be guaranteed that it can get information not just from Departments locally but from UK government institutions. I would probably add to that list HMRC.

While those recommendations will be a useful tool for the Committee in its scrutiny of the Bill, members will undertake a new call for evidence on the Bill, as is normal procedure. One of the Committee's first actions when the Assembly was restored in 2024 was to request an update from the Department on the progress of the Bill. That shows the importance of the Bill, and it is one of the Committee's highest priorities, as, I am sure, it is for the Minister.

The Fiscal Council was set up in March 2021 as an outworking of the New Decade, New Approach deal, meaning that the council is currently non-statutory and its funding is under the sole authority of successive Budget Bills. Members will be familiar with the work that the council has done and the useful reports that it has published since its establishment. It is therefore imperative that the council be fully established in legislation in an appropriate form to undertake its functions.

The Committee received briefing on the Bill from officials on 25 September 2024 to get an update on its development, and it received a briefing on 2 October from the Fiscal Council, which was, at that point, broadly happy with the content of the draft Bill.

Committee members support the principles of the Bill, its passage through Second Stage and its referral on to the Committee. They look forward to working with the Department, the Fiscal Council and other stakeholders and to undertaking in-depth scrutiny of the Bill. I look forward to other Members' contributions in the Chamber, because they will aid the Committee's scrutiny.

I will now make a few remarks in a party capacity. I genuinely think that it is very positive that we are debating the Bill today. It could have been introduced a lot sooner, and it probably should have been introduced a lot sooner, but I will leave that to one side. One of the most critical — perhaps the most critical — strategic levers that the Executive, like all Executives, have is Budget-making powers. In many ways, in the context of our devolved settlement, the Budget acts as the de facto strategic policymaking tool. I talk time and again about the need for greater strategic setting of priorities and decision-making; the need to attach Programmes for Government to, ideally, multi-year Budgets; and the need to improve Assembly and public understanding of the Budget process. All those things have been aided by the non-statutory existence of the Fiscal Council over the past four years, and they will be improved and made permanent when we put the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing.

I will make a few other points. I will not go through all the clauses, but the Bill sets out, in nine clauses and two schedules, the powers, responsibilities and status of the Fiscal Council. In broad terms, it is what the public would want and expect to see from an independent fiscal advisory body. There are other examples on these islands. There is the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (IFAC) in the South and the Office for Budget Responsibility in London. I should acknowledge the role of Sir Robert Chote, who has been the head of the Fiscal Council here. He was a very good recruit by the previous Minister of Finance, and he is joined by Alan Barrett from the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) in Dublin, Maureen O'Reilly and Esmond Birnie. They have all, on a non-statutory basis, made a very significant contribution, and I acknowledge their work over the past number of years.

What will the Fiscal Council do? Its two core responsibilities, as stated in the Bill, are to prepare a Budget assessment report and a fiscal sustainability report, but there is, as the Minister said, the capacity for the Fiscal Council to do more than that. There is a clause in the Bill that allows the Department to confer additional functions on the council. During the scrutiny process, I would like to look at whether any more responsibilities and powers can be inserted in the Bill via amendment in order to be specific about what the Fiscal Council must do in law each year. I do not want to be totally prohibitive, because some flexibility is a good thing, but we could look at things such as having the council articulate economic performance, even if that entails simply producing a composite economic forecast that mirrors what is in the Budget documents that the Department of Finance produces every year. At the minute, those documents are a bit disconnected from the rest of the Budget process. There are a few paragraphs, or a page or two, produced on the economic context, but when Joe Bloggs is reading them, or even when MLAs or policymakers are reading them, it is not entirely clear how the economic forecast or narrative links to policy decisions or Budget decisions. It may be that the Fiscal Council, not necessarily through having lots of economists build a brand-new model, will be able to analyse in some way the various economic forecasts out there and produce a kind of composite forecast that enables better policymaking.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a valid point, with which I agree. Is that not covered, however, in the fiscal sustainability reports that the Fiscal Council must produce?

Mr O'Toole: Not specifically, because, under clause 4(2), in preparing a fiscal sustainability report, the Fiscal Council must consider:

It does not specifically say "economic", meaning measured by GDP, GVA or whatever. I am talking about considering economic performance rather than fiscal performance. Part of what we need to do in our policymaking here is to have a greater connection between fiscal performance and broader Budget decision-making and economic performance. Incorporating that into the Fiscal Council's work may be a way in which to achieve that.

It will also be important for the Committee, as we scrutinise the Bill, to understand whether the council's reporting, in effect, to the Department rather than directly to the Assembly, as, for example, with the NI Audit Office, is precisely the right way to go. There are multiple examples to draw on. The Congressional Budget Office in the United States reports to Congress: it is, primarily, a congressional reporting body, but it does the same basic job as the Fiscal Council. By the way, I am not suggesting that the council operate on the same scale as the Congressional Budget Office, but that is an example of how that line into the legislature works. The other example is the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is independent but reports to and has its budget set by the UK Treasury. A legitimate question for us to understand and, at least, test is whether even more independence should be baked into the Fiscal Council's status and whether its budget should be set, for example, by the Assembly via the Audit Committee, as is the case with the NI Audit Office and a couple of other scrutiny watchdogs. Those are the kinds of things that we will look at.

In broad terms, the Fiscal Council Bill is a positive development. The Committee will have the opportunity to go through it in great detail. I will make one broad point, however, which is that we have suffered and continue to suffer in this place from a crisis in accountability. I talk about that in a party political context all the time in the Chamber, and I obviously rub people up the wrong way about it. That is fine, because that is my job: I rub people up the wrong way. We are all politicians. I have a job to do, and I am pretty unabashed about that. I also acknowledge, however, that the structures of our politics have not necessitated people taking responsibility. We are all politicians who respond to the incentives that are there. We need to change the incentives. Part of changing the incentives is changing the way in which our politics works so that there is proper accountability and an independent watchdog that will set out the facts for Ministers, officials, legislators, the public, the media and all other interested parties. That, I hope, will create more of a focus on, bluntly, actual delivery, rather than, candidly, some of the sham fights and nonsense that pass for politics in this place.

The crisis in accountability should concern us all. I worry that the public, whether they are unionist, nationalist or "Don't give two hoots", are genuinely losing complete faith in our political institutions and their ability to deliver. That, honestly, is not a party political point; it is about us as an institution. I hope that our work as the official Opposition is about changing some of that, but the Fiscal Council, at an institutional level, could and should be a real step forward towards proper accountability in financial decision-making and Budget setting. It has already done some of that over the past four or five years, and putting it on a statutory footing will aid that work.

The Finance Committee will ask specific and detailed questions and will carry out a full Committee Stage. Work has been done previously, but we need to make sure that it is done properly. It is about getting the Fiscal Council's independence right, understanding exactly its responsibilities and what the Budget assessment and fiscal sustainability reports will look like and understanding how, if additional powers are to be conferred in future, the Department proposes to do that. It is about understanding whether all the OECD's recommendations on independent fiscal bodies are being followed and understanding the Fiscal Council's accountability to the Assembly as well as to the Executive. All of those are really important questions, and we want to get to the bottom of them.

The Bill's passage at Second Stage will be a genuine step forward. I hope that we can get the Bill through the Finance Committee speedily but rigorously, come back to the Assembly to debate any amendments and get it on the statute book in the best possible shape.

Miss Dolan: Since the Fiscal Council's establishment in 2021, it has had a significant role in improving the transparency and understanding of our public finances. By putting the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing, the Bill will bring it into line with best practice in other jurisdictions, safeguard its independence and protect its scrutiny role. The Bill reiterates the Fiscal Council's independence and clearly sets out its role as one of providing analysis separately and distinguishably from the role of Executive Ministers and Departments, which are responsible for shaping and making policy decisions.

The Fiscal Council has had a positive impact since its formation four years ago, having published over 20 reports on topics ranging from budget assessments to the sustainability of our public finances and the health system.

Its analysis of our public finances has supported the work of our recent Finance Ministers in their negotiations to improve our financial framework with the British Treasury. I therefore welcome progress on establishing the Fiscal Council as a statutory body and look forward to the continued contribution that it will make in analysing our public finances and other topics over the coming years.

Ms Forsythe: We welcome the Bill to underpin the Fiscal Council's work on a statutory basis. The DUP has been a consistent voice when it comes to the need to transform Northern Ireland's public finances. In particular, we continue to lead calls for a fairer fiscal framework underpinned by Treasury funding that meets the objective need of our vital front-line services.

As I am an accountant, my trained thinking takes me straight into the analysis of finances. As well as getting stuck into the detail of the numbers, I really value truly independent analysis, critique and evaluation of financial processes and systems. In Northern Ireland, where do you go for that? It has to be the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council. We have a range of sources, including university analysts, think tanks, departmental reviews and audits. Those all serve a purpose, but they have different perspectives, whereas the Fiscal Council offers independence that is needed and invaluable. The statutory grounding of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council will further bolster its ability to carry out independent scrutiny of our financial situation. At a time of economic uncertainty and unprecedented pressures facing our public service delivery, having a legally binding oversight body should help in our efforts to place our finances on a steady footing and spearhead reform and transformation.

There is nothing more important to taxpayers than transparency and accountability when it comes to our public money. To date, the Fiscal Council has demonstrated its positive impact in improving transparency, scrutiny and understanding of our public finances. Its range of reports far exceeds what it is required to do, as the Minister outlined. Just last week, the Fiscal Council reported that Northern Ireland Water's funding model is neither fit for purpose nor sustainable. That shows the ability of the council to scrutinise across departmental remits and address the uncomfortable truths that hamper our collective ability to deliver for households, communities and the economy. Its challenge function is vital. The Fiscal Council has helped us to gain a better understanding of our public finances, as well as establishing an independent and credible evidence base to inform our discussions with the Government, wherein we champion the case for Northern Ireland being funded according to need and our finances being put on a sustainable footing.

The critical value of the Fiscal Council is its independence. Financial reviews, opinions, presentations or bids that come from within government are shaped by a particular perspective. If the Department of Finance presents a position, it can be perceived as its view, its Minister's view or even a party political view. That is why we need to ensure that the independence of the Fiscal Council is paramount. On clause 5 and the ability of the Department to amend the scope and functions of the council, we will seek clarity and assurance that the independence of the Fiscal Council will be maintained and strengthened as an outworking of the Bill. There can be no prospect of the body being used as a vehicle for pushing particular political agendas. That is particularly relevant to the flawed arguments put forward by the Opposition and others on fiscal devolution.

The Bill mentions that there may be additional funding requirements for the operation of the council, once it is placed on a statutory footing. It will be important that the Assembly is consulted on any additional funding that the council will need and the benefits that that will bring to our public purse in return. We need to maintain scrutiny and ensure governance over all of our funded public bodies. We must never write a blank cheque for any part of our public services without approved proposals or business cases that define what will be achieved by the additional funding. We must always work to ensure that the best value for money is achieved for taxpayers in Northern Ireland.

The Fiscal Council reports that Northern Ireland's finances could be on a cliff edge in the near future. With that in mind, it is vital that the council is given the scope that it needs to drill down into our public finance and highlight the areas in which efficiencies could be made by doing things differently.

We have all spoken at length in the Chamber on multiple occasions about the huge financial pressures in delivering public services in Northern Ireland. We need to ensure that effective financial scrutiny occurs at every level. The role that the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council plays in all that is so important.

We welcome the Bill underpinning the Fiscal Council's work on a statutory basis and will work through the details of the issues highlighted to ensure that safeguards are in place and that the council achieves the status that it should. Public-sector finances underpin all that we do here. Independence and scrutiny are critical, and I thank the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council for its professionalism and its work to date. I look forward to progressing the Bill.

Mr Honeyford: On behalf of the Alliance Party I support the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill and welcome its long-awaited introduction to the Assembly after the council's formation in March 2021 on a non-statutory basis following the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Since 2021, the Fiscal Council has been instrumental in providing detailed assessments of Northern Ireland's funding formula, Budget analysis and, most recently, the funding and sustainability of NI Water, to name a few. For those reasons, it is incredibly important that the Fiscal Council is put on a statutory footing, ensuring that it is completely independent from the Department of Finance while continuing all the key publications that bring a transparent focus to our region's public finances through detailed scrutiny.

The role that the council plays ensures that we, as legislators, are better equipped to make effective policy decisions on the direction and prioritisation of funding. The public are also better informed by that independent analysis and can regain confidence in how the Executive manage their money. As others have said, it is crucial that we give the Fiscal Council as broad a remit as possible given its focus on the sustainability of Northern Ireland's public finances and the examination of Budget processes. It needs as much information as possible to enable it to do that and to give it the flexibility to draw up its work plan, decide the contents of its reports and prioritise the areas that, it feels, are important to highlight and on which to provide assessments. The Fiscal Council should be commended for the support and analysis that it provided on the return of these institutions and in the Executive restoration package, as well as the agreement on the interim fiscal framework for Northern Ireland.

Although Alliance would argue that the fiscal floor needs to be higher than 124%, as the recent Holtham review demonstrated, suggesting that it should be 128%, without the Fiscal Council's independent analysis and estimations of Northern Ireland's level of need, which are in its publication in 2023, getting any internal fiscal framework for Northern Ireland last year might have been much more difficult. That framework has helped us to combat some of the historical underfunding. However, tackling reform and the cost of division would go a long way to delivering for everyone across our society. That is why Alliance is disappointed that the Fiscal Council has not been given a requirement in its statutory remit to have due regard to the cost of division and the effect that it has on public finances, given the recent estimates that that costs up to £833 million every year with the duplication of services in education, leisure and community provision and increasing policing and justice costs. While Ministers understand the impact that the cost of division has on departmental budgets, particularly in Education, if the Fiscal Council had due regard for that cost, Departments could be held to account. The cost of division should be at the top of the list on the Fiscal Council's agenda. Building a shared future and a shared society is an essential part of sustaining, building and restoring our public finances.

At this stage, Alliance very much welcomes the progress of the Bill. We look forward to the Fiscal Council finally being put on a statutory footing.

Mr Frew: Like my colleague Diane Forsythe, I support the Bill. It is long overdue. As the Chair of the Committee said, it was to be in last year's legislative programme, but, at least, we have it in front of us today.

I am one of the MLAs who would say that we should not have more fiscal powers, simply because we do not have the capacity to deal with more or even, sometimes, the maturity to deal with more. I fear that, if there were to be more fiscal powers, those levers would be pulled upwards and would hurt our people further. The Northern Ireland Fiscal Council is the right way to go to have that layer of expertise and independence in how Northern Ireland's finances are conducted. I certainly support that, because it will give reassurance and a layer of expertise that will help not only the Department and the Finance Committee but all scrutiny Committees through the reports that they will be able to read from the Fiscal Council.

We have already seen the Fiscal Council's worth, albeit on a non-statutory footing. The council currently costs around £511,000 a year. That was for 2024-25. That is money well spent — it really is — because of the calibre of the reports and the information contained in them. It helps us all — each one of us as MLAs — to scrutinise the work of the Executive and, indeed, the Department of Finance and all other Departments for that matter. It is crucial.

I may have some issues and questions as we go into deeper scrutiny of the Bill. The Chair of the scrutiny Committee made the point about who actually pays for it and where the money comes from to pay for the Fiscal Council. It has come out of the black box stuff and the Department of Finance. That may change with regard to the black box stuff with the other vehicle of legislation that we will debate today. There is a question about whether it is best placed to be funded by the Department of Finance, which probably has most to lose from some of the Fiscal Council reports and may well be red-faced and embarrassed by some of those reports. If we want to ensure that there is real independence and separation between the Department of Finance and the Fiscal Council, we, as a scrutiny Committee and, indeed, as the Assembly, should consider how best to fund the Fiscal Council going forward. The Committee Chair raised the issue of the Audit Committee, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Audit Office. That may well be an avenue that we could explore.

In schedule 1, under

it states that

Who attests to that? Should that be the Audit Office or the Audit Committee, or should it be the Department of Finance that attests to that?

Under clause 5, on the

it states that

Again, there are questions there as to whether it should solely be —.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Dr Aiken: I apologise to Madam Principal Deputy Speaker for not being in my place earlier. I was [Inaudible.]

Does the Member agree that one of the most important things about having the Fiscal Council is the ability to instil some form of fiscal discipline in the process going forward? Maybe the Minister, in his remarks about additional functions, which the Member has rightly mentioned, might confirm whether it would be part of the legislative process that the Fiscal Council reports at a particular time to ensure that we maintain that fiscal discipline. Does the Member agree that that would be a good way in which to go forward?

Mr Frew: Yes. That is certainly something worth exploring. We could probably concentrate our resources on that in the time ahead during Committee Stage. The power to confer additional functions is maybe not the one to highlight. Clause 5(2) states:

That might worry me. You might have a Department that has been embarrassed by one or two reports and decides to remove functions of the Fiscal Council to relieve that embarrassment from time to time. Again, I am playing devil's advocate. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Minister or the Department would do that.

Mr O'Dowd: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mr O'Dowd: If the Member reads further down clause 5, he will see at the very end, under subsection (5), that:

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that clarification. I was going on to that, because clause 5(5) contains the words "approved by a resolution of" the Assembly, which are sprinkled throughout the Bill. That brings an aspect or a veneer of confidence to the Bill. We will pursue that.

Paragraph 8 of schedule 1 states:

Why have Members of Parliament been left off that list? I an understand why Assembly Members are excluded, but members of a district council? Why, then, are Members of Parliament and, for that matter, Members of the Irish Parliament not excluded too? We need to explore that. There might be a rationale for it — I do not know — but, on reading the Bill for the first time, it seems that that might be an omission. I am not saying that there are not Westminster MPs or Members of the Irish Parliament who could do the job, but why are we excluding district councillors who may well be qualified in that regard? Maybe the Minister will take that away and look at it.

Paragraph 13 of schedule 1 states that:

Chief of staff will be a very important role. Are we allowing a district councillor, an Assembly Member or a Member of Parliament to become the council's chief of staff? Chief of staff might be a full-time job — maybe you could not do both jobs. Maybe we need clarification regarding staff and who can be the Fiscal Council's chief of staff. Paragraph 13 also states:

Again, that goes back to the approval of the Department.

That is all from me at Second Reading. I look forward to the scrutiny of the Bill. We have looked forward to it for a long time. I was on the Finance Committee in the previous term, when we talked about and pushed for it. It is great to have it in front of us and to have the blue pages in our hands. We look forward to the scrutiny of the Bill.

Mr Carroll: On the face of it, the broad principles of the Bill are not objectionable. Greater transparency and independent scrutiny of public finances are the bare minimum that the public deserve. The Bill establishes the Fiscal Council on a permanent, statutory basis, as Members have said.

Some of the Fiscal Council's announcements over the past four years have been worrying, however, including its statements about the need for sustainable public finances. We know what that means. The chair of the Fiscal Council has told us that failing to introduce water charges has its own costs. That is purely looking at the numbers without looking at the impact that water charges in whatever form would have on working-class families. I ask the Minister and anybody who is listening this question: why should those who struggle to pay the bills and put food on the table pay the price for years of mismanagement and underinvestment in our water infrastructure? I am worried about an increased ideological drive to implement water charges. We see an article in 'The Irish News' to that effect again today.

The Fiscal Council has also advocated an increase in the regional rate and called for "public-sector pay restraint" — pay cuts in a time of price increases — to "improve the manageability" of public finances. I am concerned about that, and I am concerned that there is no concern from other Members and the Finance Committee about that direction of travel and those repeated statements from the Fiscal Council.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Sure.

Mr Brett: The Member has just said that the Fiscal Council has advocated pay cuts. Will the Member point out where that was said, because that is a serious charge to lay at the Fiscal Council? I have read all the reports and have never seen the council once use the words, "There should be pay cuts for public-sector workers". Will he highlight, for the record, where the council said that? That would be useful.

Mr Carroll: Sure. I raised this issue at the Finance Committee a few weeks ago. I do not have the date to hand, but the quote from the Fiscal Council was "public-sector pay restraint". Every public-sector worker and trade unionist knows what that means: it means pay cuts. It is different language — flowery language — but that is the reality of what is —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, that is not within the scope of the Bill. I have just checked. I accept your remarks, but will you move on, please?

Mr Carroll: No problem. As I said, Principal Deputy Speaker, that was a statement from the Fiscal Council. That is concerning. It indicates a certain direction of travel from the Fiscal Council. It has talked before about further departmental savings, which is a translation for cuts. There is not much left to cut. Services have been cut to ribbons. The Fiscal Council has not talked about — I do not believe that it is mentioned in the Bill, either — the creeping privatisation of our public services. There is no mention of the massive and ever-increasing wealth inequality. It is not a topic of interest. I am concerned that the Executive will use the Fiscal Council's future proposals, and perhaps those that it has already made, as political cover for plunging people further into poverty. They could say, "It's not our idea; it's the idea of the Fiscal Council". I am concerned that that is the direction of travel.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I note his concerns. I am not saying that the Executive will use an independent watchdog as cover, but it is fair enough for him to talk about that. The Fiscal Council will produce, via a law that we will scrutinise and pass, factual information that members of the public, including trade unionists, whom he and I care about a lot, will be able to scrutinise. That will be, in a sense, a scrutiny mechanism for ordinary workers, trade unionists and people who work in the public services to understand decisions that the Executive make, so, in that sense, it can be of benefit to them, too.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for the intervention. That is potentially the case, but what we need is not rocket science. With respect to the chair and members of the council, we do not need experts: we need an understanding of the withdrawal of large sums of public money from our public services over the past 10 years. The Minister of Finance, in fairness to him, mentions that on occasion, but I am concerned that the Fiscal Council does not have a focus on that, and I am concerned about the direction of travel. I do not think that —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, I remind you that the Second Stage of the Bill is to talk about the establishment of a Fiscal Council and what a Fiscal Council may or may not do. I ask you to use your remarks to address that.

Mr Carroll: Sure. I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I am concerned that the council will not be ideologically neutral. People may cry foul in that regard, but I think that there is a commitment to neoliberal austerity. The idea has already been touted that the council is out of touch with what working-class people need and believe.

There is no mention of wealth taxes, or of an increased billionaire, wealthy, corporate class. It is my view, and that of many other people, that hugely profitable companies should pay more corporation tax. The Fiscal Council has not mentioned that. I do not believe that it will mention that with the passing of the Bill. The Bill just legislates for more of the same and, ultimately, will mean more fiscal punishment for working-class communities, with a red carpet rolled out for the wealthy. This should be a moment for thinking outside the box. I am concerned that the Bill, when it becomes law, will just mean more of the same.

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Members who contributed to the Bill's Second Stage debate. I will try to cover as many of the points that were made by Members as possible. The Chair of the Committee said that he was going to be constructive. He was, for most of his contribution. The general view of Members — not ignoring the views of Mr Carroll — is that they welcome the fact that we are moving to a statutory footing for the Fiscal Council. It is important that we move to that statutory footing and establish it on that basis. We need to give it the legal protection and powers that it requires to carry out its functions. I look forward to the debates at Committee and during the further stages of the Bill, and to hearing the pros and cons and the different opinions, some of which have been voiced here today, as to how we should manage the Fiscal Council.

For a variety of reasons, there was a delay in the legislation's being introduced, but we have had an opportunity to test-drive the model. It works, by and large, and Members, with the odd exception, will generally agree that it does. Let us therefore not approach the legislation as reinventing the wheel. The Fiscal Council has proved its independence from the Department of Finance. I will listen to the debate as the Bill progresses. Members may argue that the Fiscal Council should be funded directly through the Audit Office or that it should be directly responsible to the Assembly. The counterargument to that, however, is that the current system is working and that all Budgets are approved by the Department of Finance and the Executive, because the Department produces the Budget and the Executive vote on it. Ultimately, if people want to interfere with the independence of the Fiscal Council through its budgetary framework, they can do so. If they are minded to interfere, they can. Thus far, however, the Fiscal Council has proven itself to be independent, robust and strong in how it does its work. Its challenge functions and its support functions have proved very beneficial to me as Minister of Finance, to the Executive and to the work of the Committee.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for giving way. We have noted that the Fiscal Council provides independent evidence, particularly if we are having conversations with the Treasury or other organisations. We need to look, however, at establishing a funding line whereby funding goes directly to the Fiscal Council rather than come through the Department or by some other means. That is a potential option for the Committee to discuss at Committee Stage.

Mr O'Dowd: As I have said, the purpose of scrutinising legislation is to see whether it is fit for purpose, but it is also to see whether it can be improved. I am willing to listen, but I caution Members against reinventing the wheel for the sake of it or trying to get one over the Department of Finance. The Member has made a valid point, and our engagement with the Treasury has been strengthened by the role that the Fiscal Council plays. The credibility that it brings to the debate has allowed us to engage with the Treasury on all those matters.

A number of Members mentioned clause 5. Subsection (5) confirms that, once the legislation has passed, no changes can be made to it without regulations being brought to the Assembly for approval.

Mr Frew asked why councillors are to be excluded from being members of the Fiscal Council and why MPs are not to be excluded. The NI Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 disqualifies MPs from being Members of the Assembly. Members already know that. We will further clarify Mr Frew's point about whether MPs and TDs should also be listed in schedule 1. If further disqualifications need to be included in the legislation, so be it. If there is no bar in some other area to that happening, I do not see any problem with doing that.

The Fiscal Council has its role, but let us not surrender the Assembly's role to any other body or institution. The Assembly has the democratic authority. Everyone in the Chamber has been elected by the people to do a job, and part of that job is to hold Ministers to account and to pass legislation and Budgets. When we are establishing bodies and commissions that, on the face of it, do good work, and the Fiscal Council does do good work, we have to be mindful and careful that we are not ceding power to anyone else. We are the democratic authority, and we must always be very precious about and protective of that. When we give powers to others, we must ensure that we are doing so truly for good and that doing so does not undermine our authority or our role. Although doing so may be well intentioned, it further undermines our position in the minds of the general public, because they say to themselves, "What is the point of having you, if all those other bodies do those jobs?"

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for giving way. He raises a valid and important point. Clause 6(4) states:

The line that states that the council will not be able to make recommendations is crucial.

Mr O'Dowd: Indeed. We should never cede power to commissioners, ombudsmen and others in such roles. We are the democratic authority, and we should be precious about that.

I look forward to working through the Bill and scrutinising it with Members. Mr Carroll commented on the council's reports thus far. Here is the thing: the Executive, Members and I, as Minister, do not have to agree with everything that the Fiscal Council says. In fact, we do not have to agree with anything that the Fiscal Council says. It does a job. That job has been worthwhile thus far. Placing the council on a statutory footing is a worthwhile proposal. I hope that the Bill's broad principles will be accepted today. We will then work with the Committee and others to bring the finalised legislation to the House. Hopefully, that will happen in the near future.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Second Stage of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Finance.

Members should take their ease.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has allocated no time limit to the debate.

Mr Muir: First, I thank my Executive colleagues for their support for the Bill. I look forward to working with Members across the Chamber to take the Bill forward, particularly with members of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, which is ably chaired by Robbie Butler.

I say with some confidence that the Bill should be welcomed by all Members. The Bill will improve the quality of local environments across Northern Ireland in neighbourhoods, villages, towns and cities and in our rural and coastal areas. The Bill impacts on all of Northern Ireland: all the people of Northern Ireland and those who visit. Clean and tidy neighbourhoods help to engender a sense of civic pride in their residents. People feel safer in such neighbourhoods and more at ease in their surroundings. Such local environments attract more investment and have a positive impact on our health and well-being.

There are, of course, many examples of dilapidated buildings and neglected sites that negatively impact on the amenity of neighbourhoods. Recently, I visited a number of sites in Northern Ireland to see at first hand the scourge of dilapidation on our communities. I am sure that Members will agree with me when I say that it makes for depressing viewing. Although the former Department of the Environment's dereliction intervention programme, which included the shrouding of buildings and the introduction of false shopfronts, helped councils to tackle the detrimental impact on amenity that is caused by derelict and dilapidated buildings and gap sites, it was always intended to be a relatively short-term fix. An agreed way forward is needed to ensure that district councils have a proper toolkit of powers that enables them to take effective action against owners who fail to stop their buildings from falling into significant disrepair.

Work on the development of a dilapidation Bill originated as a result of a number of councils taking part in two blight summits and significant engagements between my officials and a range of key stakeholders nearly a decade ago.

The overwhelming majority of respondents to the 2016 formal public consultation exercise expressed a preference for the development of a wide-ranging dilapidation Bill that would consolidate and amend much of the existing legislation and supplement it with new provisions on low-level dilapidation and dangerous buildings that were already available to local authorities in the rest of the UK. The other key proposal was to strengthen the cost-recovery options that are available to councils, enhancing the financial viability of councils undertaking remediation work themselves. A review of the legislation that was available to councils concluded that that legislation, much of which dates back to the Victorian era and/or applies to specific geographical areas, is limited in its scope and effectiveness.

There is also a significant legislative deficit in Northern Ireland compared with other relevant jurisdictions. Although local legislation purports to address the same basic issues, there is a lack of consistency across it, and the Northern Ireland-wide legislation is subject to differences in interpretation between councils, making some reluctant to use it. That deficit has been addressed by including in the Bill provisions that are broadly equivalent to those in England and Wales under sections 215 to 219 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on low-level dilapidation and neglected sites, and sections 77 and 78 of the Building Act 1984, on dangerous buildings and emergency action. Similar provisions exist in relevant Scottish legislation.

The intention of the Dilapidation Bill is to provide all district councils with a modern, fit-for-purpose, Northern Ireland-wide enforcement regime to deal with the negative impact of dilapidated and dangerous buildings and neglected sites. The definition of "building" is broadly drawn and seeks to encompass most man-made structures. There is currently no statutory or non-statutory guidance to support the various pieces of legislation that are available to councils. Given the intended scope and potential complexity of the Bill, my officials are developing clear statutory guidance. That will be laid in draft before the Assembly in due course to allow the Committee to scrutinise it. It is envisaged that that approach will give district councils, property owners, financial institutions and other government agencies much greater clarity on the scope of the legislation and the responsibilities of the various actors.

There is likely to be a positive impact on employment, business, charities, social economy enterprises and the voluntary sector, as the powers in the Bill will enable councils to tackle dilapidation, thereby enhancing communities, benefiting the economy, improving the quality of the built environment, increasing tourism and reducing antisocial behaviour.

As detailed, a formal assessment of the regulatory impact of the proposals in the Bill has been completed. That assessment recognises that, in the commercial sector, there are likely to be additional costs for landlords, property developers, property management companies, financial institutions and others who own dilapidated buildings in cases in which councils take enforcement action. However, to a large extent, those costs will be offset by enhanced property values, additional activity in the construction sector and a range of non-monetary social benefits.

The Bill will not impose a financial burden on my Department, and it must be stressed that the new powers in the Bill do not place any new statutory duties on councils; rather, the Bill gives them additional discretionary powers, allowing them flexibility to avail themselves of those powers as resources permit.

In the current budgetary climate, no discrete funding provisions have been included in the Bill. In cases in which district councils take enforcement action, there will potentially be costs to the owners of dilapidated properties. The inclusion of robust and effective cost-recovery provisions will ensure that councils are not financially disadvantaged. Effective implementation of the new regime will require council buy-in to opt in to undertaking enforcement activity, and it is recognised that councils will need to allocate adequate resources.

The Bill allows councils to issue a range of notices, depending on the severity of the dilapidation, that require owners, occupiers and others with a relevant interest to take appropriate remedial action to deal with varying levels of dilapidation and neglect or that allow the council to take such action itself and recover the costs from the relevant person.

The Bill allows for a hierarchical approach to severity, with low-level cases being the least severe, dilapidated structures being moderately severe and dangerous structures being the most severe. Those groupings are not mutually exclusive, and there can be overlap across all three. However, it is likely that a single notice will suffice in most cases. The Bill allows councils to issue the combination of notices that it deems to be appropriate, with each situation to be considered, rightly, on a case-by-case basis. Many of those powers do not exist in Northern Ireland but have been established in England and Wales since 1990 and in Scotland since 1997. Others with a relevant interest may include a person with a financial interest in the property or any person with a responsibility for the management, maintenance or safety of the property. The scope of works that can be required is wide and can include planting, clearance, tidying, enclosure, rebuilding, repainting, external repairs and, in extreme cases, demolition or part demolition. That will obviously be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Specific grounds for appeal to the Magistrates' Court are in the Bill, as is provision for further appeal to the County Court by the appellant or the council. Protections will be afforded to listed buildings. The Bill binds councils into ensuring that they will consult the relevant planning colleagues or the Department for Communities about historic monuments before taking any action. That will properly address heritage issues in a more proactive way and allow action to be taken at a much earlier stage, thereby preventing avoidable decay in important buildings.

Non-compliance with the various notices will be a criminal offence. Penalties range from a £2,500 fine on summary conviction for failure to comply with a maintenance notice to a £5,000 fine on summary conviction or on conviction to indictment to a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, for failure to comply with a dangerous structures notice. The Bill also provides for councils to issue a discretionary £500 fixed penalty to discharge liability for conviction for breach of a maintenance notice or failure to provide information without reasonable excuse.

The Bill significantly enhances the cost recovery powers for councils. Where the relevant person has failed to carry out the remedial action that was specified in the notice, a council may take such action itself and recover its costs from that person through the courts. The provision of robust and effective measures to ensure that the appropriate person or organisation pays for the necessary remedial actions is key to minimising costs to the public purse and preventing unscrupulous property owners deriving financial benefit from letting buildings fall into disrepair.

As with serving a notice under the Bill, officials were keen to ensure that the range of persons from whom costs may be recovered is broad. Where costs cannot be immediately recovered, they will be treated as a charge on the land and placed in the statutory charges register as though they were a mortgage, thus ensuring full cost recovery.

Experience has shown that those powers have delivered important, tangible and lasting improvements to amenity in other jurisdictions. The Dilapidation Bill has the potential to contribute to wider regeneration and urban quality objectives. There is little incentive for private property owners to invest in the quality of their property if they are in an environment that is of such low quality that it simply sucks value out of their property. The Bill can and will help to tackle the blight of dilapidation, which spoils the appearance of our neighbourhoods. In doing so, it will improve the quality of life for all the people in Northern Ireland.

I will also comment on the fact that we are debating the Bill on the final day before recess. Some people have had concerns about the delay in introducing the Bill. Obviously, when we came back in February last year, government was switched back on, but it does not power up immediately. It takes us time to develop and deliver the legislative programme. Also, in presenting the Bill to the Assembly, I have to have confidence that I can say to you all that it has the proper vires and competencies. We have been through a process to assure ourselves of that. It is important that I say that we are debating the Bill today because we have ensured that we are confident in the Bill that we have presented to the Assembly. I look forward to the debate, and I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Robbie Butler, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My opening remarks will not be made as the Chair of the Committee; rather, I want to address the Minister's final statement about the speed at which the legislation has come forward. I want to be clear that I am speaking on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party and me. It is much better that we make good legislation rather than rushed legislation and that we leave a legacy of being competent in our jobs.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: While it is not the fault of this Minister, and while we want legislation, we will have debated six Bill stages over the course of yesterday and today, despite having had lots of days of debating meaningless motions. Does the Member agree that it might be a wee bit much to have half a dozen full-blown Bill stages in two days of business, along with a few legislative consent motions?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his intervention. It is an interesting point. I do not necessarily disagree, but I think that the people of Northern Ireland have suffered from too little politics for many years. If it means that we have to stay here for longer in the day, we certainly will have to truck through.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Take your seat, Robbie. Members, let us concentrate on the Dilapidation Bill. We can all rave about the issues that are coming through as well, but the debate is about the Dilapidation Bill. I am really interested in listening to your views on the Dilapidation Bill. Over to you, Robbie.

Mr Butler: Thank you. I return to the much-anticipated Dilapidation Bill, regardless of whether the Member thinks that it came quickly enough or not. I was reading through the papers in regard to our responses to dilapidation, and it goes back to about 1973, actually. So, it is not even that we have been waiting for 10 years for this but a lot longer.

On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I welcome the Second Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. Committee members have all seen the negative impact on our communities of dilapidated buildings and neglected sites, and, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, many of them pose a danger to the public. The Committee welcomes the modernisation of the legislation, as it has been a long time coming, and a lot of the current legislation dates to the Victorian era. That is not 1973, which is in and around the vintage of when some of us were born: the roaring '70s.

The Committee held an evidence session on 26 June with officials from DAERA's neighbourhood environment quality branch, and we considered the outline of the 31 clauses and two schedules. We then heard that the Bill is intended to give councils powers to deal with dilapidation, dangerous buildings and neglected sites and a fit-for-purpose enforcement regime. Those should reflect powers that are already available in the rest of the UK, as the Minister has outlined, and will enhance the cost-recovery powers for councils. That could, potentially, be one of the more difficult things to deliver on.

The Committee heard that the aim is to enable councils to tackle dilapidation at an earlier stage through a hierarchy of notices dealing with different levels of dilapidation. Those notices are dealt with in clauses 1 to 10, covering an increasing level of dilapidation from a maintenance notice to a dilapidation notice to a dangerous structure notice. Finally, at the highest level, it covers immediate action that a council can take to deal with a building that is considered to be dangerous. The Committee was pleased to see that the Bill also provides for cost recovery for the council where it has taken the necessary remedial action itself, registering a charge on the land in the statutory charges register until costs are recovered and also registering a dilapidation notice in the register to allow a property to be sold with appropriate information. That is good news, perhaps, for the high street in particular.

We heard that the remaining clauses cover a range of matters, including potential obstruction by an occupier, the power to require ownership information, consultation with planning regarding heritage sites, and appeals against a notice issued under the Act.

Should the Bill come to the Committee, members will be paying close attention to clause 20, which provides for statutory guidance that district councils must have regard to. Members will wish to have sight of the draft guidance to properly scrutinise the Bill. We had a less-than-satisfactory experience with the Agriculture Bill, when we were asked to make a decision without sight of the replacement scheme. That was explained to us by the departmental officials at the time, but, in this instance, we really would like to have sight of the guidance to consider it alongside the Bill, Minister.

We then heard that the Bill provides a definition of "interested person", that of "owner", that of "building" and that of "land". The Committee will wish to consider the term "amenity", however, in particular, as it is expected that the interpretation of "amenity" will be broad and must be covered in the guidance. The Committee will also be scrutinising the regulation-making powers to ensure that they are appropriate and that they are subject to the negative resolution procedure unless they amend a fixed penalty amount or the definition of "heritage site". At that stage, they will be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure, as we have been informed.

There is no doubt that there will be considerable public interest in the Bill. Members, including members of the Committee, have already had photos sent to them of dilapidated buildings and sites fostering antisocial behaviour, including vandalism, drug activity and arson. At Committee Stage, members will want to ensure that the Bill is robust and broad enough to cover public and council concerns. It is not only falling masonry that makes a building dangerous. Antisocial behaviour can make the public feel that a derelict building or site is dangerous.

The Committee queried the 2016 consultation, and officials stated that the responses were broadly supportive and had cross-party support. Officials had recently written to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) to ensure that it was still supportive and had heard that it is. The Committee queried why the Bill aims to bring in only discretionary powers for councils and whether there is a risk of regional disparities, because we already see councils operating in different ways in their interpretation.

If the powers were mandatory, presumably DAERA would need to provide direct financial support to councils; we would like confirmation of that. Officials said that there were resource issues but that the Bill would place the cost of remediation works on the property owner, occupier or interested financial organisation or party in the first instance.

The Committee asked about an inventory of dilapidated properties and sites. Officials advised that Ulster University conducted a study for DAERA in 2017 to estimate the number of affected properties and provide a breakdown. DAERA has now shared that report with the Committee. The Committee queried the impact on rural areas, and officials advised that a property needed to have a negative impact on a neighbourhood, so it is unlikely that a council would act on a stand-alone remote property. Given its remit, the Committee will be very interested in rural equity. The Committee will wish to determine whether that is appropriate, as even remote properties can be dangerous. I will add that agencies turn up to remote properties if they are on fire or if there is antisocial behaviour, and we have a responsibility to those statutory agencies too.

Officials advised that the statutory guidance would go into more detail on the test to quantify the level of neglect of dilapidated buildings. Members highlighted the limbo that they feel about unadopted developments where the developer has gone bankrupt and disappeared. Officials advised that a charge could be put on a property via the Land Registry.

I hope that I have given the House a flavour of the issues that the Committee can see and that need scrutiny. However, the Committee supports the principles of the Bill and looks forward to considering it in further detail during Committee Stage.

I would like to make some remarks on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party and myself. As I said, research showed that this has been a topic for discussion for the Ulster Unionist Party for nigh on 52 years, and it has certainly been a focus in our manifesto commitments. We welcome the Second Stage of the Dilapidation Bill, because communities across Northern Ireland, rural and urban alike, are plagued by derelict buildings and neglected sites. They are not just eyesores; they undermine public safety, deter investment and foster antisocial behaviour.

I want to home in on and paint a picture of one building that is local to me: Hilden Mill in Lisburn. I am old enough to remember the mill in almost its former glory with people working in it. For around 25 years, however, nobody has been working there, and it has fallen into serious disrepair. Unfortunately, it acts almost like a beacon for young people. Although the site has been secured a number of times, young people have broken into it and use it for different things. In addition, the fires that are lit there bring extreme danger not just to the young people themselves but to the emergency services that have to respond. Beyond a building being an eyesore and beyond the safety of those who are near that building, we have an obligation to those who have to respond to incidents there.

The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the Bill's ambition to modernise a framework that, as the Minister said, dates back to perhaps the Victorian era. The proposed hierarchy of enforcement from maintenance notices to actions on dangerous structures is a step in the right direction. However, important questions remain. What will success look like in practice for councils, and, more important, for our communities? Where does the community voice sit with regard to what happens after action is secured? Will the legislation empower councils equally, or will rural areas continue to be left behind due to resource constraints? Why are the powers discretionary and not mandatory? What assurances do we have that enforcement will not be patchy across regions?

We really want to see the Bill work not just for Lisburn but for places such as Lisnaskea. We would also like sight of the statutory guidance under clause 20 before decisions are taken, because we cannot afford another scenario such as we had with the Agriculture Bill, when we acted without sight of the anticipated replacement scheme. Let us, in this moment, grasp it, work collaboratively and collegially with the Minister, be upfront about the information that is there and the challenges that we face and deliver a high-quality Dilapidation Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Robbie.

I call Matthew O'Toole — and, Matthew, it is the Dilapidation Bill. [Laughter.]

Mr O'Toole: We are all feeling a little dilapidated, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is the end of the Assembly term.

I will concentrate my remarks on the Dilapidation Bill, speaking on behalf of the Opposition. I am not on the AERA Committee, but I will make some brief remarks on the Bill, the principles of which we support. It is a detailed, long Bill. Committee members and the Committee Chair have clearly set it out that a Bill that has 30-plus clauses, as well as schedules, will need to be understood in detail. It creates new responsibilities or powers for councils. We specifically need to understand how precisely it will work and what support, if any, be it via guidance or financial support, the Executive will give councils to make that happen.

The Minister said that the Bill provides that, in issuing dilapidation notices, emergency action notices, dangerous structure notices and all the rest, a council may recover costs from the people who own the properties that have fallen into dereliction. Clearly, in some cases, they will be persons or entities in respect of whom, if they hold derelict assets, there might be significant difficulties in recovering costs because of the status of such assets. It will be helpful to understand how the Minister sees that playing out and how exactly it will work if there are logistical or legal challenges to a council in recovering costs.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. He has rightly identified the fact that the recovery of costs is often more easily said than done.

Does the Minister recognise a situation where so much of the public estate has fallen into disrepair and dilapidation, and does he envisage a situation where councils therefore pursue Departments or the Education Authority (EA), for example, for costs? Does the legislation lend itself to calling on those agencies — the EA in particular — to revise how they dispose of assets, rather than hanging on to them for so long that they become a liability for themselves and the local community?

Mr O'Toole: First, I remind my colleague that I am not a Minister. That is the whole point.

Yes, he is right: there are such buildings in the public estate, one of which is the actual Minister's former departmental building, Dundonald House, just a short walk from here. I do not know whether it is formally dilapidated or derelict yet, but, if you go for a lunchtime run down there, you will see that it seems pretty close to that.

Dereliction and dilapidation are close to most of us, as local representatives, because we can see them, quite literally, on our streets and high streets. For people in both urban and rural communities, dilapidation is, in many ways, the physical manifestation of a sense that the community in which they live either is not getting enough support or is not what it should be and is not living up to its potential. It then has all sorts of other consequences for economic development that will be, I am sure, well aired in the debate. It can form a negative downward spiral by dissuading people from going to said high street for hospitality, retail or other community use. That then causes a negative downward spiral in the economic potential of an area. As Mr Butler, the Committee Chair, said, it can incentivise or at least facilitate certain types of antisocial behaviour. It can have a real impact if it provides for dangerous situations where there is, for example, significant antisocial behaviour or drug use. That can then facilitate all sorts of negative public health and antisocial consequences. It is an extraordinarily broad area.

I would welcome hearing more from the Minister about how he sees the Bill fitting into the broader work on dereliction. From listening to his remarks, it struck me that, when we think about the dereliction and dilapidation of high streets, although it does not exclusively affect high streets, we have specific challenges in areas where economic development is an issue. The Economy Department is, obviously, responsible for economic development. It convened the high street task force, which, sadly, is no more. The Finance Department is responsible for the rates system, which is a huge part of this, and I will talk about that in one second. The Infrastructure Department is responsible for the maintenance of highways. Sometimes dilapidated buildings create issues for highways and other street architecture, particularly if there is falling masonry. The Communities Department is responsible for the built environment and regeneration. There are multiple examples of where the Communities Department is responsible for regeneration projects and is, effectively, the development partner for properties that are either dilapidated or becoming dilapidated. It will need what we are, frankly, abysmal at in this place: genuine cross-departmental working.

The SDLP Opposition welcomes the Bill as a step forward. Scrutiny will be done in Committee to understand precisely how all the powers will work, how councils can apply them and what the consequences will be.

I would also welcome hearing from the Minister about how he sees the Bill feeding into what should be broader Executive work on supporting high streets and preventing dereliction and all the associated points. As I said, the Bill touches on a range of areas of responsibility, so there should really be joined-up working. The high street task force, were it still to exist, would have been the obvious place in which some of the issues could have been taken forward. The outworkings of the Dilapidation Bill would, I am sure, have been of interest to the task force.

I will give an example in the city that I represent. Mr Butler mentioned Hilden Mill in his constituency. Painting a picture for people who are watching the debate on the Bill will help them link it to places in their area. The Opposition brought a motion to the House about a chronic piece of facilitated dereliction and dilapidation in the middle of Belfast in Miss McAllister and Mr Brett's constituency. It is called Tribeca. It is in the heart of one of the most vibrant, economically and culturally rich parts of this city and this island. No one can say to me that Tribeca, if it theoretically had cultural hospitality and people living there, with all sorts of community opportunities, could not be a going concern. No one can say to me that it is not economically achievable. It is economically achievable, but the current owners have allowed a set of properties to fall into structured and supported dereliction and dilapidation.

I do not ask the Minister to speculate about that site, as that would not be proper. I have said, however, that Belfast City Council should have powers in such a situation. It has vesting powers, but the dilapidation powers in the Bill would better enable the council to step in aggressively and try to rescue all or part of that project. What has happened is indefensible. As you walk down North Street and Donegall Street, you see this amazing place, full of rich history, where the Belfast Enlightenment happened and where the Assembly Rooms are. All our political, cultural and intellectual traditions have a presence in that part of the city, yet we have allowed it to fall into structured dereliction.

Our rates system has incentivised that. The Bill is not about the rates system, but the two are inextricably linked. Bluntly, our rates system incentivises continued dereliction. We have vacant property relief, which is very generous. I want there to be some form of property tax relief that incentivises people who have vacant properties to find new uses for them, but our system seems to subsidise such properties indefinitely as they fall into dereliction. I will wait to hear whether the Minister has anything to say about that and to hear whether the Bill will help facilitate a broader piece of work being done. In our rates system, vacant property relief effectively exists until a place is ineligible to pay tax because it no longer has any obvious economic use and is dilapidated. Does the Minister think that that issue should be covered in the Dilapidation Bill?

I will give a couple of examples in my constituency. On Botanic Avenue, just around the corner from my constituency office, what used to be the Botanic Lodge guest house lies derelict. I have no idea why that is so, and I make no comment on the individuals who own it. Mr Speaker, you may draw me back to the specifics of the Bill, but I would like to see Belfast City Council and other councils look at properties like that and say, "Hang on. This building is right in the middle of a culturally and commercially critical part of our district. Why the hell has it been allowed to fall into structured and facilitated dereliction and dilapidation?". I hope that the Bill creates extra powers for councils.

Dereliction is happening not just on Botanic Avenue but in parts of what is called the Linen Quarter: inner South Belfast, Great Victoria Street and Shaftesbury Square. There is huge vibrancy there, as well as one of the world's great universities. People come from all over the world to study and socialise and to experience the area, but there is too much dereliction. It is a blight on our hospitality offer and on economic development more generally.

I hope that the Bill can be part of a broader effort to tackle and clamp down on dilapidation. My colleague on the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will scrutinise it in detail. At this stage, however, we support the Dilapidation Bill.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and commend the Members who have spoken, including the Chair of the Committee, who accurately reflected the deliberations that we have had so far on the Bill.

Sinn Féin welcomes the intent of the Dilapidation Bill. Across our towns and villages, the impact of dereliction and neglected buildings is plain to see. Such structures often sit at the heart of our communities in main streets, close to schools and near local businesses, and they send out the wrong message. They harm community confidence, deter investment and, in some cases, pose real safety risks.

The Bill, rightly, seeks to strengthen enforcement and give local councils the powers that they need in order to act. That is a step in the right direction, and, whilst we support the Bill's moving to the next stage, we are cautious about some aspects of it. Many of our councils are already under significant financial pressure, and the new powers must come with appropriate funding. It would be unfair and, ultimately, unworkable to expect councils to take on any additional enforcement responsibilities without the means to do so.

Questions still need to be answered about the financial model behind the Bill. For example, how many properties are expected to fall under enforcement each year? What proportion will require significant structural work as opposed to basic maintenance? The estimated annual cost is £4 million, but how much of that will fall to councils, particularly in cases where the cost of works cannot be recovered? Those concerns are particularly relevant in rural areas, where the rate base is small and the resources to pursue enforcement, legal action and remedial works are already stretched.

We must also be mindful of the impact on small, independent businesses. Many operate on tight margins, and unexpected repair bills, particularly for older buildings, could threaten their survival. What flexibility will be offered when it comes to compliance? Will there be phased timelines, and will financial support or grants be available for those businesses that are genuinely unable to meet the cost? We have heard that the long-term uplift in property values will offset the costs, but can that assumption really be applied across all areas, especially where demand is low and depopulation is a concern?

We support the aim of creating safer, more vibrant built environments. That can happen only if those tasked with delivery of our council functions and those affected, including small businesses, which are the backbone of our local economy, are properly supported. We need a fair, realistic and sustainable approach.

Mr T Buchanan: I was somewhat amused earlier when I heard the SDLP say that too much legislation is coming. One day, the SDLP says that there is not enough, and, the next day, it says that there is too much. You wonder what sort of Opposition you have. It reminds me of a bit of Ulster-Scots poetry that says:

That is what we are seeing.

I will move on to the Bill. I welcome the Second Stage. We fully support the intent behind the Bill, which is to address the blight of dilapidated, defective and dangerous buildings in many of our towns and villages and the risks that those buildings pose to personal safety and the environment. At the last local government election, our manifesto pledged support for the creation of powers to enable local councils to tackle dilapidated buildings, and we renew that commitment today. However, we are conscious of the fact that the Bill needs careful scrutiny. While it needs to be robust, it needs careful drafting so that no extra pressure is put on councils. Of course, that needs to come with financial support, as others have said. We look forward to examining the Bill's details at Committee Stage and working in the Committee to agree final legislation that is operable and gives local councils the wherewithal and clarity that they need to take strides in addressing a problem whilst ensuring that property owners and tenants are afforded fairness and due process.

There can be no doubt that, leaving aside all the architecture of the powers set out in the Bill, much will depend on the content of the guidance envisaged in clause 20. That issue has already been raised during the debate. There can be no ambiguity around the thresholds of buildings that are deemed dilapidated, defective or dangerous. To protect the taxpayer, clear direction will be required for councils when they are taking emergency remedial action.

We would welcome further information from the Minister on the rationale, in clause 11, for giving the councils powers to intervene and start remedial work on defective premises within nine days of a notice being served. That seems like a fairly expedited time frame, and consideration needs to be given to whether that unduly infringes on the ability of the owner or occupant to engage constructively and in good faith with any notice that is issued. Moreover, is it not the case that, if a risk to health and safety is adjudged to necessitate intervention after such a period, the use of the powers in clause 10 might be more appropriate than those in clause 11?

I also ask the Minister to confirm whether he has explored the potential for a grant scheme to support, in limited circumstances, those individuals who find themselves in possession of dilapidated premises through inheritance or other circumstances, despite not having the financial means to take the remedial action that would otherwise be required in a council notice. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on whether he has looked at such a scheme or whether he intends to do so. I would also like to hear in greater detail about the sorts of reasonable excuses that the Department envisages being appropriate where owners or occupiers fail to comply with conditions or notices that have been issued by councils. Again, there needs to be clarity on that.

We support the Bill. As the Committee Chair said, we want a Bill that is workable and makes a difference in our constituencies, including our rural towns and villages. We look forward to the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation at the Committee and to a positive Bill passing through the House that everyone can support.

Mr Blair: As Alliance AERA spokesperson, I express our support for the Dilapidation Bill at its Second Stage. As has already been indicated by others in the debate, this is a long-awaited and crucial piece of legislation that aims to empower district councils with the necessary tools to address the pressing issue of dilapidated and dangerous buildings throughout Northern Ireland. We all recognise the issues that are caused by neglected sites and deteriorating structures. I have been contacted by constituents who have expressed concerns about specific dilapidated buildings in South Antrim. I am sure that others in the Chamber have been contacted by their constituents with similar concerns. Those properties are not only eyesores; they decrease property values, pose health and safety risks and have a harmful impact on the wider environment and community. The strong public support for action is therefore understandable, and I am glad that the AERA Minister has responded by bringing the Bill to the House.

Many of our councils lack the powers or mechanisms that are necessary to effectively address the issues. The Bill grants them discretionary powers to take action on such buildings, bringing Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the enhanced cost recovery powers will make it feasible for councils to undertake the necessary remediation work themselves when required. That is critical, as many property owners may be unwilling or unable to take action, which will leave the councils with no choice but to intervene. Having the means to recover those costs will not only support our councils financially but streamline the process of ensuring that our communities are safer and that their infrastructure is well maintained. Fundamentally, it is essential to recognise that local authorities are best positioned to understand the specific needs and circumstances of their communities. The Bill allows the flexibility to act in a manner that reflects those local priorities.

The Dilapidation Bill represents a significant step forward in addressing the challenges that are posed by neglected and dangerous buildings in our communities. It empowers local councils to take action, enhances their capacity to undertake remediation work and, ultimately, makes our communities more vibrant places in which to live and work. The Alliance Party supports the Bill and we urge others to do likewise.

Mr McHugh: Is geal linn cuspóir Bhille an Trochlaithe. Ní féidir neamhaird a thabhairt ar an drochthionchar a bhíonn ag foirgnimh chontúirteacha thréigthe ar na bailte móra, sráidbhailte agus cathracha againn. Tá sé thar am cur i bhfeidhm atá níos láidre agus níos comhsheasmhaí a fhorbairt.

Mar sin féin, cé go dtacaímid leis an Bhille, déanaimid sin go faichilleach, go háirithe maidir leis na himpleachtaí airgeadais. Tá go leor comhairlí faoi bhrú airgeadais cheana féin. Ní mór na hacmhainní cuí a bheith ag gabháil leis na cumhachtaí nua.

Tá soiléireacht de dhíth orainn i dtaca leis an tsamhail airgeadais atá mar bhonn faoin Bhille. Níor cheart bheith ag tabhairt ar na comhairlí dul i mbun oibreacha deisiúcháin riachtanacha gan meicníocht praiticiúil ann leis na costais a thabhairt isteach. Tá baol ann go mbeidh crannchur de réir cód poist ann maidir le feidhmiú, ag brath ar acmhainn airgeadais na comhairle.

Ní mór dúinn an tionchar ar ghnólachtaí beaga agus leochaileacha a mheas. Cén raon costais athchóirithe atá i gceist, ní hamháin an meánchostas £7,300 punt ach an t-íosmhéid agus an t-uasmhéid fosta? Cén dóigh a n-athróidh na costais sin de réir chineál an ghnó, de réir mhéid agus riocht na maoine nó de réir shuíomh an ghnó? An mbeidh ar ghnólachtaí na costais iomlána a íoc láithreach, nó an mbeidh deis ann comhlíonadh a chéimniú thar thréimhse réasúnta ama? An dtig údar a chur leis an mhaíomh go dtabharfar isteach na costais le méaduithe fadtéarmacha i luach maoine go háirithe i gceantair thuaithe nó i gceantair dhíothacha? Mar bhuille scoir, cén cúnamh airgid a bheidh ar fáil le tacú le gnólachtaí neamhspleácha áitiúla a n-oibleagáidí a chomhlíonadh? Caithfidh tacaíocht bheith mar chuid den réiteach.

Más é an cuspóir an timpeallacht thógtha a fheabhsú agus leas an phobail a chosaint, caithfear cosaint a thabhairt dóibh siúd atá freagrach as an athrú sin a chur i gcrích fosta— ár gcomhairlí — agus dóibh siúd a mbeidh tionchar aige orthu — ár ngnólachtaí áitiúla.
Tacaímid le dul chun cinn an Bhille, ach déanaimid amhlaidh go faichilleach agus le glao soiléir ar chur i bhfeidhm a bheidh cothrom, inmharthana agus maoinithe mar is ceart.

Mr Brett: I warmly welcome the Second Stage of the Bill. I am not a member of the Agriculture Committee, and I do not represent a rural constituency, but, given the speeches that have been made today, it is clear that, for those of us who represent inner-city constituencies, the purpose of the Bill is very welcome indeed. As other Members articulated, the Bill and its genesis have been floating around in the ether since 2012, and communities that I represent have been warmly welcoming them.

Mr Butler articulated the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party has been discussing the matter for 53 years, so I am sure that Alliance election material will say, "People talk about it for 53 years, and Alliance delivers it within 18 months." [Laughter.]

I really welcome the Bill. I welcome it so much because it will ensure that the communities that I represent that live in BT15, BT14, BT36 and BT37 get the same treatment as those who live in BT9. The dilapidated conditions that some people whom I represent are expected to put up with and live beside would not be accepted in BT9. They would not be accepted on the Malone Road or in other parts of Northern Ireland, but working-class communities are expected to suck them up. I see one of the other Members for North Belfast in the Chamber today and I am sure that she could add many more examples. I have seen people living beside derelict properties for year after year and people who have spent their life savings purchasing their home only to be surrounded by derelict properties with no future option of selling their home. As the Member for South Belfast articulated, that obviously impacts on our town centres as well.

I welcomed the purpose of the Bill, in particular because it will bring a uniform approach across council areas. Like many representatives in the Chamber today, my constituency overlaps with two local government areas. The approach taken by Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council is much more proactive than that taken by Belfast City Council. On occasions, residents who live on the border of those local government areas can look across the road or across the bridge and see their council taking action and wonder why other local authorities are not doing so. However, I was slightly concerned when the Minister went on to articulate that those are discretionary powers for councils and not mandatory, legislative steps that councils should take. I ask the Minister to articulate why he is not passing on a legal duty to councils to ensure that they live up to their responsibilities.

I will also pick up on something in relation to clause 24. The Bill mentions derelict properties, but I want to know whether it touches, in particular, on unregistered land. There are swathes of land in my constituency that have no owner. It has Japanese knotweed growing on it that is impacting on residential homes. However, the Bill seems to articulate that the interpretation of the Act can apply only if someone has a registered person on that land. I have concerns that perhaps the Bill could be seen as something that could help to tackle unregistered land and unregistered sites. Perhaps the Minister could give some clarity in relation to clause 24's "interested persons". In addition, clause 10 does not mention land; it mentions only buildings. Can the Minister articulate whether that covers land and buildings?

On cost recovery, the Bill articulates that councils "may" recover costs. I wonder why that is not "should" recover costs. We obviously appreciate that there may be some aspects that cannot be recovered due to not being able to trace ownership or due to people not having the means, but we could use the word "should" rather than "may". Maybe the Minister could sum up on that.

Regarding time for compliance with notices that have been served on property or landowners, could the Minister articulate what time pressures will be available to people to put in action what they need to do? We do not want to have notices that will last for months and months with people simply using delaying tactics.

Overall, the Bill is welcome. It will allow safety to be returned to many parts of our constituency where derelict sites or land are used for antisocial behaviour. Regeneration that has been led by government can continue to take place, and those who have land-banked their sites for many years will now have to face the repercussions of doing so. It will also protect our built heritage. Across North Belfast, we have some amazing built heritage. We have seen regeneration projects such as Crumlin Road Gaol, which has been truly wonderful, but you then look across the street and see Crumlin Road Courthouse, a listed and wonderful building in the heart of our city that, due to legislation, has been allowed to fall into absolute disrepair.

The Bill touches on many of the things that all Members want to see: it protects our built heritage, ensures community safety and puts regeneration back at the heart of our working-class communities. The Minister has my full support, for whatever that is worth, in progressing the Bill, and I look forward to his answering some of the issues that I have raised today.

Miss McAllister: I welcome the Bill at its Second Stage. I am grateful that my party colleague, Alliance Minister Muir, introduced it.

I remember that, back in 2012 or 2013, when I was an activist in the Alliance Party, my first piece of activism was to write a letter to the then Minister Durkan — I think that it must have been 2013 — asking him to take action on derelict buildings in north Belfast. It did not happen then, but it is happening now, and I am glad that we are moving forward on it, finally. It is frustrating that progress has taken so long.

I echo the comments about the issues in constituencies that cover two council boundaries. In my constituency of North Belfast, if you journey from outer Newtownabbey into Belfast city centre, taking any of the many different routes that you can, you see the dereliction get worse the further you go into the city. Take the Shore Road, for example. I look back to how long the old Grove site was left unused and the number of buildings that were left when businesses went bust. My constituency colleague has already mentioned the Crumlin Road Courthouse, but there are many more derelict properties along the Crumlin Road. There are issues on the Cliftonville Road as well. Thankfully, some organisations are taking it on themselves to do some of the work. I think about Cliftonville Community Regeneration Forum, which developed its own local manifesto on tackling derelict buildings. It put pictures of many of the houses in the area in brochures, which shamed landlords in the area into scrubbing up a lot of the houses by going in, taking on repairs and doing the work. Most of the houses that the community organisation highlighted are now in use.

I think about the Antrim Road from Glengormley right down to where it reaches Carlisle Circus and North Street in Belfast city centre. I think of one dangerous structure in particular. One of the buildings collapsed during the day, and emergency services had to be called to the scene. It had collapsed on to the road and into the street. Two businesses — one that was a pillar of the north Belfast community for decades — were shut for a number of months. My kids were mostly disappointed by the fact that our local Chinese had closed down, but thankfully it has relocated, so they are happy now. On a more serious note, we are talking about businesses that were affected because other landlords did not take seriously their obligations to maintain their properties. I have taken the Minister to my constituency of North Belfast and shown him some of those sites. At the time, he agreed that it was a disgrace and that action should be taken. A Member mentioned the Tribeca site and North Street, another area that we need to work together on to ensure that the dereliction is tackled.

A number of Members have raised the issues of cost recovery and cost to local councils. I do not know about other MLAs, but I am sure that they could relate to the number of times that my constituency office and I have contacted Belfast City Council or Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council to get an environmental health team out to the sites of derelict buildings and derelict houses to take action. They are wasting money doing that when it could be the landlords taking action. Councils could save money. Imagine if we devolved regeneration powers to councils along with the powers that the Bill will transfer to them: that really could regenerate areas and make them vibrant. I look forward to the statutory guidance. I am not a member of the Committee, but, working with my colleague, I will keep a close eye on it, because it could transform my local area and the local areas of everyone across Northern Ireland.

We are in a housing crisis across Northern Ireland. How many houses in disrepair that landlords have let get into a sorry state could be used to house people? There are many. Hopefully, this power will allow councils to take enforcement action against landlords. I am sure that there will be many more discussions on the Bill in Committee, which I will not be part of, but one thing that, I hope, is dealt with is the effect on councils across Northern Ireland and how they will use the powers. I look forward to working with my colleague to ensure that. Remember that each of us has party colleagues who sit on the councils, so we can ensure that councils use the powers. The Minister is giving the gift to councils, and then it will be in our gift and that of our party colleagues who sit on those councils to enforce it and use the powers.

I look forward to getting to the Final Stage of the Bill. I very much welcome it.

Mr Carroll: My party supports the broad aims of the Bill. I thank the Minister for bringing it to the House. It is important that councils have more powers to tackle dilapidated and neglected buildings and to ensure that those buildings are utilised for the public good. I welcome the provisions that give powers to councils to give notice to owners and occupiers to fix problems within a time frame. The mind really boggles as to why that is not the law already. Do the Minister and his officials have any indication of how many buildings would be affected each year? Obviously, it could fluctuate on the basis of buildings deteriorating and so on, but I presume that there is a working figure. I would appreciate a number on that.

Clause 19 mentions the issuing of a fixed penalty of £500 on owner-occupiers if they breach a maintenance notice issued by the council. I am concerned that that is a paltry sum that developers and building owners could effectively brush off. It is only £500, which is very small. The Minister mentioned other figures in the thousands: will he clarify what they are? The only figure mentioned in the Bill is £500, which, I repeat, is too small for building owners — in some cases developers, in others individuals. Compare that with the way in which somebody who allegedly claims welfare that they should not be claiming or for which they are ineligible is treated. Their faces are plastered all over websites and media outlets, but the owners of buildings are treated with kid gloves. This is an improvement, but the legislation is not strong enough. I urge the Minister to make it more robust, and I ask him to clarify, in his closing remarks, why the fine is only £500.

Members have talked about the look of cities and towns. That is not unimportant, but the main focus should be on the fact that there are empty buildings while, as the Member for North Belfast said, tens of thousands of households across the North are homeless — staying in hostels, Airbnbs and hotels or sleeping on sofas or in cars and so on. We have empty buildings while organisations including but not limited to art organisations could avail themselves of them. I have met Vault, an important arts organisation in Belfast city centre. Every nine or so months, it moves round Belfast to locate empty buildings so that it can put up hundreds of artists to allow them to do their work and create art in cultural spaces in Belfast city centre and beyond. There are departmental buildings and private buildings lying empty.

I am concerned that the £500 fine for owners of properties is just a slap on the wrist. The Minister should consider a multiple-strike policy, if he has not done so already. If a property owner repeatedly ignores or breaches a maintenance notice, there should be repercussions — something along the lines of a three-strike policy or a two-strike policy. The Minister should consider a transfer of buildings. If someone repeatedly breaches the maintenance notice, there should be a question about whether they should be able to own that property or whether it should go into public ownership with the Housing Executive, the Department of Finance, DAERA or whomever. Have the Minister or his officials considered that?

The Bill also talks about low-level dilapidation but does not clarify what that is. There is a concern about that. As a quick segue, there is a concern about public buildings lying empty, as mentioned by the Member for Foyle. I am also concerned that government-owned buildings are being sold off for private gain. We had a Finance Committee discussion a few months ago about a Civil Service-owned building being sold to a private healthcare company. The Minister is making good strides. They are, maybe, not strong enough, but we cannot have this Minister doing one thing when the Finance Minister is taking a different approach and allowing public buildings to be sold off for private gain.

I am not convinced of the effectiveness of the £500 fine, as I mentioned, when there are more than 5,000 properties across the North whose owners are availing themselves of 100% rates relief. Empty commercial properties qualify for, I think, a 50% rates reduction. People could soak up multiple yearly £500 fines for breaching maintenance notices issued by councils, whilst thousands of pounds, if not tens of thousands of pounds, are unpaid in rates. The £500 fine is a good start — I welcome the principle — but it is not strong enough. I ask the Minister why he came up with that amount.

Finally, housing is a key issue that is faced by Members across the North.

Could a percentage, or all, of the buildings that are not being used and that may be in need of repair be transferred and used for housing? At least 22,000 homes are lying empty, and the figure could be greater. I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister were to clarify those points.

Mr Stewart: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for coming in late. It had not been my intention to speak at this stage, but I take the opportunity to praise the Minister and his officials for introducing the Bill. I agree with much of what has been said today. The Bill is long overdue. A lot of work has gone into getting it to this stage, and I look forward to its progressing through the various legislative stages and to seeing the final Bill. The legislation will have a very positive impact on our communities.

I was previously a councillor in Carrickfergus and am now an MLA. In all that time, nothing has frustrated me more than seeing constant dereliction, especially in Carrickfergus, where I am proud to have lived for many years and which I am proud to represent. It is a historic town, but it is blighted by dereliction, often because of landlords who are repeat offenders. They own multiple properties in the area but are never held to account for not repairing them. In fact, we see the opposite, with grant schemes being targeted at them to help them do up those buildings. It has been very frustrating over many years to contact the council and feel that nothing can be done. One has only to arrive in our fantastic town and visit our world-famous medieval castle to see that that impressive structure sits beside an abandoned bar and restaurant complex that is being allowed to fall into the sea. Nothing is being done about that. I therefore hope that the Bill will allow us to take action in that regard. I know that some amendments will be tabled to it.

I agree with what the Member who spoke previously said about the fixed penalty notice in clause 19. Financial developers who are buying up properties for their housing portfolios should experience the wrath of God, money-wise, but a £500 fine is nothing to them. Given the red tape involved, it will probably cost more to administer that fine. Where there are repeat offenders, I agree with the Member for West Belfast that something more than a tap on the wrist must be administered. Multiple landlords are involved, and they are often repeat offenders. Something a bit stronger should therefore be considered.

I am interested to hear whether the Minister and his officials have looked at examples of where such legislation is operating already in the rest of these islands, particularly on the Isle of Man, where it has worked really successfully. How has other legislation evolved, and what is the experience of local councils of enforcement, the appeals process and everything else? We know that no plans survive contact and that things evolve. One of the benefits of being late to the party in introducing such legislation is that we can learn from elsewhere about what has worked well and what has not and then amend our legislation accordingly. I know that the Committee, including my party colleague the Member for Lagan Valley, will be doing that.

I also agree with the analysis of Mr Brett and that of the other Member for North Belfast. Mention was made of there being a postcode lottery where a constituency straddles two council areas. I find that particularly frustrating as well. Depending on which side of the road they live on, people do not really know how the relevant council will interpret the provisions. The key to the legislation's success is that it must compel councils to take action. It is all well and good for us to create law, but councils must be willing and able to use it and to put down markers. There are already powers available to them, but there has been a reluctance from some councils, depending on where one is in the country, to use them. The Bill presents an opportunity for us to do something about that.

I look forward to following the Bill's Committee Stage. Hopefully, some amendments to the Bill will be tabled.

Mr Muir: I am grateful to everyone in the Chamber who contributed to the debate. It is what the Assembly is about: scrutinising and passing legislation. I will seek to respond to the points that were made. A variety of issues were raised, and I will try my best to deal with them. At the outset, I declare that I am a member of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society. It is important that I put that on the record.

The Chair of the Committee mentioned having sight of the guidance. That is currently being pulled together. It is important that the Committee has sight of the guidance during its scrutiny of the Bill. The desire is that it will be with the Committee at the end of September. We have to engage with the councils on the matter, because they play a key role. Hopefully, the Committee will have the guidance at the end of September to allow for scrutiny of the Bill, because that is a key part of the legislation.

I get the concern about financial support for councils. That issue was raised a number of times during the debate, and it is important that I address it. The inclusion of robust and effective cost recovery provisions will reduce the likelihood of councils being disadvantaged financially. The effective implementation of the new regime will require council buy-in to undertake enforcement activity, and it is recognised that councils will need to allocate adequate resources because, in the current budgetary climate, no discrete funding provisions are included in the Bill. New powers are discretionary, giving councils the flexibility to avail themselves of them as their resources permit. I acknowledge the thread of debate about the discretionary power and whether it should be mandatory, and the Committee can scrutinise that in the time ahead. I have a strong desire to work in partnership with district councils on the matter. There is a role for us all, because we have representatives on the district councils, and we can influence them to take forward the powers in the Bill. Obviously, the balance between discretionary and mandatory powers can be considered.

Funding support has been given to councils for the wider area of regeneration. I could go through that, but most Members are aware of it. Members are also aware of their current powers, such as those relating to developer contributions, but the Bill deals specifically with dilapidation and gives councils up-to-date powers. There needs to be a wider understanding of the impact of dilapidation on areas, because not taking action has wider consequences for the people living in an area, those considering investing in an area or, as has been discussed, businesses leaving an area because of it.

The Chair of the Committee asked what success would look like. For me, success is when dilapidation is not seen as the norm. There are different attitudes in central and local government towards dilapidation. When it starts to develop, we need to go in quickly and take action. The leader of the Opposition, who is not here at present, mentioned the Tribeca site and the wider issues in north Belfast. The Bill is designed to deal with the dilapidation issues that affect constituencies across Northern Ireland, and, as has been articulated in the Chamber, there are particular issues in north Belfast. To be fair, Members who represent the North Belfast constituency have raised a number of those issues with me, and I will offer to meet the five MLAs from that area to go through the sites and see what more can be coordinated across government. The issue has been raised consistently, and the MLAs have engaged constructively with the Bill. We need to find a way forward, and that is the best way to address the issues.

The Chair of the Committee asked why the powers are discretionary and not mandatory. Hopefully, I have addressed that issue. The leader of the Opposition talked about cost recovery, and that is an important issue.

Mr Butler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes.

Mr Butler: I am not sure whether the intervention is appropriate, because you have just raised the cost issue. Something that happens in towns at times — I am sure that most people have experienced it — is that the ownership of a building lapses because someone dies, and there is no will or probate to pick it up. Has the Minister considered how the ownership of those buildings will be addressed?

Mr Muir: Tracing the owner of a building and taking action is a fundamental issue that the Bill seeks to address. The Committee can drill into the specifics through its scrutiny of the Bill and as part of the call for evidence over the summer. Hopefully, the councils will be helpful and highlight where they see the challenges. Fundamentally, we want to minimise the cost to the taxpayer in Northern Ireland and make sure that it is borne by the people who are causing the dereliction and dilapidation. Clause 12 provides that, in court proceedings to recover costs:

make an order accordingly. As is the case with serving a notice under the Bill, the Department is keen to ensure that the range of persons from whom costs may be recovered is broad. Before deciding to recover costs for a particular person, it would be in order for a council to satisfy itself that it is appropriate to pursue that person for the costs. I understand that councils need to have discretion on that.

The provision of robust and effective measures to ensure that the appropriate person or organisation pays for the necessary remedial actions is key to minimising the cost to the public purse and to preventing unscrupulous property owners from deriving financial benefit from allowing buildings to fall into disrepair. All of us in the Chamber know of examples of that: such behaviour is not right, and we need to find a way to deal with it. Hopefully, the legislation will help with that. Under the current draft of the Bill, a council would have to judge, on a case-by-case basis, whether to begin enforcement proceedings if the likelihood of recovering costs is minimal. It is reasonable to assume that a council would adopt an approach that did not put its finances at risk and ensured maximisation of success in the interests of ratepayers.

Another point is whether the ability to trace an owner would inhibit councils from carrying out their work. That should not prevent councils from carrying out works. Owners or other persons of interest should be actively pursued in an effort to improve and regenerate their areas using a variety of methods, such as the services of Land and Property Services or Companies House, internet searches, private investigators — if doing so is deemed to be ethically appropriate — and the information notices provided for in clause 16. There are, therefore, a number of ways to move on that. Fundamentally, that is about us working in cooperation with district councils.

In an intervention, Mark H Durkan raised the role of public bodies. We all have a responsibility to keep our public estate at the proper standards. There is engagement on that, as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis. If you need to use legislation such as this against a public body, government has failed in that instance. That is, however, something to be considered.

The leader of the Opposition asked how the Bill fits with the broader issue of dereliction. The Bill interfaces with a variety of areas in other Departments, and my officials have primarily been in close contact on it with the officials from the Department for Communities.

I have already touched on the issue of Tribeca. That is a good example of a case in which councils want more effective powers. Hopefully, the Bill will give them that and allow Belfast City Council to use the appropriate powers to take things forward in that case.

The other issue that the leader of the Opposition raised was on the role of the rating system. That is a matter for the Minister of Finance, but it has been a thread throughout the debate. I will write to the Finance Minister to reflect those points back to him, because, ultimately, we need to coordinate everything that we are doing across government.

An issue that was raised by Declan McAleer and Tom Buchanan was that of councils' financial powers and the cost that they will bear. I understand that point totally, and it is important that the guidance is issued for the Committee to scrutinise it at the end of September. That would allow councils to fully consider how they will go forward with this. The Bill is deliberately set out in such a way that the owners of the buildings are the ones who take the liabilities that are associated with it. Ultimately, if councils want to protect and grow their rates base, it is in their interests for those areas to be regenerated and for dilapidation to not be allowed to occur in the first place. A wider perspective has to be drawn.

Tom also raised a point about the defective premises notice and whether the nine-day period set out in clause 11 is too tight. I want to make sure that I give you the correct answer. Clause 11 is on the defective premises notice. That notice would be used on occasions when there would not be time to go down the route of statutory nuisance, provided for in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, to remedy defects. That power would be used in circumstances that require relatively rapid remediation, such as in the case of a building in which a staircase had been incorrectly installed. In such a case, there would be insufficient time for a preliminary view and a subsequent, more considered, view to be taken.

The council may serve a notice stating that it intends to remedy the defective state of the premises and specifying the defects that it intends to remedy. The notice is served on the owner if the defective state of the premises arises from a structural defect and, in other cases, on the person responsible for the premises being in a defective state or, if that person cannot be found, the owner or occupier. Nine days after the notice takes effect, a council may carry out whatever remedial works are necessary. The building does not have to be dilapidated or dangerous but present a problem that, the council considers, needs to be tackled quickly, hence the nine-day turnaround time in the absence of appeal procedures.

Clause 11 also allows the person on whom the notice was served to serve, within seven days of the defective premises notice having taken effect, a counter-notice that states that they intend to remedy the defect themselves. If they did that, that would be good news. In such a case, the council is prohibited from taking any action unless the person fails to remedy the defects within a specified time or to a specified standard. That is not a new power — it is available to councils under article 65 of the Pollution Control and Local Government Order 1978 — but it is being re-enacted and enhanced to cover listed buildings. It should be noted that clause 11 does not conflict with Department for Communities defective premises legislation, which relates to liability and limitation periods. I hope that I have provided clarification on that.

Mr Buchanan also asked whether there were any plans to introduce grant schemes. There are no immediate plans for grant schemes as part of the Bill, but Members can consider that during the scrutiny period. The Bill is deliberately designed to minimise costs to the public purse and to ensure that costs rest with the people who are responsible for dilapidated buildings. That is the right balance to strike.

Maolíosa McHugh also raised council liabilities, which, I hope, I have addressed. Another point that Maolíosa raised was whether compliance could be phased in over time. The council can specify the periods in which work needs to be done. That allows councils to look at work on a case-by-case basis and to take a pragmatic approach.

Phillip Brett has been a passionate, strong and diligent supporter of the Bill. On the basis of his initial comments, he could probably be hired as director of campaigns for my party, but we will let him decide on that role.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Do not get ahead of yourself, Minister.

Mr Muir: He asked why the powers were discretionary rather than mandatory: I hope that I have addressed that. I know that that will be brought out by the Committee. It is about striking a balance between the power that we give to councils and our influence, as political parties, on those councils.

The Member also raised dealing with unregistered land, which, I know, is a cause of dilapidation. The council can carry out remedial work, or it can register a charge. It will be for the council to make a judgement on that, but I get the point that, in the areas of dilapidation that we have seen in Northern Ireland, unregistered land is a cause of concern for local people.

The Member raised a point on the meaning of "interested person" in clause 24. Clause 24 specifies that a person:

It also defines "owner" in relation to land. Hopefully, the Member is satisfied about that point.

On the period within which work should take place, I have tried to strike a balance by saying that councils can phase that in, but it is ultimately for councils to decide.

The Member also raised a relevant issue on Crumlin Road Courthouse — I have declared an interest as a member of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society — and I am glad that he did so. The courthouse is a key piece of Northern Ireland and North Belfast's history. As someone whose family is from North Belfast, I value it, and its restoration would undoubtedly regenerate the surrounding area.

We have sought to ensure that the Bill affords protections to respect the heritage of buildings. Clause 17 binds councils to consult relevant planning colleagues in the Department for Communities about historic monuments before taking action. That will properly address heritage issues and is more proactive, allowing action to be taken at a much earlier stage, thereby preventing avoidable decay in important buildings. Councils have powers under section 161 of the Planning Act 2011 to carry out urgent remedial works for the preservation of listed buildings, but I get the point that the powers that are in place are not seen to be sufficient, which is why we are moving that forward.

I will continue through the issues, because it is important that I respond to them. My colleague Nuala McAllister spoke about a range of concerns in North Belfast. Hopefully, I have addressed that by expressing my desire to meet the MLAs for North Belfast to consider what more can be done to address those issues by my Department and by working collaboratively with others, including the Department for Communities. We need to address those issues, and it is important that all constituencies in Northern Ireland are assured that the Bill seeks to provide powers to do that. Nuala has been a good person in showing me around North Belfast and the need for the Bill. I am happy that we are able to bring it through its Second Stage today.

Gerry Carroll wanted to know whether there is an indication of how many buildings are likely to be affected by the Bill. Unfortunately, there is no indication at the moment. I will double-check with officials, and, if there is information, I will write to the Member, but I do not believe that there is an inventory of buildings currently.

The Member raised issues about the £500 fixed penalty and expressed the view that the penalty was too low. That came out in other Members' contributions. I will give you a proper response to that point, because I want to ensure that it is properly dealt with. Clause 19 provides for a:

under section 16. Once the fixed penalty has been paid, no prosecution may be brought for that offence. Fixed penalties will not be available for more serious offences. The Department may amend the fixed penalty amount by regulations. Schedule 1 makes further provision regarding the form and content of fixed penalty notices and receipts. I look forward to hearing the contributions during the Committee's scrutiny on that. There is, obviously, the opportunity for amendments on that issue to be tabled at Consideration Stage, but I get your concerns.

The other issue was the definition of low-level dilapidation that we provided. We will consider the statutory guidance that is associated with the definition. If that is not forthcoming or you do not feel that it satisfies you, we can give further consideration to that.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate those answers.

Minister, your North Belfast colleague raised the point about housing, and I refer to compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) as well. Is there any specific intention to reuse buildings for housing as part of the Bill, or is that more of a matter for DFC? Have you addressed that or looked at it?

Mr Muir: No problem, Gerry. That issue, which relates to housing and CPOs, is not considered to be the primary effect of the Bill. I get the fact that dilapidated buildings cause issues for the wider neighbourhood, because people then move out or do not want to buy the properties. That will be where the benefits can arise. As part of the Committee's scrutiny function, it may also want to consider how that would interact with the wider desire to ensure that we have quality housing for citizens in Northern Ireland and how those things interrelate.

Gerry raised the issue of selling public buildings to the private sector. That is not really my gig, to be honest, but fair play to you. The other issue was about rates relief. I will write to the Finance Minister about that.

John Stewart raised a number of issues, particularly about Carrickfergus. His council colleague Lauren Gray has also raised those issues with me. I am assured that there are strong and powerful advocates for Carrickfergus. I get the feeling that there is a sense that, sometimes, nothing can be done. There is a sense of fatalism around the issue. Stewart Dickson showed me some of the buildings in Carrick, and I get that. Hopefully, the Bill will give us the power to address those issues. John Stewart raised the £500 fine. I hope that I have addressed that point in my response to Mr Carroll. He asked about how similar provisions operate elsewhere, particularly in the Isle of Man. I will ask officials to get me advice on that, and I will write to you about it.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to come back to the point that you raised about why councils do not compel people and why the options are there. It is not that I am being critical of councils, because great work is done up and down the country. The Minister will know, as I do, that, in some areas where the powers exist to punish those who engage in illegal dumping or dog fouling, some councils are very proactive in taking people to task and to court and others are quite risk-averse when it comes to that. That is borne out in the statistics. Does the Minister agree that we might have to see a few high-level test cases so that council officers are confident that it can be done and so that we scare people into realising that we are not messing about with the legislation and will go after those who are responsible for such things?

Mr Muir: I agree. The legislation will have teeth, and we need to make sure that the councils apply it so that there is a deterrent effect when it comes to people allowing buildings to get into a dilapidated state. There is localism in Northern Ireland, in that district councils can decide what way they are going forward on the issue. For example, two councils have not signed up to the fly-tipping protocol in Northern Ireland. I have written to those councils to ask them to sign up to that, but we all need to work together on it. People can shape local solutions to the issues. Ultimately, if we pass the legislation, as, I hope, we will, which will be a good moment for the Assembly, it will be for district councils to show that they will use the powers to provide a deterrent and not allow those things to happen.

We are all proud to be public representatives. We stand for election to serve the people, and it is really gut-wrenching to see certain parts of our villages, towns and cities allowed to slide into decay. We want areas that we were once proud of not to be like that, and, hopefully, the legislation will provide the power to turn the situation around. It has been a long time coming, but it is here now. If the Bill passes Second Stage, I will seek, as will officials, to work with the Committee at the Committee Stage of scrutiny on any concerns that it has. My commitment to dealing with dilapidation in local neighbourhoods and to working with other Departments is significant.

I have heard particular concerns, and I want to take those forward. I will have those discussions with you, John, about the specific issues that you raised about Carrickfergus. Hopefully, we can move forward constructively.

This is what the Assembly is about. Legislation is the meat of the Assembly, and I am glad that we are moving forward with it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Second Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Members, please take your ease for a short moment before we move on to the next item of business.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call the Minister for the Economy to open the debate on the Bill.

Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Members will be aware that I and my Department are working towards an economic vision aimed at creating good jobs, increasing productivity and promoting regional balance and decarbonisation. While perhaps not as high profile as those areas, our insolvency system remains fundamental to the operation of a healthy, stable and fair economy.

Whilst our economic performance is positive and has been improving over recent years, companies can still fail for a variety of reasons. As well as shifting markets and unexpected global crises, local businesses face challenges in trying to operate profitably. During my time as Finance Minister, my Department commissioned the Ulster University's Economic Policy Centre to carry out a study on the cost of doing business for local companies. That report illustrates the financial challenges that face all businesses here, particularly those associated with recent increases in National Insurance contributions and the rise in the national minimum wage. In addition and as I highlighted recently at the Energy Ireland conference, stubbornly high energy costs cause significant challenges for households and businesses. Those factors, along with the rising costs of other essentials such as raw materials, transport and insurance, are having a negative impact on the bottom line of many local businesses. Therefore, when companies or individuals encounter financial difficulties, how we respond has significant implications not just for those directly involved but for the economy as a whole.

A well-functioning insolvency system helps to preserve value, reduces uncertainty and allows capital and talent to be reallocated efficiently.

It is a silent but vital enabler of confidence in investment, lending and entrepreneurship. For employees, it offers clarity, legal protections and access to compensation; for creditors, it ensures fair treatment; and for the economy, it promotes dynamism and resilience.

My Department's insolvency framework is not static. It evolves in response to new challenges, and it balances the competing interests of creditors, debtors, employees and wider society. Our legislation requires regular updating if it is to remain relevant and continue to serve its purpose efficiently. That has been illustrated over the years with the focus of corporate insolvency legislation now aimed at the rescue and restructuring of failing businesses where possible rather than liquidation. Similarly, for individuals in financial distress, bankruptcy law has moved away from the punishment and stigma of previous times. It is now aimed at relief and rehabilitation so that individuals can rid themselves of problem debt and move forward with their lives.

The contents of the Bill represent a further evolution of our insolvency system. It does not make major changes to legislation, nor does it introduce radical new provisions. However, its provisions will have a practical impact on our insolvency laws, modernising them and making them more efficient, removing procedures that have become redundant or outdated, and easing the burden for creditors and petitioners.

Given the breadth and diversity of the proposed amendments — there are 29 in all — it would be impractical to provide a succinct and detailed summary of them. However, I will give a brief outline of a few of the most significant measures in the Bill. When a business falls into financial distress, often the best outcome for everyone, especially creditors and employees, is to keep that business running. However, businesses cannot keep operating if essential supplies such as gas, electricity or water are cut off. That is why the Bill gives my Department new powers to ensure that suppliers of essential services must continue to provide them during insolvency proceedings. We are updating the definition of "essential services" for modern times. The Bill will therefore guarantee that IT services are protected so that businesses can keep their digital services running while efforts to restructure or rescue them continue.

Another goal of the Bill is to put creditors at the heart of the process and make it easier for them to have their say. At present, all meetings of creditors must be held in person. That often makes it difficult for them to take part, especially if they live in remote areas or outside this jurisdiction. The Bill will allow creditors' meetings to be held online so that they can participate in the decision-making process from wherever they are. In addition, insolvency practitioners will not need to hire venues for meetings, thereby saving time and money for everyone involved.

We are cutting through unnecessary red tape. Currently, all creditors, no matter how small their claim, must submit a proof-of-debt form for their debt to be considered for payment. That can be an obstacle, particularly for those who are owed small amounts. The Bill will introduce a more practical solution: creditors who are owed smaller sums will be eligible for payment automatically without needing to file a claim. That small but significant change will make the process quicker, simpler and more accessible.

We are giving insolvency practitioners greater flexibility. Sometimes, there is a valid reason to take legal action to recover money for the company. However, the risk of losing and facing high legal costs can be a deterrent. Under the new rules, administrators and liquidators will be able to assign the right to pursue those legal actions to third parties, often creditors themselves. In that way, the business can raise funds without taking on the risk, and creditors can still benefit from successful claims.

Taken together, the reforms ensure that our insolvency and director disqualification laws remain effective, agile and fit for purpose in today's fast-moving world. The Bill's provisions are practical, timely and widely welcomed within the profession. They will serve creditors, debtors and practitioners efficiently and fairly. Therefore, I am pleased to commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you. I call Phillip Brett, Chair of the Committee for the Economy.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset, I want to say that this is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship since the untimely passing of your father, so if I can just record my sympathies and those of my party. I had the pleasure of knowing your dad, and he was a gentleman like you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have been in all our thoughts in recent days.

This is the first Bill from the Department for the Economy in this mandate. The Minister has chosen a very small one, at 121 clauses and four schedules. The Department consulted on the proposed changes to insolvency law and briefed the Committee on them on a number of occasions. As the Minister has just said, the Bill is rather lengthy. I do not propose to repeat the detailed references to all the clauses, but 21 measures are involved, and I will summarise them shortly.

Insolvency arrangements are a necessary and important part of business. Clear and understandable procedures are essential in order to give business owners, investors and creditors confidence and thus provide an environment in which the economy can grow and a level of certainty can be provided for businesspeople. The Committee was advised that changes to insolvency agreements have been made in England and Wales in recent years. Almost every single one of the measures in the Bill is already in place in other parts of the United Kingdom. The Bill will therefore largely bring us into line with accepted practice in the rest of the UK. The Department has advised us of a single exception, which relates to the provision of information to the Enforcement of Judgments Office. The Committee was assured that departmental counterparts in England and Wales view that as a gap in their provision that will likely be addressed in the future. If the Bill is passed, Northern Ireland's legislative provisions will therefore be ahead of those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Department also assured the Committee that everything in the Bill had been consulted on. Furthermore, officials confirmed that everything that came out of the recent consultation had found its way into the Bill.

The Bill allows for administrators to take High Court action against directors where they have been fraudulently trading and to assign a right of action to third parties. The Bill allows for administrators to ensure a fairer share of the benefits go to creditors, to take action that benefits creditors and to allow benefit payments to liquidators. The Bill allows for the sensible use of agreement by correspondence by administrators and for creditors to have the right to opt out of such communications.

The Bill allows for liquidators to be released where winding-up orders are rescinded; for the appointment of administrators to be extended with consent; for the official receiver immediately to become the trustee of a bankruptcy in order to allow them to sell assets to benefit the creditors; and for the removal of instances in which winding-up petitions can be used to prevent the appointment of an administrator. The Bill will make it clear that there are no assets that can be distributed to unsecured creditors.

The Bill will also ensure that the notice of intention to appoint an administrator need only be sent to prescribed persons, if there are such persons who are entitled to appoint an administrator/receiver or who hold a qualifying floating charge. The Bill removes the fast-tracking of voluntary arrangements for bankruptcies, as those provisions have been little or sparingly used in England and Wales. The Bill also allows for insolvent businesses to continue to access essential services and to prevent a supplier from insisting on payment.

The Department assured the Committee that those measures will improve the efficiency of the insolvency process, limit bureaucracy and thus discourage pointless time-wasting strategies. I anticipate that Committee members will set out their views on the principles of the Bill during the debate. Should they not speak, however, I can tell the House that the commentary at Committee was supportive of the Bill. Its passage is a matter for the House, but, that having been said, if the Bill passes its Second Stage today, the Committee's call for evidence will also commence today. Although that is not ideal, the Committee is keen to ensure that the Bill becomes law as soon as possible. The Committee agreed that, subject to the Bill's passage today, it will seek a Committee Stage extension to just before Christmas. I anticipate, however, that we will conclude our deliberations well in advance of then. I will save further comments for later legislative stages. I thank the Minister for moving the motion on the Bill's Second Stage today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Brett, and thank you for your kind comments.

Ms Sheerin: A Leas-Cheann Comhairle

, I formally endorse the Committee Chair's remarks on the sad passing of your father.

As the Committee Chair outlined, we took evidence and got very helpful advice on the Bill from one of the Minister's officials. During a very informative evidence session, the official answered all the questions that were put to him in a concise yet detailed manner. We should acknowledge and thank Jack Reid for that.

A lot of the points about the legislation have been covered in the contributions from the Minister and the Committee Chair, including the fact that the Bill is about modernising our processes here. Since coming into post, the Minister has made a real effort to support local businesses and has outlined clearly the move towards regional balance, supporting our indigenous economy and trying to level the playing field. The Bill will go some way, hopefully, towards doing that and supporting businesspeople who sometimes feel that, due to circumstances beyond their control, they have come into difficulty and that that should not define the rest of their career or their life.

I therefore welcome the Second Stage, and I hope that the Bill progresses further.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Emma. I am very grateful for your comments also.

Mr Honeyford: Deputy Speaker, I have spoken to you about your dad before, but, as it is the first time that you have been in the Chair when I have been in the Chamber, I also pass on my sympathies.

I agree with what has been said. I speak in support of the Bill and welcome its Second Stage. As Alliance Party spokesperson on the economy, I recognise that the Bill is a long overdue step to modernise and strengthen our insolvency framework in this region.

As has been said, the detailed briefings that the Committee received were really reassuring. I thank Jack Reid and the departmental officials for the overview and comprehensive briefings that they gave us.

The core of the legislation is about giving businesses, especially small businesses, legal tools. In Northern Ireland, over 90% of our companies are small businesses or microbusinesses that can find themselves in circumstances that no one ever wants to experience. That is the spirit that we need to adopt here. People are forced into making choices by pressure on them that nobody ever wants to feel. The Bill provides the legal tools for businesses to restructure, recover from and possibly survive those financial difficulties.

Non-payment is a massive issue in Northern Ireland. My background is in construction, and I can say that non-payment is normally caused by the greed of the developer. They simply withhold payment to add profit, which puts small companies and microbusinesses at massive financial risk. The pain and stress that that causes and the risk that it puts on business owners are, thankfully, addressed by the Bill. That level of stress is not fully understood in the House or across society. People who go out and start their own company often put their own assets at risk to achieve their dreams. The Minister talked about energy costs and all the things that can affect a business. Bad debt is another factor. Regularly, family homes are put at risk to service bank debt. We need to address that during the passage of the Bill. We should make sure that people do not lose their home in that way. There is no stress like financial stress. It is a weight that business owners carry. Nobody goes out or starts a business to fail. That has been acknowledged throughout the House, and so it should be.

The Bill represents a positive and progressive way forward. It brings our laws in line with best practice. As the Chair of the Committee said, the example that we hear about is that in England and Wales. Following that brings us into line —.

Are you going to stop me?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): No.

Mr Honeyford: No? Sorry, I thought that you were going to stop me speaking.

The Bill brings us into line with England and Wales. In fact, as has been said, it takes us ahead of the situation there. Changes are about to be made, and we are going ahead with them. It is to be welcomed that we are not coming back to this and that we are setting stuff ahead.

The Bill provides greater clarity and certainty for business owners, creditors and individuals. Importantly, in doing so, it ensures that Northern Ireland remains competitive and an attractive place in which to invest and start a business. Too often, our outdated insolvency laws have compounded business failure rather than providing a clear route out of it and into recovery. The Bill introduces key reforms that will give viable businesses the space and flexibility to potentially get back on their feet.

It is critical that we save businesses and individuals that can be saved. It provides clarity and confidence —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Honeyford, are you happy to continue after Question Time?

Mr Honeyford: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Thank you.

Question Time is scheduled to commence at 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when Mr Honeyford will be called to continue his remarks.

Members, take your ease before Question Time begins.

Mr Speaker: Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I thank the Member for his question. The recent racist violence in North Antrim was disgraceful and unacceptable, and there is no excuse for it. Businesses affected by criminal damage may be eligible to claim under the criminal damage compensation scheme run by the Department of Justice. In order to prevent a repeat of the hatred and intolerance that we saw, we need to see political and civic leadership standing united for inclusion and respect.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. Ballymena in North Antrim has been in the press for all the wrong reasons due to the violence. Given that footfall is down, some eateries cannot now get chefs and workers have had to flee and go home, what specific support can the Minister give businesses in Ballymena that have been affected?

Dr Archibald: As I said in my opening answer, we need to see strong and clear leadership to say that what happened is wrong and sends a bad message about not only Ballymena but the North as a whole. We also need to see that civic leadership coming through.

The idea of support for businesses is not the most appropriate vehicle at this point in time. We need to see a cohesive and collective approach across Departments to how we address the challenges, and, as an Executive, we have discussed that. I am also aware that the Department for Communities has provided a small amount of funding to Mid and East Antrim Borough Council to take forward work with the Ballymena business improvement district to promote Ballymena town centre. That will be useful, but I revert to the idea that we need to have strong and clear leadership on the type of society that we want: one that is inclusive for all.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, I know that, like me, you will be acutely aware of how much many of our local producers rely on immigration to survive. Will you comment on the many benefits that we see from immigration into the North?

Dr Archibald: Our minority ethnic and migrant communities bring many benefits to our economy and our society. From an economic and business perspective, we want to be globally competitive, and that simply cannot be achieved in some sectors without migrant workers. From accessing international knowledge to expanding into new markets and providing niche skills that are not available locally, workers from other countries help us to grow our economy for the benefit of everyone. We also have a very tight labour market, and I know of many businesses that struggle to fill essential roles and plug essential skills gaps. That is regularly raised with me by businesses, and, without access to migrant labour, businesses simply would not be able to operate at the scale that they and our economy need them to.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member. O2 has advised that the majority of its voice and data traffic is carried on its 4G and 5G networks. While O2 is stopping roaming on its 2G network, it has no plans to switch it off and has provided an assurance that it will remain in full use for O2 customers. O2's 3G services will be switched off by the end of this year, and it is working to ensure that its 4G and 5G networks will pick up the relatively small amount of traffic that was previously carried over 3G.

Several measures have been taken to improve mobile coverage, including the shared rural network. That project consisted of mobile network operators investing to extend their coverage by upgrading their existing networks, working together on shared infrastructure and building new sites.

Miss Dolan: Thank you for that answer, Minister. As you know, the majority of my constituency is rural. Therefore, given the vital importance of a reliable phone signal for safety, connectivity and daily life in rural areas, do you agree that mobile phone providers have a moral obligation to ensure that no rural communities are left without adequate mobile coverage?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As an MLA for a rural area and someone who lives in a rural area, I recognise the issue. I struggle regularly for good coverage. I also recognise that good connectivity is essential for people, and I am aware that some areas are much better served than others. I am due to meet mobile network operators in July, so I will seek further assurances that they are doing everything in their power to ensure that the planned switch-off of 3G networks will not leave people without adequate mobile communications connectivity. I will also press them on their plans to improve connectivity in all areas, especially our rural communities.

Mrs Erskine: There is a specific problem with attacks on masts. We have seen those in west Belfast recently and in some nationalist areas. It is important that there is leadership in relation to the attacks that have happened, because mobile infrastructure is vital for people's connectivity.

I want to ask about the barrier busting task force. Can it be strengthened to have a specific look at rural areas such as my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. Let me be unequivocal about this: there is absolutely no place for the attacks on 5G masts. I have already stated that clearly in the House. Those who are at that need to desist, and anybody with information should contact the PSNI.

I have mentioned the barrier busting task force previously in the House. Given its prominence in the debate on this matter, Departments are working together to specifically address some of the concerns that people have and the myth-busting that may be required. I will be happy to take the Member's point on board and to engage with officials where there are specific issues in rural areas that need to be addressed.

Dr Archibald: I have been in active discussions with the British Government to emphasise the strategic importance of Spirit's operations in the North. Less than a fortnight ago, I met the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Jonny Reynolds, in London, where I highlighted the need for a positive and sustainable outcome for the company and its workers. I spoke to Minister Sarah Jones last week, when I highlighted the importance of a positive solution and the need to protect jobs and the supply chain. My Department, along with the Executive Office and Invest NI, continues to work collaboratively with the British Government to ensure the best possible result for the workforce and the local economy.

The acquisition of the A220 wing facility by Airbus was a positive development and provides assurance about job security for many highly skilled workers. However, the priority remains ensuring that all the jobs are protected. I remain engaged with all stakeholders to ensure a long-term, sustainable future for the remaining operations and workforce.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you for your response, Minister. You will be aware that Unite the union and the GMB union are doing a lot of background work to protect jobs. You mentioned that you are doing that too. You may also have noted that the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is seeking responses to its inquiry into Boeing's anticipated acquisition of Spirit AeroSystems. Will your Department feed into that inquiry as well?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I have engaged with trade union representatives on a number of occasions on the work that they continue to do across the board to get a good outcome, and I continue to support them in that. My officials and I will engage with the Member on that ongoing work.

Mr Delargy: The Minister has already detailed some of the engagement that she has had with trade unions. Will she also outline the engagement that she has had with employee representatives and any more detail on the engagement with trade unions and how that will be used in the ongoing negotiations?

Dr Archibald: As I mentioned to Diana, I have had significant engagement with the trade unions along with the First Minister and deputy First Minister and Invest NI. We have regularly met. I fully understand and appreciate the concerns that they express, and I have communicated those to Spirit AeroSystems, Airbus and the British Government. I will continue to support them in their efforts and will work alongside them to find the best possible outcome.

Mr Brett: The Minister rightly articulated the importance of the aerospace and defence sector to the Northern Ireland economy, which is already worth £2·2 billion. The strategic defence review, which I recently submitted a question for written answer to you about, has the opportunity to provide thousands of jobs and billions of pounds' worth of investment. The Minister gave only a one-line response to me. Will she outline today what proactive work she has done to secure investment from that strategic defence review for companies across Northern Ireland?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I will work with and support companies in achieving all the objectives of my economic vision of creating good jobs, promoting regional balance, raising productivity and having decarbonisation. I am happy to work with companies to achieve that and, of course, to support them in their efforts in engaging with the British Government.

I am well on record, as is my party, about how we would like to see public funding invested, and that is in public services. The fact is that we continue to see the prioritisation of defence over public services, and that is certainly not where we should be investing. Businesses will, of course, continue to engage with British Government representatives on all strategies, as they see fit.

Mr McNulty: We have just met the all-party group on construction. It outlined the reality that a number of companies that were scheduled to set up business in the North have now relocated elsewhere, including to the Republic. A major company tried to set up business in Newry but relocated to the Republic because of a lack of infrastructure. What does the Minister know about that issue, and what is she doing to address it?

Dr Archibald: Businesses make decisions for many commercial reasons, and they will, of course, do that on where they choose to locate. My work across the Department and the Executive is to create the best possible environment for businesses to start up, grow and thrive. My focus continues to be on ensuring that there is adequate support for skills and the business environment to achieve that.

I am working with Executive colleagues to address some of the challenges that we face, particularly in respect of infrastructure. Those challenges are well rehearsed, as are the reasons for them. The decades of underfunding of our infrastructure will take a significant time to address. It is something that my colleague, the Infrastructure Minister, has at the top of her priorities and that the Executive collectively will work to do.

Dr Archibald: Local economic partnerships represent a new approach to developing economic policy and promoting regional balance. Local areas will identify their own economic priorities, and partners will work together to deliver those priorities. Partnerships will be supported with a £45 million fund over three years. Funding will issue to councils in arrears on the basis of activity undertaken. That means that funding will be issued to councils only at specific points in the year and will depend on the activity in their area. In addition, having listened to councils, I expect greater spending to be weighted towards years 2 and 3, as activity accelerates and projects are delivered on the ground.

The partnerships need time to do the crucial work in setting out their priorities, which will set the agenda for delivery. My Department and Invest NI are supporting them in that work.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her answer. Much is said about regional balance for the north-west, but, in representing South Down, I am concerned that the south-east does not feature so highly on the agenda. I am keen to make sure that the money is drawn down and drawn down fast and that it hits the rural communities. Does the Minister have any specific targets or engagement for the south-east of the Province?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Her point is well made. What we are trying to achieve with those local economic partnerships is for every area to have the opportunity to design its own economic priorities and to leverage support from my Department, Invest NI and other Departments to help achieve them. We are providing the resource to support them to do that. I have had significant opportunity to visit the south-east: I have had a number of engagements in Newry, Warrenpoint and Kilkeel. There is so much opportunity to be leveraged and harnessed there. The work of the local economic partnerships is designed to do exactly that.

Ms Ferguson: I very much welcome the work of the local economic partnerships, particularly in the north-west, in addressing regional imbalance. Minister, what is your assessment of Invest NI's contribution to regional balance?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The Invest NI business strategy for 2024-27 set ambitious and challenging targets. I am pleased to see that the organisation has increased investments outside the Belfast metropolitan area (BMA) from 56% to 59%. I look forward to Invest NI achieving its target of 65% of investments being outside the BMA by the end of the strategy period. I am also encouraged by the proactive and positive work that Invest NI does with partners on key issues. The city and growth deals, the Magee task force, the social enterprise partnership and, of course, the local economic partnerships are all key initiatives in helping to drive greater balance across the North.

Mr Durkan: Was £8 million of the regional balance fund returned and reprofiled for future years? Is the Minister concerned that that delay, or any delay, in spending could limit the impact or ambition of projects that are intended to tackle regional imbalance in the short term, particularly in areas like the north-west?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I mentioned to Diane in my opening answer, the £45 million of funding for local economic partnerships is over the three-year period. Having engaged with councils, we anticipate that the bulk of that will come in years 2 and 3. We have given councils the space to set up their local economic partnerships. Ten of the 11 councils have done that. It was important for councils to have the space to develop those partnerships as they saw fit. It was also important to ensure that they had the space to develop the project proposals. We have given them that flexibility, and the funding will flow accordingly over the next couple of years.

Dr Archibald: Financial support is not currently available for homeowners who wish to install solar panels. However, options for microgeneration support, including domestic renewable generation such as solar panels, will continue to be evaluated as part of our net zero ambitions. The Windsor framework enables extension to the North of the VAT relief for energy-saving materials that was previously available only in Britain. That means that people here will also be able to apply zero rates of VAT to the installation of energy-saving materials such as heat pumps and solar panels. Homeowners may wish to seek independent advice on solar panels, heat pumps and other energy-efficiency matters from organisations such as NI Energy Advice. Those technologies have the potential to provide an attractive payback to homeowners without there being grant support.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you for your answer, Minister. There was a consultation on the socialisation of NIE connection costs that, I think, has now closed. Can you provide an update on where that sits? Broadly, what are your plans on that?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. He is quite right: the consultation has closed. Officials are working through the responses, and advice in respect of the socialisation policy and the way forward will be with me shortly . As the previous Economy Minister set out, the preferred option was for the socialisation of those charges. All of us in the House will have had representations on the high costs of connection from businesses and others, particularly in rural areas. I will be considering that in the very near future.

Mr O'Toole: Critical to reducing bills will be delivery of the North/South interconnector. Given the failure to deliver on other critical cross-border infrastructure — the A5 — and your previous, at best, mixed words on the interconnector, are you committed to delivery of the North/South interconnector? Will that project be delivered before the end of the mandate?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. He is quite right: I am well on record on that issue. Previously, the North/South interconnector received planning consent from his party colleague. We are obligated to deliver on that. I see it as crucial infrastructure for our energy systems across the island and our ability to meet our renewables and other targets. The process is ongoing in the North already. As the Member is likely to be aware, delays were announced in the South recently. Obviously, they need to look at how they will address those challenges. I have had an opportunity to engage with the Minister there in respect of that. As the Member will know, ongoing community opposition is posing significant challenges. I anticipate that it will continue to do so.

Dr Archibald: The benefits of employee ownership are well documented and strongly align with my economic plans. Employee-owned businesses pay, on average, a higher wage. They are more likely to remain in the same location and invest in their local economy. They can be up to 12% more productive because of increased employee engagement and motivation.

On 19 June, I attended S&W Wholesale in Newry to celebrate Employee Ownership Day. While I was there, I announced funding of £97,500 to Employee Ownership Ireland for this financial year. It is the collective ambition of my Department and Employee Ownership Ireland to see 10,000 employee owners in place across the North by 2030. The funding will contribute to that goal by increasing awareness of the employee ownership trust model and by funding feasibility studies for businesses that are considering the transition to employee ownership.

Mr Kearney: This morning, at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions biennial delegate conference in Belfast, I, along with hundreds of trade unionists and visitors, listened to your presentation on the 'good jobs' Bill. It was extremely well received. Your support for employee ownership, as stated, is also very welcome. Can you confirm whether drafting is now under way to strengthen the positive contribution that trade unions can make in that regard?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question and comments. The development of policies that strengthen the voice of workers and, of course, their representatives is a core aspect of my good jobs agenda. That is reflected in the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill consultation document, in the voice and representation chapter, and the announcements that were then set out on 28 April. Officials are working to develop the finer operational practicalities that relate to several of the policy areas that were included across those proposals, including in the voice and representation chapter, such as the right of trade unions to request access to workplaces and electronic balloting. Engagement with trade union officials and employer representative members of the Labour Relations Agency engagement forum is ongoing on those matters. That work will be taken forward in parallel with the drafting of the Bill with Office of the Legislative Counsel colleagues. It is my intention to introduce the Bill to the Assembly in January 2026.

Dr Archibald: Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They make a huge economic and social contribution to local communities across the North. To better understand the challenges and opportunities that they face, I am establishing an SME entrepreneurship co-design group. The group will be made up of stakeholders from the enterprise support ecosystem, representing government, academia, finance and business support organisations. It will collaborate to develop an action plan with recommendations that are aimed at increasing business creation across the North and enhancing the overall entrepreneurial landscape.

The action plan will have a lifespan of up to three years. My Department will oversee its implementation in partnership with co-design group members. Membership of the group is being finalised at present. Once that is done, the group's work will start, with the aim of publishing an action plan before the end of the year.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for her answer. It is good news that the process will be simplified, thus allowing small businesses to have greater flexibility. Will the Minister give me a timeline for when she hopes the group to be place? She said that the action plan will have a lifespan of up to three years. Will the Minister give more detail on the membership of the group? Who will be on it and how many members will it have?

Dr Archibald: As I said, we hope to establish it very soon, and we aim to have an action plan published before the end of the year. The group's work will then continue over the next three years. Its membership is still to be finalised, but the broad groups that I mentioned — government, academia, business support organisations, enterprise support organisations and the finance community — will be involved. Once we have finalised the membership, I will be happy to share it with the Member and rest of the Assembly.

Mr Boylan: What does the spending review mean for the future of Go Succeed, which has become a core part of the local enterprise ecosystem?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The British Government's spending review was announced on 11 June. They have committed to the creation of a new local growth fund to replace the Shared Prosperity Fund, but they have, so far, failed to provide the detail about the fund and how it will be delivered. We do know, however, that the funding that will be available over the next three years will be fixed in cash terms at the level provided under the Shared Prosperity Fund in 2025-26. In other words, it is a funding cut in real terms. The Shared Prosperity Fund failed to replace fully the value of the EU structural funds that were available here in the first place, so to be facing further reductions in funding is deeply disappointing. That will have an impact on the future of the programmes, including Go Succeed, that were delivered under its banner and the level of service that is able to be provided. Last week, I spoke with Alex Norris MP from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and asked him to provide clarification on the local growth fund urgently. It is vital that Go Succeed be told what funding may be available to support its services and how it can be accessed as soon as possible. The same is true for the other programmes that are delivered under that banner.

Dr Archibald: Attracting productivity-enhancing, regionally distributed inward investment is central to my Department's economic strategy for the North. I am committed to strengthening our position as a leading destination for global investment. The North has a proven track record of attracting high-value, innovative investment, with over 1,500 international companies choosing to locate here, 64% of which have reinvested. That reflects strong investor confidence in our skilled workforce, modern infrastructure, competitive costs and uniquely advantageous access to the British and EU markets. I work closely with Invest NI, locally and internationally, to promote the region's investment proposition to prospective and existing investors.

South Antrim is well placed to benefit. The £700 million Belfast region city deal and, in particular, the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Centre will help attract cutting-edge industries, strengthen local supply chains and create high-value jobs, thus positioning the area as a hub for advanced manufacturing. In addition, my Department is investing £45 million over the next three years in local economic partnerships. Those will bring together government, business and academia to drive regional growth and enhance our foreign direct investment offering. South Antrim can leverage those partnerships to attract investment, foster innovation and support local enterprise development.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. The Government sold off the family silver when they sold Belfast International Airport, leaving it in private ownership alongside the two other airports. Given that Belfast International Airport is the premier airport — the only one able to accommodate large carriers — what is the Minister's team doing specifically to help it grow, to advance it as the leading airport in Northern Ireland and to bring in other investment to the area?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I had the opportunity to visit Belfast International Airport very recently to see the enhancements made during the redevelopment of the terminal. I also had the opportunity to discuss the airport's further plans, and I am happy to continue to engage with it in that regard.

My Department has recently taken on aviation policy. We are working to draft new policy in that area. We are working with Belfast International Airport and the other local airports on how we utilise our air links to best effect. We are an island; we need to bring people to it. Our air routes are really important to us. How do they enhance our economic offering as a whole? That will be developed over the next number of months. I am happy to engage with the Member in that respect.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions. Sinéad McLaughlin's question has been withdrawn.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I have had the opportunity to engage with the Ministers responsible. Officials continue to engage at official level on GB Energy and the proposals that are being brought forward in that regard. As I mentioned, I was in London just under a fortnight ago. I met Minister Michael Shanks and had a further discussion about GB Energy and how we make sure that businesses here and others are able to access the opportunities and funding that will flow through GB Energy.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. What benefits and opportunities does the Minister see in the Act?

Dr Archibald: One of the particular areas of focus that we discussed with Minister Shanks was community ownership and community benefit models, so that local communities get buy-in and are able to drive forward their own energy agenda. That is something that the Government are keen to promote through GB Energy. From a departmental perspective, there are other policy areas that we are seeking to develop, whether in relation to biomethane or hydrogen. We will look for opportunities to work with private-sector companies to access that funding in order to support our objectives. That will also help us to achieve our renewable energy targets and climate targets.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The Department was allocated a £9·8 million resource departmental expenditure limit, which will enable me to provide £7 million to the higher education sector. In addition, £2·8 million resource funding has been secured for energy. Regarding capital, DFE was allocated £2·5 million, which has allowed me to provide certainty to the higher education institutes on quality-related research funding.

Mr Boylan: I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she confirm that the funding that was allocated to Queen's University will allow the Momentum One Zero project to proceed?

Dr Archibald: Following constructive engagement with Queen's University, a resolution has been reached that provides the funding needed for the university to proceed with the Momentum One Zero project. I am fully committed to the Momentum One Zero project and recognise its strategic importance to Queen's University, the Belfast region city deal and the wider economy in the North. My officials will continue to work closely with Queen's University to support the project's progression, including the construction of the innovation centre, which is anticipated to commence in early autumn.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Many of us recognise the importance of the Mournes as a tourism attraction. I had the opportunity to attempt to mount Slieve Donard, but I did not get all the way to the top. The Mournes are a really important asset that we have. They add to the collective assets that we are really lucky to have as part of our portfolio. I, as the Minister responsible for tourism, have the pleasure of being able to sell them as destinations for people to visit.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Minister. I welcome your commitment. I have been a bit frustrated with our local council, which has repeatedly diminished tourism in the Mourne Mountains and the Mournes area and has removed the name of the area from its tourism branding. The £30 million allocation through the Belfast region city deal was for a world-class tourist destination that promoted the Mourne Mountains. Since the failure of the initial project, the council has been keen to realign the £30 million elsewhere in the district. Will you, as Minister, and the Department for the Economy, as a key partner, commit to keeping the £30 million city deal money for a tourist attraction in the Mourne Mountains?

Dr Archibald: First, we have given the space to the Belfast region city deal group and its partners to bring forward proposals. I am happy to engage with them as they do that, and it is important that they take the necessary time and space to consider the opportunities and options that are in front of them and how to best utilise the funding. The case has been made that the funding should stay in the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area, and I am happy to support that if it is the wish of the Belfast region city deal group.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We all recognise that the impact of climate change means that we are experiencing more severe weather events, and our communities are bearing the brunt of those events. It is important that we ensure that the level of service that customers receive from their utility providers is fit for purpose. I am working with the Utility Regulator (UR), which has responsibility for carrying out a consultation, to look at amendments to the guaranteed standard of service for electricity, including during adverse weather incidents.

I have been assured by the chair of the board of the Utility Regulator, Rosamund Blomfield-Smith, that it is working to issue the consultation as soon as possible. I have impressed on the Utility Regulator the importance of moving at pace to progress that important work. Once my Department receives the Utility Regulator's analysis of the consultation and a decision paper, we will work as quickly as possible to make any updates to the legislation that are required. I will, of course, update the House as that work progresses.

Mr Gildernew: The Minister will know that many rural areas, particularly in my constituency, were badly affected by the most recent severe weather event. What were the findings of the previous consultation on the same issue?

Dr Archibald: The Utility Regulator consulted on the issue in 2023, setting out proposals for guaranteed standards of service for electricity suppliers and the level of compensatory payments and asked respondents to comment on them. Those proposals included the introduction of a guaranteed standard of service during cases of severe weather. The UR did not progress to a decision paper as very few responses were received and there was not the necessary evidence base to support change.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I agree that St Mary's and Stranmillis are both excellent institutions, and I am determined to secure their long-term sustainability. I am finalising the terms of reference for the higher education funding review, and St Mary's and Stranmillis will be considered within that. The review will consider how we can better support both colleges, given their relatively small size and specialist nature, to ensure their financial sustainability.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for her response. I also note that the Minister recently launched Belfast Tradfest. Does she agree that traditional music is a very big draw for international tourists?

Dr Archibald: I absolutely agree. I had the pleasure of attending the Tradfest launch and referenced it at the world's biggest tourism conference in Berlin. During that conference, countries from across the world host events to sell their tourist offerings to tour operators. The competition to attract interest is fierce. In Berlin, Tourism Ireland booked out a pub to showcase our culture and craic with a trad music and dance session. There was standing room only; it was absolutely jam-packed. That perfectly illustrated to me the importance of traditional music to our tourism sector. There are many reasons for that. One is that traditional music is both an authentic expression of our local heritage and culture and a part of us that we love to showcase to and share with the rest of the world. That is a very special combination.

It is important to reflect on the significant success of TradFest. Over the past seven years, it has become an ever more important part of the traditional music scene and our tourism offering. This year's festival is expected to attract over 25,000 visitors, with almost a quarter of them coming from overseas. If we add to that the traditional acts that will perform at Féile an Phobail this summer, we see that it builds our reputation for traditional music. I have no doubt that events such as that were very helpful in our successful bid to host The Fleadh Cheoil in 2026.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. That is an area of the Department's work that continues to be under policy development. We have established a pathfinder group to look at the development of biomethane policy. We are working through the first stages of that and are gathering evidence and information. We will bring forward proposals on it in the near future.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for her answer and her interest in the matter. She is obviously over the details of biomethane, but there is also an opportunity to generate energy with AD. Does the Minister's Department have enough capacity to match the output from DAERA in that, and can there be co-design between them to ensure that we have that energy security and can exploit the opportunities to meet our climate and environmental credentials?

Dr Archibald: My departmental officials work closely with DAERA officials on that area. We have had the opportunity to meet some businesses with a real interest in it and that have some sound proposals on a way forward that would utilise, as the Member said, the energy from not only anaerobic digestion but the other things that come out at the end. We continue to work together on that, and I certainly see significant potential in it.

Mr Speaker: Nuala McAllister is not in her place. I call Linda Dillon.

Dr Archibald: In order to improve that provision, my Department has commissioned the Education and Training Inspectorate to undertake an evaluation of the current provision in FE colleges. That work is under way, with the report expected in the autumn. I have also asked officials to develop a statutory assessment and support model for our students with learning support needs in further education. The new model will be underpinned by legislation, and I have tasked my officials with working up a costed plan to design and deliver that new model.

In the short term, my officials are exploring with colleges, the Education Authority and the Department of Education the administrative mechanisms in order to give greater certainty to young people aged 16 to 18 who have had a statement in school and are moving on to college.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for that answer. I appreciate that, Minister. I would like to get a sense of whether that evaluation will include physical infrastructure, as I have been contacted by parents who say that physical infrastructure is also a problem in some of the colleges.

Research also highlights issues on which action by other Departments is required. I am thinking specifically of the Department of Health, as I am on the Health Committee. Will you bring those issues to your Executive colleagues? Have you already had conversations with them? If so, what have the responses been?

Dr Archibald: Physical infrastructure in colleges is being addressed, and I set that out in my initial statement. It is one of the actions that can be taken quickly in order to help to support people with disabilities, including young people and people of all ages, while they are at college.

Following the announcements that I made, I wrote to my Executive colleagues to highlight the range of issues that were raised during the review but that are beyond my Department's remit.

I have asked them to consider the potential for a whole-government approach to transitions into adulthood. That is the model that I would like to see, because it gives all young people the opportunity to progress to the pathway that is right for them. I have had the opportunity to engage individually with some of my ministerial colleagues, and I know that there is willingness and a desire to look at that issue.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): The deputy First Minister and I have experienced at first hand the important work of the bureau in the US and Canada. The team of five staff works closely with Invest NI, Tourism Ireland and a range of partners, including universities, to support the Programme for Government by highlighting the opportunity that we present as a great place to work, study and invest in and to visit.

The bureau's team supported our visit to North Carolina in March with the Chamber of Commerce to open new markets and assess potential business customers in med tech, clean tech and software. We were able to learn from one of the top US models for establishing a research and innovation ecosystem, and we invited key state officials to lead a return inward visit.

The deputy First Minister subsequently visited Washington for St Patrick's Day and met the president of the United States, the new US ambassadors to the UK and Ireland, members of Congress and other key figures to discuss tariffs, the importance of a special envoy and to showcase the Open. The bureau hosted a St Patrick's Day breakfast, creating a unique networking opportunity for 250 key influencers from here and across the US. That included having the Claret Jug in DC to promote the Open, which attracted media attention across the US.

The bureau has supported a number of inward and outward visits, including helping the Communities Minister to establish opportunities around the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. It is supporting planning for inward visits in the autumn by the Education, Justice and Agriculture Departments, with the intention of sharing best practice and policy and of learning from experience in the US and Canada.

Mr Stewart: I thank the First Minister for her answer. I too commend the work of the Northern Ireland Bureau. One important role that it has is, as you said, First Minister, to liaise with Invest NI and councils to help our entrepreneurs and our manufacturing sector to get opportunities in America that they may not otherwise have been able to avail themselves of. These are difficult times in international trading. What plans are there to extend the footprint of the Northern Ireland Bureau and branch out further to give Northern Ireland companies even more opportunities for trade missions and to seize the US market?

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks for that. We need to take every opportunity, particularly in the ever-changing global climate that we now live in. We will definitely consider expanding our reach as part of our international strategy. We have to continually look towards new markets and new opportunities. Our businesses are innovative — they are always looking for solutions — and, with Invest NI working in partnership with our Department and our bureaux, whether in Washington, Brussels or China, we will look for every opportunity.

We are always more than happy to hear from local businesses that may be attending trade fairs across the world and looking for new markets. Engaging with those markets is where Invest NI really kicks in. If the Member wishes to raise something on any particular business interests, I ask him to please get in touch.

Ms Sheerin: We live in an increasingly uncertain world, which provides economic challenges. Does the First Minister agree that we need the Executive to focus on growing our economy and maintaining linkages with key international partners?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. Thanks for that. As I said and as the Member noted, the increasingly volatile world that we live in — a lot of global uncertainty; the tariff wars that do not benefit us at all — presents real challenges, worry and uncertainty for businesses. If we know anything about business, it is that it likes certainty and to be able to plan for the future. We have to continually monitor the situation that we find ourselves in. I can assure the Member, however, that, as I said in answer to the previous question, our focus is on attracting investment; growing our economy; protecting our local jobs; using the offices that we have, be they in Washington, Beijing or Brussels; and working collectively with Invest NI on the shared ambition to create opportunities. In a few short weeks, we will host the Open. That in itself is a huge opportunity, because it is a global platform. We will get to showcase this place as a lovely part of the world, and I think of all the business interest among those who will visit. It is a huge opportunity for us, and we must grab all such opportunities, particularly in these uncertain times.

Mr Speaker: I call Brian Kingston.

Mr Dickson: I thank the First Minister —.

Mr Kingston: I note —.

Mr Speaker: Brian Kingston. [Laughter.]

Mr Kingston: We are doing a double act. I note the First Minister's answer. I hope that it is fair to say that she sees the United States of America as an important partner for Northern Ireland when it comes to economic development and cultural ties. Therefore, will she commit to engaging with the current Administration in order to promote Northern Ireland as a great place in which to live, work, visit, study and invest?

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I believe that we should continue to engage in that way. That has always been my approach. That is why we were in North Carolina recently and why the deputy First Minister went to Washington. We have to take all opportunities to grow our economy, not least the opportunity that the North American market provides to us. America is the world's largest economy after all, so we must tap into it. We regularly do work across there with Invest NI and our local businesses to open up opportunities. The North Carolina partnership is a good example of something that is working really well for our Chamber of Commerce and Industry. We will, hopefully, have a return visit.

The Open is, again, a great example of our tourism potential. Recent figures show that we have had 241,000 overnight visits by people from North America, which makes a contribution of about £88 million to our economy. We want to keep grabbing all of those opportunities. There are also long-standing cultural relationships between this island and the US. Next year is the 250th anniversary of the declaration, and that will create another opportunity.

Mr Dickson: First Minister, there are two other offices apart from the one in Washington. There is a bureau in Brussels and one in Beijing. What is your office doing to demonstrate that we are getting value for money from each of those offices? Undoubtedly, you will be aware of the fact that, at a recent meeting of the Executive Office Committee, there was severe criticism of the output, or perceived output, from the office in Beijing.

Mrs O'Neill: We have to continually keep under review the role played by all our offices. I certainly want to do that as part of our international strategy. For me, the role of any of our offices is threefold. It has to be about diplomacy, advancing diplomatic relationships and building relationships. That is important if we are to get business done. It is about developing economic and trade interest, including our current investments. It is about maintaining those relationships and also looking for new opportunities. It is about developing new partnerships in trade etc, particularly given the challenging times that we live in. All our offices must tick all those boxes in what they do. If that were not the case, I would want to review that. The international strategy will give us an opportunity to do that as well.

Mr McNulty: First Minister, the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Minnesota Vikings are coming to town to play a historic NFL game — the first on Irish soil — at our GAA HQ, Croke Park. Has the Washington bureau engaged with the Rooney family, whose people hail from Derrybeg in Newry, about hosting a delegation in the North to coincide with that historic event, when 80,000 NFL fans from Europe and further afield will come to see the game?

Mrs O'Neill: We very much welcome the fact that another great sporting event is coming to our island. I have no doubt that our office has engaged on that, but I do not have that detail. I am very happy to respond to the Minister and let him know what contact our office has had about that upcoming event.

Mr Speaker: I am sure that you are glad of that promotion, Mr McNulty. [Laughter.]

Mrs O'Neill: We are committed to ensuring that digital transformation is deployed responsibly and with appropriate governance, transparency and accessibility at the heart of the reform. It needs to be about enhancing inclusion rather than intensifying existing inequalities. A digital maturity assessment is due to conclude at the end of June 2025. That will help Departments to better understand where they are on their digital journeys, identify any gaps and drive a smarter and more inclusive transformation of services. The office of AI and digital was launched on 11 June, and the next phase of that work will be the development of an action plan to identify key challenges and opportunities associated with the adoption of AI across the public sector. Importantly, we will be working to ensure that the needs of our most vulnerable groups are met. The new office will serve as a central hub to share and manage risks and opportunities across Departments. It will also ensure that the needs of all section 75 groups are fully considered.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the First Minister for her answer. I want to touch on the horrific hacking incident that happened in a recent SEN event. How will TEO and other agencies and Departments work together to strengthen cybersecurity and ensure that digital platforms and, of course, AI advancements remain inclusive and accessible for all?

Mrs O'Neill: It is really important because I believe that AI and digital transformation are necessary for our delivery of public services. I think that they will allow us to deliver better public services in a way that, perhaps, will be more convenient to many in our population, but that must be equitable across society. At the heart of the development of what our own AI inclusion strategy looks like, there are varying levels of advancement across Departments. We are trying to get a handle on that right across the board. First, it needs to be inclusive, and, secondly and very importantly, we have to be able to stand over the ethics around the use of AI. For a lot of people, this is a new field. For me, it is a necessary part of delivering good public services. We need to build in all the checks and balances whilst also advancing this area, and I believe that it will lead to transformative public services.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Will the First Minister detail her thinking that informed the launch of the Executive's artificial intelligence office, please?

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks for that. At the heart of our Programme for Government is the need to transform our public services, and the Member will know that our whole focus is around how we can drive that transformation and how we can support innovation, creativity and efficiency as building blocks for social and economic growth. There is no doubt that the world of AI is ever evolving. It is very much something that is changing, but we are trying to get ahead of the curve in harnessing that technology for our public services, particularly for our transformation journey. Standing still is not an option.

We discussed this issue at length at the British-Irish Council just a short number of weeks ago. That is why, in talking to our new Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser, we realised that the potential to be grasped from establishing an office of AI and digital was something that we needed to move forward with. I think that it will put us at the forefront of AI innovation. It will take some time, of course, but I think that it will be a key driver in improving communication, delivery and innovation right across the public sector. We have to do things better, more efficiently and more appropriately to reach the wider public. I think that it will be a continuing, live conversation as we develop this even further.

Mr McGlone: First Minister, what analysis will be done on the creativity of AI to ensure that there will not be any job losses in the public sector?

Mrs O'Neill: It is not about replacing people but about how we enhance the way in which we deliver services. It is something that I want to do now, when we are looking at our digital maturity assessment. That is looking across every Department to see what their level of readiness is and to assess their ability to deliver transformative public services. We must work with the workforce, we must work with the union representatives and we must make sure that we design this together so that it is complementary to, as opposed to a replacement for, the human.

Mrs O'Neill: First and foremost, our thoughts and support are with those who were affected by the recent disorder. The Executive unequivocally condemn the violence that we have witnessed, and we, again, call for calm across our communities. As recent events have shown, hate crime has a devastating impact on victims, their families and our society, and we recognise the importance of early intervention and tackling the drivers for hate. To support that, TEO provides funding of over £7 million to local organisations and councils to support cohesion and integration, address good relations issues and reduce the potential for young people to engage in negative or antisocial behaviour.

We recognise the valuable role that our councils can and do play in providing local solutions to good relations issues. Therefore, we have, today, approved an additional allocation of £220,000 to be distributed urgently to our councils to address issues around racial and social cohesion.

Alongside a review of the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy, we have commenced work on the development of a new strategic approach to racial equality post 2025. I expect a key focus of that to be on tackling racism and hate. We have taken knowledge from other programmes that deal with societal issues. Our focus is on identifying preventative actions and effective interventions to change attitudes and behaviours.

The current racial equality strategy includes a commitment to work with the Department of Justice, which leads on the issue, to develop our approach to tackling race hate crime. As a result, the racial equality subgroup established a hate crime legislation and access to justice working group that will work closely with DOJ in advising on any future actions for inclusion in the programme. The Minister of Justice is progressing legislative provisions to strengthen sanctions for offenders and to provide greater protection for victims of race hate crimes.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as a freagra.

I welcome the detail in the Minister's answer. Will she give her assessment of the racially motivated violence that we have seen on our streets recently?

Mrs O'Neill: I think that everybody in the Chamber would call out what we saw in recent weeks for what it was: raw and unadulterated racism on our streets. That has no place in our community and must be faced down wherever it raises its ugly head. I know that that is a view that we share.

Behind all the attacks, however, are families, young mothers and children being attacked in their own home. We need to send a clear and cohesive message from the Chamber that those who are involved in racism will not win and that we will not tolerate racism in our society: not today, not tomorrow, not ever. It is vital that all who are responsible for that type of hate be brought before the courts and held accountable for their actions.

I say to the people on whom the attacks have had an impact and who are living in fear because of racist hatred and threats that they are not alone. We see them; we hear them; and we will stand with them and do everything that we can to face down racist thuggery.

Mr Brett: One of the clearest actions that the Department that the First Minister co-leads has taken to tackle hate and sectarianism has been the Urban Villages programme, which has been a huge success in Ardoyne and Ballysillan. There is clear political and community support for extending the scheme to other parts of North Belfast. I ask the First Minister to outline what work she has done with the deputy First Minister to launch another phase of the Urban Villages scheme.

Mrs O'Neill: That is actively under consideration. We are looking at what the next phase will look like. We can all point to the successful impact that the initiative has had on many communities. We are looking at geographical areas and at the types of projects that we can support. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that any work that we have undertaken to review the impact of the work that we have done up to this point has been positive, so I look forward to getting to the point at which we are able to announce the next stage of the programme.

Ms Bradshaw: First Minister, I welcome your announcement of the £220,000, which is great news. What mechanisms and structures will your Department now put in place to ensure that that money is really well targeted at those who are best placed to get to the root cause of the racism?

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks for that. It is something that we considered a lot. We could take a blanket approach and give the same funding to every council, or we can invite applications for projects that, we assess, will meet need in areas that have been identified as areas of challenge.

We have announced that funding just today. It will be administered through the existing district council good relations programme, because that is a ready-made programme that will allow us to get the funding out more quickly. There will be a facility for council areas to access up to £20,000 each for delivering programmes on the ground that can be done very quickly. An option will be to redirect any unused expenditure to other potential areas of concern that are identified. That mechanism will allow us to get funding out very quickly, but it will also allow us to analyse whether the funding for the project that is bid for will make a meaningful difference. There is no one better placed to do that than our councils, because our councillors are well connected in their communities and should be able to assist in identifying where the funding needs to go. It will be case by case, as opposed to a blanket approach, so, hopefully, the funding will be more targeted.

Mr O'Toole: First, I welcome the fact that additional funding has been announced. I represent the most diverse constituency in the North and, possibly, on the whole island. I have spoken to and engaged with lots of people from ethnic minority communities in recent weeks, as I always do, and I am afraid that they do not feel that the Executive's response to the race riots has been clear and coherent. I welcome the funding, but have you asked your Department whether it has properly got to the bottom of the issue in order to be absolutely sure that no person or organisation that is in receipt of funding from your Department, such as Communities in Transition funding, had anything to do with any of the violence or intimidation of recent weeks?

Mrs O'Neill: I am sad to hear that that is some people's experience. We met the racial equality group last week and had good engagement with it on what we have done and what we intend to do. We want to continue to work with it, particularly as we develop the race relations strategy post 2025. We will introduce racial equality legislation later in the year.

We took a lot of the learning from what happened last summer and applied it to what happened recently. That was important. The additional funding is only one element. Quick condemnation of attacks when they occur is also important, as are the role of social media, a strong justice response and all of us standing firm against racism.

When it comes to funding for groups, I have no truck with any group getting a penny of funding if it is involved in paramilitary activity. I will ensure that that is the case. We rely on groups making applications in good faith and officials assessing them accordingly. There is no evidence to suggest that we fund any groups that are involved in paramilitary activity. If there were, I would have something to say about that.

Mr Carroll: First Minister, you obviously know that, last August, we saw disgraceful race riots, during which businesses were torched and burnt out in hate crimes. What is your assessment of the fact that it has taken Belfast City Council almost a year to pay compensation to the businesses and organisations affected? The new money is welcome, but I am concerned that most of those businesses have received only £4,000 in compensation, despite many of them losing, in effect, hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Mrs O'Neill: It is disappointing that they are getting that funding only now, given that it is almost a year since that suffering was inflicted on them. Obviously, there has been an issue in how that funding has been administered. I am happy to raise that with officials, not that that will help anybody retrospectively. If anybody finds themselves in that situation again, we, of course, need to get support to them quickly. One of the things that we are doing is working with the Red Cross to support individuals who have been impacted. We will announce more about that in the coming days.

In the aftermath of such things, we have to deal with the immediate issue, calm things down and deal with it from a policing and justice point of view. In the longer term, we all have to stand firm against racism and have the right plans in place. That will involve working with our local government colleagues, because our councillors are well connected and know the community that they represent. I want us to continue to do everything that we can in that area.

Mrs O'Neill: The Executive Office has committed £3·2 million of funding until March 2026 to support EVAWG at a local and regional level. The impact of that funding will need to be evaluated across the period, but early analysis shows a really positive impact to date. For example, from January to March this year, £655,000 of Momentum funding was provided to local councils to enable them to build awareness of the issue and of the local change fund. Councils held over 225 events and reached over 7,300 participants. The results of the survey that was carried out showed that 88% of those who participated had an increased knowledge of violence against women and girls; 81% had increased knowledge of healthy relationships; and 85% had more confidence in helping to end violence against women and girls. All 11 councils have now opened a local change fund for 2025-26. That is very much about getting right into the grassroots of community and voluntary organisations to help them prevent and respond to violence against women and girls.

We also have the regional change fund, which has provided £1·2 million to strengthen programmes run by regional community and voluntary organisations with ending violence against women and girls expertise. Activity highlights include campaigns and social media activities. The feedback is that those have been widely viewed, which we, obviously, very much welcome. We are also aware that six new staff members were recruited for the regional change fund projects. The funding has ensured that important connections have been established to act as the basis for longer-term connections. The need for longer-term connections and coordination in tackling this damaging issue is acute.

All that information paints a positive picture of what we have been able to achieve to date. There is, however, no doubt that there is much more work to be done. We are off to a strong start, but collectively we need to keep moving in the right direction together.

Miss Dolan: I thank the First Minister for that comprehensive answer. In the light of the tragic events at the weekend, I extend my deepest sympathy to the family of Sarah Montgomery. Such tragedies speak to the importance of a connected and joined-up strategy. Will the Minister give an update on the type of projects that are supported through the regional change fund?

Mrs O'Neill: I concur with the Member. Many of us expressed our sadness and shock yesterday at the death of Sarah Montgomery. I cannot imagine what her family are going through. She was a young mummy who was expecting her next child and had her whole life ahead of her, and she was taken from her family in the most devastating way. That underlines for me how important the work is and how important it is for us to have a whole-society approach to tackling violence against women and girls. We have to get into the weeds of this, and it will take everybody working together to do so.

Some of the projects that we have been able to develop are making a difference. I will cite a couple of examples. Nexus is delivering healthy and respectful relationship education to young people, which is a crucial part of the work. YouthAction also works with young people aged 14 to 25 to help them build their confidence, knowledge and understanding to make informed decisions about their lives in a way that will help to address violence against women and girls in the wider community. We also have the White Ribbon campaign, which we all support regularly. That campaign will now have an opportunity to develop and bring its 'Listen, Learn, Lead' programme into more schools, workplaces and community settings. That is all vital work because, as we all know, tackling violence against women and girls is about intervention, prevention and that early work. It is about trying to create a society in which women and girls feel safe and are safe everywhere.

Mr Dunne: The town of Donaghadee in my constituency is still in shock after the events of the weekend. Pregnant mother of two, Sarah Montgomery, became the twenty-seventh female to be murdered in Northern Ireland since 2020, which is a shocking figure. Will the First Minister provide an update on what more the Executive can do and how the change fund can make a change in the Ards and North Down Borough Council area of which Donaghadee is a part?

Mrs O'Neill: I concur with the Member and offer my support to the community that he represents. I am sure that everybody is shocked by the events of the weekend.

I talked about some examples of things that we have done with the regional change fund. We also have a local change fund, which goes into the heart of communities. We have allocated over £2 million across councils, which should reach into every community to help support community networks and infrastructure that already exists in the different council areas. We provided £1·4 million for a small grant scheme for grassroots groups. I already see examples of those groups in my area, with small rural women's groups coming together, bidding for funding from that scheme and doing some of that work.

As I said, we have to tackle the issue at its roots. That means tackling it at a local level. By working at a higher level through our work with the regional groups and at a local level through the community groups we can be successful.

Mrs Guy: First Minister, you have already acknowledged the appalling murder of Sarah Montgomery, and I join others in expressing condolences to her family and loved ones. Her murder has again brought into sharp focus the issue of violence by men against women in Northern Ireland. Will the First Minister provide an update on the commissioning of research to identify evidence gaps in the understanding of the attitudes and behaviours of men and boys towards violence against women and girls?

Mrs O'Neill: Again, I concur with the Member: this is always about male violence against women, and we have to call it out for what it is. I welcome some of the work that we have done in the area through the active bystander programme, which is targeted at young men. That is about not standing by and letting a comment go in any social setting, whether it is a gym, a sporting event or a workplace. That campaign has been important.

We are actively looking at what the right research could be, because it needs to inform and improve our strategy. We have built a yearly review into our strategy, so we are not that far off that review's taking place. That will allow us to assess the things that have worked well and the things that we need to do more of, including the research piece. If there is anything else that I can provide to you in writing, I will do so. If not, we will be talking about the one-year review of the strategy in a few short months, and I am sure that the research piece will be a feature of that.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mrs O'Neill: There is no doubt that the Executive, and every Minister, face enormous challenges as a result of years of underfunding, austerity Budgets and crushed public services. Every Minister at that Executive table is there to do their best and to try to work, through a collective effort, to address the challenges that we face. Will we do everything immediately? No, we will not. Can we lay strong foundations upon which to build? Yes, we can, and I believe that that is what we have done in the first year. I am certainly committed to doing that. I am determined to try our very best to deliver for people, and I think that we have made good strides forward. However, we will absolutely always have more to do. That is the job of government. We are here to govern and to try to deliver for people.

Mr O'Toole: With respect, First Minister, staged photo ops and platitudes are not enough any more. You are, with respect, an elected leader, not a royal. You are blaming others when your Ministers have failed to do the basics. If the Government in Dublin had the delivery record of the Government that you lead here, your party would have, rightly, roasted them. The people of the North deserve much, much better, so, in the spirit of an end-of-year report, I suggest that, when this place returns, you and the rest of the Executive need to do much, much better.

Mrs O'Neill: I have heard the Member at this all day. He talks flippantly about an end-of-term report. Well, let me tell you about your end-of-term report. I have heard three things from the now funded and resourced Opposition. I repeat: the funded and resourced Opposition. The three things that I have heard are negativity, negativity and negativity. Whilst the rest of us are getting on —

Mr O'Toole: We are in opposition.

Mrs O'Neill: — there are no solutions, no credible proposals and no ideas from the funded and resourced Opposition. Let me tell you something else: I am not interested in the blame game. I am more interested in trying to deliver for people and in working with others around the Executive table to try to make a positive difference to people's lives. I will continue to do that. You can make a choice about how you conduct yourself.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. Thank you for that. The fact that so many Members are raising that issue shows me that people in the Chamber care about ending violence against women and girls. As many people have said in recent days, Sarah Montgomery had her whole life ahead of her. She was a beautiful 27-year-old woman who had two children and another on the way. That tragedy is unimaginable for so many people. She is another woman in our society who has had her life robbed from her in the most grotesque and barbaric fashion. Every woman who is lost is not another statistic or another number in our appalling total; she is a mother, a sister, a daughter, a friend and an aunt. Her life has just been taken from her, and we need to do everything that we can to address the issue that we have.

I accept that it is not unique to us, but we have an embedded problem. I do not accept that we cannot turn it around. I believe that we can turn it around, but it will take all of us facing the same way and all of us standing by. It will take all the work that we are doing through campaigns, such as Active Bystander, and calling it out for what it is. Call out misogyny when you see it, and do not allow others to be part of it. We all say from the Chamber that we will continue to commit to working on that.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the First Minister for her response. I concur that we need to do much better on all the issues. When it comes to actions, the Executive Office oversees the local change fund, which supports community networks in playing their part in preventing harm, abuse and violence against women and girls. Is the First Minister able to provide an update on the local change fund?

Mrs O'Neill: In my answers to other Members earlier, I said that I believe that the change fund is making a difference. We can see that in the roll-out of our strategy to end violence against women and girls. I want to continue to learn from that in order to see what works well. If it works across the piece, let us pick it up and run with it. Where it does not work, we will not do that piece of work any more. I want to continue to fund women's organisations to do the work that they have been doing for years at a massively underfunded rate. They are invaluable at the front line in reaching women and families who are affected by abuse. Crucially, however, their focus is on addressing the root causes of misogyny that lead to abuse and violence. Investing in grass-roots organisations will allow us to make inroads into that area.

This is about empowering communities and challenging the dangerous misperceptions that exist about violence against women and girls. Earlier, I cited really good examples of that. In my local GAA club, Clonoe young women's group got together and brought forward a brilliant initiative at a local level for a cohort of 16- and 17-year-olds. They designed something, and we were able to support that. That, to me, gets right into the heart of a community, and that is how we will be successful.

Mrs O'Neill: The Supreme Court ruling on 16 April was that the definition of "man", "woman" and "sex" referred to biological sex in the context of the Equality Act 2010. Obviously, there are considerations as to what that means for individual Departments here. The Equality Commission has set out the view that it needs legal clarification from the courts. We have to await that clarification, whether you like it or not. As in all these things, let us understand the complexity of the issue, and let us also understand that we need to be sensitive.

Mr Kingston: I note the First Minister's answer, but I think that a policy of dither and delay does not serve the people of Northern Ireland well. Does the First Minister at least agree that the lack of guidance from the Equality Commission vindicates the actions of the Education Minister and the Communities Minister in issuing their own guidance, particularly in relation to schools, changing rooms and toilets and sporting categories for women and girls?

Mrs O'Neill: No, I do not. It is important that we await the Equality Commission's deliberations on the impact of the ruling on equality legislation here. We are all governed by that legislation, so it will be more prudent to wait for the Equality Commission's guidance in order that we are consistent across the board. Again, I make the point that this is not something to be gleeful about. It is sensitive and emotive. I would like us to have real clarity on it so that Departments can bring forward guidance that is consistent across them all and so that we do not have a piecemeal approach.

Mrs O'Neill: As I said to the Member and others yesterday, we are all disappointed by the setback for the A5. The project has been far too long in the making and has been mired in legal controversy the whole way through. I want us to get to the end point where the road is built. The Infrastructure Minister has said that she actively looking at the legal advice that she has been given. There is an urgency to this: we must have the A5 built, and we must have other capital projects built. The ruling will have implications for other Departments. I am committed to working around the Executive table to find a solution.

Mrs Erskine: The First Minister has said in the Chamber many times that she, her Ministers and Sinn Féin are taking time to seek legal advice on the court judgement on the A5. One option is to appeal the High Court decision. When I asked the Infrastructure Minister about that in the Infrastructure Committee last week, she indicated that nothing is off the table. Will the First Minister confirm whether legal advice has yet been received by the Attorney General, and if appealing the High Court decision is still an option that is open to the Infrastructure Minister?

Mrs O'Neill: All options are on the table: the Infrastructure Minister has been very forthcoming in saying so, and I stand by that. All options must be on the table, including appeal, amendments to the legislation and, potentially, new legislation. Let us look at all the options. The Department for Infrastructure has sought advice from legal teams, and we are seeking advice from the Attorney General. It is important that we get the correct solution and remedy, because it is about us being able to do good things to protect our environment and to deliver on capital projects. I think that we can find a solution.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, of course: I absolutely agree. There is nothing acceptable or normal about that type of display — the burning of flags and political posters at bonfires. It is something that we have come to see every year. The threats and regalia that accompany some of that behaviour are also totally unacceptable. It needs to be called out, and there needs to be political leadership in calling it out for what it is: in many instances, it is hate.

Ms Ennis: I note the First Minister's response. I am sure that she will agree with me that there is a particular onus and responsibility on elected politicians who represent areas where that sectarian and racist behaviour is occurring to show clear and unequivocal leadership in calling it out.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes. Unfortunately, in recent weeks and months, we have seen an increase in that behaviour, particularly in shared housing projects where flags are being erected against the wishes of the local community. That has to be called out for what it is: intimidation. Nobody should regard that behaviour as in any way acceptable. The Member is absolutely right about the need for robust condemnation of that intimidation. All of us in political leadership need to step up and call it out for what it is: in lots of cases, it is sectarianism and racism. I have often said, in the Chamber and outside, that racism and sectarianism are two sides of the one coin.

Mrs O'Neill: Yes, absolutely. The £50 million that we secured from the British Government is a new milestone for the redevelopment of Casement Park. It creates momentum for the project. It is time for all partners to work together with funding from the British Government, the Irish Government, the Executive and the GAA. At every turn and at every meeting that I have had at Irish Government, British Government and Executive level, I have continued to drive that project forward. As the Member knows, the project will be a game-changer for the Gaels of Antrim and across the piece. It is an investment in sport and local communities. I want all sports to thrive. I want us to invest in all sports, and that will require additional investment. To those who advocate for investment in sport, I say let us join together and invest in all sport, because that will be a win for everybody in society. I want Casement Park to be delivered. I want the funding to be agreed across the board and the stadium to be built. I also want funding for the Northern Ireland Football Fund and other sports. If everybody joins together in investing in local sports, imagine what we could achieve. It is a win-win for society as a whole.

Mr Kelly: I am sure that the First Minister is looking forward to the day that the Ulster final will be played in Casement Park. In the next couple of weeks, we will see the semi-finals, albeit it in Croke Park. I just thought that, since we are heading into the recess, she might want to make some comments about the semi-finals coming up.

Mrs O'Neill: Can I just say, "Come on, Tyrone"? [Laughter.]

I am looking forward to going to Croke Park, obviously, to support the county team, but imagine what that could do. If we could get Casement Park delivered —

— when we get Casement Park delivered, imagine what it will mean in terms of the sporting spectacular that we have in the Gaelic Athletic Association calendar. Every summer, to have the Ulster final in Casement Park will be amazing, and I look forward to that day.

Mr Speaker: In sporting terms, First Minister, you scored 0-16. Dr Archibald scored 0-18, so you are well behind the leader, who is at 0-28.

That concludes Questions to the First Minister.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, on the questions that we have just had. To be clear, under Standing Order No 45A, there is an official Opposition, and there is a leader of the Opposition recognised in Standing Orders. They have a job to do. Their job is not simply to compliment and plámás the First Minister. Further to the point that is being made, as Sinn Féin Members get up and leave the Chamber, demonstrating their view of the official Opposition, in terms of funding and resource, the official Opposition have published one policy paper per month since we returned in this term, and I am happy to place them in the Library of the House for the First Minister and others to peruse.

Mr Speaker: I struggle to find a point of order there, Mr O'Toole. You made a political statement, but it is now made and on the record.

Mr Speaker: We now move back to the previous item of business, and I call Mr Honeyford to continue with his speech. [Interruption.]

Hopefully, somebody will stay to listen.

Mr Honeyford: The Bill introduces key reforms that will give viable businesses the space and flexibility to, potentially, get back on their feet. It also provides clarity and confidence, which is important to creditors and investors. Ultimately, that is vital for a stable and attractive economy. We need a balanced approach to insolvency that protects the most vulnerable. Legislation must recognise the legitimate interests of creditors while ensuring that insolvent individuals and companies are treated with dignity and fairness and are protected.

The Bill introduces much more robust mechanisms to detect fraud and misconduct. That is an element that the Committee will want to go through to make sure that we do not have fraud throughout our system. It also provides responsible debtors with a clear path towards a resolution and, where possible, gives people that second chance by providing a clear and predictable framework for insolvency where no one starts out to fail and no one works to fail. Equally, we must remove unnecessary uncertainty for those taking the brave step of starting a business in the first place. In turn, that fosters innovation and economic growth, which benefits all of our community.

I thank the Minister and, as has been done across the House, thank the Department's officials. Members of the Committee have a responsibility to ensure that our laws reflect the needs of a modern, dynamic economy, one that is resilient, fair and fit for the future. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance talked about the two-way conversation. When the Bill came to the Committee — the Chair referenced this — that was the case with officials, and that is really welcome. That has not been the case in other areas, when matters came from the Department on which we were being asked to make decisions but felt that we were not being given the information or the detail. In particular, I point to the renewable heat incentive (RHI) regulations before Christmas, where information was just not available to us for us to make a reasonable decision. On this Bill, I commend the Department for providing the Committee with the information and allowing the Committee to work through the issues. Answering in full and giving us full responses to everything that was asked was a really welcome change.

The Alliance Party is happy to support the Bill. I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to ensure that the Bill has a successful passage and that we set a platform for moving forward within the Department.

Mr McGrath: I support the Bill, which, although modest in scope, is a necessary and welcome step in modernising insolvency legislation in the North. The Bill will make a series of technical amendments that will align our law more closely with reforms that have already been enacted in England and Wales, but it also takes important steps that are specific to our circumstances. Fundamentally, the Bill is about making the insolvency process more efficient, more accessible and more responsive to the needs of those affected, be they creditors, directors, insolvency practitioners or members of the public.

One of the most practical reforms in the Bill is the shift away from the default use of physical meetings; instead, the Bill allows creditors and shareholders to communicate through virtual meetings or written correspondence. That reduces cost, removes barriers to participation and brings our procedures into the 21st century. For small businesses and individual creditors, that is a particularly welcome change.

The Bill also streamlines a range of processes for insolvency practitioners, allowing them to take certain actions, such as recovering assets without needing repeated permission from the courts or the Department. Again, that cuts down on delays and unnecessary bureaucracy while ensuring that there is still proper oversight where it matters.

I am also pleased to see that the Bill strengthens company directors' accountability. Administrators will now have the same powers as liquidators to pursue directors for wrongful or fraudulent trading, ensuring that we can hold individuals to account and maximise returns for creditors, regardless of the insolvency route that is taken.

Importantly, the Bill also addresses several issues that are specific to Northern Ireland. Clauses 103, 104 and 115 fix legal deficiencies that had the potential to hamper enforcement or to allow misconduct to go unchecked, including in cases involving insolvent partnerships. Those are overdue and necessary conditions.

While the legislation may not command major headlines, it will make a meaningful difference in practice, saving time and money, protecting creditors and improving the fairness and efficiency of insolvency proceedings. The Bill is an example of the kind of good legislative housekeeping that we need to see more of in this place: thoughtful, practical and based on consultation and consensus.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I thank Members for their consideration of the Bill and their contributions to the debate. I am pleased to note the support that the Bill has commanded across the Chamber. I am also grateful to members of the Committee for the Economy for their contributions to the debate and for their scrutiny of the Bill so far. It will now hopefully pass into their hands for further scrutiny. I welcome the comments about departmental officials and the level of engagement that the Committee had on the Bill.

While its subject matter is, for the most part, specialist and technical in nature, the Bill will be of benefit to those who work in the profession and to those affected by insolvency, including creditors and employees. The Bill will streamline and modernise procedures to make the management of insolvency proceedings more efficient, which, in turn, will improve returns for creditors.

I will touch briefly on some of the issues raised in the debate. In fairness, few additional issues or points of contention were raised. That reflects the process of consultation and engagement with the Committee that was gone through to get the Bill to this stage. We will certainly take on board the commentary about that when we engage on legislation.

Members across the Chamber have recognised that the Bill will address some of the issues in order to update and modernise, our legislation, tackle unnecessary bureaucracy, bring things more into line with modern ways of doing business and improve transparency. I note the point that Mr Honeyford made about people who take a chance on starting their own business and the challenges that they face and his point about family homes. That issue can be discussed further as the Bill is scrutinised in Committee. I look forward to hearing the feedback from Committee Stage.

I am really grateful to those who have contributed to a helpful debate on this important legislation. I ask the Assembly for its support in agreeing the Second Stage of the Bill so that it can be referred to the Economy Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the Second Stage of the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for the Economy.

I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while we get ready for the next item in the Order Paper.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has allocated no time limits on the debate.

Mr O'Dowd: I welcome the opportunity to move the Second Stage of the Bill. As Members will be aware, financial provisions Bills are required at regular intervals to deal with miscellaneous and routine financial matters that require amendments to governing legislation. It is on that basis that I present the Bill today. It has been 11 years since the previous Financial Provisions Bill, and many matters need to be resolved. In developing the Bill, I received several requests that it include some additional miscellaneous administrative matters. As there is no alternative or timely legislative vehicle to address those issues, I have agreed to accommodate them in the Bill. Hence, the Bill is the "Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill". The Bill has three broad sections: powers, fees and financial governance. I will take each in turn.

Clauses 1 to 14 provide new powers to five Departments: the Department of Finance, the Department for the Economy, the Executive Office, the Department of Education and the Department for Communities. First, my Department seeks clause 1 to provide it with the statutory authority to issue loans to the Investment Fund. As Members will be aware, my Department is the policy lead for the Investment Fund. However, it does not have the power to make loans and has relied on TEO and the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) to make them. Clause 1 will address the legislative gap, and full responsibility for the Investment Fund will then transfer to my Department, thus enhancing financial governance, regularity and accountability.

Clauses 2 to 5 have been requested by DFE and will provide it with additional powers in several key areas. First, clause 2 will enable the Department to provide financial assistance, such as grants, loans, guarantees or indemnities, where such action is in the interest of our economy. That will help to address concerns expressed during the COVID-19 pandemic about the Department's ability to provide such assistance. Clause 2 will also restore its power to form limited companies, which will aid the Department's flexibility in policy delivery, a further gap highlighted by the COVID response. Clause 3 allows the Department for the Economy to issue loan funding to the higher education sector, improving its ability to successfully deploy financial transactions capital (FTC) funding for capital projects in our universities and higher education institutions. Clause 4 will repeal an outdated aspect of employment and training legislation that dates back to the 1950s. That amendment will remove the requirement for Department of Finance approval for all schemes. Such approvals will, instead, be sought through the existing delegated limited procedures that are already being used successfully. Under clause 5, Tourism NI will be provided with powers to classify and grade tourist amenities beyond accommodation providers. That power is sought by the Department for the Economy to develop and strengthen the broader tourism sector.

Clauses 6 to 10 and clause 14 relate to the Executive Office. Under clause 6, TEO will be provided with the authority to provide services for victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse and other forms of institutional harm. TEO requested clause 7 because a gap in the current legislative framework exists. The new clause will enable it to coordinate integration support for asylum seekers and refugees locally, thus permitting TEO to utilise funds that have been provided to it by Whitehall Departments for those purposes. A further power that TEO requested is at clause 8. That provision will give TEO the power to arrange and facilitate opportunities for people to acquire the skills or experience that are necessary for public appointments, thereby encouraging equity, diversity and inclusion in such appointments. That will ensure that our public appointments best reflect the communities that they serve.

As Members will be aware, ending violence against women and girls is a Programme for Government commitment. The Bill will support that priority through clause 9, which will give TEO the powers that are required to implement the strategic framework on ending violence against women and girls, including funding initiatives that are aligned with the aims that are set in that framework.

Clause 14 amends the appointment terms for the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse, allowing for terms of fewer than five years where appropriate.

Clause 11 provides the Department of Education with the power to fund postgraduate qualifications in educational psychology. The clause will correct a legislative oversight and ensure DE's continued support for the doctorate in educational, child and adolescent psychology, which is essential for meeting statutory duties in special educational needs.

Clauses 12 and 13 relate to the Department for Communities. Clause 12 enables the Housing Executive to investigate tenancy fraud on behalf of registered housing associations (RHAs) and to charge housing associations for that service. Clause 13 will transfer the responsibilities for setting the basic allowance for councillors from individual councils to the Department for Communities, ensuring consistency and fairness across local government.

Clauses 15 to 17 relate to additional fee-raising powers, which were requested by the Department for the Economy, DAERA and the Department for Infrastructure. Those Departments requested those powers to safeguard the provision of public services and improve financial sustainability. Under clause 15, DFE will be permitted, in exceptional circumstances, to exempt or reduce fees that are charged by Tourism NI and to introduce new fees where appropriate. Clause 16 enhances DAERA's ability to recover costs from marine licensing services that are provided by the Department. Clause 17 permits DFI to introduce a fee for the issuing or replacing of SmartPasses under the concessionary fares scheme, thereby supporting that important scheme's long-term financial sustainability.

Clauses 18 and 20 focus on financial governance. Clause 18 will provide my Department with an increased limit on advances from the Consolidated Fund. That limit is currently 2% of the previous financial year's authorised expenditure. I wish to increase that to 4%. That would be a prudent measure in order to further safeguard against the risk that the lower limit is not sufficient to ensure the continued provision of public services. Clause 19 will remove the requirement for DFE to maintain separate accounts for petroleum and mineral receipts, thus streamlining financial reporting. Clause 20 will transfer the responsibility for appointing the external auditor of the Audit Office from DOF to the Assembly's Audit Committee, thereby enhancing independence and improving governance arrangements.

Members have previously raised concerns about the overuse of the sole authority of the Budget Act, which has been used to provide the legislative underpinning for various spending by Departments. I agree with Members on that. The Bill will address many of those concerns by providing Departments with the necessary legislative means under which such expenditure can be incurred. The Bill will also address other legislative gaps that have been identified. Furthermore, it will aid financial sustainability, strengthen financial governance and improve accountability. It is for those reasons that I have brought the Bill to the House today.

I commend the Bill to the House and urge Members to support its Second Stage passage.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): The Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill is a little bit like the Fiscal Council Bill in that it is significantly overdue but nevertheless welcome. I will speak as Chair of the Finance Committee, and then I will make some remarks on behalf of the party. First, I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill forward and his departmental officials for their work in keeping the Committee updated on the progress of the Bill.

The Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill creates a number of legislative changes that Departments require for routine financial matters for which it would not be practical to have specific legislation. Many of those measures are approved under the sole authority of the Budget Acts. They are often known colloquially as the "black box", because there is a little black box next to them in the Estimates documents.

As the Department of Finance is leading on the Bill, the Committee will be responsible for the Committee Stage and the overarching scrutiny of the Bill. Therefore, the Committee held a pre-legislative briefing with departmental officials on 18 September 2024. There are 16 provisions in the Bill, of which only three directly relate to the Department of Finance. Consequently, in anticipation of the Bill's successfully passing Second Stage today and being referred to the Committee, we have already written to the other relevant Committees — the AERA, Communities, Economy, Education, Infrastructure, Executive Office and Audit Committees — to invite their views on the provisions of the Bill that affect their scrutiny remit. As the Chair of the Committee, it is important that I point out that, as with lots of these matters, including the Budget, it is not solely for the Finance Committee or party finance spokespersons to scrutinise the Bill in isolation; the Committees with responsibility for the Departments that are subject to the measures in the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill should be across the detail, and that is why the Finance Committee has written to the other Committees.

I will offer specific comments on only the three financial provisions. Those relate to the investment fund, the appointment of a Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) external auditor and an increased limit on Consolidated Fund advances. The Committee held a briefing on the investment fund with departmental officials at its meeting on 4 December 2024. The fund receives its allocations via the strategic investment fund (SIF), which is an arm's-length body (ALB) of the Executive Office. The Strategic Investment Board (SIB) has the legal vires to make loans, but the Department of Finance does not. That arrangement has worked so far, but it was expected to be temporary until the Department received appropriate powers. A provision in the Bill will introduce those statutory powers. The Department believes that that will improve accountability, regularity and propriety in the use of financial transactions capital, or FTC, funding. The Executive Office agrees that that power should be provided to the Department of Finance.

The Department wishes to amend the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 to transfer the responsibility for the appointment of the NIAO external auditor from the Department of Finance to the Assembly's Audit Committee. That has been agreed by all parties involved.

Finally, there will be an increased limit on Consolidated Fund advances, which the Minister talked about a moment ago. That gives the power to make such advances from the fund as contained in the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. That order was intended to deal with situations when Departments might have sudden, unexpected additional expenditure if there were a major event, such as foot-and-mouth disease or COVID. It will also allow there to be quick additional expenditure without the delay that is caused by taking a Budget Bill through the Assembly. Currently, the limit to such an advance is 2% of the authorised Supply expenditure from the previous financial year. It is proposed that the Bill be used to increase the limit to 4%, which appears to be a sensible and prudent measure to provide further security and flexibility to deal with unexpected demands that may arise.

Although the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill is larger than previous Bills and the number of Departments involved is larger, which might make the scrutiny process more complicated, Committee members support its principles, its passage through Second Stage and its subsequent referral to the Committee for Committee Stage. Members look forward to working with the Department, other Committees and stakeholders to provide robust scrutiny of the Bill. I look forward to hearing Members' contributions to the debate, which will hopefully aid the Committee in its deliberations.

I will make a few remarks in my function as Opposition leader. The legislation is an important piece of tidying up. For a long time, many of us have railed against the use of the sole authority of the Budget Act to legally authorise vast amounts of expenditure. That was an unsustainable and unhealthy position. For example, welfare mitigations, which are a very large item of expenditure for the Executive and one that, I think, parties agree is essential, were, for a long time, funded through the sole authority of the Budget Act — the so-called black box. That is extremely suboptimal financial management, so it is welcome that many of the powers are finally being put on a —.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. I am glad that he brought up the issue of the black box. Billions of pounds were going through the black box rather than through the proper accounting measures, which state that it has to be no more than approximately £1 million, I think, and that, even then, it can be for only a short period. Does the Member agree that, while we have already seen a welcome move away from that — a reduction in black-box spending — there still seems to be an over-reliance on that facility by other Departments?

Mr O'Toole: The Member has made a fair point. He has put his remarks on the record. I am not quite sure that there are billions of pounds of spending through the black box, now. I do not think that —.

Dr Aiken: That was the case.

Mr O'Toole: It was the case, but the amount has come down. This will help to tidy that up. From that perspective, it is useful.

This is a big Bill. There are lots of important things in it, and it will be important to each Committee, where their bodies are being granted powers. The Finance Committee is looking at three specific areas: one relates to the Audit Office; another relates to the Northern Ireland Investment Fund; and the third relates to the Consolidated Fund advances. The Committee will want to understand the exact context for those powers, working out examples of how they might be used and all of that. It is important that the Committee does that work.

I will make an important process point. The DUP Members Mr Buchanan reprimanded the Opposition earlier, saying, "You wanted legislation, and now you are complaining that you are getting it all in one day". That is not how it is supposed to work. We are supposed to be given time to debate such things. The fact that we asked for there to be more debates on legislation does not mean that it is acceptable to have six full-blown debates on stages of primary legislation in two days. That does not represent a serious legislature in operation.

We are debating two important Bills today: the Fiscal Council Bill and the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. We should have had those Bills a good while ago and been devoting a bit more time to them. I will leave it at that. I do not want to labour the point, but I strongly reject the idea that we should debate six important, substantive pieces of legislation —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Can you return to the Bill that we are debating, Mr O'Toole?

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to return to the Bill, but it was important that I put those remarks on the record, because the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill is a substantive piece of legislation.

Before I draw my remarks to a close, in welcoming the fact that we finally have an Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill, I draw attention to the strange situation with the Northern Ireland Investment Fund, which is one of the entities for which funding is being clarified via the Bill. The Northern Ireland Investment Fund was set up a number of years ago as a way to use financial transactions capital. I have been talking about using FTC in novel ways for a long time, as have other members of the Committee. There was not much of an audience for that, a few years ago. Now, it looks as though FTC will be used to build Casement Park, if it is ever built — maybe the Minister will give us a view on that while he is at the Dispatch Box. That will be the case, if we ever get it built, and I really hope that we do. That would be a novel and important use of FTC.

The NI Investment Fund has existed for a while. It has funded some important things, but it has also been used to finance things that were supposed to be innovative, cutting-edge and new economic development projects in areas of high deprivation and all of that.

It has often been used to fund hotels, which are not necessarily excluded from commercial lending. In one case, which was particularly interesting, it was used to fund a car park. That is, I think, worthy of interrogation. That is the NI Investment Fund. I hope that that will work better and that, in the course of interrogating the Bill, we will understand how the Department intends to manage the NI Investment Fund much more strategically.

In broad terms, the fact that we have the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill is welcome. There is lots of detail that we have not had the chance to go through, as a Committee or as individual MLAs, so I say once again that, although, rightly, we will pass the Bill at Second Stage, members of the Finance Committee, who will be doing their job, and other Committees need to look through the detail of what we are passing and understand precisely the legal ramifications. The provisions are all sensible, and the Bill is largely a tidying-up exercise, but we should still be across the detail, because a fundamental point about the seriousness of this legislature is at stake. In broad terms, we support the Bill's passing at Second Stage.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for coming to the House for the Second Stage of the Bill. In 20 clauses, the Bill makes amendments that will help to address several issues across various Departments, as the Minister laid out. There is more detail in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM).

The oversight of the investment fund to utilise financial transactions capital naturally sits in the Department of Finance. Providing that Department with the power to issue loans will therefore remove the need for them to be issued through the Strategic Investment Board, an arm's-length body of the Executive Office. That will undoubtedly improve the overall accountability of the scheme.

Clause 2 focuses on the ability of the Department for the Economy to proactively take initiatives that provide financial assistance to support our local economy, which the Audit Office highlighted as something that was missing, particularly during the pandemic period. The ability to create companies is a further intervention that the Department for the Economy could, as a result of changes proposed in the Bill, use in future, rather than having to rely on Invest NI to do so.

The Executive have prioritised tackling violence against women and girls in the Programme for Government and in this year's Budget. I am pleased that a clear focus on those issues will remain in the Executive Office, which will be designated as responsible for implementing the strategic framework in the coming years.

Other aspects of the Bill will improve financial stability, as they will enable DFE, DAERA and DFI to use additional fee-raising powers that will ultimately be scrutinised by their Statutory Committees.

As we have been reminded in recent weeks, there is an onus on us, as public representatives, to ensure that our migrant and asylum-seeking communities are made to feel welcome here and that they have access to the services that they require. I therefore welcome the tightening of the legislative framework that assigns the Executive Office responsibility for coordinating integration and support. The Bill will give TEO the power to utilise funds provided by Whitehall Departments for integration support services rather than having to rely on the sole authority of the Budget Act, as was said previously.

I support the Bill. It will close the legislative gaps that have been identified, having been raised by Members over a few years. I am glad that the Minister introduced the Bill before the summer recess. It is a bit laughable that some who cry and scream, "There is not enough legislation coming through; we need to bring legislation forward", now cry and scream that too much is coming forward before the summer recess. I am glad that we are now at the Second Stage of important pieces of legislation so that, when we come back from the summer recess, we can get stuck into scrutinising that important legislation and getting it through. After all, that is what we, as legislators, are here for.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Audit Committee): I will speak on behalf of the Audit Committee and then make some remarks as a DUP MLA.

On behalf of the Audit Committee, I will speak on clause 20 of the Bill. The main role of the Audit Committee is to scrutinise and agree the budgets and Estimates of the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) and lay the Estimates before the Assembly. The Audit Committee fulfils that role in place of the Department of Finance in recognition of the independence of those non-ministerial bodies. However, in carrying out that role, the Committee has regard to the advice of the Department of Finance and the Public Accounts Committee in respect of the NIAO.

Clause 20 proposes to transfer the power to appoint an external auditor for the Northern Ireland Audit Office from the Department of Finance to the Audit Committee. That reflects a recommendation of the previous Audit Committee in its review of the governance and accountability arrangements for the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman. The Committee's report was noted by the Assembly on 14 February 2022.

The Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 currently requires the Department of Finance to appoint an external auditor for the Audit Office. In accordance with an extra-statutory arrangement, the appointment is made by the Department of Finance, acting on advice from the Audit Committee. At present, the Audit Office's external auditor certifies the accounts of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which are then reviewed by the Audit Committee and laid before the Assembly by the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance does not have any role in agreeing or approving the accounts, and its role in the process is purely administrative.

When giving evidence on 7 July 2021, the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) for Northern Ireland expressed a view that the responsibility for the appointment of auditors for the NIAO should rest with the Assembly. Members of the former Committee noted that, in England, Scotland and Wales, the Comptrollers and Auditors General do not appoint external auditors and that that duty falls to the relevant Committee in the legislature that makes the appointment on the recommendation of the relevant board. In correspondence dated 6 May 2021, the Minister of Finance acknowledged the anomaly that relates to the appointment of the external auditor for the NIAO and proposed that the Department of Finance take forward work to make that change. The former Audit Committee agreed with the C&AG and the Department of Finance. It therefore recommended in its report that the appointment of an external auditor for the NIAO should become the responsibility of the Audit Committee to bring it into line with its peers and that the Department of Finance should legislate to effect the change.

While the Committee for Finance will undertake the Bill's Committee Stage, it has requested that the Audit Committee scrutinise clause 20 and report back on its findings. The Committee agreed to undertake that scrutiny role on 25 June 2025, and it will commence that work in September. During that scrutiny, the Committee will wish to consider whether it agrees with the recommendation of its predecessor Committee that the power be transferred. In addition, it will seek to ensure that the drafting of clause 20 is sound insofar as it will achieve the intended outcome of the transfer. That will include, for example, whether the clause sufficiently reflects the practical outworkings of the transfer of power in relation to the award of contracts.

The Department did not engage with the Committee on the legislation until after the Bill was introduced. Having done so might have been helpful in ironing out any potential issues in advance. That said, the Audit Committee looks forward to engaging with the Department of Finance at the earliest opportunity after summer recess.

I will now add some remarks as a DUP MLA. In the interest of transparency, I declare that I sit on the Audit Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance Committee, which are all referenced here.

Mr Frew: All very dry.

Ms Forsythe: Sure.

We recognise that there is a need for the Bill, not least to rectify a number of anomalies relating to the absence and location of certain powers that are vital to Departments' decision-making and the delivery of support for public services. There are some 16 provisions in the Bill, with three that relate to the Department of Finance and others that cover a range of issues across a number of Departments, including AERA, Communities, Economy, Education and Infrastructure. We will work through the details of those in Committee, but I will highlight some points and put them on the record.

Clause 2 details how the Department for the Economy will be able to provide economic assistance, such as loans. If the Department believes that that provision, along with a power to form limited companies, would be of benefit, we would welcome further clarification of the rationale for the latter. We would particularly welcome an assessment of the implications for the role of Invest NI. Invest NI has made a considerable contribution to economic growth over recent years, and we do not want to see that role being undermined.

Clause 5 envisages granting Tourism NI powers to grade or classify tourist amenities, such as museums, tours, art venues, wildlife experiences, gardens and visitor attractions and activities. That is in addition to accommodation. Given the concerns about the regulation of short-stay holiday lets, impacts on local communities and an apparent void in governance and oversight, we have some unease with the suggestion that Tourism NI should be expanded without it first grappling with those live issues. That, hand in hand with the Department for the Economy's accounts receiving a disclaimed opinion and some concerns raised in the statement of internal control in Tourism NI, adds to our concern in that area.

Clauses 7 and 9 respectively afford TEO greater powers to integrate asylum seekers and to implement strategies for tackling violence against women and girls. It is right that the proposals are accompanied by strong safeguards so as not to duplicate the role of other Departments or undermine the need for agreement in cross-cutting areas. Moreover, we should not allow ourselves to be put in a situation in which the Executive, through TEO, are offsetting the failure of the Home Office to address the impacts of immigration on communities, both financially and practically. As the chair of the all-party group (APG) on domestic and sexual violence, I welcome clause 9, in which we see the allocation of financial powers under the ending violence against women and girls framework. As with any framework or strategy, it needs to be underpinned with funding. With the devastating news over the weekend, we are now up to 27 women who have been murdered in Northern Ireland since 2020. It is therefore welcome to see powers and funding underpinning that clause.

Clause 12 deals with Department for Communities tenancy fraud. The clause will provide the Northern Ireland Housing Executive with the power to undertake tenancy fraud investigations on behalf of registered housing associations and to charge RHAs for that service. It will also provide for a two-way exchange of information between RHAs and the Housing Executive for the purpose of investigating tenancy fraud. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am pleased to see that those proposals stem from recommendations in reports on tenancy fraud in social housing by the Audit Office in 2013 and the Public Accounts Committee in 2014. Those reports recommended establishing a single tenancy fraud team to provide investigative services to the Housing Executive and the housing association sector. The provisions do not create new tenancy fraud offences. Rather, they simply enable the investigation of tenancy fraud to be more consistent across the social housing sector and more complex cases to be fully investigated. Our Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons, has taken a strong stance in his attempts to reduce fraud, and clause 12 is in line with that stance. Tackling tenancy fraud is vital if we are to ensure that the best value for money is to be achieved from our investment in social housing. If social homes are occupied fraudulently, those in the greatest housing need are not being prioritised.

We note in clause 13 that the responsibility for setting councillors' allowances is to be taken away from councils, thus removing the conflicted position of councillors being asked to vote on their own pay, which has led to inequalities across Northern Ireland.

Clause 16 will give DAERA the scope to change marine licensing fees, and it is crucial that we see more detail from the Minister on the direction that he proposes to take on that front. Although we agree that Ministers need to have flexibility to ensure that fee structures are sustainable, proper safeguards are needed in order to ensure fairness and accountability. That may not be a matter for this debate, but it should not be overlooked.

On clause 17, it has been our stated position that imposing SmartPass replacement fees will generally place scheme users at a disadvantage to their counterparts elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in the Irish Republic. Before setting out to recover the administration costs of delivering the scheme, can the Department for Infrastructure demonstrate that it has made an effort to reduce those costs? Has it reviewed the requirement for senior citizens to apply in person or considered introducing automatic renewals? Given that the personal circumstances of SmartPass holders may change as they get older, it is notable that there is often currently a need to migrate between various categories of pass. Is there not a concern that stand-alone applications will be required to access various discounts, as that will result in additional costs?

I have made some points on a number of the clauses, but the Bill is essential in order to progress financial provisions across Northern Ireland's public services. We will continue our scrutiny of the detail as the Bill progresses.

Mr Honeyford: I feel like Matthew O'Toole, being on my feet constantly. I will be a more positive Matthew than the version that you are used to, Minister. The SDLP complained earlier about the number of Bills that have come through. The length of time that we have been back and the fact that the Bill is coming through only now shows how long it takes, after this place collapses, to start to get legislation through the House. It is a reminder that it is not just the length of time for which we are down but the length of time that the process takes once we come back that causes the delay.

On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill, which will help to deal with routine financial matters. It is some time since we have had such a Bill, so it is really welcome that it is moving through the legislative process. Although the Bill is largely technical, it is welcome that it will give almost every Department enabling powers to make it much smoother to lend funds or incur expenditure that Departments deem appropriate, to amend technical aspects of legislation and to provide services that otherwise would not be provided.

Most of the financial provisions align with departmental priorities and strategies. For the Committee for the Economy, of which I am a member, it is welcome that the Department will be able to establish a limited company, where that is deemed to be in the interests of growing the local economy, and to provide financial support through loans to higher education institutions, should it see fit. We also welcome the changes around tourism that the Minister mentioned. We would be interested in the Minister's response to comments about Casement Park and larger developments.

It is important that the Executive Office will have powers to incur expenditure to do anything that it deems necessary to support its leading role in implementing the aims of the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls, which was referred to a number of times. The tragic murder of Sarah Montgomery happened in the past number of days. That brings into sharp focus and highlights the key priority that tackling violence against women and girls must be for the Executive through the Programme for Government. The Bill is another positive step towards doing something about that and provides the Department with the flexibility to support that aim.

Alliance welcomes the provision to enable the Executive Office to:

The Executive Office has a key role to play in providing much-needed support for asylum seekers and refugees, especially with the recent publication of the refugee integration strategy and delivery framework. That provision should help towards aspects of that strategy.

Overall, Alliance believes that the Bill is the best mechanism to help Departments to tidy up several administrative matters and handle routine financial matters. It is positive to see that miscellaneous legislation is being regularised by the Bill to ensure that the necessary powers are up to date, especially given that the previous Financial Provisions Bill was enacted over 10 years ago.

We welcome the Bill, and I look forward to its coming to the Committee for scrutiny.

Mr Carroll: A few aspects of the Bill are concerning and need to be scrutinised a bit further. Obviously, the Finance Committee will do that, but it is worth teasing out some of the aspects this afternoon.

The Bill is being presented as dealing with routine financial matters, but some of the provisions are anything but routine and are obviously based on policy. I want to explore that. Clause 7, as Members said, deals with asylum and immigration integration support services. Maybe the Minister could clarify that. I am at a loss to understand what new powers, if any, are being handed to TEO. It would be useful if the Minister could clarify that. I think that TEO already has a power to do with integration.

There is a big bit of work to be done on Mears, the state of the housing that people, particularly asylum seekers, are in and the speed at which people are, effectively, evicted from their homes when they get settled status. To me, that already falls under the remit of TEO, but I would like the Minister here and TEO —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Carroll, I ask that you reference the substance of the Bill, not the programmes of other Departments or agencies, and only mention agencies or programmes if you are referencing how the Bill impacts on them.

Mr Carroll: Sure. Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am talking about clause 7. Integration is covered by TEO strategies already. There is a big bit of work to be done on housing. There is also a big gap: TEO dealt with the scheme for Ukrainian refugees, and rightly so, but there is no specialised scheme for Palestinian refugees. That bit of work needs to be sped up.

On clause 12 —.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that that is a reserved matter? It comes under the remit of the Home Office, not, unfortunately, that of TEO. It would be much more preferable if we were able to deal with those matters ourselves. Unfortunately, that is not the case at the moment.

Mr Carroll: I agree with the Member that it would be better if it immigration were devolved matter and we could decide our own immigration policy, but it is not. The question is this: what are the Finance Minister and the First Minister doing about it, other than just shrugging their shoulders, which is not good enough? In response to Assembly questions that I have submitted, I have been told that there is no agreed position, which, again, is not good enough. I do not think that that is a good answer for people in Gaza, who are being pummelled and bombed to smithereens.

As has been stated, clause 12 deals with housing fraud and gives the Housing Executive the power to undertake tenancy fraud investigations on behalf of housing associations. My only concern about that is that it does not work the other way. Like, I am sure, other Members, I deal with constituents who are former Housing Executive tenants and have been charged in the region of £5,000 or £6,000 by private maintenance companies to get not huge elements of work done to their property, the communal areas of which are owned by the Housing Executive. There is no opportunity here to seek transparency or to challenge that, but there is in the South and in Britain. There is a huge question over why that is not being addressed. That is not to mention the Housing Executive tenants who are being dragged through the courts as they try to challenge decisions on their succession tenancies.

Clause 13 relates to the setting of the basic rate of allowance for councillors. That power has been conferred to DFC. I am just not sure why that is the case. If the Minister could clarify that, it would be helpful. Is that a decision that can be taken by the Minister or the officials? Can or will it be brought to the Assembly?

Clause 17 deals with the travel concession passes. I agree with some of the concerns that were raised by the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee. The clause provides the power to introduce a fee for a card. That could be £20, or it could be higher. At this stage, we do not know. I am totally opposed to any fee being charged for the card. I commend the people who campaigned for free travel for the over-60s and over-65s through the concessionary fare scheme. If you introduce a fee for the card, it is a slippery slope. Travel under that scheme will no longer be free by virtue of the fact that people will have to pay for the card. I am concerned about that. I oppose the clause, and I may well try to amend it. Neither the Finance Minister nor the Infrastructure Minister should be putting up barriers to travel. We have heard already about the growing scale of pensioner poverty.

Clause 19 deals with petroleum and mineral licensing. It is being presented as a technical element, which it may well be, but I am quite sceptical, given the scale of pre-approval for mineral licences. I am concerned about that and seek some assurances from the Finance Minister on it.

I suppose that I have to join with everybody else and say to the leader of the Opposition that he should maybe be careful what he wishes for. He demanded the legislation, and he now has it. I say to him that, if a single MLA and a small team of dedicated staff can scrutinise legislation, an Opposition with more MLAs, staff and resources should be well able to do it, so there you go.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That completes the list of Members who wish to speak. I call the Minister of Finance to conclude and wind up the debate.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, and I thank colleagues for their comments, views and questions on the Bill that is before us today. I will try to cover as many of those as possible in my closing remarks.

It is quite a wide-ranging Bill in the sense that it covers a lot of Departments and issues. It basically tidies up several matters that have accumulated over this last number of years and puts things on a proper statutory footing to enable them to proceed in a transparent and open way, allowing the Assembly and others to scrutinise properly Departments' budgets.

Only three elements of the Bill relate directly to my Department: the investment fund and FTC; the auditor; and the increase from 2% to 4% for excesses out of the Consolidated Fund. I note the Committee Chair's comments that the Committee has already been in correspondence with other Committees asking them to ensure — I am sure that they will — that they scrutinise the various elements of the Bill that relate to them and that they express their views on those. A number of the questions that were raised today will also have to be raised directly at Committee, and no doubt they will be.

It is strange, the things that you remember from this place. I remember a quite, at times, heated debate in the Chamber between Conor Murphy, a predecessor of mine, and Jim Allister about the black box. Things have dramatically improved since then, but this Bill will further improve them. Other anomalies may build up over time as we move through the budgetary processes, so we always have to come back to this sort of Bill. However, we are making a go of it here.

In terms —.

Dr Aiken: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes.

Dr Aiken: Previously, Departments seemed to use the black box as a default mechanism. At one stage, over £1·3 billion sat in the black box, which went against the Department's own accounting rules. When you are addressing the Bill, will it be possible to make some statutory requirement that we not exceed the good governance levels of the black box, which were set for very good reasons at around £1 million?

Mr O'Dowd: It is really for Members to decide what amendments they, the Committee or a Committee may wish to table. I will establish a view on that when I see the details of whatever implications it has. The Bill now sets the pathway and course for proper accountability on budgets.

Some of the issues in the Bill highlight the important work that goes on in Departments. A number of Members mentioned that. For example, ending violence against women and girls is important work. The shocking statistic is that 27 women have lost their life in these past number of years. The importance of work on that strategy is clear. We must do everything that we can to support TEO in the delivery of that strategy, making it a reality, seeing its outworkings and positive results and making a significant change in attitudes in society to that dreadful issue.

Other issues include how the Department for the Economy will use loans, Tourism NI, councillors' allowances and SmartPasses etc. I have no doubt that those issues will be engaged on at Committee level. I caution Members against taking a populist view of any of the measures that raise revenue. As someone who is heading rapidly towards the age of 60, I am not in poverty, yet and all I will be handed a free bus pass. Think about it.

Dr Aiken: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes.

Dr Aiken: Minister, it does not make you a bad person. Trust me. Thank you. [Laughter.]

A Member: What does it make you? [Laughter.]

Mr O'Dowd: Quite rightly, we have to protect those in society who require protection, but I do not need protection in that sense. Think about it from both sides of the debate. I have no doubt that Members and their party colleagues will debate those issues at length in Committee.

Others Members welcomed the pipeline of legislation being opened. Mr O'Toole made his views on that known, and the opposition to the Opposition, Gerry Carroll, made his views known on that response. If any Member has not been in the Assembly when we have been working our way through reams of legislation, I advise you to buckle up. You are in for an interesting ride over the next year and a half, with long days and long nights in this place scrutinising legislation. You will be surprised at how quickly it can take over your life. Gerry referred — it was only a passing remark, not a definitive statement — to how this may be seen as routine legislation: there is no such thing as routine legislation, and I am sure that Members will carry out their duties diligently when scrutinising this and other legislation.

Some other comments were made. I reassure Gerry that, when it comes to the integration of and support for newcomers in our society, there has not been a change of policy in legislation. It is merely about placing a statutory framework around how that money is spent. I welcome the continued support offered by TEO and have no doubt that it would like to offer more and do things differently, but it is a joint office, and the legislation that we are examining today does not change the mandate or role; it merely gives legislative cover for the spend.

Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will, yes.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that. The Minister talked about becoming a pensioner and maybe not needing a free bus pass. That is fair enough, but I remind him that Age NI has said that around 40% of pensioners are in poverty. I implore the Minister and others Ministers not to place barriers in the way of people, especially when we have a loneliness crisis.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not think that it is anybody's intention to place barriers in front of anyone. I am putting to you the reality of some people's lives. We need to use our limited resources to make the best impact and have the best effect and give support to people who require it most. I would argue that an MLA who is heading into his 60s does not require it. Others may have a different view.

I have covered most of the points, but I will touch on fraud. A number of Members mentioned the Department for Communities. Diane Forsythe gave a history of the changes to the appointment of auditors and outlined the history of that through the Audit Committee. That Committee has been asked by the Finance Committee to scrutinise clause 20 and report on it. She also raised the issue of tenancy fraud, and, again, there is a recommendation from the Audit Office in that regard. It is about making the best use of the provisions on audit when tenancy fraud takes place, including how to best investigate it and who is best placed to investigate it.

There are other elements related to overcharging or tenants not receiving proper services from contractors etc. I am not an expert on those matters, but I suspect that there is provision in the Housing Executive for those matters to be investigated. Those matters can be raised through the Department for Communities.

I have, hopefully, responded to the broad outline of Members' comments, and I recommend that the Assembly pass the Bill at Second Stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the Second Stage of the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Finance.

I invite Members to take their ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

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

Mr Muir: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill, which is progressing through Parliament. Before I do so, I acknowledge that the Assembly's Standing Orders state that:

I am moving the motion inside that period as the Bill is due to complete Report Stage in the House of Commons this Friday. It is my understanding that, as the Bill is a private Member's Bill (PMB), it cannot be amended once it moves to the Lords. Therefore, it is essential to seek Members' consent today and, more important, not retrospectively.

In order to take forward the legislative consent motion (LCM), my Department had to fulfil a number of internal obligations, including legal scrutiny of the Bill and impact assessments. Once that was completed, it was deemed that the most appropriate course of action was to seek Executive approval. In retrospect, a more effective use of time would have been to approach the Committee at the same time as Executive consent was being sought, because obtaining Executive consent took much longer than anticipated. I understand that my officials addressed that matter with the Chair of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee during a recent oral evidence session. Nevertheless, I appreciate the cooperation, again, of the AERA Committee in facilitating the LCM.

The Bill is quite short: it contains eight clauses, five of which apply to Northern Ireland. It covers two topics: the non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets entering Great Britain from countries beyond the United Kingdom; and the welfare of dogs, cats and ferrets that are brought into any part of the UK, including Northern Ireland, from countries beyond the UK. It is only the welfare element of the Bill that will apply to Northern Ireland, but I will explain how all parts of the Bill will operate.

I will begin with the non-commercial movement of animals into Great Britain. The Bill will amend the assimilated law version of EU regulation 576/2013 on the non-commercial movement of pet animals. Members may have heard that regulation being referenced as the "pet travel regulation". The amendments proposed in the Bill will reduce from five to three the number of personal pet dogs and cats that anyone can take into Great Britain from countries outside the UK. In effect, it will result in any movement of more than three cats or dogs being categorised as a commercial movement. This part of the Bill also contains an enabling power to permit England, Scotland and Wales to make regulations that would restrict the importation of cats and dogs that are below the age of six months, are more than 42 days pregnant or have been mutilated.

The EU pet travel and welfare during transport law is contained in annex 2 to the Windsor framework and continues to apply in Northern Ireland. It is not possible to replicate those provisions here, as that is likely to be deemed contrary to EU law. I want to provide Members with the detail of the origins of the legislative amendments, in particular the proposal to restrict non-commercial imports of dogs and cats from five animals to three.

The desire to change the law in Great Britain is a response to recommendations made to the UK Government by the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee. The EFRA Committee highlighted concerns around movements into Great Britain from continental Europe using English Channel ferry ports. Submissions made to the Committee suggested that traffickers would try to bypass commercial import rules by presenting consignments of low-welfare pups as their personal animals in batches of five. The EFRA Committee also heard that smugglers would try to circumvent puppy smuggling initiatives by presenting with a pregnant dog into Great Britain, again under the pretence that the dog is a personal pet.

I assure the House that those are not scenarios that we encounter in Northern Ireland; the position here could not be more different. Northern Ireland has been a hub, unfortunately, for puppy trafficking, and that criminal enterprise has been an indigenous affair, and my use of the words "has been" is quite deliberate. Since 2020, my Department has taken significant strides to tackle puppy smuggling in Northern Ireland. Under the auspices of the Paws for Thought group, my Department has worked with the police, the harbour police, the two main ferry companies and councils to implement new processes to log, track and check movements of dogs through Larne and Belfast harbours. I saw that last year in operation, and I pay tribute to everyone who is involved in that. In the past five years, figures obtained by my Department suggest, dog transports to Great Britain have fallen by as much as 50%. While that is a sign of good progress, I am far from complacent. Puppy trafficking here is not eradicated, and there is always the need to be on high alert. The joint working of the Paws for Thought group members has severely dented the trade, helped to secure transport bans and led to successful prosecutions.

With regard to restricting the import of cats, dogs and ferrets on welfare grounds, I will now turn to the provisions that will be applicable to Northern Ireland for which I seek the legislative consent of the Assembly. The Bill will confer a power on all relevant national authorities in the UK to make regulations in their respective legislatures on importing cats, dogs or ferrets that promote the welfare of those animals. In the case of Northern Ireland, the national authority will be my Department. The power will enable my Department to bring secondary legislation to the Assembly to prohibit the direct importation of cats and dogs that have been mutilated. The Bill will also enable relevant national authorities to outline the extent of the provisions that should be contained in any secondary legislation. Therefore, regulations could include the right to inspect, seize, search and detain but also the ability to exempt cats and dogs from prohibitions where specified circumstances are set out and adhered to. That will enable my Department to put in place processes to allow individuals or organisations to rescue mutilated animals, for example, to bring them back to Northern Ireland.

The Bill also includes powers to establish criminal offences in relation to the importation of cats and dogs that breaches any conditions imposed. The draft provisions provide that the offences contained in any regulations could be heard in a Magistrates' Court or a Crown Court. Sanctions and penalties would range from a fine to a custodial sentence or both. The maximum penalty that would apply if an offence were sent to a Crown Court is imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both. That is in line with existing parallel offences under the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

Finally, the Bill will provide no powers to restrict movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, nor will it impact on the UK internal market. It is already illegal to place on the market or sell a cat, dog or ferret with any sort of mutilation in any part of the UK, and it is illegal to have such procedures performed in any part of the UK. The Bill has been drafted to enable laws to be made to prevent those animals from entering the UK market in the first place via imports from third countries.

In summary, I seek consent today to enable my Department to obtain additional powers to secure the welfare of dogs, cats and ferrets and to close off loopholes that allow the continued existence of mutilated companion animals in Northern Ireland. The Bill will not change the law directly here; rather, my Department will be able to lay legislation in the Assembly that will be subject to scrutiny and the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that the LCM will enjoy the Assembly's support and, accordingly, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the AERA Committee on the LCM for the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill. Members will have read the Committee's report, which was published on 27 June.

On 12 June, the Committee considered correspondence from the Department seeking the Committee's views on tabling the legislative consent memorandum, which it then laid that day.

In order to move the motion today and adhere to Standing Orders, DAERA requested that the Committee expedite its reporting period and report by 20 June. The Committee considered DAERA's request, given that the Bill is a Government-backed private Member's Bill, with no mechanism for it to be amended once it moves to the House of Lords on 4 July. The Committee agreed that it would aim to expedite its report if an oral briefing from officials were provided on 19 June. The Committee also immediately wrote to several stakeholders for their views: the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, the Ferret Glen rescue centre, the USPCA, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (SOLACE), and the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA). The Committee noted, however, that it was unlikely to report by 20 June, as it was a tall order to expect stakeholder replies to be received by the Committee with just over a week's notice given.

On 19 June, the Committee received an oral briefing from officials, who highlighted the fact that a legislative consent motion was the most timely and proportionate way forward. They apologised to the Committee for the lateness in bringing the legislative consent memorandum to our attention. With hindsight, they felt that they should have brought the proposals to the Committee at the same time as they had gone to the Executive. The Committee was pleased to hear that DAERA will review the process and aim to avoid such a tight turnaround happening again.

The Committee heard that the Bill contains eight clauses, five of which apply to Northern Ireland, and covers two main topics. The non-commercial movement of cats, dogs and ferrets between Great Britain and countries beyond the United Kingdom is the first one. The second is the welfare of dogs, cats and ferrets that are brought into any part of the UK, including Northern Ireland, from countries beyond the United Kingdom. The Committee heard, however, that it was only the welfare element of the Bill that would apply to Northern Ireland. It encompasses a wide-ranging power that will enable the making of secondary legislation in the Assembly to prohibit the importation of cats and dogs that have been mutilated by, for example, having had their ears cropped or being declawed. We heard that DAERA, by gaining those powers, would be able to close legal loopholes and that the Bill also included powers to establish criminal offences, some of which the Minister outlined, and I am grateful to him for that. Unfortunately, the Bill does not provide powers to Northern Ireland to introduce measures to prohibit the travel of animals under six months old, as it is considered that that could be contrary to the EU pets regulation — 576/2013 — which is in annex 2 to the Windsor framework.

In the question-and-answer session with officials, Committee members raised several matters of concern, which are detailed in the Committee's report. The Committee queried the elements of the Bill that do not extend to Northern Ireland. Officials stated that puppy smuggling, as experienced in Northern Ireland, would not be solved by applying those clauses anyway, as they deal with scenarios that are specific to the south-east of England and issues encountered at the Channel ports.

Officials advised that the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) believed that sentencing in the Welfare of Animals Act 2011 is robust but that engagement with the PPS and the Department of Justice is ongoing.

Officials outlined for us the typical trafficking scenario seen in Northern Ireland: indigenous illegal breeders moving vanloads of animals through Larne and Belfast to the bigger, more lucrative market in GB, as well as animals coming from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland. We highlighted a potential scenario to officials that, if smugglers wanted to continue that practice, they could do so using the loophole to move animals legitimately from France to the Republic of Ireland and then, following a change of ownership, on to Northern Ireland. Officials agreed to follow up on that concern.

On 26 June, the Committee considered responses from Dogs Trust and SOLACE. Dogs Trust welcomed the PMB and the LCM and sought to address concerns about puppy smuggling that had persisted following changes to the pet travel scheme in 2012. Dogs Trust expressed concern, however, that, without routine checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the non-commercial movement of animals and on cross-border activity, opportunities for detection and enforcement may be limited. SOLACE also welcomed the Bill but raised a concern about the additional enforcement responsibilities, including having adequate resources to support that work.

Regarding the aspects of the PMB that cannot be included in the LCM, the Committee requests that the Minister seek to cover Northern Ireland in that regard as soon as is practicable. I again highlight the very tight timeline for the Committee's scrutiny of the legislative consent memorandum. The Committee, however, welcomed the apology from DAERA about the timescales and looks forward to earlier engagement on any future LCMs.

The Committee felt overall that it could not take a definitive position on the legislative consent memorandum, as it had not had sufficient time to scrutinise it and some of the issues that Committee members, Dogs Trust and SOLACE had raised. The Committee has reported on the scrutiny that it was able to do within the tight time frame and now leaves it to the House to determine whether the LCM is to be agreed.

I will add some remarks as the Ulster Unionist spokesperson on agriculture, environment and rural affairs. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the LCM on behalf of my party. The Ulster Unionist Party has consistently championed stronger protections for animals, as reflected in our manifesto commitments to crack down on puppy smuggling in particular; end cruel practices such as ear cropping; and support enforcement agencies with the tools and resources that they need. We encourage Members to support the Minister in that aspect. We therefore support the Bill's intent, particularly that to prohibit the import of mutilated animals, and recognise the importance of the LCM as a means to close current loopholes in law.

It is, however, deeply regrettable that other significant provisions in the Bill, such as the ability to prohibit the import of animals under six months old, cannot apply to Northern Ireland due to the constraints of the Windsor framework and our continued alignment with the EU pets regulation. That creates a glaring distinction — perhaps a two-tier system — whereby protections that are available elsewhere in the UK are denied here. We must also recognise — I believe that the Minister did so in some way — that smugglers of puppies or other animals are notoriously without morals or conscience. It is entirely reasonable to believe that a new loophole that allows import via the Republic of Ireland could be exploited by the same smugglers who traffic animals to the south-east of England, in what would be a wholly feasible and ridiculously lawful route for them. It might be seen as squeezing a balloon at one point to constrict it, only to see it pop out at another point. What steps will the Minister take to further tighten the gaps and divergence that will exist as a result of that?

With those points on the record, we will support the LCM.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for tabling the LCM. We are being asked, as we were asked at Committee, to agree in principle to the commitments that the Minister has just outlined on the welfare of dogs, cats and ferrets. The legislation that we are dealing with — in principle, at this stage — will hopefully deal with many of the animal welfare or import issues that have been raised, close off smuggling loopholes and help to protect animals. Hopefully, it will ensure better animal protections, improved biosecurity and regulatory alignment.

I am glad that, as the Minister explained, the Department has worked with police, harbour police and transport industries to tighten processes and ensure that animals are protected. Anybody who has a heart at all will feel for animals, whether they be cats, dogs or — well, I do not know about ferrets; they can nip your finger now and again; nonetheless, they are animals. They say that a good person is one who treats animals well. Hopefully, in our role as public representatives, we can do our bit to ensure that animals are treated well. I look forward to the Department's introducing additional legislative measures to give effect to the principles that we are being asked, at least, to endorse.

Ms Murphy: I support the LCM on animal welfare. As the Committee Chair mentioned, we would have liked additional time to scrutinise the Bill in its totality. However, the Department has confirmed that any secondary legislation that is introduced with the enabling powers conferred by the Bill will go out for public consultation and be subject to the full scrutiny of the Assembly.

As we know, the Minister intends to bring forward a suite of animal welfare reforms, and the EU has placed the issue to the fore of its legislative priorities in the current mandate. In ideal circumstances, it would be best practice to introduce primary legislation ourselves to deal with devolved competency. However, there is also a danger that, with the regulations changing in GB and the EU, we could be left with a loophole here that those who do not adhere to strong animal welfare protections would be only too willing to exploit.

In designing the necessary changes to regulations here, we must consider our unique situation and challenges. The Department was clear that the Bill was designed to deal with specific concerns about animal smuggling in south-east England. We need to be cognisant of the problems that we face with regard to animal importation. We must ensure that any changes are compliant with our obligations under the Windsor framework. We should endeavour to ensure that there is island-wide harmonisation in our approach to enforcement.

Speaking of enforcement, any strengthening of our animal welfare regulations will require additional training and resources when ensuring that any new regulations are implemented and adhered to. We cannot expect already stretched councils to simply absorb the new responsibilities without practical support and, indeed, financial assistance.

I support the Bill. It will help to expedite the changes that are required to strengthen our already robust animal welfare regulations, and it will help deter and punish those who would seek to profit from the misery that can be inflicted on our companion animals.

Miss McIlveen: Mr Speaker, you will be glad to know that I do not intend to rehearse everything that has been said. The Chair of the Committee has outlined the merits and the issues with the LCM. As a party, the DUP believes that Northern Ireland should have exceptional standards of animal welfare. We are a nation of animal lovers, and it is only right that they should be treated with the same care and love that they so freely give us. It is heartbreaking to see examples of cases in which pets have been abused, mistreated or, indeed, mutilated.

We remain concerned that there are elements of the Bill that cannot be extended to Northern Ireland due to the continued oppressive and undemocratic arrangements imposed by annex 2 to the Windsor framework. Those include powers to prohibit the importation of animals under six months; the ability to restrict animals that are pregnant; and the reduction in the number of animals that are permitted in personal import. That creates divergence. While officials suggested that that divergence would not have a major practical impact, we continue to be concerned that Northern Ireland could be left further behind in respect of the welfare of pets and animals because we are being denied the ability to legislate in line with our counterparts on the mainland. While we cannot consent to the arrangements conceived by the EU and, obviously, previous Governments that underpin divergence in that area, we welcome the extension of at least some of the provisions. I understand that the current enforcement framework under section 5 of the Welfare of Animals Act 2011 will be strengthened as a consequence of those provisions, which will enable further action against individuals who import animals that have been mutilated. We recognise that withholding our consent for the provisions that can apply to Northern Ireland would be counterproductive and increase divergence within the UK.

I appreciate that the Department will use the powers contained in the Bill to bring forward further legislation. There will, therefore, be no immediate change, but, ultimately, that will lead to a situation in which there are additional protections in place for dogs, cats and ferrets, which can only be welcomed.

Mr Blair: I will speak briefly as a member of the AERA Committee and Alliance spokesperson on agriculture, environment and rural affairs to express support for the extension of the Animal Welfare (Import of Cats, Dogs and Ferrets) Bill to Northern Ireland. The UK-wide approach to prevent the commercial import of mutilated or heavily pregnant animals from masquerading as non-commercial movements demonstrates our collective commitment to improving animal welfare standards in this region. I am pleased that the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments have given their legislative consent for the Bill, and I am hopeful that Northern Ireland will shortly follow suit.

Certain practices, such as the ear cropping of dogs and the declawing of cats, are still commonly performed, despite the significant harm that such practices cause the animals involved. It is concerning that there has been a recent increase in celebrities purchasing animals that have been subject to such mutilation. It seems that that has driven public demand. In 2023, the RSPCA received 354 calls related to ear cropping in dogs. It is essential that we convey from here the message that those unacceptable practices, which inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on defenceless animals, will not be tolerated. Although legislation banning those practices here exists, individuals can still import into Northern Ireland animals that have endured such cruel treatments elsewhere. That loophole, which effectively allows widespread animal cruelty, needs to be closed. We can no longer tolerate the mentality of out of sight, out of mind. By tightening the rules governing non-commercial movements from third countries, we will ensure that we are not inadvertently supporting harmful practices that are taking place abroad.

Alliance supports the LCM and anticipates the Bill's successful passage across the UK, as such an approach is essential if we are to end these illegal trades and inhumane practices for good. This is another important step in the journey towards animal welfare improvements. There are other steps in that journey, which have been announced or are planned by the Minister. It is my hope that there will be the political will to see those through.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will be brief in my summary. I am very grateful for the contributions that were made in the Chamber and for the scrutiny that the Committee provided in advance of the debate.

The Chairperson of the Committee asked what further steps I will take to address divergence. I am in regular discussions with the UK Government about that in a range of areas. I will be sure to continue those discussions in the time ahead. Engagement with the UK Government on those issues is important. There has been positive progress in a number of areas, particularly on dental amalgam, for example, on which engagement has proven to be fruitful.

Mr Butler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes, no problem.

Mr Butler: Will the Minister commit to looking at the specific issues of the Bill, including the articles that give rise to divergence? I know that it is not within your remit to make changes, but, in the ongoing negotiations between the UK Government, through DEFRA, and the EU, those would be improvements and an upgrade. The LCM in its totality would be a better fit for Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: I thank the Chair for his intervention. I cannot give him an assurance that that will be resolved, but I can assure him that I will write to the UK Government to outline the concerns that he expressed.

I thank Patsy McGlone for his contribution. We should emphasise the importance of the welfare of companion animals in Northern Ireland and how that reflects the values of our society. I also thank the Opposition. Before the leader of the Opposition left, he promised that he would buy me a pint of Fursty Ferret beer. I intend to hold him to that. The official Opposition — really good. I will hold you to that.

I thank Áine for her support for the Bill, as well as others for theirs, including Michelle McIlveen and John Blair. I recognise that we have outlined the position to date, and, obviously, we will reflect on that. John is chair of the all-party group on animal welfare. He, rightly, outlined concerns about celebrities purchasing mutilated pets. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we do not subject animals to that suffering, and we should not profile it on social media channels. He is right to call that out.

I commend the legislative consent motion to the House and thank everyone who contributed.

Mr T Buchanan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that, while we have been in the House discussing the legislative consent motion, the Minister for Infrastructure has gone to the media to update them on the A5. I would have thought that, given the scale of that project and all those who have been affected by it, rather than going to the media, the Minister should have made a statement to the House to update it, particularly the elected Members for the constituencies through which the road runs — West Tyrone and Fermanagh and South Tyrone. That is not good practice. We, as elected Members from those constituencies, will have to learn from the media what the Minister is proposing or planning to do. That is not good practice. We have not had the opportunity to question the Minister on what she is seeking to do. I ask you, as Speaker, to rule on that matter. It is not acceptable, and it is very poor practice. It leaves the elected Members from those areas very much at a disadvantage about what the Minister plans to do.

Mr Speaker: I thank Mr Buchanan for bringing that to the House. It was brought to my attention by my office during the debate. It is important that any issues of significance that the Executive have to announce, particularly on a sitting day, be announced through the proper channels, which is through the House. It is offensive to all Members for Ministers to make an announcement of significance to the media when their duty is to come to the Chamber. I will look at it, and, if necessary, I will write to the Executive Office on the matter. The time that it takes to answer questions was also raised today.

In all those things, it is important for democracy that the Executive and the Assembly work together. The Assembly has a scrutiny role, and the Executive have the executive role. It is important that the Executive cooperate with the Assembly when it is conducting the scrutiny role, because it is the elected position of the people in the Chamber to do that on behalf of the public. Therefore, it is critical that it happens. Thank you for bringing the matter to us, Mr Buchanan.

Members should take their ease for a moment before we move to the next item of business.

Ms K Armstrong (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures): I beg to move

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

Ms K Armstrong: On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I am pleased to bring forward a new Standing Order, which provides for an annual debate on the Executive's legislative programme.

The addition to Standing Orders is one of the recommendations of the inquiry into private Members' Bills that was undertaken by the previous Committee on Procedures and approved by the Assembly on 14 March 2022. That Committee did not have time to bring in the Standing Order before the end of that mandate and, therefore, recommended that its successor Committee do so in this mandate. The recommendation to provide for an annual debate on the Executive's legislative programme arose from the requirement of section 15(3) of the Assembly and Executive Reform (Assembly Opposition) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, which states:

The Business Committee and the Chairperson's Liaison Group (CLG) also supported provision for such an annual debate and indicated that it would be:

and facilitate Committees to better plan their scrutiny.

In developing the Standing Order presented to the Assembly today, the Committee on Procedures considered a range of potential approaches, received legal advice on a number of issues and took account of the process already adopted by the First Minister and deputy First Minister in this mandate.

Members will recall that the First Minister and deputy First Minister tabled a motion that was debated on 11 June 2024 on the Executive's legislative programme of Bills to be introduced in the Assembly in 2024, details of which were set out in a written ministerial statement dated 23 May 2024. That information was more recently supplemented by a written ministerial statement that provided an update on the Executive's legislative programme for the remainder of the 2024-25 Assembly session.

I turn to the detail of the Standing Order. Paragraph 1 provides for time to be allocated for an annual debate on the Executive's legislative programme as required by the 2016 Act that I referenced earlier. On the Bills that are intended to be introduced during the Assembly session, paragraphs 2 and 3 provide for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to table a motion for debate:

The Business Committee must select the motion for debate, which should take place within 10 working days of the day on which the motion is tabled, in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I was formerly, briefly, a Member of the Committee on Procedures. This is an important thing that is being brought forward. Does the Member agree that part of the reason that it is so important is that, although we are now in 2025, there are several Bills outstanding from what was, originally, the 2024 legislative programme? This new Standing Order will allow us to keep a score, on behalf of the public, of all those bits of delivery.

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

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you. I hope not to take it, because I am aware that this is the last debate before recess.

I absolutely agree with the Member. We have recognised, in the Standing Order, that there is a need for flexibility, as there may be circumstances that affect the ability to table the motion within the expected time frame. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Standing Order provide for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to make a statement setting out the reason for not tabling the motion within that time frame and providing a revised date for when, within that calendar year, a revised date will be set to debate the motion on the Executive's legislative programme.

The Standing Order fulfils the legislative requirements; is based closely on the approach that is already adopted by the First Minister and deputy First Minister to a debate on the Executive's legislative programme; and provides greater clarity on the expected time frame. It will assist the planning and scheduling of work during each Assembly session, provide appropriate flexibility should they be unable to meet the time frame, and implement the recommendation of the previous Committee on Procedures, which was endorsed by the Assembly in March 2022. Prior to finalising and agreeing the Standing Order, the Committee sought the views of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, all parties and the independent Assembly Member. At its meeting on 18 June 2025, the Committee agreed to bring the Standing Order to the Assembly for approval.

In my capacity as Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, I thank the Deputy Chairperson and all members of the Committee for their constructive approach and detailed input to the Standing Order and to the work of the Committee more generally. I also thank our Committee Clerks, who are known affectionately as "Christella", and the officers who have worked so hard throughout the session to complete a significant workload. Thank you very much to all of them.

I trust that Members will view the proposed change as a constructive and useful addition to Standing Orders, and I look forward to the debate. As an individual Alliance Party MLA and as a scrutiny MLA, I am delighted that we will have prior knowledge of the Executive's legislative programme at the start of a session. That will make life an awful lot easier for Committees and help us to hold Ministers to account.

Ms Hunter: I will speak, briefly, on the new Standing Order. I thank the Chair of the Committee for her work chairing the Committee. The SDLP welcomes the new Standing Order, which seeks to include an annual debate on the Assembly's legislative programme. The new Standing Order speaks to the importance of openness and transparency in the Assembly in relation to Executive business. Having been the Opposition for the past 500 days or so, our view is that this is of great importance and allows for the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and the rest of the Executive, to be held accountable for their work. I put on record my frustration that the Executive have still not delivered their 2024 legislative programme. We are elected to the House to deliver for people, and transparency and accountability are key to showing the public that we are focused on putting in place legislation that can adequately change their lives.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Órlaithí Flynn to wind on the debate. You have up to five minutes, Órlaithí.

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

Like the Chairperson, I, as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, welcome the opportunity to speak in and conclude on the debate on the motion to provide, in Standing Orders, for an annual debate on the Executive's legislative programme.

I begin by thanking Cara Hunter, who said a few words in the debate, and giving a special thank you to our Committee Chairperson, Kellie, for all her work on the Committee to date and for opening the debate. There was full support in the Committee for the new Standing Order. I am glad that, this evening, Members seem to be content to pass the motion to introduce the Standing Order. The points that Cara highlighted, on accountability, transparency and openness, are really important. I hope that, through the annual debate on the legislative programme, Cara and other Members will feel that we have those things. I am pleased that Members are content with the Standing Order.

It is important that, as the Chair of the Committee outlined, the Assembly fulfils the requirement of section 15(3) of the Assembly and Executive Reform Act 2016 and implements the recommendation of the previous Committee on Procedures, which was endorsed by the Assembly, by providing for an annual debate on the Executive's legislative programme. The proposed Standing Order makes that provision. It recognises the process that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have adopted on the Executive's legislative programme in this mandate, and it includes a time frame that should assist the planning and scheduling of Committee and plenary work.

I thank Kellie, our Chairperson, and all the members of the Committee who took the time to get involved in the discussions as we compiled the draft Standing Order. A very big thank you to the wonderful Committee staff and all the individuals and teams who gave evidence to the Committee and provided us with advice and guidance on bringing forward the proposal. Again, I am pleased that everyone seems to be happy enough to pass the new Standing Order. I commend it to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Just before we move to item 6 in the Order Paper, I wish you all a very safe summer. Hopefully, we will not see anybody back in the Chamber — says he, hopefully — until September.