Official Report: Tuesday 04 November 2025

Mrs Dillon: I rise to mark Occupational Therapy Week 2025, which provides us with the opportunity to celebrate the vital and far-reaching contribution of occupational therapists across our health and social care system. Whether it is helping someone to regain mobility after injury, supporting a child with developmental challenges or enabling an older adult to live safely at home, their work is invaluable. It is about giving people independence and a good quality of life.

As you will all be aware, occupational therapists are central to improving hospital discharge processes, facilitating timely rehabilitation and strengthening community-based care. Their work spans a range of diverse settings, including in the home and in education and mental health facilities. The challenge, for them and us, is that there are simply not enough of them to meet the growing need in our community. I commend the Royal College of Occupational Therapists for launching its first workforce strategy action plan in January of this year. The plan sets out a clear and ambitious vision for the future of the profession. Cuireann sé i gcuimhne dúinn go mbaineann fíordhaoine le gach staitistic agus páipéar beartais, daoine lena bhfuil a gcaighdeán beatha ag brath ar thacaíocht thráthúil, oilte chomhbhách ó theiripeoir saothair.

As we celebrate this week, I call on the Minister of Health to prioritise strategic workforce planning. We must ensure that occupational therapists are equipped to meet future demand, supported in their development and recognised for the transformative impact that they have on individuals, families and our communities. Nuair a dhéanaimid infheistíocht sa lucht saothair againn, déanaimid infheistíocht i neamhspleáchas, i ndínit agus i ndeis ár bpobail — díreach na rudaí a ligeann do dhaoine togha saoil a bheith acu.

Ms Forsythe: This year's Royal British Legion Poppy Appeal was officially launched on Thursday 23 October. Many of us will wear a poppy proudly in memory of the fallen of our nation and for the future of the living. The sale of remembrance poppies and donations enable practical, financial and emotional support to be given to our armed forces community. I wear my poppy with pride.

Last week, I was made aware of a sinister threat to poppy sellers at Tesco in Newry. The faceless group behind the threat called on Tesco to:

That is disgraceful. Online intimidation is disgraceful. All intimidation is absolutely disgraceful. Newry city was the scene of many shocking and heinous attacks during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Those attacks resulted in the murder of two British Army soldiers, one member of the British Territorial Army and four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Three former members and 21 serving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary also lost their lives to terrorists. The humble poppy pays tribute to all of them.

To those poppy sellers in Newry, volunteering their time to support that valuable charity and its work to support our armed forces community, I say, "Thank you. We stand with you". I thank all the poppy sellers across the country for their dedication, and, of course, I thank our armed forces for their selfless service to us all. The Members on this side of the House will always remember those who fought in service of our country and those who died in defence of our freedoms and way of life. We will stand up for everyone's right to sell a poppy without the fear of intimidation. We wear our poppies with pride.

Mr Blair: Mr Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending the final plenary session of the second Youth Assembly on Saturday past, and I know that you were also there. I take this opportunity to recognise the dedication and hard work of everyone involved.

At Saturday's event, the Youth Assembly Members launched their legacy report, which chronicles their extensive work from 2023 onwards. The legacy report is a testament to the dedication and engagement of the Youth Assembly Members. They have played a significant role in shaping policy and debate across a wide range of issues. The depth and breadth of the Youth Assembly's involvement is highlighted by its collaboration with the Justice Committee on the Justice Bill; its input to the Education and Economy Committees during the independent review of education; and its valuable perspectives on the Dilapidation Bill, delivered to and through the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. The Youth Assembly also engaged on and addressed a host of other issues, including the plight of young carers. Such a broad remit across all Departments truly demonstrates the scope of the Youth Assembly Members' understanding and why they are held in such high regard as credible, articulate representatives of young people in Northern Ireland. That important legacy report has been provided to every MLA and is also available online. I encourage everyone to take time to read it, as it offers a unique insight into the achievements and perspectives of our Youth Assembly Members.

I look forward to seeing what those remarkable young people will go on to achieve. I also look forward very much to working with the 90 newly recruited Members for the 2025-27 mandate. That new group reflects the diversity of our society, with Members coming from every constituency across Northern Ireland. We must always recognise and commend the hard work, commitment and enthusiasm of those young people. They have succeeded in their Youth Assembly roles while juggling demanding school or college schedules, exams and extracurricular activities. I also pay tribute to the dedicated and enthusiastic team of Assembly officials who have supported and encouraged our Youth Assembly since its inception.

I am deeply impressed by the increase in confidence and contribution that I have observed amongst the Youth Assembly Members. Their efforts should never be taken for granted, and they should be celebrated by us all. I wish all outgoing and incoming Youth Assembly Members every success for the future.

Mr Speaker: I am probably not supposed to, but I endorse all of that.

Ms D Armstrong: I commend the outstanding achievement of four pupils from Enniskillen Royal Grammar School, Conor Phair, Mackenzie Wilson, Jensen Lindsey and Alfie Thompson, who were recently crowned overall winners of the 2025 ABP Aberdeen Angus Youth Challenge. The four young County Fermanagh farmers claimed the top spot, competing against 20 teams across Northern Ireland.

Since they entered the competition in September 2024, it is safe to say that the boys were kept busy. On qualifying for the final, they received five calves from ABP Food Group to rear through to finishing. They went on to receive skills development in the beef industry on a 12-month programme, winning a £1,000 cash prize for their school at the end of it. As part of the challenge, the boys developed a project called "One Health: The Link Between Animal, Human and Plant Health", which tackled the critical issue of soil sustainability. They developed a soil analysis results guide to simplify complex data for farmers, distributed it to local vets, marts and agri-stores and hosted a "Healthy Soil, Healthy Future" conference, which raised an impressive £4,120. In total, the boys raised over £6,500 for Air Ambulance NI and Rural Support, which shows just how education and agriculture can come together to deliver real-world impact in the community.

I commend not only the boys but Ruth Moore, their College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) adviser, and Enniskillen Royal Grammar School itself. The school fielded a total of three teams, with each reaching the semi-final stage. All three teams have done their school and County Fermanagh proud. It is clear that we have a strong, vibrant agriculture sector in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Those pupils represent the next generation of farmers and rural leaders who have been equipped with knowledge and the drive to make a difference. Their success reminds us of the importance of investing in rural education and supporting initiatives that help young people to grow and make their mark in the agri-food industry. I trust that all Members will join me in congratulating the Enniskillen Royal Grammar School team on this remarkable achievement. The boys, their teachers and their families have done their school, their county and Northern Ireland proud.

Mr McAleer: I congratulate my home club, Cumann Naomh Treasa Loch Mhic Ruairí, on winning its first ever Tyrone senior football championship last Sunday. The game against Trillick and, indeed, the path to the final were extremely competitive and nail-biting but played in the best of spirits.

Our club was formed in 1972, so it is still relatively young. We spent most of those years playing in junior or immediate football, so to win a senior title in one of the most competitive counties in Ireland is a massive achievement of which I and countless others are very proud. The scenes when the lads returned home to the lough last Sunday evening were something to behold, and, of course, the celebrations continued for a number of days. That included when the Madden Raparees, who won the Armagh championship, arrived in Loughmacrory on Tuesday evening. Our two clubs are for ever connected through the Grimley brothers, one of whom plays for our club and two of whom play for their home club in Madden. That family, more than any, deserves great achievements such as this following the harrowing tragedy that it has endured.

Loughmacrory clubman and local historian Seamus Mullan penned the history of our club in a book called 'Making Our Own Heroes'. That title is a most fitting description of how the lads who make up the team and the panel are seen in our community: grounded, modest and disciplined. Our children need look no further than that group of players for role models. I am certain that that is the case for every GAA club across Ireland.

I pay tribute to Trillick, who really put it up to Loughmacrory in the final, in what was a tough physical encounter but was played in the best of spirits. I recognise that this has been an emotional year for Trillick, especially since the passing of its esteemed colleague Jody Gormley, whose spirit lives on among that team. I was delighted to see the club win the Tyrone league title at the weekend.

After the game last Sunday, Loughmacrory clubman Ciaran Meenagh said that, for 20 years or more, he stood in the stand or terrace in Healy Park on county final days hoping for even one day in the sun to see the lads in amber and black walking behind the band. That wish has come true, and it is due to decades of hard work and dedication. I sincerely hope for many more county titles to follow. Well done to Loughmacrory senior team, the lads from the lough, and good luck against Kilcoo in the Ulsters this Saturday.

Mrs Dodds: I rise to outline our opposition to the public health Bill, which the Minister has now withdrawn and on which he has told his officials to go back to the drawing board. First, I state clearly that no one doubts that public health legislation that dates from 1967 should be revised and that that should be done as soon as possible and that it should be up to date. We must also ensure that it tackles the issues of today. However, the public health Bill did not meet our criterion for such a Bill, which is that it strike a fair balance between fulfilling public health objectives and defending personal liberty as the cornerstone of a democratic society.

We are clear that sweeping powers should not be handed to the Minister of Health to impose restrictions that would directly impact on private and family life, education, employment and movement. Having lived through the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, we understand that such powers and the lockdowns that they enabled led to major social and economic disruption, had serious impacts on personal health and derailed the educational and emotional development of many children and young people. In particular, we will continue to reject mandatory vaccination or plans to compel citizens to undergo any form of medical treatment against their wishes. Any future public health framework for Northern Ireland must be underpinned in law and practice by the principle of informed consent. I am glad that we are going back to the drawing board on the legislation, and I urge the Minister and his Department to ensure that the principles that I have outlined are fundamental to any new public health Bill.

Mr Dickson: Today marks the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights. That charter was born out of the horrors of World War II, with the United Kingdom playing a leading role in setting minimum standards by which Governments across Europe agreed to abide. That improved respect for human rights across Europe. No signatory state has instituted the death penalty for 25 years, and the convention has facilitated cross-border cooperation on issues of joint interest, such as crime and human trafficking.

As a Winston Churchill Fellow, I am proud to know that Churchill was a key early advocate and the spiritual architect of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, he championed the idea of a united Europe based on shared values and human rights to prevent future atrocities and resist the spread of communism. As chair of the non-governmental European Movement, he presided over the 1948 Congress of Europe in The Hague, which called for a charter of human rights and a court of justice.

Today, in Northern Ireland, the convention not only plays a pivotal role in securing the foundation of our peace process but, along with the court, was and is integral to building trust in such public institutions as our Police Service and security services after decades of conflict. The convention is explicitly embedded in the Good Friday Agreement. The agreement requires that the rights in the convention be incorporated into Northern Ireland law, a requirement met through the UK Human Rights Act 1998.

Today, I highlight the convention's role in safeguarding fundamental freedoms and its critical importance for maintaining justice and democracy not just in Northern Ireland but across the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. The convention protects the human rights and fundamental freedoms of over 700 million people. It protects the right to life; a fair hearing; respect for privacy; private and family life; freedom of expression; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and the protection of property.

The charter prohibits torture, inhuman and degrading behaviour and punishment through slavery or forced labour; the death penalty; arbitrary and unlawful detention; discrimination in employment and in the rights and freedoms that are set out in the convention and its protocol.

Let us today mark 75 years of the convention and remember its origins in the aftermath of World War II and the rights and freedoms that it protects.

Mr Gildernew: Céim stairiúil chun cinn don Ghaeilge, dár bpobal agus dár n-oidhreacht chomhchoiteann a bhí i gceapachán an choimisinéara teanga an tseachtain seo caite. D'fhógair Oifig an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin an tseachtain seo caite go rachadh Pól Deeds i gceann oibre mar choimisinéir nua sna seachtainí seo amach romhainn. Is geal liom an ceapachán seo, ceapachán a comhaontaíodh in Ré Nua, Cur Chuige Nua sa bhliain 2020.

Is bunchloch faoin reachtaíocht nua teanga atá againn ceapachán an choimisinéara, 20 bliain ó tugadh gealltanas ar dtús faoi Acht Gaeilge a thabhairt isteach. Tá rath agus bláth ar an Ghaeilge ar fad. Daingneofar agus neartófar an fás agus an fhorbairt sin le ceapachán coimisinéara. Beidh ról tábhachtach, lárnach aige, agus beidh dualgas air gearáin ón phobal a fhiosrú faoi údaráis phoiblí nach ndéanann de réir na gcaighdeán nua teanga.

Tá an Tuaisceart ar thús cadhnaíochta in athbheochan na teanga: chríochnaigh Oireachtas na Samhna Dé Domhnaigh, féile theanga a bhí ar siúl i mBéal Feirste; beidh Ard-Fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge agus Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann ann i mBéal Feirste fosta. Is imeachtaí iad sin a bhfuil an Ghaeilge fite fuaite iontu, imeachtaí ina léirítear agus ina gcuirtear saibhreas ár gcultúir agus ár dteanga chun cinn.

Tá sé thar am coimisinéir a bheith ceaptha ag an stát le forbairt na teanga a stiúradh, a neartú agus a chinntiú. Strácáil na nGael agus feachtasaíocht pholaitíochta le 50 bliain anuas is bunsiocair leis an cheapachán. Gairim sibh as bheith chomh righin, dochloíte, dianseasmhach. Ba cheart eang a chur sa mhaide mullaigh toisc an ceapachán seo á dhéanamh. Guím gach rath air agus ar an Dr Katy Radford agus ar Lee Reynolds ina bpoist nua. Go n-éirí libh uilig.

Miss McAllister: As chair of the all-party group on stroke, I am delighted to mark World Stroke Day, which fell on 29 October. There is an event today in the Long Gallery at 12.30 pm, and I hope that as many Members as possible can come along to it.

I want to highlight the impact and magic of modern medicine and how it can transform lives here. There are over 41,000 stroke survivors in Northern Ireland, and someone here will have a stroke every two hours. Many people will recover thanks to our skilled and dedicated specialist stroke staff, including consultants and nurses, who work across the entire stroke pathway to provide expert care in acute stroke units. After hospital discharge, we have speech and language therapists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and support recovery counsellors who offer much-needed psychological, physical and emotional care long after a stroke has occurred.

I want to focus on one key aspect of stroke care: thrombectomy. A thrombectomy is a mechanical procedure that, if carried out on eligible stroke survivors in a timely manner, can save brains, save money and change lives. Some of the most powerful stories about stroke survivors whose lives have been transformed by that treatment have been captured in a documentary entitled 'Thrombectomy: Restoring Life' by Harry Bateman, a local film-maker. As chair of the all-party group on stroke, I am proud to sponsor the event today, which will highlight that video. We have had a preview of it. The film has an emotional impact, and it should be highlighted, particularly those families who support stroke survivors.

However, with only 4·3% of stroke survivors receiving a thrombectomy last year, we are still falling short. At least 10% of stroke patients are thought to be eligible, meaning that many are missing out on that life-changing treatment. The only way to ensure that every eligible patient receives a thrombectomy is by providing a 24/7 service. That was committed to by many parties, and, in the stroke action plan published in June 2022, the Department of Health committed to delivering such a service by the end of 2024.

We know that budgets are tight and services are strapped, but we must move to prevention in order to save. That is the magic of medicine. Medicine and science have evolved. They can eradicate disease, help to speed up recovery and take the strain off our health service, so we must invest. We must ensure that the over 100 people who missed out on thrombectomy services last year do not miss out again.

I invite Members to the event in the Long Gallery today to meet some of the survivors and hear their stories.

Mr Brett: Last week, the deputy First Minister and I were delighted to host the aerospace, defence and space council in Northern Ireland. It was a vital opportunity for us to showcase the industries that are at the very heart of Northern Ireland's economic strength and innovation. In every corner of Northern Ireland, world-leading companies are designing, manufacturing and maintaining the technology that keeps the United Kingdom and its allies safe. From advanced aircraft companies and cutting-edge defence systems to cybersecurity expertise, Northern Ireland's contribution to that vital sector is something that we should all be proud of. Already employing around 10,000 people and worth over £2 billion to our economy, the sector is set to grow even further, with last week's news of defence contracts being awarded to Northern Ireland and a defence growth deal of £250 million.

Those industries are not just about national security; they are engines of economic opportunity. They provide long-term careers for our young people, attract inward investment and sustain local communities. This success is a clear demonstration once again of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom, giving us access to a national defence programme, shared expertise and a scale of investment not seen anywhere else. Yet, while Invest Northern Ireland's report recognises the importance of the defence sector, the Economy Minister seems intent on undermining it. Since taking up her role as Minister for the Economy, she has failed even to meet the ADS Group, which is the very organisation representing our aerospace, defence and security sectors. Instead, she issued a politically charged written ministerial statement that overstepped her authority and risked damaging confidence in the sector. That will come as no surprise because the self-proclaimed "First Minister for all" described recent investment as "incredulous" and, indeed, was unavailable when the Bank of America came to Northern Ireland to announce thousands of new jobs. That is why this party has acted. I pay tribute to the Ulster Unionist Party and the Traditional Unionist Voice, which have ensured that we have secured the 30 signatures required to call in to the Executive the disgraceful decision by the Minister for the Economy. While others talk this country down, these Benches will always turn up, stand up and proudly fly the flag for Northern Ireland.

Mr Burrows: The risk of political policing in Northern Ireland remains current, and that is a risk from Sinn Féin, which is continuing to interfere in policing in this country. I revealed last week that Sinn Féin was demanding — I see that its Members cannot look up, probably in shame — that PSNI officers not carry their firearms into meetings, community meetings and Sinn Féin offices. That is not only dangerous, putting an invidious pressure on our officers, but represents a breach of policing by consent and the very nature of democratic policing. No political party can interfere with the operational independence of our police officers, let alone a party with the history of Sinn Féin. I revealed that last week, and I have written to the Chief Constable so that he makes a clear direction that that does not happen again and that his officers are told to resist such approaches. This morning's 'Nolan' show revealed that that is routine practice in west Belfast. That is shameful. I want to hear what the Policing Board members say about that in the course of the rest of the week.

It is clear to me, however, that, since Sinn Féin joined the Policing Board in 2007, it has tried to control, coerce and manipulate police officers. After Gerry Adams was arrested, Bobby Storey stood up and said very clearly, "Hands off our party leader". Sinn Féin tries to create a chill factor every time that the police enforce a law against its community or against one of its own. I have heard the pressure and the lobbying, and I have had the phone calls, and I never succumbed to it. The previous Chief Constable lost his job because two senior members of Sinn Féin told him to suspend an officer who was entirely innocent and threatened that, if he did not, they would call for his resignation on the 'Sunday Politics' show a few days later.

That is what we are dealing with. This time, however, it is junior constables who are being manipulated, coerced and controlled. I will be eternally vigilant to the attempts of that party to control and manipulate our police officers. I can tell you that they trust me and will bring those issues to me if they feel that no one else is listening. I will hold you to account. You have a long way to go on policing. It is time that you took the final step and signed up to normal, democratic policing and stopped trying to use your influence to intimidate, bully and coerce our police officers day and daily in their jobs. You are politicians like anyone else. The army is gone, and you have no more threats. I will ensure that the PSNI stands up to your bullying and your pressure.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, you have a couple of minutes.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Over recent weeks, concerns have been brought to my attention regarding vandalism in Parliament Buildings. It is behaviour that would disgrace any workplace, never mind the seat of the Government. I refer specifically to the deliberate flooding of the toilets in this Building. On one occasion, I discovered taps intentionally left running with the sink blocked, leaving the floor saturated. On speaking directly to our hard-working cleaning staff, it became clear that that was not an isolated incident.

To get clarity, I tabled a question for written answer to the Assembly Commission, and the response confirmed the scale of the problem. There have been multiple deliberate flooding incidents in the past year alone. Those occurred on 14 January, in the first-floor ladies' toilets beside room 144, and on 19 May, in the second-floor male toilets beside room 282. On 14 October, there were two separate incidents in the same male toilet beside room 282. On 16 October, there was another incident in the same male toilet. On 20 October, there was an incident in the third-floor male toilets beside room 368. [Interruption.]

The members of the Alliance Party and the SDLP may laugh and sneer at my raising this issue, but I will stick up for our hard-working cleaners in this place, because somebody is deliberately flooding the toilets. It is childish vandalism, and it needs to stop. [Interruption.]

I am glad that you find it so funny, Mr McCrossan.

Mr McCrossan: There are bigger issues.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. There are bigger issues, but that is happening in this place, which is the seat of the Government. That is what is going on. It is not happening in public areas but in areas that are accessible only to pass-holders: MLAs and their staff, and Assembly staff. Such behaviour is disgraceful —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Please draw your remarks to a close, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: It is shameful waste of public money —

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

Mr Gaston: — and I am disappointed that there are MLAs here who think that that is funny.

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

Mr Gaston: It is childish vandalism —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — and our cleaners have to clean it up. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. Let us have a bit of order and decorum here. We have a Minister here who wants to make a statement.

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

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address the Assembly on the outcome of the independent review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland and to set out my proposed way forward.

I have always firmly believed in an independent environmental protection agency (EPA) for Northern Ireland.

For too long, our environment and nature have suffered from a lack of robust protections, and we are all seeing the consequences of that. This short, sharp and comprehensive review has provided the foundations for building a brighter future for our environment. We cannot continue to dodge this critical issue. Now is the time for action: the people of Northern Ireland expect and deserve it.

As we all know, Northern Ireland continues to experience significant environmental pressures. For example, there are water-quality concerns, including the widely recognised issues that are affecting Lough Neagh, and ongoing remediation challenges at the Mobuoy illegal waste site. Those pressures are compounded by the impacts of climate change, which is driving more frequent extreme weather events, biodiversity loss and soil degradation. Alongside those pressures, we continue to face challenges in tackling waste crime, improving air quality, restoring habitats and species, and delivering on our commitments to a circular economy. Taken collectively, those issues underline the urgent need for more effective governance to protect our environment and restore public confidence and trust in our environmental protection arrangements.

As Members are aware, 'New Decade, New Approach' included a clear commitment from the parties that were entitled to form an Executive that, as part of a Programme for Government, a returning Executive would establish an independent environmental protection agency. Our latest Programme for Government commits the Executive to complete a review of environmental governance and commits me, as AERA Minister, to present a proposed way forward to the Executive for consideration and agreement.

In November 2024, I appointed an expert independent panel, led by Dr Viviane Gravey of Queen's University Belfast and supported by Diane Ruddock, a National Trust retiree, and John McCallister, a representative and member of the Ulster Farmers' Union. The panel was tasked with carrying out a review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland to assess the adequacy of the current arrangements and provide recommendations for improvement for my consideration. I put on record my sincere thanks to Viviane, Diane and John for carrying out that extensive and complex review as expert individuals.

The panel launched a call for evidence in January 2025. A total of 590 responses were received via Citizen Space and email. That was supported by three public events and substantial in-depth interviews with regulators, regulated parties and broader stakeholders across Northern Ireland, Great Britain and Ireland. The panel published its final report on 21 October 2025.

The report is extensive and detailed, and it provides a clear evidence-based case for change. It is unequivocal in its conclusion that the current environmental governance system is not fit for purpose and is failing everyone. The crisis in our environment is also a governance crisis, thus governance reform is a critical part of the solution.

The panel has set out a practical road map for reform that is structured around four key themes: clarity and coherence; meaningful independence; better compliance; and transparency and accountability. Those themes underpin 32 recommendations, which, when taken together, aim to deliver a governance system that the panel considers to be robust, trustworthy and capable of meeting Northern Ireland's environmental obligations and restoring public confidence.

At the heart of the panel's recommendations is the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body. Its functions would include oversight of air and water quality, waste management, nature and biodiversity and the marine environment. In the panel's view, that model provides the right balance of independence, accountability and deliverability, ensuring clear separation between policymaking and regulation whilst aligning with best practice from across these islands. I agree.

Northern Ireland is an outlier, as we are the only region in the UK and Ireland that does not have an independent environmental protection agency. That position is simply not sustainable. I recognise, as does the panel, that independence is not a silver bullet that will improve environmental governance in Northern Ireland, but it is a critical part of the overall governance system. Establishing an independent environmental protection agency is about much more than just aligning with what other regions are doing.

I assure Members that, as a non-departmental public body, the new agency will still be accountable to the Assembly, and its functions and the legislative framework within which it would work would be determined by Ministers and approved by the Assembly. Crucially, though, it would be overseen by an independent board that is led by a non-executive chair and would have full operational independence in how it discharges its functions. That would ensure that a new EPA would be able to carry out its regulatory, advisory and enforcement duties without political interference. Effective functional independence is important in building trust and confidence in the body's work.

Now is a pivotal moment for us all: we should establish an independent environmental protection agency, as recommended by the independent panel. We are witnessing more and more visible signs that our environment is struggling, and we need to take the decisions now to change course. The costs of inaction are simply too great. We should look no further than Lough Neagh or the illegal dump at Mobuoy, which, as you will know, could cost hundreds of millions of pounds to resolve. Failed environmental governance and non-compliance with environmental law result in huge costs to the public purse, so we must invest now to make savings in the longer term.

Inaction also leads to increasingly degraded ecosystems, public health risks, negative impacts on people’s livelihoods and lost opportunities for sustainable growth. Without decisive reform, Northern Ireland will continue to fall behind in meeting its environmental obligations and the public will continue to pay the price in quality of life and economic resilience. Restoring trust and confidence in environmental protection is crucial for the economy and for our communities. Better and more accountable regulation will create a fair and level playing field for all.

I therefore intend to seek the support of my Executive colleagues to agree, in principle, to the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body of DAERA. That agreement in principle would allow us to move swiftly to look in greater detail at the powers, functions and status of the new body, together with the financial implications. Following public consultation, firm policy proposals will be brought back to the Executive to enable my Department to draft and implement the legislation needed to set up the new non-departmental public body.

The report also makes a number of recommendations that fall within the remit of my Department. In parallel with our work to prepare for an independent environmental protection agency, I will work with my officials to take forward those recommendations. Some aspects already align with work that is ongoing or our own plans for improvement.

As I have said on many occasions, there are no quick fixes to the significant environmental challenges that we face today. Environmental governance is no different. However, I am fully committed to strengthening environmental governance in Northern Ireland, improving public confidence in our arrangements and, ultimately, reducing environmental degradation. I hope that Members will support me in seeking to establish a new independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body of DAERA. I will, of course, update Members as the work progresses and following Executive consideration.

Mr McCrossan: It is nearly two years since you were appointed as Minister of this Department, four years since the Alliance Party promised an independent environmental protection agency and six years since the Executive parties agreed to it in 'New Decade, New Approach', yet all you have to show today is another review telling us what we already know. When it comes to reviews, this place could teach Tripadvisor a few things.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Daniel, is there a question?

Mr McCrossan: We do not need another report, Minister, to tell us that Lough Neagh is dying; we can see that with our own eyes. The simple question is this: when will the talking stop and the independent environmental protection agency finally be established, not in principle or in theory but in practice?

Mr Muir: I have set out today the process that I am taking forward. Since we left the EU, we have a very different environmental landscape. I need support, in principle, for an independent environmental protection agency. Now is the time for a decision on that. Once we get that agreed — hopefully — we will move to consultation. The cooperation of the Assembly is absolutely critical. If Members believe in this, they need to work with me on its implementation, so that we can have it legislated for by the end of the mandate.

I am up for doing it. You mentioned timescales. We lost two years of this mandate. You know why that was: it was not because of the Alliance Party or your party; it was because one party decided to walk away, which has constrained an awful lot of what we do in this place. I work night and day to deliver in my Department, within a constrained mandate and budget situation. However, I am determined to make progress on this, and Members need to back me.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for the advance notice of the publication of the report. The Committee will consider it for the first time this week.

The Minister has said that the agency will be a non-departmental public body. What specific vires or terms of reference does the Minister see the agency having to ensure that there is no crossover or duplication of work with agencies that already exist and that it will not be seen as another barrier to environmentally compliant and sustainable planning applications?

Mr Muir: The report, which is excellent, was written by three respected individuals, who came forward as individuals to look at the issue. They have outlined what the functions of the independent environmental protection agency should be, and those functions relate to air and water quality, waste management, nature and biodiversity, and the marine environment.

One of the key benefits of this — there are many — relates to planning applications. The speed at which the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) turns around responses is not good enough. We need an independent environmental protection agency that is properly funded and properly resourced so that we can turn around responses to planning applications and allow people to move forward on all the issues about which they are asking for advice from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. That will be critical. It will be absolutely fundamental that we are able to change that and turn it around. We have many non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in Northern Ireland. It is lost on me why anyone would oppose this.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his statement. We absolutely support the creation of an independent environmental protection agency.

Minister, the review recommends developing memorandums of understanding and formal collaboration on North/South and east-west bases to improve coherence and share best practice. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the South regarding a joint, cross-border funding mechanism to support the environmental governance reforms and new regulatory structures recommended in the review?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her support. It is appreciated. The report sets out quite a lot when it comes to the independent environmental protection agency and the other issues that the Member has highlighted. We need to have much more joined-up working between Departments and agencies in Northern Ireland but, when it comes to regulators, also on North/South and east-west bases. That is why those memorandums of understanding are set out. There is work that I need Executive approval for, but there is other stuff that we can take forward as a Department. We should do that, because the environmental challenges do not stop at the border. We need to cooperate. We already do that through established functions and structures, but we need to solidify that through memorandums of understanding. I am keen to work with officials to take that forward.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his statement. If the Department cannot adequately fund what is currently in place, how can we expect a new, additional organisation to be properly funded to carry out its functions? Further to that, what safeguards did the panel suggest should be established to prevent the mission creep seen with other independent bodies established through statute? The Equality Commission and Ashers case comes to mind in that regard.

Mr Muir: Right. When it comes to funding, the independent review clearly sets that out. I will quote from it:

one of the risks is reduced funding —

That is an important recommendation.

The other issue is in relation to accountability. There is a recommendation in the review that I have passed on to the Speaker about the scrutiny mechanisms of the Assembly in regard to the non-departmental public body. That has merit as well.

On the linkage to Ashers, I am lost, to be honest.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for his statement. In the Minister's opinion, what has the cost been to our environment of previous inaction on establishing an independent environmental protection agency? I ask that in the context of some in the SDLP, for example, forgetting that that party held the brief before and did not deliver on that.

Mr Muir: The cost of inaction and the lack of efficient and robust protections for our environment is substantial. The cost of remediation on the Mobuoy site could be between £100 million and £700 million, and, this year, my Department is spending over £17 million on the crisis at Lough Neagh. I could continue. The business case is very clear. We cannot allow ourselves to get into the same situation again. We also need to restore people's trust and confidence in environmental protection, because it is at an all-time low and we have to turn it around. I am setting out a way forward to do that.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, thank you for the statement. You know that I have raised issues in my constituency with you many times, particularly the issues with odours and air pollution in Killeeshil and Granville. I have also raised the issue of an independent agency. Can you assure those communities that the agency will have the teeth to address those issues and will work with those communities to ensure that they can live with sound air quality?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Colm. I have a couple of things to say. First, I thank all the staff who work in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. I feel extremely privileged to work with them. I was with them this morning at an event on invasive species, and I will be with them throughout the week. They are good staff, they are working really hard under significant resource constraints, and I am very grateful to them.

I have set out the resourcing issue. Ultimately, it is about the budgets that are allocated, but we need to have mechanisms in place to call it out if the environment agency, as a non-departmental public body, is being underfunded.

One of the other issues is that, under the legislation, the penalties available to the agency would be set by the Assembly. That will not be a silver bullet. Ultimately, political leadership will be required here to ensure that sufficient deterrents are in place and that the environmental protection agency, as an independent non-departmental public body, can use the proper enforcement mechanisms. It is really important that we give it teeth.

I am progressing a consultation on the fisheries and water environment Bill. When I bring that to the Executive, I will need their support for it. I will also need the Assembly's support to ensure that we have legislation in place to provide sufficient deterrents on the issue of water quality and in so many other areas.

Mr Mathison: Minister, thank you for your statement. Will you outline in more detail the advantage of establishing an environmental protection agency as a non-departmental public body?

Mr Muir: The report has set out the way forward, and I thank the panel for doing that. A lot of people said to me that they wanted an independent environmental protection agency, but, when I asked, "What would that look like? What would its functions be?", they were not able to answer. The report has answered that, particularly in the context of our leaving the EU and of the different arrangements that we have.

The non-departmental public body would have not just the necessary independence but accountability, which is important. It would have specific structures, such as an independent board, and the functions that I set out. We have many non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland that play a valuable role; for example, the Arts Council and Sport NI. Now is the time to ensure that we end the situation whereby Northern Ireland is an outlier by not having an independent body for environmental protection.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for your statement. You said that an independent environmental protection agency would have regulatory powers without political interference. One of the proposed themes is better compliance. How will the agency differentiate between deliberate discharge by NI Water, for example, and discharge from an old septic tank that no one knows is still working? How will it differentiate between phosphates that NI Water adds and phosphates discharged via household sources?

Mr Muir: One of the review recommendations, which I support, was that the independent environmental protection agency be able to set its own enforcement policy. It is important that it has that ability. That will answer a lot of your questions. If we get agreement in principle and people say, "Yes, we are on board with this. We want it" — to date, I have not had that from around the House; I am making a real effort to get support for this so that we can move it forward — we can scope out the details on the functions and the drafting of legislation.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Can you offer any assessment of the panel's recommendation to exit the arrangement with NI Water known as the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI)?

Mr Muir: I am on the record as consistently saying that the separate regulatory arrangement that has been in place for Northern Ireland Water since its establishment is not fit for purpose. The idea that NI Water often gets a bye ball on the pollution of our waterways is not acceptable.

I will quote from the review:

— call for evidence —

The review recommends that DAERA exit the current SORPI arrangement with Northern Ireland Water. Further to that, I will bring a paper to my Executive colleagues.

Mr McGlone: Minister, thank you for your statement. I note that the expert panel consulted widely and that you now intend to seek the support of your Executive colleagues to agree, in principle, the agency's establishment. I also note that that agreement in principle will lead to a further consultation exercise. Minister, can you give us assurances that we will not experience an environmental Groundhog Day with the EPA, which many of us support?

Mr Muir: There is a window of opportunity here for us to set up an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland. I need support, in principle, to do that. We will then go through the process that we are required to do, which is consultation. Sometimes I am criticised for doing too much consultation, but I am legally required to do it. We will then look to get Executive support for drafting legislation. With the Assembly's cooperation, which is critical — if people want this, they need to work with me — we can legislate for it by the end of the mandate. However, people need to put their money where their mouth is and support me in establishing the agency. There are many issues in my Department that I work night and day on. People need to understand that this is a priority for me and to support me on it.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answers. We are all aware of the devastating impact that the pollution of Lough Neagh has had on our beautiful natural environment. Alliance has long called for an independent environmental protection agency, and that included tabling an amendment to the climate change legislation, which many Members neither supported nor turned up for. Will the Minister detail other examples of where our current environmental protections have fallen short?

Mr Muir: The list is endless, unfortunately, Nuala. We have Lough Neagh, Mobuoy, nature decline and issues with air quality. Northern Ireland is a laggard in the environment. Whenever I say that or look to take action, I get vilified — vilified — because people are not prepared to take difficult decisions. This is a point of decision for this place, and people need to back me on it.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome it while recognising that the matter is also an NDNA commitment. Minister, you will appreciate that there are now quite a number of organisations in the regulatory landscape, such as the Shared Environmental Service (SES), the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), the NIEA, and there is now this new agency. Will it be important to unravel that landscape to explain to the public where precisely the functions sit in those organisations? I am thinking specifically of SES. Where will it sit in the new regulatory environment?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Declan. The independent panel's report was useful in teasing all that out. We have a very different regulatory landscape since leaving the EU.

SES supports district councils to process applications, and I respect that. NIEA has a separate role in planning applications. That would remain largely the case in the independent environmental protection agency. It is important to respect that. The Office for Environmental Protection's oversight function will remain in place and will replace, in part, the role of the European Commission. We should not underestimate the impact that leaving the EU has had on Northern Ireland. We all know that. We see it in not only the UK economy but the environment. There have been significant impacts and a changed landscape, and I am seeking to address that.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I entirely support the establishment of an independent EPA. It is long overdue, yet your Department seems to still be in go-slow mode. Minister, following decades of reports, commitments and promises, why has DAERA still not delivered a single ounce of accountability to those who are responsible for environmental destruction? Will the new EPA have any teeth? Why should communities believe that yet another agency will make a difference given that enforcement has not been acted on for decades?

Mr Muir: When you were asking your multiple questions, I was thinking about what the "S" in the SDLP stands for. I think that it is "sound bite".

Some Members: Ooh.

Mr Muir: When I came to this place to look for support to remove the cap on penalties for repeat polluters, your party did not support me. Who was it in Fermanagh and Omagh District Council —

Mr McNulty: Do your job.

Mr Muir: — who pushed for the return of Going for Growth? It was the SDLP, time and time again. You may turn round and pretend that you support the environment, but the reality is otherwise.

Mr O'Toole: That is utter nonsense.

Mr Muir: Sorry, but you are trying to turn around and do that. When I have looked for support on measures, you have not supported me. That is the truth, and sometimes the truth is inconvenient for you. [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Shush. Ladies and gentlemen, have a bit of decorum, please. Let us just keep it steady.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I will be upfront: I am highly sceptical of an independent environmental protection agency, as was my predecessor. In your statement, we are told:

That is a self-confessed, damning indictment of inaction from the Minister's Department. How will an additional quango make any difference, apart from blowing more public money?

Mr Muir: I set out the difference that it will make in my statement, as did the review report. If the Member does not understand that, I ask that he read it again.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the progress. I do not doubt the Minister's industry and effort. However, where we are now, in seeking approval from the Executive, is as far as I got as a previous Minister. Hopefully, there is now a majority in the Assembly and, therefore, one would imagine, in the Executive that will support the progress that he proposes. Will the Minister outline the envisaged costings of establishing this new independent environmental protection agency?

Mr Muir: The Alliance Party sought to progress it via an amendment to the climate change legislation, and your party did not even turn up.

Mr Durkan: When was that?

Mr O'Toole: We are supporting this.

Mr Muir: Sorry, but if you are not across the detail, that is not my problem. I set out the need for support, in principle, in regard to the agency. If we get that support in principle, we will work through the costings, but the costs of inaction are very significant. It is a no-brainer that we want to progress this.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, ladies and gentlemen. When we are debating this, please make your remarks through the Chair. That is what we are trying to do. On that point, I call Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, to be absolutely clear, we are the official Opposition. We respect the fact that you want to get it done, and we acknowledge that, but our job is to hold you to account. We make no apology for that. To be very clear, we hope that your proposals pass, and we will support them. We hope that they are passed through the Assembly before the end of the mandate. However, that looks very challenging in getting Executive support and getting it through the Assembly in the requisite time. That looks highly unlikely now, so why did you and your party not make it a specific red line and a condition when you entered the Executive? That is a reasonable question. Why not?

Mr Muir: People outside Northern Ireland look to this place with despair when they see people who turn around and hold these institutions to ransom over issues. We are focused on delivering for the citizens of Northern Ireland and working in a power-sharing Executive. It is difficult. Believe me, working in a power-sharing Executive is hard. Your party knows that as well, because it has been in the Executive before. You have to work with your partners in government, and they are partners in government. We do not see eye to eye on many different issues, but we have to work together. That is what I have sought to do since I became Minister, and I will continue to do that. However, if people turn around and we start going back to the world of demands and whether the institutions are up or down, I despair.

I will close by saying two things. First, the Chamber causes me great concern. It is nothing more than a toxic thunderdome in its engagement. Some people love that, and I think that that is poor. Secondly, I am happy to receive analysis and scrutiny on issues, but people need to make those points on issues of substance.

Mr McGrath: I welcome the statement. I welcome this line:

and

The people of Warrenpoint absolutely agree with that, because somebody has to wonder who under God the NIEA works for, because it is not the people of Northern Ireland. NIEA certainly does not keep an eye on the environment. I hope that this agency replaces the NIEA and that we can scrap it and get rid of it, because it is utterly useless.

Minister, will the new independent authority get cross-party buy-in and powers from other Ministers? For instance, the Department for Infrastructure looks after the ports, and, unfortunately, it is the people in areas such as Warrenpoint who lose out.

Mr Muir: I will seek support from others on the proposal. I will say to you, Colin, that the officials who work in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency —.

Mr McGrath: Useless.

Mr Muir: No.

Mr McGrath: Useless. Who pays for them?

Mr Muir: These are officials whom I have respect for. They are part of the Northern Ireland Civil Service —

Mr McGrath: No.

Mr Muir: — and they have my support. It is important that we respect individuals who work in public services in Northern Ireland. That is what I do.

Mr McGrath: Cannot even answer the question.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, please, no. That concludes questions on the statement. Just take your ease while we change the top Table.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance, Mr John O'Dowd, to move the Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill.

Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group of six amendments dealing with baby loss certificates; in addition to which notice has been given of opposition to clause 8 and to the schedule that concerns technical amendments relating to the registration of births and still-births by same-sex couples.

I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debate on the single group of amendments, they should address all the amendments and opposition to stand part Questions on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on the group is completed, any further amendments will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we will proceed.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the opposition to clause 8 standing part, the six amendments and the opposition to the schedule standing part. I advise Members that amendment Nos 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive.

I call Timothy Gaston to address his opposition to the Questions that clause 8 and the schedule stand part and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As you pointed out, the first item on the Marshalled List is my intention to oppose clause 8 standing part of the Bill. Linked to that is my opposition to the schedule. My opposition is consistent with that of my party, a founding principle of which is support for and promotion of traditional family values. That is a founding principle of my party and one that made me choose TUV.

The schedule amends the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 by inserting the term "second female parent" and replacing the words "both parents" with:

That amendment permits me to put some important facts on the record. I believe that a child needs both a father and a mother. That is a biological reality that has held true for as long as there has been life on this planet. While, sadly, there are occasions when families break up, that does not negate the need for a father in the conception of any child.

Writing a father out of a child's life is wrong. That would be done by paragraph 6(3) of the schedule. There will be those in the House who take strong exception to my saying that. I accept that, but my convictions on such issues are what brought me to the House, and, while I am here, I will continue to stand up for traditional family values and, more important, to be directed by my faith. My convictions will not allow me to ignore the fact that the issue is contained in the Bill. Anyone who shares that belief will join me in the Lobbies later, and I will certainly welcome the company.

I have tabled amendment No 4. Through that amendment, I seek to ensure that the regulations permit the certificate, if — "if" is the key word — the applicant wishes, to include:

Parents who want to name their baby on their certificate will be able do so. Parents who do not want to will not have to. Parents can add a line saying, "We recognise" — insert the baby's name — "as a member of our family", but, to be clear, only if they choose to do so. Why do that? It is because grief is personal. Some families name their baby and want the name to be in print. Amendment No 4 will allow them to do just that. Others prefer not to. The amendment is about choice, not compulsion. It turns a cold form into a living memorial to the little one whom they have sadly lost.

Amendment No 5 makes provision for a certificate to be issued:

I remind the House that, at Second Stage, when I mentioned the issue of abortion, Mr Blair, who occupied the Speaker's Chair at the time, interrupted me to say:

With those comments on the record, it is important to clarify what the Bill does and whom it does not exclude. The system must allow parents who lose a baby through termination to apply for a certificate but only if they want one. There is no forced participation. There is no clinical handout, as has been misrepresented by some in the media. A woman who miscarries at 20 weeks can apply for a certificate. A woman who has an abortion at 20 weeks, perhaps due to the fact that she has been told that her child will not survive outside the womb, should be able to do the same.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He has hit on a critical point. To be fair to the Member, it shows the intent of his amendment. Is it also the case that, in circumstances where, under the previous law, the mother's life was at risk and the baby was aborted to save the mother's life, parents can, if they wish, apply for and receive a baby loss certificate to mark and mourn the loss of that child?

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. Absolutely: it gets to the nub of what my amendment is trying to achieve. In the case that he has described to the House, absolutely —.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I will in a wee minute.

Absolutely: in circumstances where a baby has been aborted because of advice that the mother's life is at risk, the mother should be able to apply for a certificate if she so wishes. Over the weekend, I read a lot of commentary in the media in which, frankly, my amendment had been misrepresented. It is wrong to do that. Let us be clear about that.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Mr Frew: Is the Member saying that it would be wrong to exclude from receiving a baby loss certificate a mother who has just lost her baby through abortion to protect her and save her own life?

Mr Gaston: Nobody should be excluded. It is up to the parent. It has to be choice-based. If that mother wants to apply for a certificate, she should be able to do so. Yes, some people have said, "Leave it to the regulations", but I want it to be in the Bill. I want it to be clear that, if somebody wishes — only if they wish — to apply for a certificate, they will have the opportunity to do so.

I give way to Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: One might speculate about your reasons for referring to abortion specifically. By putting that in the Bill, rather than waiting for regulations, where every other detail of the certificates will be covered, you are separating out that one form of baby loss from all the other forms of pregnancy ending. I could go through all the many traumatic and difficult circumstances in which pregnancies are lost or ended. You have chosen to single out that one form and to leave all the others for regulations. My question is this: why? Why does that one form of a pregnancy ending have to be dragged out and put in the Bill, other than to pick that fight?

Mr Gaston: I have a question for you, Mr O'Toole. We are talking about loss. Everyone agrees that loss matters, so why fear the clarity that my amendment would put in the Bill? It is important that it is in the Bill, especially after the comments that Mr Blair made when he was in the Chair during the Second Stage debate. We have to bring clarity to the debate. If I may say so, my amendments were tabled on 23 June, so it has not been dropped in at the last minute. The amendment was tabled well in advance. It is only the Members who have created opposition and hysteria who have made it an issue.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving way. I was not going to speak on the issue, but he talks about putting it in the Bill. Clause 11(2) states:

That is in the Bill. It is covered. You mentioned that you are talking about loss. It is right there in black and white in front of us.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for the intervention. As I said, on the basis of the comments from the Deputy Speaker previously, it is important to have it in the Bill.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. This is an important discussion today about legislation that will have an impact on many people. We should have said — perhaps the Member will agree — that there is a triggering and upsetting use of language. As a former bereavement counsellor, I know that using the word "abortion" to someone who has miscarried, when it is on their medical records as a spontaneous abortion, is incredibly callous and cruel. Using such language in the Bill, when it already covers all forms of loss, is more about political point-scoring and harming women than it is about making good legislation.

Mr Gaston: I do not accept that it is about point-scoring. I have been open and honest. I tabled the amendments well in advance. The only issues that have arisen were from Mr O'Toole and from Mr Tennyson in the paper over the weekend. I have never tried to raise this as a political issue, but it is important. I felt a conviction to bring it to the Chamber, which is why I have done so. I have tried and will continue to try to be as sensitive as I can on the issue as we progress.

It is important to recognise that, for those who have had an abortion that, in some cases, they deeply regret, giving them the option to apply for a baby loss certificate would help with the process of dealing with that loss. It is cruel to deny women in either circumstance that option or to suggest that it is wrong. My amendment removes that barrier. It says, "Grief does not discriminate by cause". Importantly, it mirrors the Scotland scheme, which includes medical terminations without controversy or compulsion. The FAQ paper on the Scottish Memorial Book of Pregnancy and Baby Loss Prior to 24 Weeks states:

All that I am trying to do is replicate the scheme that exists in Scotland.

Every year, thousands of families in Northern Ireland lose a baby before 24 weeks, some through miscarriage, some through medical necessity and some through abortion. All of them grieve. All of them deserve dignity. My amendments do not judge. They do not compel. They include but only if requested. I urge MLAs from all parties to support my amendments — amendment Nos 4 and 5 — as acts of basic human kindness. Parents who have lost a baby, however that loss happened, should never be told, "Your grief doesn't count".

I have heard some suggest that MLAs should leave all of that to the regulations. My question is this: which of my amendments do you disagree with? I understand that there will be deep division in relation to my opposition to clause 8 and the schedule, but who is opposed to a family's including:

plus:

on a baby loss certificate? Who is suggesting that someone who has had an abortion, perhaps as a result of medical advice, should be denied a baby loss certificate?

I commend my amendments to the House.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak first in my capacity as Chair of the Finance Committee, and I will then make some brief remarks in a political capacity. One of the most important issues that the Committee has considered with respect to the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that it encompasses: death, stillbirth and baby loss.

Mr Speaker, I should take your guidance before I proceed: are we debating just Mr Gaston's amendments at this point? Is that right?

Mr Speaker: The debate is on all the amendments.

Mr O'Toole: All of them? OK. In that case, I will give the Committee's view and move on to give a party view.

One of the most important issues that the Committee considered with respect to the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that it encompasses: death, stillbirth and baby loss. The Committee requested evidence from a range of interested organisations and carried out a detailed online survey to which it received 40 responses from individuals, organisations and representative bodies. The responses included highly emotive personal testimony from individuals. The Committee carefully considered the views of all those who provided written evidence. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all who took the time to provide detailed evidence to inform and support the Committee in its consideration of the Bill. That was especially important in the case of this Bill, given that its provisions had not previously been consulted on, and it was important that the Committee gave that time to ensure that the process was right. On behalf of the Committee, I also thank the Department, the Forget-me-not Group and the National Association of Funeral Directors, who provided oral evidence. I single out the Forget-me-not parents who made time for us and gave very sensitive and, at times, emotional evidence. Their input was greatly appreciated.

I note that the Committee managed to complete Committee Stage well in advance of the date in the extension motion, which shows — perhaps it is a lesson to others — that Committees are capable of not exceeding updated target dates and, indeed, can view such dates as limits rather than targets.

I now refer to some general issues that were raised by members during the Committee Stage. Clauses 2 to 10 relate to the recording of deaths and stillbirths and the repeal of the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee previously agreed a number of statutory rules made under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 that related to the recording of deaths and stillbirths. Those changes allowed the registration of deaths and stillbirths by telephone, without an informant's signature, and the electronic transfer of registration documents between the parties in the process. This Chamber subsequently approved regulations on a number of occasions. Members of the Committee were therefore well versed in the use of such provisions. The Committee's deliberations on those clauses were mostly of a technical nature to ensure the legislation's robustness. In its evidence, the National Association of Funeral Directors outlined how the arrangements were working, gave its support for the arrangements and conveyed its eagerness that they should continue in perpetuity. The Committee had no objections to that part of the Bill.

Clause 11 gives the Department the power to introduce a baby loss certificate scheme. As Members will be aware, the House has previously supported, via a private Member's motion, the introduction of baby loss certificates. It was the Committee that ensured that they were included in the Bill. There was unanimity on the Committee that such a scheme be introduced. Committee discussions therefore mostly centred on the potential for a monetary charge for a baby loss certificate. The Department confirmed to the Committee that a charge could not and would not be introduced without the approval of the House. Any potential charge would have to be introduced via subordinate legislation through the draft affirmative procedure, allowing the provisions of the statutory rule to be both debated and amended. The Committee therefore agreed to proceed without an amendment on that issue. The Committee is, however, aware of the amendments, including those on that issue, tabled to the Bill. Members, having seen the Marshalled List, will debate those today. However, the Committee did not discuss the specific amendments and therefore has not taken a Committee position on them.

The Committee unanimously supports the Bill. The ability to register deaths and stillbirths without having to attend a registration office in person is to be welcomed, and the opportunity for bereaved parents to obtain a baby loss certificate is an important step. As I indicated at Second Stage, the Committee welcomes the Bill. The Committee undertook its duty to perform scrutiny and fully supports the Bill's moving through the next stage of the legislative process towards, hopefully, Royal Assent.

I will make some brief remarks on the amendments in a party capacity. Mr Gaston has discussed his two amendments and his opposition to clause 8 and the schedule, which creates new registration rights for same-sex female couples. He will oppose the Question that they stand part of the Bill. I will take those points in turn. Obviously, my party, which believes in equality, will strongly support the Question that clause 8 stand part of the Bill. It is deeply disappointing and a regressive step to try to remove that one, small, modest, bureaucratic updating of the rules to reflect the fact that there are loving, supportive same-sex couples and families in this society. Mr Gaston is attempting to make his points today. He is entitled to his views on that. I do not prevent people having their personal views, but this is the law of the land. Once the Bill gets Royal Assent, the law of the land will be that same-sex female couples will be able to register births in exactly the same way as other families. That is a welcome step forward. It is regrettable that Mr Gaston has sought to oppose it, but I understand why he has done that.

I will move on to Mr Gaston's other two amendments. Amendment No 4 specifies that parents would have the right to request that the name, sex and other biographical details be on the certificates. There is much in that that is fine. I do not necessarily object to it, in principle, but it brings me on to a big part of the reason to oppose his amendment No 5. Both amendments are to clause 11. Amendment No 5 inserts the provision that the Department:

Amendment Nos 4 and 5 are putting the cart before the horse, and that is before we get to the morality, as it were, of some of the language that has been used. Amendment Nos 4 and 5 are very specific designs of how the scheme would work. The entire purpose of the Bill and clause 11 is not to design down to the minutiae how a baby loss certificate scheme will work. We had very detailed discussions in Committee about whether that was advisable. We discussed it with the Department, the Minister and the Registrar General, who is in the Chamber today, and we came to the view that the appropriate thing to do is to mandate the Department to go away and design a scheme. That scheme will then come back to the Chamber via draft affirmative regulation. Therefore, the Committee will be able to scrutinise the draft when it comes back and will then be able to advise the Assembly. The Assembly will be able to amend that, if it so wishes, so that it includes any other detail, and it will then go to a vote. Before I get on to the substance of what is in those amendments, the idea that we need to design every small, fine detail of how the scheme will work is simply not accurate from the perspective of making legislation. In fact, I am not sure that it is good practice, because, once you put things in a Bill, you then, ultimately, ask why other things are not in the Bill.

I will now come on to the detail of what Mr Gaston said about termination. Clearly, there are many circumstances in which pregnancies are terminated. People have views on that, and those are discussed here. I have my strong personal views, but, clearly, there will be circumstances in which people who have experienced termination will want to avail themselves of a baby loss certificate for different reasons. There is not necessarily a need for me to go through what all those personal and medical reasons might be, but suffice it to say that, yes, there are circumstances in which someone who has had an abortion or a termination, either where it is forced on them medically or where they have had it for other reasons, may want to apply to participate in the scheme and apply for a certificate. Here is the thing: the Bill does nothing to prevent that happening. Those people are already included in the Bill, along with everybody else who suffers any form of baby loss.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Gaston: I understand the point that Mr O'Toole is trying to make, but cast your mind back to the Bill's Second Stage and the Deputy Speaker's remarks and his ruling during that debate. Do you not believe, based on the Deputy Speaker's comments, that clarity is needed in the Bill?

Mr O'Toole: You seem to have a particular bee in your bonnet, if I may say so through the Chair, about something that Mr Blair said when he was in the Deputy Speaker's Chair. It is not really for me to litigate that between the two of you, and I do not know whether it has any ultimate legal effect. The point is that the Bill is drafted to be inclusive in the sense that it creates the broad mandate that a scheme is designed, and the Department will then go away and come back. The upshot of what you have just said to me is that, because of something that was said in the Speaker's Chair and a particular understanding, you have to insert that particular form of baby loss into the Bill. One might argue that, in doing so, you are excluding all other forms of loss; for example, a miscarriage that followed a car accident. In some ways, I hate to be so specific, because these are very sensitive issues. Does that have to go into the Bill? Does every single form of very traumatic, sad and very difficult baby loss have to be included? By the way, I am aware that the people who are watching this are traumatised, and have been traumatised, by baby loss, so I feel a bit flippant having to talk about it. However, since I have to explain why I am opposed to Mr Gaston's amendments, I am explaining the illogicality of them and not simply the insensitivity of them. We will be strongly opposing that. To be clear, that is not to say that I do not think that the scheme should exclude families who have experienced termination. It should, and I hope and trust that it will and that we can look at that when the scheme comes back in draft affirmative regulations. That is the place to do it. That is probably also true of amendment No 4, but that is somewhat less sensitive than amendment No 5.

I will move on to some of the other amendments. I am not sure of the status of all the other amendments or whether they are going to be moved. There was some discussion around the potential for charging for certificates. It is important to say that there was a broad view in the Committee that you would not want to see a situation in which somebody is charged for receiving one of these certificate. A practically reasonable point made by officials in evidence was that you may need some mechanism for limiting or regulating the number of certificates that can be issued to individuals. That may be the genesis of where the question of charging arose. I would like to hear from others, including the Minister, as to their position on charges, and hear assurances that they can give, before taking a final position on some of the amendments that relate to charging. Our broad view is that there should not be charging at all. If there is a very good, plausible explanation for why you need to include that provision to deal with some hypothetical situation, I will not be completely close-minded or ideological about it, but I would like to hear that during the debate — including from the Minister — before taking a final view.

I have covered most of the amendments, but not all. Notwithstanding the remarks that I have made about particular amendments, I look forward to this proceeding through to its next stage, both as Chair of the Committee and as an SDLP politician. It is hugely positive, first, that we are formally enacting these COVID-era powers and getting them on to the statute book, not in a timely way, but belatedly and eventually, and, secondly, that we are creating the provision for a baby loss certificate scheme, which is hugely important and poignant for a group of people. I hope that, as those people watch today and follow and engage in the detail of the legislation, they are not too despondent about some of the debate and they stick with it. Once we get through this stage, I hope that we will have the legislation on the statute book fairly soon.

Miss Dolan: This Bill will ensure that changes that modernised the process for death and stillbirth registration during COVID will be enshrined in permanent legislation. Enabling the electronic transfer of documents will make the registration process for families who have suffered a bereavement easier, reduce stress and improve overall efficiency, while also still allowing people the choice of opting for an in-person process if they wish. Ensuring equality for registering births and stillbirths for same-sex female couples is also an important aspect of the Bill. Moving forward, that will mean that they are able to register in the same manner as opposite-sex parents.

The development of a baby loss certificate scheme will give families the opportunity to have formal recognition of their heartbreaking loss and send a clear message to parents who have lost a baby prior to 24 weeks that their love and grief is real and that they are not alone. During the Committee Stage, we heard directly from parents who have suffered such loss. I thank them for their courage in coming forward, sharing their experiences and helping to shape this positive legislation. Their voices must continue to be heard as we move forward. I welcome the commitment from the Finance Minister and his officials that they will continue to engage with those groups while designing the scheme to ensure that it meets their needs.

However, it is disappointing that some seek to use this as an opportunity to oppose equality for all couples and to bring amendments that focus on creating division. I remain focused on the compassionate objectives of the Bill in its existing form and the benefits that it will bring to many people, particularly grieving parents. Throughout the Committee Stage, those directly affected by loss during pregnancy made it clear that the scheme should be as accessible as possible, and it is vital that the regulations that follow from the passing of the legislation reflect that. I look forward to the Bill progressing in the compassionate manner with which it has been dealt with to date.

Ms Forsythe: I am pleased to debate the legislation. It is a piece of legislation that, whilst largely procedural, is made with a spirit of compassion to help people at a time of loss. We all know that death is a part of life, but, when we are faced with it, that does not make it any easier. There are practical things that need to be done at that time. Whilst the legislation is not the usual Finance Committee work, I was proud to work alongside colleagues to bring it through. We consulted on it and heard from members of the public, funeral directors, councils and representatives from baby loss groups. I give special thanks to the Forget-me-not Group for working closely with us so that we fully understood the reach, impact and importance of the legislation and its language for those who face those difficult circumstances.

In relation to deaths and stillbirths, which are defined in legislation as babies who have died in pregnancy at 24 weeks or beyond, the temporary provisions introduced by the Coronavirus Act 2020 enabled telephone and electronic communications to support the registrations during the lockdown restrictions. They have proved to be efficient and effective and have significantly reduced the trauma for those who have suffered a loss. I am pleased that the Department has brought them forward as law. A number of clauses in the legislation today relate to recording deaths and stillbirths and the repeal of the temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which we welcome.

As an unashamedly pro-life party, the DUP recognises and values the life of every baby from the moment that it was formed in the womb. We believe that every loss of a baby represents the loss of a precious life. The existing law on registration makes the clear difference that babies who, sadly, pass away during pregnancies that reach 24 weeks are considered to be stillbirths and formally registered in that way and that babies who, heartbreakingly, pass away before 24 weeks do not receive that. The difference is heartbreaking.

Today, I am pleased that, through the legislation, we are bringing forward baby loss certificates to Northern Ireland to provide a way to formally record and recognise the lives of all babies lost here. We saw it brought forward in England, and it was great to be in the Chamber when, with a united voice, we supported the need for it in Northern Ireland. I thank the Minister for working with the Committee at pace to consult and bring it forward for parents here and especially for those babies who, until now, have left only footprints on the hearts of those who love them. They will now be able to have a certificate that recognises their life.

I know, as a mother, the feeling the moment you find out you are pregnant and will have a baby. You know your due date, you know what age they will be for their first Christmas, and you have hopes and dreams for that child. No matter how old the baby grows to be, the baby lived, it existed, it mattered, and it was your child. When that child passes away, your loss is huge. It is so real, and it matters.

At the Consideration Stage, I turn to speak to the amendments that have been tabled. We are content to support amendment No 1. It is notable that, in England, the baby loss certificate scheme is not enshrined in regulations. The provisions of the Bill, therefore, provide security for the introduction of the scheme in Northern Ireland. Making the act of bringing forward parent regulations compulsory for the Department will not affect the flexibility in the rest of the clause with respect to the scheme's criteria and implementation.

On amendment No 2, whilst we agree with the focus on removing unreasonable barriers to accessing the scheme, it does not seem prudent to make a provision to prohibit any fees in any circumstances, as was highlighted by the Department during the Committee's deliberations. That will particularly be the case if there is demand that exceeds the Department's expectations from those who formally wish to have their loss recognised.

Paul Frew and I tabled a compromise in amendment No 3, which would provide for a free certificate plus another free copy and permits the ability to levy a fee for a replacement, second copy or subsequent copies of the certificate. We felt that that wording struck the fair and right balance between ensuring that controls are in place for potential costs that may arise from the scheme and the need to ensure that the system is as accessible as possible for grieving parents and families, and that is our intention. We seek clarity from the Minister on how we move forward on that.

On amendment No 4, the DUP is an unashamedly pro-life party. We believe that every loss of a baby represents the loss of a precious life. In keeping with that belief, we feel that it is appropriate that the Bill provides assurances that any future scheme will afford applicants the opportunity to have their baby's identity, including name and sex, formally acknowledged.

We would be grateful if the Member who tabled amendment No 4 would elaborate on how he envisages the statement referenced at (b) in the amendment being catered for. For example, would it be provided as an annex to the main certificate? It is worth noting that the name and sex are standard but optional fields on the English certificate. Equally, we are mindful that some parents cannot or do not wish to know the sex of the baby that they have lost, particularly —.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. This is one part of the legislation that I am passionate about. We need to be flexible because some of us who have lost a baby will not have known their sex because they were born too soon. Having that flexibility, recognising the importance of that for parents and not forcing them to leave something blank is key.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for her intervention. I completely agree. Something that came through in the Committee's consultation is that we do not want to see a difference made between babies, as every one of them and their loss matter so much.

As outlined by Ms Armstrong, many parents do not know the sex of their baby because of the early loss. We must be compassionate and consider how the format of any certificate and optional fields may make those parents feel. The intention of the certificates is to recognise the life of a precious baby who has sadly passed away; it is not to cause further distress. Ultimately, the format of the certificate must be as flexible as is practical to respond to the wishes of the parents whilst recognising that the experiences and emphases of individuals will differ.

On amendment No 5, I welcome the clarity in the Chamber today from the Member who tabled it. We stand over the proposed voluntary nature of the scheme. It is consistent with our pro-life position that the loss of an unborn baby up to 24 weeks' gestation in any circumstances is recognised and covered. Where a woman has had a termination because there was a risk to her life or for any other reason, there should be space provided in the envisaged scheme to have that loss recognised, should they come to regret the decision, seek healing or seek closure but only where a parent requests it. The Member has outlined that that is his intention. I am happy to give away if he wants to clarify that.

Mr Gaston: I am happy to clarify that that is, absolutely, the intention. It is only for a mother or parent who wishes to have the certificate. We need to be clear that there will be no compulsion: the option will be there for families who want that recognition.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for clarifying that.

We do not support amendment No 6. The Department previously indicated its desire to lay regulations prior to the end of calendar year 2025. It is unclear where the proposed duration of 12 weeks has come from or whether it is likely to improve the timeliness of the scheme's introduction. I would be grateful if the Member who tabled the amendment would clarify whether there is any rationale for that. In the same vein, the effect of the proposed new subsection (5) of clause 11 is unclear. I would appreciate him clarifying how the procedure would differ from that currently in the clause, whereby the secondary legislation would have to be laid before and approved by the Assembly before regulations could be made.

My colleagues Paul Frew and Brian Kingston will speak in the debate, but I reiterate that I am pleased to have been able to play a small part in the process of bringing forward the legislation, which will make a real difference to the lives of so many. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, death is a part of life that we all have to navigate, and every life matters.

Mr Tennyson: Like others, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill.

The loss of a baby during pregnancy can be a deeply traumatic experience for parents, but it is too often met in our society with silence or treated as though it is taboo. During the Bill's Committee Stage, we heard from parents who had experienced loss, from professionals who had supported them and from campaigners who were advocating a better approach to tackling the issue and recognising loss. I pay tribute to the women, parents and campaigners, including the Little Forget Me Nots Trust, who told their personal stories with enormous courage and selflessness in the pursuit of better.

I was struck by two things in those deliberations. The first was the emphasis on the need for sensitivity and the importance of language when we discuss such issues, because these are often triggering, difficult, painful and distressing subjects for bereaved parents. I was also struck by the degree of political unanimity in the Committee on the need to make provision for baby loss certificates. I hope that we can maintain some degree of consensus and unanimity as we move forward.

The amendments that I have tabled would build on, rather than contradict, the progressive and compassionate approach that the Minister set out in the original draft of the Bill. Amendment Nos 1 and 6 to clause 11, when read together, specify that the proposed baby loss certificate scheme must be brought forward within 12 weeks of the Bill obtaining Royal Assent. The Department has been clear throughout the legislative process that it intends to deliver the scheme within that timescale and, indeed, by the end of this calendar year, as the previous contributor mentioned. Given the delays and the many false dawns that there have been in setting up a baby loss certification scheme, it is entirely appropriate to give bereaved parents and campaigners some confidence that those commitments will be honoured and that the scheme will be subjected to no further unnecessary delay.

I recognise that including the clause with the choice of 12 months as opposed to a shorter timescale would create a level of legal risk for the Department. Therefore, I feel that it is reasonable to give the Department a little more time than it committed to at Committee Stage in order to, hopefully, ensure that the Department and the Minister feel that they are in a position to support that. I would welcome a response from the Minister in that respect.

Amendment No 2 stipulates that no charge should be levied for a baby loss certificate. That is a small but meaningful act of compassion. Fundamentally, I do not believe that any parent should ever be asked to pay simply to have their loss recognised. The Department has said that it does not intend to levy a charge. If that is the case, I hope that there will be support for the amendment to place it beyond doubt. Whilst that may be this Minister's policy intention, it would be unacceptable if, under a future Minister, baby loss certificates were used as a cost recovery mechanism or to cut departmental costs.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with his assessment. Does he share my concern that the Department and the Minister are saying one thing but doing the other? They are saying, "We don't want to charge for certificates, but, at the same time, we're going to have the power to charge people for them". Does the Member agree that that is doublespeak?

Mr Tennyson: I agree with the Member to an extent. I can understand that the Department may look at certain hypothetical situations where they believe, for example, that the system may be abused. I do not foresee that as a realistic prospect, to be honest, but I can understand why, hypothetically, it would wish to have some powers. However, given the fact that, where schemes have operated in other jurisdictions, no charge has been applied and there have been no circumstances that necessitated a charge, I do not believe that it is necessary for the Department to take that power, if its commitment is to ensure that the certificates are free at the point of access.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. That is a very important point, which exercised the Committee. If the Department is never going to use the power, why would it have it in the first place? It would send out a strong message to everybody if we agreed to the amendment. Charging for a certificate is not appropriate, and I do not think that that is the Minister's or the Department's intent.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for that intervention.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will indeed, yes.

Mr O'Dowd: It is important for Members to recognise that we have moved out of the period in which we debated motions that have no impact: we are now writing law. When you write law, you write it for whatever circumstances might arise in future. The Department's proposal, which is the subject of a number of amendments, is that it has no intention to charge for the first certificate. However, when you write law, you have to take into account circumstances that may arise in future, where multiple copies may be required. If you do not have the powers to prevent that, you will be left facing financial consequences in a situation where you do not want to face financial consequences.

Setting all that aside, if the Department were to seek to introduce charges, it would have to bring the regulations back to the House before it could do that. Therefore, neither the Minister nor the Department has the final say: the Chamber has the final say. However, I urge Members to move beyond thinking about motions to the point where we are thinking about legislation.

Mr Tennyson: I will not rise to some of the patronising comments from the Minister because, fundamentally, I disagree. I see no circumstances, Minister, in which, on this issue, it would be appropriate to levy a charge. There is a difference of perspective on that, and I respect the Minister's view that he would wish to have the ability to bring that to the Assembly in regulation. I concur with Steve Aiken that, if there is no intention to use the powers, why take them? In other jurisdictions where the scheme has been operating, circumstances have not arisen whereby charges would be required.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He has been gracious with his time. The issue, though, is that, in every other jurisdiction it is policy. It is not regulations, and it is not legislation. We are the only place that is doing legislation and regulation on this. It is giving the Department that space, whereas, in England, they could change policy and administer a fee just like that. If anything, it gives the Department agility for a future event. Will the Member acknowledge that?

Can the Member explain what is the material difference in what he is amending through amendment No 6? The draft affirmative resolution, as the Minister said, means that this issue comes back to the Assembly and we can debate and amend the regulations at that point?

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for that intervention. The subsection (5) that he refers to is the technical amendment to ensure that the Bill reads coherently when laying the requirement that the regulations must be laid before the Assembly within 12 months from the day that the Act receives Royal Assent. My understanding is that there is no substantive change, and that is certainly not the intent of the amendment; rather, it is just to ensure that the Bill reads correctly when the amendment is made.

For me, this is a fundamental point of principle. Some issues are beyond charging, and it is important to make that case. Of course, there is a difference between policy and legislation, but, with regard to the practical outworkings, no other jurisdiction has felt it necessary to make that policy change as a result of an influx of applications. There have been references to hypothetical situations: I have not heard a concrete example of where the Department would be overwhelmed or the system abused. It would be bad faith for anybody to seek to abuse such a sensitive and important process.

Amendment No 2, tabled by the Alliance Party, is preferable to the DUP's amendment No 3. I recognise that it goes some way to eliminate a charge for a first certificate or an amended certificate. It allows for charges to be levied for subsequent copies, and I have difficulty with the idea that charges could be levied if, for example, two parents separate and a copy is made for one of them. That would be an important issue for them, and they, too, would have been affected by the loss of a family member.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. That is the point of that amendment and why Diane and I made it clear that the certificate would be free but the first copy of a certificate would also be free so that, if parents were estranged for whatever reason — that might even be due to them having suffered the loss of a child — they would each receive a certificate free of charge. The Department could charge for further copies if it felt it necessary.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for that clarification. However, if one of those parents loses their certificate, they would potentially face a charge to have it replaced.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that we are debating legislation, so we have more time. With regard to charging bereaved parents, the House has been kind. The child funeral fund, to which anyone who loses a child after 24 weeks of pregnancy can apply — it is not means-tested — provides money for the family to cover the cost of the funeral. However, if we charge for the baby loss certificates, we are saying to parents of children under 24 weeks that they have to pay; they are different. If we are talking about equality and about making legislation that is fair and equitable, we should not charge those parents just because they lost a child a few weeks earlier. When we think about families and their grief, we should see all grief as equal.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for her intervention. It goes to the crux of the issue. I see no circumstances in which it is appropriate to charge a grieving family for the recognition of their loss. However, if amendment No 2 is not successful, I will support amendment No 3 because it goes some way towards addressing some of my concerns. I recognise that it is an attempt to find a compromise.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will, but I am being very generous with my interventions.

Dr Aiken: You have as much time as you want.

Mr Carroll: I heard Mr Frew's point. Does the Member share my concern that, if a mother and father or a same-sex couple were to separate, under Mr Frew's amendment, they would not be charged for two copies, but, if a grandparent, uncle or another close relative — a third person, if you will — wanted to apply for a certificate under the legislation, and the Department decided to charge, they could be charged, which could lead to more bereavement and upset? Is the Member concerned that, if his amendment does not pass, that situation could be in play?

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for that intervention. It is a concern. I appreciate what the Minister has said, and he is correct: regulations will come before the Assembly, so we will have an opportunity to scrutinise precisely how the primary legislation is implemented. We will be able to influence that. It is certainly not a foregone conclusion that that will happen, and it is important to bear that in mind, but, as a point of principle, if we do not intend to go down that road, why make provision for it at this stage?

I turn to amendment No 4, in the name of Timothy Gaston. There is nothing in the proposed content that Mr Gaston has outlined that I necessarily oppose, but I am conscious that the amendment puts the cart before the horse, in that the Department has undertaken a 12-week consultation on the content of baby loss certificates, which will be taken forward through the regulations. It would be wrong to prejudge the views of bereaved parents who have taken the time to respond to that consultation. It would be much better for us to wait in order to ensure that we reflect parents' priorities, views and lived experiences. We should take time to do that before we specify the contents of baby loss certificates. On that basis, the Alliance Party will oppose amendment No 4.

There are two ways of looking at amendment No 5. Either it is an attempt to stir a bit of a culture war and score political points or — this is the more generous interpretation; to be fair, Mr Gaston has said that this is his intention — it is to provide additional flexibility in complex and individual circumstances in which someone may have had to access a medical termination. To be clear, I absolutely favour the widest possible definition of loss, but, in this debate, we must avoid pitting the pain and trauma of one woman against that of another. Unfortunately, there have been attempts to do that in some of the contributions in this debate and previously. Fundamentally, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary because clause 11 of the Bill is clear, as Nuala McAllister said:

— it specifies "any loss" —

That provides sufficient flexibility for women who experience loss to self-certify and access the certificate in circumstances that they deem to be appropriate, not those that we in the Chamber deem to be appropriate for them. We will oppose amendment No 5.

On Mr Gaston's opposition to clause 8 and the accompanying schedule, first of all, clause 8 is not about changing the contents of a birth certificate or the registration process. It is about equality in who can access the process. That is of fundamental importance, particularly in those circumstances, which the Bill seeks to rectify, where there is a same-sex female couple and one of the partners has perhaps suffered a baby loss and is experiencing pain and trauma. It is completely fair that she would wish that her same-sex female partner were able to go to the registry office to register that stillbirth on her behalf at what is a really difficult time. I do not think that it is acceptable that, simply because you are in a same-sex relationship, you are not treated with the same compassion as a heterosexual couple would be.

I heard contributions during the debate about traditional family values. It is quite callous to say that, solely on the basis of biology, a partner, be they a same-sex partner or a step-parent, is not a parent to a child. Those people may have held that child's hands as they took their first steps, held the bike as the child took off without stabilisers for the first time and may have sat night in, night out doing homework with that child. To try to reduce that relationship simply to biology or to discount it is, frankly, offensive not only to same-sex couples and step-parents but to single parents. We need to stop trying to vilify and judge others who are not like us or who do not live by our values and have a little bit more respect and compassion when it comes to diversity in our society. I am very passionate about clause 8 standing part of the Bill, and I welcome the fact that the Minister brought it forward.

That is all that I have to say. I hope that parties will support amendment Nos 1, 2 and 6, and I look forward to continuing to support the Bill as it progresses.

Dr Aiken: The Bill has to be dealt with in very compassionate terms, and I made my points clear when I was in the Committee, particularly when we were talking with those bereaved people who were dealing with the issue. This is a deeply sensitive and very touching issue to many, many people. It is important that we get this right, and the intent of the Bill so far has largely been going in that direction.

Many Members have spoken very passionately and very clearly about their views on the amendments and the Bill. I do not want to delay Members, because much of what they said is what I would say anyhow. From our party's perspective, we will support amendment No 1 and then either amendment No 2 or amendment No 3, depending on which way they come through.

I have a question about amendment No 4. I have been in a similar situation. Proposed new subsection (3A)(a) talks about:

I feel quite uncomfortable about that and about supporting it, and that is for reasons that I do not wish to go into in the Chamber. It is something that I have been particularly noted on as well.

I would like more clarity on amendment No 5, because, although I understand the sentiment that Mr Gaston and others in the Chamber expressed, I do not really get why clause 11(1) does not cover those areas, particularly 11(1) and 11(2), and how they cannot be interpreted in that way. Mr Gaston, maybe you would like to make an intervention to explain particularly how clauses 11(1) and 11(2) do not cover that — sorry; through the Chair.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much for bringing me in. To be clear, that amendment was tabled, because, during the debate at the Bill's Second Stage, the Deputy Speaker said that abortion does not come into this. I was motivated to introduce abortion into the Bill, because it is part of the process and should be included. Given that the Deputy Speaker was very clear, I feel that the issue needs to be in the Bill.

Mr O'Dowd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it appropriate for Members to discuss a ruling that was given from the Speaker's Chair during a previous debate in the way that Mr Gaston is doing? It appears that Mr Gaston is giving his interpretation of the ruling. I know that he read out the Deputy Speaker's words, but we do not have the context of what Mr Gaston was saying at that time. In my humble opinion, in that context, a ruling from the Speaker's Chair has no determination in defining how a law is presented to the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister for his point of order. My guidance on this is that Members will vote today on the substance of what is contained in the legislation and the amendments. The only thing that they should base their decisions upon is how they read that legislation and the proposed amendments. They should base their vote on that. Anything that was said, or any commentary, from this Chair should not and will not be reflected in the actual legislation and will not have any standing in law. Members, this is my guidance to you: stick very strictly to what is in the written legislation.

Dr Aiken: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I will move on to amendment No 6. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like some clarity from Mr Tennyson. In his remarks in the Chamber, I think that he said that it would be 12 months, beginning with the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent, but it says "12 weeks" in the amendment. Is it —?

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I am happy to correct the record. I intended to say 12 weeks, as opposed to 12 months.

Dr Aiken: Thank you. Just for a bit of clarity there.

Obviously we will not be supporting Mr Gaston's opposition to the schedule. We believe that the Bill needs to be given due consideration when it moves through to the next stage.

My final remarks are to the people, and the bereaved families in particular, who came and gave evidence to us. It was both humbling and a privilege for Committee members to hear from them.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for this legislation, and I welcome the fact that the Bill is now at Consideration Stage. The Committee has taken a good approach so far. We all see the importance of progressing the legislation and, importantly, putting it on a firm footing.

This compassionate legislation has been broadly welcomed by all those whom we have engaged with in Committee and outside of the Committee as individual MLAs. Importantly, it replaces the temporary provisions that were implemented at pace during COVID. We have listened to the lived experience of those who have suffered loss and the impact that it continues to have on them. We have also heard how recognition is an important step for many. The introduction of a baby loss certificate scheme has been welcomed across the board by all those whom we have met and taken evidence from.

I agree with other Members that clause 8 and the schedule are an important part of the Bill. In essence, they address and rectify an inequality that exists in the legislation. They will allow for couples who are unmarried or who are not civil partners to have access to the same registration process, regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex couples. I agree with keeping it as flexible as possible and not being restrictive in how people in society choose to live. That is the right thing to do, and I will oppose any Question that attempts to remove it and thus allow the inequality to continue.

Some have attempted, through the amendments, to create division and, indeed, to narrow the approach. At the Committee, I reflected on the treatment of women across the island as a result of ideology and ultraconservative views on all these issues. I warn that we have to learn the lessons of the mother-and-baby homes, forced adoptions and other issues that have impacted on women, as well as the attempts to demonise women and their wider family circle.

From the outset, the legislation was intended to cater for all those who have lost. It was to be done with compassion and, most importantly, the certificate scheme should reflect the wishes of those who have experienced that loss. The Minister has delivered on that, so I do not agree with the amendments that attempt to divert from that thrust.

On the issue of cost, the Minister has outlined from the outset — he did it at the Committee, and I know that he did it when he introduced the legislation — that the scheme would be done with compassion and that, at the initiation of the scheme, there would not be a charge when someone applies for a baby loss certificate. It was always important that the certificate scheme would sit alongside all the other certificate schemes that the Department has responsibility for.

That is why we are approaching it in the way that we are. It is good to see the Bill at Consideration Stage. I look forward to continuing engagement at Committee and with other Members in the Chamber.

Mr Frew: I acknowledge the Minister's comment about dealing with legislation as opposed to motions. You can see a marked difference in the way that legislation and regulations are debated, rather than debating motion after motion, some of which are pointless. We should leave populism outside the door when talking about regulations and legislation. I acknowledge the sentiment that the Minister expressed. I do not think that it was crass; I think that it was meant in the right way. I am always mindful that we should be careful in how we proceed when dealing with legislation.

It is great that we have got to the Consideration Stage of the Bill. I place on record my thanks and appreciation for the work of the Committee. I have now left that Committee, but, on it, I saw teamwork on this serious issue. I acknowledge the work of and support given by the Department — the Minister and departmental staff — in listening to the Committee from the very start. To begin with, the Bill was designed to put temporary legislation on a permanent footing. That is all that it was meant to do. I pushed and pushed to get it to this stage sooner, but I acknowledge that the Department and the Minister listened to the Committee.

It has been a goal of the DUP to have baby loss certificates in place. We have been fighting for that for so many years, because we recognise that a vacuum exists for those who are in the position, which is so pressurised, of having lost a baby, especially before 24 weeks. That is why it is so important that the Department and Minister listened. By adding that to the Bill, they have completely changed it for the better. That must be acknowledged in the House.

When I first saw that the Minister had set out, in clause 11, that the Department of Finance "may" make regulations, I thought, "No, we can go further than that. We can put it in". I asked staff in the Assembly Bill Office whether we could copy and paste the legislation from England. Due to my ignorance, I had not realised that there was no legislation in England and that it has purely policy. There was no legislation to copy and paste from England from which we could start. I give credit where credit is due: the Department and the Minister are putting it in legislation. It should be acknowledged that we will, I think, be the first place in the British Isles to legislate formally for baby loss certificates. That means something, and it should mean something. When we castigate Ministers and Departments for how bad they can be, and when we say how bad this place is or how bad debate in the Chamber can be, we should also acknowledge our successes. This is one of them, and we should all applaud it and unite behind it.

I will get into the detail of the Bill and amendments. I point first to the repeal of temporary provisions, which are:

Those provisions are being repealed. That is worthy of celebration. It is important, because the Minister could simply have let the six-month extension lapse, but he is obliterating it from legislation, historical or otherwise, and needs to be applauded for that. I was delighted to see that clause in the Bill. There are only two aspects of the entire Coronavirus Act that I see as having been fit for purpose, not causing harm and being good and positive. That is one of them. The provision was brought in because there might have been a massive wave of death registrations. That did not materialise, of course, but it made it so much easier for bereaved families, undertakers and everyone who was involved in that process. It made the process of registering deaths and stillbirths easier for them. We applaud the fact that the Bill puts that on a permanent footing, as it should have been months and years ago. In fact, I argue that we should have done it before the pandemic, but, of course, the pandemic was the necessitating factor.

The other aspect is the live links in courts, which we will discuss later today. However, when it comes to everything else in the Coronavirus Act and the way in which the Assembly, where we are now debating law, became a zombie Assembly, we should never go back to that place. It is good that we can be here and have the power to debate and vote on legislation and that the decision is not left to one person, no matter who that person is. It has taken months to go through the Bill. It has not been a case of a Minister dreaming up a harmful policy, reading it out to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) in the morning, enacting it in the afternoon and enforcing it before midnight. That is no way to do legislation. This is the proper way.

Mr Speaker: I know that the Member is enjoying himself, but will he come back to the amendments?

Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will get back to the Bill.

I will move on to the other clauses and the amendments. I was the first person in the Chamber to raise concerns about the schedule to the Bill substituting the word "father" with "other parent". I raised that as a concern. I applaud the Minister for getting back to me in a very timely way about my concerns after the Second Reading and for sharing that information with the Committee. That is a good example of how a Department, a Minister and a Committee should work together. The process has worked tremendously well. The Minister has assuaged most, if not all, of the concerns that I had at Second Reading.

Since the Second Reading, I have learned that the harm and damage to which I was trying to allude is not in the schedule of the Bill. The issue predates the Bill in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, which is established UK law and means that a child will have only two parents. In some cases, that will be the mother and the father, and, in others, it will be the mother and a second female parent. In the circumstances in which a child has a second female parent, under the 2008 Act, the biological father is not recognised as a parent. That is the law as it stands, and it is not changed by the Bill. My grievance is with the fact that the father has been completely removed from that scenario, but the Bill does not do that. Regulation 13 in the Civil Registration Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012, as amended by the Bill, will state that, where both the mother of a child and the father or second female parent of that child:

At the end of that regulation, the Bill inserts the following:

Therefore, the Bill does not so much remove the father as add the other parent. Due to that clarification, we are content with clause 8 and the schedule.

I turn to the other amendments that have been tabled by Timothy Gaston. We agree that the issue of termination is covered by clause 11(2), which says:

We accept that, but the Member has talked about his concerns and his sentiment in tabling amendment No 5. I honestly do not see how it would do any harm to have that it in the Bill. There is a valid point about putting the cart before the horse — I get the argument — but you could make that argument in respect of clause 11(3) in its entirety. The Department may have just left it whereby it would make regulations, but it has added stipulation 6, through which it wants to build a framework of regulations. I do not see any harm in adding to that framework, even if it gets into specifics.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I understand the point that he is making. However, clause 11(3) states that the regulations "may" include that. The amendments from Mr Gaston state that the regulations "must" include it and, therefore, severely limit what could be done through secondary legislation. Amendment No 5 from Mr Gaston states:

It is debatable as to whether there would be a choice, so voting in favour of that amendment is a particular risk.

Mr Frew: I take that point from the Member, but just because the regulations "must" provide for that does not mean that you must impose a certificate or any action on anyone. The applicant should have the choice, on request, of whether they want one or not. I get where the Member's concerns are coming from. I do not think that it would limit secondary legislation and the regulations; it would add to and enforce rather than limit or take away from the regulations. You could argue that we are doing the same in our amendment No 3.

I will now speak on amendment No 3. We recognised what the Department was saying about having the agility to charge a fee if it needed to in the future. We accepted that. We do not want to see a fee. We hope that there will never be a fee for any aspect of it, but we understand that the Department should have that flexibility. I go back to the point that I made earlier: this is the only place where baby loss certificates will be in legislation, not just in policy. You have to afford the Department agility around fee structures if it thinks that fees might be required in the future. At least the Department would then have the flexibility to add to that.

The point remains that it would still have to come to the Assembly to be passed. It would be in the Assembly's gift whether or not to agree to the fee structure. I suspect that, because it is a draft affirmative procedure, we would be able to amend the fee structure or even take fees out completely. Amendment No 3 adds flexibility. It adds compromise to the positions of Eóin Tennyson and the Minister. We hope that that amendment will be supported by the Minister and the Department. If the Minister makes it known that that is his intention, it is debatable whether we will move amendment No 3. We will wait for the Minister's comments.

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after the question for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to be called will be Brian Kingston.

Mr Speaker: Questions 7 and 13 have been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I intend to answer questions 1 and 4 together.

I have urged the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to use the autumn Budget as an opportunity to further support workers and families, particularly on childcare. Economic growth and improved public services cannot be achieved without meaningful investment and support for working families. Affordable childcare is essential to improving labour market participation and to driving economic growth. I have therefore urged the Treasury to consider enhancements to the tax-free childcare scheme. I have also asked that the autumn Budget can be used to reverse the two-child benefit cap, recognising the hardship that it places on families.

I have made it clear to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that further austerity measures must not be taken that place an unfair burden on people, businesses or public services. The significant reduction in the resource Budget for local growth funding will severely impact on the community and voluntary sector's ability to deliver vital services, particularly for those furthest away from the labour market. The Assembly also sent a clear and united message that we stand with the community and voluntary sector and that there must be an urgent change to that approach. I have pressed the Chief Secretary to work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to consider the funding profile of the new local growth fund. I have also reiterated my calls for a reduction in VAT to ensure that our hospitality sector can compete on a level playing field in the all-island economy.

Mrs Guy: The Minister is well aware of the funding challenges facing our justice system. In particular, the PSNI data breach was clearly unforeseen, unavoidable and unaffordable. What representations has he made to the Treasury to make that funding available?

Mr O'Dowd: As early as August of this year, I wrote to the Treasury on behalf of the Executive requesting access to the reserve fund for the PSNI data breach. Since then, there has been ongoing engagement with the Treasury on the issue, including between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and me and at official level. It is regrettable that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury declined the Executive's request for access to the reserve fund for costs associated with the PSNI data breach. I and the Executive will continue to make the case to the Treasury. I also note the comments from others on the matter, which are welcome in supporting our approach to the Treasury.

Mr Baker: Minister, you touched on this already, but will you give a wee bit more detail on what support you asked for in respect of working families?

Mr O'Dowd: It is important that the Budget is used as an opportunity to support working families. I pressed that point both at the Financial Interministerial Standing Committee (FISC), which comprises the Ministers from the devolved institutions, and at the meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in mid-October. I followed that up in writing to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I specifically called for the support for childcare to be increased from 20% to 30% and for the £2,000 annual cap per child to be reviewed. I also asked the Treasury to ensure that, if further austerity measures are to be introduced, they do not target working families and businesses. It is important that we support workers' families and businesses through this time, and the Treasury has an ideal opportunity, in the upcoming Budget, to do so.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I recently wrote to you about something that you have often talked to me about, which is the Opposition's alternative plans. I asked you whether you would officially support costing our alternative Budget and other plans, as happened with the Opposition south of the border. I have not had a response yet. Will you support that measure to open up the books and cost Opposition policies?

Mr O'Dowd: I have asked my officials to engage with our counterparts in Dublin to see exactly what process is in place for supporting Opposition parties there and to see whether we can replicate those measures here. I note that, in Scotland and Wales, such measures have not been introduced. The Member will also be aware that the SDLP receives, I think, approximately £7,000 more per Member to carry out its function as the Opposition. We want to ensure that we do not duplicate finances that the SDLP already receives.

Mr Brett: Minister, you might be aware that Chartered Accountants Ireland recently relaunched its campaign for the lowering of corporation tax in Northern Ireland. Have your discussions with the Treasury included the rate of corporation tax?

Mr O'Dowd: The matter has not been discussed during my tenure. There are well set criteria for the devolution of corporation tax here. Given that the costs to the Executive associated with devolving corporation tax are estimated to be between £300 million and £400 million, I do not think that the Executive or public services can afford that at this time. I have, however, tabled an Executive paper on the fiscal framework. We want a full examination of tax-varying powers and of what should be devolved to the Executive in the time ahead, following on from the Fiscal Commission's report. Any discussions about corporation tax need to be included in those discussions.

Dr Aiken: Minister, you will be aware that, this morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an unprecedented speech, basically signalling that she will put up taxes and that she will prioritise health and other areas of public service. Bearing in mind that, if that goes through, additional consequentials are likely to come our way, will the Minister commit to ring-fence those moneys for Health to pay for health workers in particular?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his question. I listened carefully to the Chancellor's address this morning. Very broad hints were dropped that taxes would be increased. The question that has not been answered thus far is this: on whom will that tax burden fall? It is important that that tax burden falls on those with the broadest shoulders and that any money raised from those taxes is invested in front-line public services. The Member will be aware that it will be for the Executive to decide how to allocate any Barnett consequentials that we receive as a result of that. Recently, we made commitments to allocate significant funding to Health, Education and Justice. Commitments have already been made by the Executive, but, if the Chancellor is to raise taxes, let us ensure that they are fair and progressive and that the money goes to front-line services.

Mr O'Dowd: In line with my Department's estate strategy, we are progressing with plans to divest ourselves of Marlborough House in Craigavon and move forward with replacement accommodation in the area. That will deliver savings at a time of budgetary pressures while providing an efficient, modern working environment for Civil Service staff. Marlborough House is the worst-performing site in the Civil Service estate with regard to energy efficiency and is significantly under-occupied. A business case has been approved for replacement accommodation for Civil Service staff, with the preferred option being High Street Mall in Portadown. That is progressing, with the accommodation expected to be ready in 2026. Notice to all occupants has been issued of the Department's plans and to vacate the building at the end of their occupational agreements this financial year. Non-Civil Service bodies located in Marlborough House are progressing with their own plans for their future accommodation.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that the historical environment division's recent grade B1 listing decision will make it more difficult to repurpose that building or dispose of it on the open market?

Mr O'Dowd: There will be different views and opinions on such matters. It is unfortunate that we have reached this position. My Department made its case to the historical environment division of the Department for Communities. The decision has now been made. I am aware that there is interest in the building from at least one public-sector organisation. It is assessing the building to see whether it can be incorporated in its plans for future development. I hope that that moves forward at pace and that the building does not lie vacant and become a blight on an area of Craigavon that has seen significant investment in recent years and is thriving both commercially and residentially. I want to ensure that the building becomes usable again, but it will have do so through a sector other than the Civil Service.

Mr Tennyson: As a constituency colleague, I share the Minister's concern about the B1 listing. Did the Minister make representations to his colleague the Minister for Communities on the listing? Has there been any reappraisal of the Department's plans for the site following the listing?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not sure whether I raised that directly with the Minister for Communities in writing — I will clarify that for the Member — but representations were certainly made at official level at my request, because it caused concern. Interest has been shown in the site, which could be of huge benefit to the entire area by continuing the progress that we have seen in central Craigavon over many years. I will clarify that point and respond directly to the Member on it, but representations were made through officials at my request.

Miss Hargey: As you touched on, it is good that there is an indication that somebody is interested in the building, but, if that sale does not go ahead, do you foresee difficulties with its sale because of the listing?

Mr O'Dowd: The listing will present challenges to future potential buyers and occupants of the property. It was simply impossible for us to bring together a business case that would allow us to invest in that building the money that is required to bring it up to modern heat efficiency standards etc. Others have a different vision for the use of the building, and I hope that their business case stacks up and that progress is ahead. There will be different views inside and outside the Chamber about some of those matters, but I know that the listing has caused challenges, shall we say, in ensuring that the building is put to future use.

Mr McNulty: Minister, over the past 50 years, thousands of people have worked behind Marlborough House's uniquely honeycombed facade. Those of us who worked there have varying degrees of affinity with the big brute. There are 14 Civil Service properties worth £30 million that are lying completely empty and unused. Now that Marlborough House has been listed, will that number become 15?

Mr O'Dowd: I thought for a second that the Member was calling me a big brute. [Laughter.]

He may do at times. As I said, the listing of the building does not assist us in moving forward, but a public-sector body is interested in it. The Member will be aware that we have an estate strategy on the disposal of public buildings. We have been successful with the disposal of a number of buildings, and we will continue to put buildings on the market as they become vacant. The market will respond in due course with what it is prepared to pay for those etc, but we have an estate strategy and a plan. I am content with how things are moving forward.

Mr O'Dowd: As the House will be aware from the recent motion on the matter, I have been engaging with Ministers in the NIO, Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on it since my appointment as Finance Minister. That engagement has intensified as the continued Whitehall delay has increased the urgency of the situation. Last month, I met Hilary Benn and reiterated the urgency of the issue and stressed the need for resource — not capital — funding to tackle economic inactivity, which is a key barrier to economic growth. I also highlighted the risks, particularly to the community and voluntary sector, of further delay. I attended a trilateral meeting with the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, and Steve Reed, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 22 October. We have agreed to an intensive period of trilateral working at official level to urgently develop a way forward.

I have also repeatedly raised those issues with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, most recently in person at a meeting on 17 October. I followed that up in writing on 23 October, calling on him to provide flexibility on the capital/resource split through the budgetary process. I emphasised the negative impact that the proposal for capital-heavy funding would have here. It is unacceptable that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government left it so late to commence that joint working, but I remain ready to work with anyone at any time to progress the matter. The stakes are too high to do anything else.

Miss Dolan: Minister, thank you for your work on the matter. I know how committed you are to ensuring that we get some follow-up money after the loss of EU funding. What engagement have you had with the community and voluntary sector about the fund?

Mr O'Dowd: I have had several meetings with the community and voluntary sector on that. The first meeting was with the Chief Officers Third Sector (CO3) group on 17 September, at which I provided an update to 41 representatives of the sector and listened to many of their concerns. I have kept the sector regularly updated. I met it again on 1 October under the auspices of NICVA and wrote to it again on 3 October. I have directed my officials to do the same and to collaborate with the sector through their intensive engagement with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the NIO over the next number of weeks.

Mr O'Dowd: The Civil Service is an equal opportunities employer committed to building a diverse and inclusive Civil Service that reflects the society that it serves. The student placement competition has been advertised widely via a range of channels and welcomes applications from disabled students. The Civil Service engages directly with the placement teams in local universities to promote the opportunities. Information on the NI Union of Supported Employment is included in the candidate information booklet. The Civil Service will discuss putting reasonable adjustments in place for disabled applicants at any stage of the selection process.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister will already know that the disabled community is under-represented across probably all employment levels. Does the Minister agree that the Civil Service should lead the way and move beyond reasonable adjustments and set significant ambitions to see some of the most underutilised, most professional people in our communities — those with disabilities — in paid employment?

Mr O'Dowd: I take on board the Member's comments and the direction of travel that he is coming from or wishes to see. I want to continue to see the Civil Service as an inclusive employer. That means that all of those under-represented sections of our society have to be reached out to, and we need to look at the ways of making sure that we are not presenting barriers to their entering the service. We also have to be conscious of other employment and equality legislation, but I assure the Member that the team behind this are committed to ensuring that the Civil Service is inclusive. If there are lessons to be learnt, I am more than happy to learn, and I am sure that the team working behind this are too.

Ms Hunter: On the topic of widening criteria, we have heard that there are some challenges with students in further education applying for a student placement. Are you aware of that, and can you tell us more?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not aware of it. If the Member has any more details on it, please correspond with me on it. As I said, it has to be inclusive, and all further education colleges have to be included in it. If the Member has information in that regard, she should please forward it to me.

Mr O'Dowd: I am proud that my Department is the first Executive Department to publish a social value strategy, which was developed in partnership with key stakeholders in the business and voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors. While the strategy was a commitment in the revised procurement policy note, 'Social Value in Procurement', it goes beyond procurement and sets out the social value goals and ambitions, focusing on the Department's key responsibility as owner of the Civil Service office estate and policy lead for finances, procurement and human resources. Demonstrating my commitment to raising the profile of social value in my Department, I have appointed a social value champion who will monitor and report on the Department's progress. Good progress has been made on the strategy, with 11 targets already met. A progress report with further details on what has been achieved in the six months will be published on the Department of Finance website in the coming weeks.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his answer. I look forward to seeing the progress report. In the meantime, is he able to detail whether there has been an increase in engagement and trading with small and medium-sized enterprises? It was a key target coming through on that to reach out to the smaller businesses in Northern Ireland, which are such a key player.

Mr O'Dowd: Yes is the answer. If there are areas in which we can seek improvement, let us look at those to see how we can improve. Given the proportion and importance of the small and medium-sized enterprise sector to our economy, it is only right and proper that my Department and, indeed, others engage in relation to social value and many other aspects of doing business. In my opinion, yes is the answer, but, if there are other areas where we need to learn, I am happy to do so.

Mrs Mason: Minister, in your first answer, you mentioned the social value champion. Can you give us an idea of who that is and what exactly their role is?

Mr O'Dowd: I have appointed the Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD) deputy secretary to the social value champion role. Her role is to monitor the progress of the social value strategy and identify areas for improvement. I intend to publish a progress report shortly, as I said in my original answer. As the first Department to develop and publish a strategy, we recognise that we are leading the way. Therefore, feedback from all sectors is particularly welcome to help inform future strategies.

Mr O'Dowd: There are no staff in my Department or its arm's-length bodies (ALBs) working in County Hall, Ballymena. As of 30 June 2025, 254 staff are based in County Hall, Ballymena from the following public bodies: Department for Infrastructure, 67; Department of Health, 149; Department for Communities, 34; Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, four.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for his response in outlining the numbers not only of his own staff but the numbers of staff from other Departments at County Hall.

Minister, the grounds of County Hall have not been maintained and have become neglected over recent years and months. Can you set out today when the Department will start to carry out routine maintenance at County Hall again to ensure that it becomes a nice, welcoming environment, not the eyesore that it has been allowed to turn into?

Mr O'Dowd: My Department, like all Departments, continues to face significant challenges, which, unfortunately, has impacted on the services that we can provide, including the routine maintenance of public grounds. My Department's construction and procurement delivery team has prioritised essential building maintenance services to ensure the health and safety of the working office environment for staff and visitors to our buildings. My Department's estate management unit is in regular contact with the premises team to ensure that any statutory and priority health and safety issues are identified and dealt with promptly.

Mr O'Dowd: Following the introduction of the Procurement Act in February 2025, my Department carried out a review of existing procurement policy and guidance to ensure that the flexibilities in the new legal framework can be maximised. The revised guidance, known as the "'Dear Accounting Officer' letter 05/22 (Grant or Procurement)", was approved for publication by the Executive on 16 October 2025. As a result, we have updated the guidance to reduce red tape and make procurement easier for grant recipients, especially those in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. Grant recipients will now no longer need to follow the same procedures as government Departments and arm's-length bodies. That change recognises that most local businesses have fewer than 50 employees and is aimed at making it easier for them to deliver grant-funded projects for communities. As a result, the new guidance will help to reduce bureaucracy, support faster delivery and lower costs for funders and recipients.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. Can public bodies, such as the Education Authority, benefit from changes made in the Procurement Act 2023 and procurement guidance?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, they can. I continue to hear stories of difficulties that schools and other bodies have in procurement exercises. I am of the view — evidence backs this up from the changes that we have made in the past year through the Procurement Act and supported by the Executive — that significant changes have been made. Increasing the threshold for public tendering from £30,000 to £50,000 last year allows schools to make local spending decisions and to contract with local suppliers for lower-value contracts. Given the financial constraints facing us, it is important that we continue to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, which wastes time and money. I have encouraged, do encourage and will continue to encourage all Ministers, their Departments and their arm's-length bodies to take advantage of the changes to procurement legislation, guidance and policy to ensure that we achieve best value for money.

Mr O'Dowd: Last year saw Land and Property Services (LPS) collect a record £1·63 billion in rates. As I outlined to the House on 21 October during the debate, my Department remains committed to the collection of unpaid rates. Already this year, the amount owing from previous years has reduced by 20%, and, as legal action for non-payment increases in the coming months, that will continue to drive the amount owed down further. There are two categories when it comes to rates debt: those who cannot pay and those who will not pay. We have to pursue rigorously those who refuse to pay, and we have to support and work with those who cannot pay in order to find a way for them to do so.

It might be helpful if I provided more detail on the £145 million that is outstanding. Some £59 million has already been subject to legal recovery action, which enables further legal action to be taken where rates remain unpaid; and £12·8 million is being repaid through active payment plans or agreements with Land and Property Services. The remaining £73·5 million is under review for further legal action. It is important that Members understand that, within that amount, there are cases that are not suitable for legal action, including those in which there has been a bereavement, an appeal or where the ratepayer is in receipt of benefits.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. How does the shortfall in rates collection impact on the overall Budget, the Departments that enjoy the Budget and the way in which councils get their budgets?

Mr O'Dowd: It does not impact on front-line delivery until a decision is made to write off an amount of debt. Such a decision is made over a period of years. It will not impact on them then. Departments spend on the amount of money that, we predict, will come in from the rates; that is how the planning is done. In year, there is no impact, but, when we reach the stage at which we have a number of years of debt that we need to write off, there will be an impact on further years' spending. It does have an impact, hence the reason for Land and Property Services and me putting a greater emphasis on ensuring that we go through the process of retrieving all moneys that can be retrieved. As I have said to Members, we have to be measured on this. For example, bringing a small business to court can mean the end of that business and the loss of its jobs etc, but, one way or the other, everybody has to pay their rates. That is the strategy to which my Department works.

Mr Gildernew: The Minister has outlined the difference between those who will not pay and those who are unable to pay: what support is in place for those who are unable to pay?

Mr O'Dowd: People who face financial difficulties can apply for comprehensive support with their rates through the benefits system. LPS will work with people who are having difficulty in paying and agree an affordable repayment plan. That is in the case of those who wish to pay but cannot afford to pay. You will always run into people who can afford to pay but refuse to do so, and we have no reluctance in pursuing legal action in those cases.

Mr O'Dowd: The Budget sustainability plan, which was published in October 2024, marked an important first step in the pathway towards more fiscally sustainable Budgets and policy decisions. Since the publication of the plan, officials have been progressing its commitments. One of the strands of that work is the development of departmental five-year plans. My officials are working with each Department to develop those plans. They will articulate each Department's strategic direction over the medium term, outline the associated costs and identify opportunities to reduce expenditure in a way that supports long-term sustainability.

Following the autumn Budget announcement on 26 November, I intend to bring forward proposals for a draft Budget, which will include funding allocations for all Departments, including Health and Justice. In addition, I recently published a report on aligning spending with priorities, which examines how the 2025-26 Budget aligns with the Programme for Government. That is a significant step forward in illustrating how Departments' spending is allocated towards the priorities that are set by the Executive. That will become an increasingly valuable tool for directing resources to priority areas.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister. Do any of the strategic, targeted reforms include a review of revenue raising?

Mr O'Dowd: All Departments have, within their remit, the responsibility to review revenue raising and see how they can raise revenue. That should be done in a fair and equitable way, but each Department has the authority to do it, and I encourage them to do so.

Mr O'Dowd: We all want to see public sector workers, including healthcare workers, get the pay rise that they deserve in a timely manner. I plan to hold a December monitoring round, at which time we will understand the funding available following the Chancellor's autumn Budget. That will also provide an opportunity for Departments to declare any easements of funding that they no longer require, which the Executive can then consider reallocating to public-sector pay. The Executive have agreed that, in that monitoring round, the Department of Health will have first call on £100 million of available funding for health service pay costs, alongside funding to meet the pay awards of other public-sector workers.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd: All Ministers need to be extremely careful about how they use Civil Service resources, which are there primarily to support delivery front-line public services and should not be used in a party political way. I heard the Minister of Education's comments in the Chamber yesterday about his engagement with his permanent secretary on the matter. My understanding is that it would be a matter for the head of the Civil Service to further develop any inquiries in that case.

Mr O'Toole: I have also written to the head of the Civil Service. As the lead Minister responsible for Civil Service propriety, may I ask that you commission an urgent review of the broader issues of Ministers giving inappropriate instructions to civil servants and of the provisions of the Functioning of Government Act? The actions of the Minister of Education clearly breached that law, which is on the statute books. Will you ask your officials to commission an urgent review, because there are some serious broader issues at stake?

Mr O'Dowd: It is best that we await the independent inquiries of the head of the Civil Service. If I were to commission an urgent review, I would be accused of political interference. It is best that we allow the head of the Civil Service to carry out her inquiries into the matter. If, as a result of those inquiries, it becomes apparent that I, as the Finance Minister, have a role, I assure you that I will not shirk it.

Mr Speaker: Miss McAllister is not in her place. I call Doug Beattie.

Mr O'Dowd: I cannot confirm whether the Equality Commission was directly involved. I will have to come back to the Member directly on the matter. However, equality issues relating to the Department reflect our equality programme, which was approved by the Equality Commission.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister. Hopefully, you can come back to me with that answer. You may have to come back to me on this question as well. Is the Northern Ireland Civil Service inclusive language guide, which recommends using the title "Mx" instead of "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss" or "Ms", a mandatory policy for all departmental staff? What funding has been set aside for training on that?

Mr O'Dowd: That is a procedural matter within the Department; it is not a matter for the Minister. The guide is not mandatory; it is guidance, as it says on the tin. I am not aware of what funding has been set aside for training etc in that regard, but I am more than happy to supply that information to the Member. Those matters are dealt with as procedure in the Department and not by the Minister.

Mr O'Dowd: I am aware of the proposal from the Education Minister, but we also need an estate plan from the Department of Education. The Member will have heard me refer to my Department's estate plan in relation to Civil Service buildings. It would be useful if the Department of Education were to come forward with an estate plan and an area plan, and then the Executive collectively could examine how we dispose of the public assets that can be disposed of and how we reinvest that money. The proposal is that that money is reinvested in building SEN schools — that is a worthy cause for any investment — but all parts of the equation need to be included before we can come to an answer.

Mr Brooks: We heard in the Chamber yesterday that the Minister's party has been responsible for holding back the discussion about that at the Executive. I am sure that he will agree that our SEN children and families should not be used as a pawn in a political game. Therefore, will he ask the First Minister to bring the matter to the Executive for proper discussion?

Mr O'Dowd: I am sure that the Member is aware, as is whoever informed the House yesterday, that Executive business is confidential.

Mr O'Dowd: The next steps are that the report needs to be studied, and we need to engage with all the sectors involved in it to see whether there is further potential for shared use of properties across the entire public-sector estate. Efficient, effective use of all resources has to be primary in all discussions that Ministers and Departments have.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he envisage going to public consultation during the mandate on any of the options considered in the report?

Mr O'Dowd: I will give careful consideration to that and will report to the Committee or the House when I have concluded my deliberations.

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. That matter has been raised repeatedly at various venues and by various Ministers, including me, with representatives of the British Government. Unfortunately, they do not appear to be listening to that. It will have a significantly greater detrimental impact on our agriculture sector than on that in England or Wales. It is another example of decisions being made in Whitehall with no understanding of the local picture here.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that the autumn Budget could also be used to review the VAT rate, which could help to support our hospitality businesses?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. That is one of the direct calls that I made to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in person and in my recent correspondence to him ahead of the Budget on 26 November. It is important that our hospitality sector is supported, particularly given the changes to VAT across the border. They are competing in an all-island economy, so they should be supported in that regard. VAT is a non-devolved matter, and it is up to the Chancellor to make a move on it.

Mr O'Dowd: The Justice Minister and I have had a telephone conversation in that regard. We were due to meet again yesterday. Unfortunately, that meeting had to be cancelled, but it will be rescheduled as quickly as possible. The matter has been raised on a number of occasions during Executive discussions as well. Therefore, there are ongoing discussions and a push in regard to that matter.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for that update. Minister, given the nature and the urgency of the matter in hand and given the dire straits that the police find themselves in, how hopeful are you that a solution can be found before the end of the financial year?

Mr O'Dowd: Discussions are ongoing. I have also asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to write to the Prime Minister about the matter. I am conscious that there are legal proceedings — an ongoing court case — in regard to the matter, but we continue to discuss how we will deliver our commitments in regard to the financial consequences of the data breach.

Mr O'Dowd: The Back in Business scheme allows businesses to access rates support that incentivises business ratepayers to consider occupying empty retail premises when looking for a business property. The scheme provides a 50% rate reduction for up to two years, once a retail premises that has been empty for 12 months is occupied. That rate reduction is a huge boost to any new business and allows a business to, hopefully, establish itself in the long term.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you, Minister, for your response. What steps are you taking to make positive changes to the rating system?

Mr O'Dowd: I am pleased to say that good progress has been made in line with my intention to act at pace to make progress on positive changes to the rating system. I submitted a paper to the Executive prior to the summer recess. If that paper is agreed, we could generate about £9 million per annum for central and local government. Other significant work has been undertaken in recent months on the review of small business rate relief and non-domestic vacant rating. My officials have already completed the research and tax-base analysis associated with that review. They have also completed an extensive series of interviews with key stakeholders. I will shortly outline to the Assembly my intended way forward, following review of the findings.

Mr O'Dowd: My Department will prepare as it would for any legislation and will take on board any legislative requirements that fall to my Department as they come about.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that it is wholly unacceptable that the deaf community is left out and has no reasonable way of communicating, including with his Department, and that it is really important that that community has full access to public services?

Mr O'Dowd: It is vital that we have an inclusive society. At the head of that society, Departments and government have to be accessible to all. I agree with the Member that we have to ensure that our public services are accessible in a user-friendly way.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance. Well done, Minister; you got through all your topical questions.

Mr Speaker: Jonathan Buckley has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Justice. I remind Members to rise in their place should they wish to ask a supplementary question.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I have met many victims of crime and fully appreciate the profound impact that the release of prisoners back into the community at the end of their sentence can have. The safety of the public and consideration of the impact on victims are of the utmost importance to me. Michael and Marjorie Cawdery died because of a vicious attack by Thomas McEntee. After McEntee was sentenced, the Cawdery family registered with the prisoner release victim information scheme (PRVIS). That meant that they should have been kept informed when McEntee was eligible for pre-release testing. That did not happen.

That mistake was caused by an administrative error at the time the family registered, seven years ago, which meant that the prisoner database system was not properly updated. As soon as the Prison Service became aware of the error, it immediately contacted the family to offer a sincere apology and provide them with all the relevant information. The Prison Service also notified the Victims' Commissioner and the Parole Commissioners of the error and paused McEntee's pre-release testing. I would like to publicly reiterate that apology. I am genuinely sorry for the hurt that this caused the family, and I intend to meet them soon. To ensure that there can be no repeat, a full check of all cases in which a prisoner is serving a life sentence and victims are registered has commenced. Once that priority work has been completed, further checks will be carried out on all other cases in which victims have registered with the scheme.

On the wider issue of keeping victims informed, in August, the director general of the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the chief executive of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) commissioned an external review of the schemes that are within their remit to ensure that they are trauma-informed and victim-centred. That review was timely, and many of the recommendations will be implemented to ensure that families and, indeed, the wider public can have full confidence in all victim information schemes.

Mr Buckley: The double murder of my constituents Michael and Marjorie Cawdery was an appalling act of human evil that was caused as a result of catastrophic failures. We think of that family today. I remember visiting neighbours in that quiet residential area of Portadown following their murder, and the sense of shock and fear was palpable. Minister, for many in that community to learn through a television report that the couple's killer, Thomas McEntee, had been on pre-release on 13 occasions since February, four of which were unsupervised, is a damning failure on the part of the Department of Justice. Were any restrictions placed on where Mr McEntee could or could not go, particularly in the Portadown area? Does the Minister think that it is acceptable that a killer such as Mr McEntee was unaccompanied on four occasions? Finally, with the review that she initiated, is she aware at this stage whether there have been similar incidents with families not having been notified?

Mrs Long: On the first of those questions, of course it is of great concern to the Department, and particularly to the Prison Service, when an event such as that occurs. The administrative error that was the cause in that case has been identified and rectified. Further, though, as I said, a review is ongoing of all similar cases to identify whether there are other comparable administratively mishandled issues in the system. To date, none has been identified. However, that does not preclude the fact that some may be found. If so, those will also be rectified.

The wider review on pre-release testing is to try to ensure that the risk of those who are being tested pre-release is properly managed. The reason why people are released first on short periods of accompanied release, then on short periods of unaccompanied release and then on longer periods of unaccompanied release is precisely to test their ability to rehabilitate safely into the community. All those periods of pre-release testing come with conditions that have to be adhered to. Those conditions will depend on the individual prisoner and the point of pre-release testing that they are at. If they fail testing, obviously, they will come back into the prison system and will have to be managed. However, all the cases of people being tested pre-release are to ensure that, when they are finally released, which is the decision made by the courts when they were sentenced, they will be released in a way that is safe and at a time when they are ready and not before. Not to release prisoners on pre-release testing and not to undertake that course of action would mean their simply being released automatically at tariff served, and that would not give us a good indication of what the risks that are associated with the release of that prisoner might be.

Miss Hargey: Thank you, Minister, for coming to the Chamber. That is a serious case in which a family was impacted on and failed by the agencies that were there to protect them, as the coroner set out. They were failed again 13 times in the pre-release testing. I welcome the apology and the fact that you will meet the family. That is important. What proactive steps can you take to ensure, as well as to show that family and, indeed, others, who are also their priority, that no other families will be failed? You outlined a number of steps. Will you give a timeline for those as well, please?

Mrs Long: The rigorous examination that is ongoing is, in the first instance, to ascertain whether there are further errors. It is too early to state whether further errors have occurred, but any that are found will be rectified immediately. People are aware of how the original error occurred, and action has been taken to prevent a recurrence. There is then a further finding on the external review of prisoner release victim information schemes, which will also help to reduce the potential for future errors and ensure that the schemes are victim-centred and trauma-informed, as they are intended to be.

As for the wider situation, further planned periods of temporary release for Mr McEntee have been paused. That is to afford the family their legal right to make written representations. As soon as the error came to light, the family were provided with written representation forms to enable them to submit their views on Mr McEntee's temporary release and the potential conditions that may be attached to any pre-release testing. Decisions regarding any further periods of temporary release for Mr McEntee will be fully documented and will explicitly reference the views of the Cawdery family and the consideration and weight given to those views. I will take time at my meeting with the family to explain what has happened and what will happen in the future. Hopefully, that will provide them and other victims and families, and the wider community, with some reassurance.

Ms Egan: I welcome the Minister's commitment to addressing this issue and ask whether she can update us on the wider work that is being undertaken to ensure that pre-release testing is fit for purpose and victim-centred.

Mrs Long: The Northern Ireland Prison Service is reviewing what further steps can be taken to manage individuals who raise serious concerns during the pre-release testing process. That includes what more can be done to strengthen risk management for those individuals, and also the sanctions that they face if they fail testing. The Prison Service has a duty to prepare prisoners for release, which may be directed by the Parole Commissioners, as soon as they have served the tariff imposed by the judiciary at the point that they were sentenced. However, the commissioners may only direct release if they are satisfied that the individual will no longer present a risk of serious harm to the public. Crucially, pre-release testing helps to provide that evidence, so its benefits are considerable for the wider community. If an individual fails that testing, it is highly unlikely that they will be released at that point, although ultimately that remains a decision for the Parole Commissioners. If there is a failure, testing may also be paused for a short period.

While those who fail receive a lot of attention, as do any errors in what is a very sensitive area of criminal justice, we should not lose sight of the fact that the vast majority comply with the rules and the tests. Those people are much less likely to reoffend and create more victims. Therefore, pre-release testing is and will remain an essential part of the rehabilitation process.

Mr Beattie: The Minister knows that I have raised the issue of keeping victims informed on multiple occasions, particularly with regard to the family of Jim McFadden, who was murdered by James Meehan. Therefore, I have raised the issue of pre-release testing and the failures, as I believe, of the Probation Board's victim unit. Even last week, Meehan was up in court, and the family was not even informed of the outcome of that. Meehan has now been at large for a year.

We see with the Cawdery family that the prisoner release victim information scheme seems to have had a catastrophic failure as well. The Minister has been very clear that a review is ongoing, but does she not now feel that it is time that we had an opt-out system of joining the prisoner release victim information scheme, instead of an opt-in system? Will the Minister think about including that in the sentencing Bill that is due soon?

Mrs Long: It is too late to include any change of that nature in the sentencing Bill. As Members are aware, that Bill is making progress through the various drafting phases to be introduced this side of Christmas, in all likelihood. However, there are issues with an opt-out system too, in that people may then end up perversely being contacted when they want no further contact, and that is a high risk also. Therefore, there is no single issue that can account entirely for human error, but we can put in place more rigorous procedures to try to minimise those human errors.

With respect to the Meehan case — I have to tread very carefully, because the case remains sub judice — it is an extradition case being heard in a different jurisdiction, so there is no ability for us to inform or even to be made aware of the outcome of that extradition case, given that it is between two arms of another Government. However, I have met the family, discussed their concerns and shared with them the work that we are doing. We also, in that regard, sought to provide them with all the information that is available to us regarding the progress of Meehan's case. However, you will understand that we are not necessarily apprised of the outcome of extradition cases, given the modalities that are engaged in such cases.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that they must observe the sub judice guidance for any cases that are before a court.

Mr McGlone: Minister, you mentioned that it would be difficult to introduce an opt-out scheme. Will you please advise why that is the case? We think of so many victims who are potentially at risk or are fearful of the individual being in circulation within their immediate community where that could be the case. I can think of numerous cases of assault or sexual assault where that is happening. That is the first part. The second part is to ask this: when an individual has escaped from custody, what exactly is the procedure from the Prison Service to the police to make sure that anyone who has been a victim and is potentially at risk again from that individual is notified?

Mrs Long: Anyone who is unlawfully at large from prison is committing an offence and is automatically reported to the PSNI. There will then be a manhunt for that individual, if they are unlawfully at large. In most cases, those who breach their pre-release testing conditions will either be unlawfully at large for a very short period, often a matter of hours, or it will be to do with their conduct while they were on release during that period. That may be detected on their return to prison — for example, if they have been drinking alcohol or taking drugs.

It is very important that we recognise that many victims do not want to hear anything further about the perpetrator in their case. It is a very sensitive issue, and not all victims want to receive or, indeed, welcome receipt of updates on the progress of the case of the individual who has been charged. I did not say that it was not possible to introduce an opt-out scheme. I said that it would be impossible to do so ahead of the introduction of the Bill in the autumn, because it would require us to go to consultation, to engage with victims organisations and to restructure the PRVIS system, as well as the other systems that are in place with other agencies, including probation. Therefore, we could not do that in this mandate. However, we could give consideration to that as part of the wider sentencing review that is happening in parallel with the sentencing Bill. That will hopefully pick up areas that Members might identify during the sentencing Bill process but that need further policy development.

As I said, at the moment, the issue for me is not about whether it is an opt-in or opt-out scheme but about ensuring that people's decisions to opt in or opt out are properly recorded on the system and are respected when a decision is made to release an individual from custody, whether permanently or temporarily.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, your last line is really the nub of it. It is about trying to understand and whether the family will be told exactly how one administrative error led to 13 pre-release incidents. I remember the statement from the family at the time that Thomas McEntee was also a victim because of a failure in mental health services, so is there any reassurance about what mental health support that individual will get to ensure that he never becomes so ill again that something like this happens to another family? There were recommendations, and I am not sure that they have all been implemented by any Department.

Mrs Long: I am aware that an inquiry followed those murders, and it is fair to say that, before anyone is released for pre-release testing, their mental health condition has to be stable and well managed and they will only be released if those issues are being addressed. If someone is, for example, going through a period of instability, they will not be released for pre-release testing and will not reach the point of release in that process.

The Member refers to the fact that there were 13 incidents. To be clear, what happened simply was that, as a result of adding an additional family member to the system, all family members on the system were deleted from the system and were not attached to the individual prisoner. Instead of having three family members rather than two appear on the system, no family members appeared on the system. Their names were in the system, but they were not connected to the particular prisoner, and, as a result of that, each time that individual prisoner was released — on 13 different occasions — no one was notified. It was not 13 different administrative errors; it was a single error in adding an additional person to that individual's case that led to the 13 releases without them being notified. As I said, we have now suspended all further pre-release testing, and we will meet the family to ensure that, before pre-release testing recommences, as it must, their witness report statements will be available and they will have an opportunity to make witness and victim representations to the system, as should have been the case on each occasion.

Mr Frew: I have had the honour of meeting some members of the Cawdery family. They have been very helpful with my private Member's Bill on an individual duty of candour.

Minister, you failed to address the question about the specific conditions that were placed on Thomas McEntee while he was on pre-release testing and whether he was allowed to frequent the Portadown area, where he would have been at risk of meeting some of the family or neighbours of his victims.

Mrs Long: He was not allowed to enter the Portadown area while he was on pre-release testing.

Mr Clarke: Given the magnitude of the situation and the hurt that has been caused to those who have been affected by it, I appreciate that the Minister has offered to meet the family. Given that mistakes have been made, will anyone be held accountable for them? There was clearly more than one mistake. Does the Minister think that it is acceptable that a killer was unaccompanied on four occasions, or was that a mistake as well?

Mrs Long: I am not sure whether the Member was here when I said this in answer to an earlier question, but there was a single administrative error. There were not multiple mistakes; there was a single error. Due to that single error, the family's connection with the prisoner on the system was deleted. That was the single error.

People are held to account when they make mistakes, but it depends on what the Member means. If he is asking me whether heads will roll, while that might satisfy some people, I do not think that that is how we should deal with staff who are operating a system that is under the level of pressure that our prison system is under. We need to ensure that people are adequately trained and properly supported and that we have a full complement of people working in the prison system in order to ensure that such errors do not happen in future, insofar as anyone can prevent human error.

On the issue of how a murderer can be released four times unaccompanied, I want to be clear that we are talking about someone who has served the tariff on their sentence. A judge made a decision that, at the point of tariff, provided that they passed a number of tests, they were free to be released on licence into the community. We could either do that automatically, in which case that person would always be unaccompanied without any testing, or we could go through a process of pre-release testing, as we do in the Northern Ireland Prison Service, whereby we first release people accompanied and then, for short periods, release them unaccompanied, which is what happened in this case. That is the basic way in which pre-release testing works. Yes, people who have committed heinous crimes and have served the tariff on their sentences will be tested to see whether they are ready to be rehabilitated and are capable of moving back into the community. Failure to meet the requirements of pre-release testing will lead to it not happening. Those people will then be referred through the testing system. The alternative is that we simply open the prison door and let people go when they have served their tariff.

Mr Burrows: Michael and Marjorie Cawdery were innocent, 83-year-old pensioners who were, I have to say — I served in the district at the time — butchered by Thomas McEntee in their own home. Only in Northern Ireland would the killer be walking around free eight years later. There is something very wrong with our justice system.

Specifically on pre-release testing, to describe an error whereby a double killer was released onto our streets 13 times as being an administrative error is insulting to every victim that has been affected. There was a catastrophic systems failure of training, IT, safeguards, processes and leadership. It is more than the pre-release testing system that is not fit purpose; it is the Minister. Do you agree?

Mrs Long: I am tempted to treat the Member's TikTok preview with the contempt that it deserves, but, given the seriousness of the issue and the fact that I have met the family, I am not going to do so; I am going to give answers. This is not the only place in the UK where somebody who has committed murder would be released on licence after eight years, so that is factually incorrect. There are many parts of these islands where people, after serving their minimum tariff, are released on compassionate grounds for short periods for pre-release testing, both accompanied and unaccompanied, and in different sets of circumstances, so that is a fallacy.

The Member then predicates that there has been a failure of leadership in this case. There was an administrative error. I have not, in any shape or form, sought to minimise the catastrophic impact on the Cawdery family. To make out that there was some systemic failure because someone failed to press a button on a computer is an outrageous and unfounded allegation. Any person can make an error, and someone did. As Minister, my job is one of leadership to ensure that all possible steps are taken to ensure that that is not repeated. We have already done that through our quick review of how it happened, by putting additional resource into the PRVIS unit and by looking at each of the other cases in which we are dealing with life-sentence prisoners. We will go ahead and do the rest in slower time, with the resource that is available to us.

If I wanted to get up here and play the kind of petty and, frankly, grotesque politics that the Member is playing, I could raise the fact that none of this would have happened had our health service been functioning.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, you indicated that Mr McEntee was not allowed to visit the Portadown area. How can you be sure that he was not within the Portadown area on the four occasions when he was unaccompanied?

Mrs Long: Part of his pre-release testing was about where he was and was not allowed to go. Were he to have been seen by a passing patrol or by probation officers, or were anyone else to have reported his presence in the area, he would automatically have failed his pre-release testing. When people are unaccompanied, the situation is exactly as it says on the tin: they are released and unaccompanied. That does not happen, however, until after they have completed other parts of the pre-release testing process, and that process is there to test their conduct and behaviour, both when unaccompanied and when supervised. At that stage, we are talking about very short periods, during which it would be very difficult for somebody to make the journey that you are suggesting without being identified as having done so.

Mr Speaker: That concludes responses to the question for urgent oral answer.

Mr Beattie: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask that the Minister review one of her answers, which took us down a bit of a rabbit hole. She said that the restrictions on McEntee were that he was not allowed in the Portadown area. The murders took place in Craigavon and not within the Portadown boundary. I think that that was a simple mistake, but it would be worthwhile for the Minister to clarify what the restrictions were and give a more detailed answer when she gets the opportunity to do so.

Mr Speaker: If the Member wishes to ask further questions, he can do so in writing.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can probably make this simple for everybody, although I am happy to take a further question from the Member. I was asked the question, "Was he allowed in the Portadown area?". I answered that question by saying, "No, he was not".

Mr Speaker: I confirm that that is the question that was asked. That is why I encourage Mr Beattie that, if he wants further elaboration, he may ask for it in writing.

Mr Kingston: I am a newly added DUP member of the Committee for Finance. My party and I welcome the purpose of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. The Bill will modernise the permitted manner of notification to registrars of any death to include the sending of documents by electronic means and provide for the issuing, at a parent's request, of a certificate recognising the loss of a baby at any stage during pregnancy.

Permission of the electronic transfer of documents for the notification of any death was introduced on a temporary basis during the coronavirus pandemic. That was appreciated by funeral directors, particularly as it meant that they did not have to constantly travel to City Hall — in the case of Belfast — to hand deliver documents that could more readily have been sent by email for verification. Rather than constantly extend that coronavirus-themed emergency legislation, it is right that we and the Finance Minister legislate to permit on a permanent basis electronic communication via email without the reference to coronavirus. That legislation is now before us, and I believe that it is universally welcomed.

The Bill also provides for the issuing of a certificate that recognises the loss of a baby at any stage during pregnancy, including at an early stage, if so requested by one of the parents. It is consistent with our pro-life position in the DUP that the loss of an unborn baby, including before 24 weeks gestation, in any circumstances can be recognised and covered by the legislation. However, we stand over the proposed voluntary nature of the scheme, which means that a certificate is provided if so requested by one of the parents and that there should be no charge for the original and a first copy of a certificate or an amended certificate. The legislation is intended to be compassionate and practical, and we welcome its progression to Consideration Stage.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank everyone who contributed to the discussion, which has been extremely difficult for me. The fact that everyone spoke with care and compassion has shown how much we respect those grieving parents out there. I thank all colleagues for that. I also thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. As others, such as Mr Frew, said, it is the first piece of legislation that will allow people who have lost children during pregnancy, under 24 weeks, to have, at last, something concrete in their hand that they can hold that recognises that they had a child. Thank you for that.

I also thank the Committee, because it could not have been easy to listen to the stories of those grieving parents. Having been a bereavement counsellor and involved in supporting hundreds of parents who have lost children and, of course, given the fact that I have suffered losses, which I have not hidden, I know that it can be quite difficult. To anybody in the House, those listening or any staff in the Building who have been through the same situation as me, I am very sorry for your loss, and I hope that the Bill goes a long way in helping you grieve for your child, because the Government will recognise your child, albeit they may have survived for only a short time.

I will go straight to the clauses to which amendments have been tabled. Mr Gaston, of course, tabled his opposition to clause 8 stand part. It is his right to have his own considerations, but I came to the House to represent everyone, and I believe in the code of conduct for MLAs, which means that we have to consider equality in all that we do. Therefore, I will not support him. He may oppose clause 8, but I do not think that the majority of the House do.

Amendment No 1 requires the legislation to be laid within a timescale. That is relevant, because, far too often in the House, we have the situation where we legislate, and, as I know from my experience on the Committee for Communities, it takes years for regulations to come forward. To be honest, we are giving a lot of hope to people outside the Chamber, and they will expect to see something. To be fair to the Minister and his Department, they have done an awful lot of work in the background, and they are almost there. It would not be such a stretch for them.

Amendment No 2 was tabled in the name of my colleague Eóin Tennyson. Mr Frew made an important point, and I will perhaps comment on it now. We are talking about legislation. It is something that, when written down, is law. We are talking about whether to charge people for certificates. Here is something: we either charge for the certificates, or we do not. There is no in-between. I say that in reference to amendment No 3, tabled by the DUP. Who would hold a register of who has applied for baby loss certificates? I do not understand how that works. We either charge for everything, or we do not charge for it.

If we are going to say that we will give so many certificates free and the rest will have to be paid for, there must be a list — a tally kept against that child's name or record — of who has applied and how many times people have applied for a certificate, and that will incur costs. That is not appropriate. We need to decide today whether we will charge or not. The ability to charge is in the legislation as the Minister has it, but, to be honest, as I said in reference to the child funeral fund, the Assembly has already decided to provide funding so that a parent does not have to pay for the funeral of a child under the age of 18, so why are we asking parents who have lost a child at under 24 weeks of pregnancy to pay for a baby loss certificate?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. The amendment is a safeguard to ensure that no parent would have to pay for a certificate. It states that the certificate and the first copy of it would be free. Why did we go for two certificates? The mother and the father or the other parent, for that matter, might be estranged, and, in such cases, at least they would have a copy each. The amendment is a safeguard: no parent would be charged for a baby loss certificate.

Ms K Armstrong: I appreciate that, in a perfect world, just a mother and a father would be involved, but what happens if they become estranged and a new partner comes into the relationship who adopts the other family members and wants a copy? Grandparents, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles and many others might look for that. If we are to legislate on an equal footing, we have to consider this: anybody who loses a child over 24 weeks of pregnancy does not have to pay for funerals because we reimburse them for that, but we will be charging people who lose a child before 24 weeks of pregnancy. That is part of the problem that we are getting into as we debate the harm that can be caused. There is no difference in the grief, but we are making a difference financially. To be fair to everyone, we have to just say either that they pay or they do not, and that will be up to the House. My preferred option is this: if we are going to provide free services to people whose loss happened after 24 weeks of pregnancy, we should do nothing different for people whose babies pass away before 24 weeks.

Perhaps the Minister could come back to us on the matter of the register. If people can get some certificates for free but have to pay for the rest, how will that be managed and worked on? For example, I started life as Kellie McGrattan. I got married and became Kellie Armstrong. I did not have a youngster when I was McGrattan, but I could have had one. How would we know who the father is? Are we going to ask for a lot of details? We are starting to get into a convolution here that does not need to happen.

With regard to amendment No 4, I get it — I absolutely get it — but putting amendment Nos 4 and 5 into the Bill is a waste of time. Regulations that are already being talked about are coming forward, and it is not for the House to tell a grieving parent what should or should not be on a baby loss certificate. It is for grieving parents to decide that. They should be part of the development of the regulations and should decide what goes into the Bill.

As I said earlier, not every parent — I include myself — knows the gender of their child or has been able to give that child a name. Even the date on which the child was lost might be a convoluted matter. Let us be careful, and let us be as flexible and open as possible to the opportunity to provide a baby loss certificate, which is something so special for so many people. Let us not make it too convoluted and difficult.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms K Armstrong: Yes.

Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that the reason for introducing the Bill was to try to make up for the trauma that has been caused to so many mummies who, like her, have lost their babies and to allow them the recognition that the baby existed? By making it more convoluted, all we are doing is adding to the trauma that, in some cases, has been ongoing for many years.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for that. It leads me nicely to amendment No 5. I am sorry, folks, but I cannot support amendment No 5. I say it honestly from my heart: please do not do this. I have sat in more than enough rooms as a bereavement counsellor and even when I was being counselled myself with women who have had to struggle with the term "abortion" being used in respect of their miscarriage. While I absolutely, 100%, respect a woman's right to choose, I also absolutely respect a woman's right to grieve. For some women, having the words "termination" or "abortion" associated with their loss is devastating. I remember seeing the words "spontaneous abortion" at a time when I could not understand why my body had not carried children. It was harmful for my mental health, and I know that it has been harmful for a lot of other women's mental health.

Members have talked kindly today about the issue. Ms Forsythe, your speech was very moving for me. It recognised that, as soon as you get pregnant, you have thoughts, wishes and dreams for the baby who will come along. If your body then expels it and you do not know why and somebody calls that "an abortion", you think, "Do they think that I got rid of my child — the one that I wanted?". That is difficult. I beg the House to please leave the regulations as flexible as possible and not to use emotive language in the Bill that will mean that when a woman, a man, a grandparent or whoever goes to apply for a baby loss certificate, they will have to tick a box to indicate whether they want to say how they lost their baby. It is a baby loss certificate, not a medical procedure certificate. I ask the House to please just be kind and keep going with what we intend the Bill to do. Let the regulations deal with that. Let bereaved parents deal with that. Let the Minister of Finance and his officials deal with it in a flexible way that will allow all those who wish to apply for a baby loss certificate to do so without having to specify.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for giving way. It is a misrepresentation to state that the term "abortion" will appear. It is a case of opening up the regulations so that those who have suffered an abortion can and will have the right to apply for a certificate. Nobody is saying that the term "abortion" will be on certificates. Nobody is saying that the term "abortion" will be listed on the form. That is a misrepresentation of the heart behind the amendments.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for his contribution, but I am a legislator the same as him, and I do not read his amendments in the way that, he thinks, he has written them. Amendment No 5 states:

The words "a termination of pregnancy" will be in the Bill and in the Act, and I ask the House to not agree to that. With clause 11, we have the opportunity to cover all instances and reasons, and we do not need to go into those reasons.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms K Armstrong: I will.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely, yes, those words will appear in the Bill. That is the purpose of the amendment. In previous debates, abortion was not counted. The amendment is to ensure that abortion is given its place in the Bill so that, if those who have suffered an abortion, whether through a medical termination or through their choice, wish to avail themselves of a certificate, they can get one.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Gaston. I am sorry, but I am one of those grieving parents, and my last loss involved a medical abortion that was very difficult for me. I find the terminology offensive and callous. It lacks understanding. It also lacks evidence of conversations with women who have been through any of this. None of us want to see that wording in the Bill. What we have in clause 11 is enough; we do not need amendment No 5. We do not need to retraumatise and harm people just because they lost a child before 24 weeks of pregnancy.

It has been difficult today. I believe that we in the House, irrespective of our positions on what are technical points of law, are in agreement. We need to have baby loss certificates. We need to provide people with a piece of paper that finally confirms that they were pregnant and had a baby. That baby may no longer be here, but there is a certificate that people can apply for and have. I fully believe that, in the early days of the certificate being available, there will be an influx of people of all ages and genders applying for it, because, for years in Northern Ireland, we have not had the opportunity to do so. This is the right thing to do. It is right that we have not put a time limit on it, as appears in other places. It is kinder.

There is also an unknown element to this regarding how the certificates will eventually be produced. It may well be something that you can apply for and print or choose to print yourself, or you may wish to have a formal printing process — a bit like it is for a death certificate — where you are given a certificate. There are lots of options still to come forward. Minister, I honestly believe that, through the regulations, you and your Department will bring forward what bereaved parents want and need. Today, all that I ask is that people think about this craic of charging people. You either have it in the Bill, or you do not. There is no halfway house here, because the halfway house will cost a lot of money and will require you to get data protection information from grieving parents at time when they just want a certificate for their dead child.

We should think about getting this passed as quickly as possible. I have every belief that the officials are almost there. I know that the consultation piece is over. There has been a lot of input into it. I was one of those who responded to the consultation. I am grateful, as a grieving parent, to have been able to do that. We are almost there, and we can have this done within this financial year, never mind within the mandate. All that I would say, as someone who is so grateful that this is coming forward, is this: thank you so much, Minister, and thank you to your Department. I thank the Committee for the work that it has done and for listening to grieving parents. We are doing something special here. I do not think that there is a row about that. It is something outstanding that shows that the Assembly has a heart and compassion for its neighbours, friends and families. I thank you for that.

Mr Carroll: As I have said before, the Bill's broad aims are important for everyone who has experienced baby loss, death or stillbirth. I commend everybody who has spoken out, including Ms Armstrong and other Members who have experienced that sadness and tragedy.

There are, however, gaps in the Bill. I have raised that before. It is completely unconscionable that the Department and the Minister are including a provision to charge for certificates. I have been consistent on that. The reason given for that is not strong or robust enough. The only argument that I have heard from the Department and the Minister is that, in the future, somebody may ask for a large number of certificates, thus costing the Department money. That is my reading of the explanation that has been given. As I have said before in Committee, not only does that show a contemptible view of the public but it will cause harm and probably trauma to people who have suffered and been bereaved, thus rendering the Bill's aims redundant and counterproductive. Amendment Nos 2 and 3 deal with that. Amendment No 2 is stronger, so I urge people to support that amendment.

Amendment No 4 seems OK on the face of it, unless the Member has other motives. I am interested to hear from the Minister on it. I have taken note of comments from Kellie Armstrong and Steve Aiken as well.

Amendment No 5 tries to stigmatise women who have had terminations and will put people under pressure to think that, in the future, they may need a certificate or that a certificate may be compulsory and they will have to mention their termination. It looks as though it is designed to create a chill factor around a healthcare issue for women. I will oppose it for that reason and urge others to do so as well.

Amendment No 6 strengthens the accountability mechanisms in the House and for the Committee to ensure that the regulations on certificates match what the public and grieving parents want and expect. We heard from Forget-me-not that language is important when it comes to bereavement. Often, legislation can be misunderstood. It comes across as dry and not compassionate, even when it is trying not to be. The language is really important in this case.

Clause 8 deals with the rights of same-sex couples. It is ironic — cruelly ironic — that parties who talk about women's rights to attack trans people cannot allow or stomach same-sex parents who are women the chance to register a birth or stillbirth. I highlight that hypocrisy. The clause is a step forward for parents who are non-birth mothers, although there is an anomaly and a gap that I have raised with the Minister and in Committee. Constituents of mine who go through IVF treatment in the South do not have the same rights to register a birth or stillbirth in the North.

There cannot be a partitionist approach for same-sex parents and so many families.

I tried to introduce an amendment about the lack of bereavement support nurses and services in place, but I was told that that issue was connected to Westminster legislation. I raise it because it is something that the Minister and the Health Minister need to tackle. The Member who spoke previously touched on the issue. As, hopefully, the Bill becomes law, it is likely that a large number of bereaved people will come forward, which is their right, but there is no coordination or plan in place from Ministers to address that situation. The answer to a question for written answer that I submitted revealed that there is one bereavement services coordinator in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, there is none in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust and there is one in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust, that the number of bereavement nurses in each trust area is one or zero, and that the number of bereavement midwives in each trust area is two, one or zero. There is a massive issue in that regard because of the good aims of the Bill: people who are traumatised or have issues that they need to express are going to come forward, but, unfortunately, the support will not be there for them. That is not to downplay the important work that is done by healthcare workers already, but they are a small number of people who are under pressure. The voluntary groups also do tremendous work, but the services are not really in place, and, with respect, I do not hear a plan from you, Minister, or the Health Minister to try to address that issue.

Mr O'Dowd: I begin by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate on this important matter. As Members will be aware, the key aims of the Bill are, first, to place the temporary processes contained in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that enable the remote registration of deaths and stillbirths and the electronic transfer of registration documents on a permanent footing; secondly, to rectify the differences in the birth and stillbirth registration processes for some opposite-sex and same-sex female parents; and, thirdly, to enable the making of secondary legislation for the introduction of a baby loss certificate scheme.

Mr Gaston has indicated that he will oppose the Questions that clause 8 and the schedule stand part of the Bill. Those are, of course, decisions for Mr Gaston. Clause 8 and the schedule relate directly to one of the key aspects of the Bill, which is to rectify differences in the birth and stillbirth registration processes between opposite-sex and same-sex female couples. Clause 8 and the schedule are important parts of the Bill, as they will ensure that unmarried and non-civil partner couples have access to the same registration procedures, regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex couples. The inequality in the birth and stillbirth registration processes has existed for some time, and it is right that those disparities are rectified through the Bill. The provisions in the Bill will ensure that those inequalities are removed, so that all couples have the same options for the registration of a birth or stillbirth. I ask Members to consider the importance of that issue and to vote to ensure that clause 8 and the schedule stand part of the Bill.

The intention of amendment No 1 from Mr Tennyson, which is to change the word "may" to "shall", is to ensure that the Department is required to make regulations and to remove any possibility that the Department may decide not to progress them. I am aware of the importance of the scheme to families who have experienced an early pregnancy loss. The scheme will offer families the same formal recognition as those who are affected by the death of a loved one or a stillbirth. For the families, the certificate will confirm that their baby existed, and I hope that it will help them to navigate the grieving process. I therefore assure the Member that it is my intention that the regulations that outline the content of the baby loss certificate scheme will be progressed as soon as possible, with the aim of having the scheme operational by the end of this financial year. Officials are in the process of drafting the regulations for the scheme, and those will start the legislative process through the draft affirmative route as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. I recognise the desire of Members to see the scheme operational as quickly as possible. That is also my desire. Based on what I outlined previously, I do not feel that an amendment to the wording is strictly necessary as it has always been my intention to bring forward secondary legislation without delay. However, I am content to accept the amendment, as it supports the route that I intend to follow to bring forward regulations for a baby loss certificate scheme as soon as possible.

Amendment No 2 from Mr Tennyson is about the charging of fees for baby loss certificates and proposes that "no applicant" should be required to pay a fee for a baby loss certificate. As Members will be aware, the question of whether or not there should be fees for a baby loss certificate is highly emotive. From the outset, it has been my intention that the scheme will be compassionate and open to anyone who has suffered a loss early in pregnancy. While a certificate will not undo the pain that parents have suffered, it can provide formal recognition of the loss and validate their grief. For that reason, it has always been my view that there should be no charge when someone applies for a baby loss certificate.

The question of fees was also considered extensively as part of the Finance Committee's scrutiny of clause 11(1). I am grateful for the Committee's detailed report in that regard. The Committee's view, as set out in its budget report, was that there should be no charge for a baby loss certificate. At the end of its scrutiny, the Committee did not recommend or table any amendments to the Bill, noting that any charges would need to be approved by the Assembly when the baby loss regulations are introduced. Consequently, I believe that there was consensus that no fees should be charged for a baby loss certificate.

The amendment goes further, however, by requiring that no fee be levied for any baby loss certificate. It will require that a second, third, fourth and any other subsequent copy of the certificate is free. It will also set the scheme apart from other certificate schemes. Members, understandably, referred to equality in this matter and to ensuring that everybody is treated equally. If you request a copy of any other life event certificate, there is a charge. I am sure that it is difficult for all Members to discuss money and fees in this context. I was not being patronising to Mr Tennyson when I commented about introducing legislation as opposed to debating motions. The point that I was trying to make was that you have to write legislation in a way that, as best you can, incorporates powers that will deal with any future circumstances that arise. That way, you do not regret having the power to act and not doing so and do not have to go through the process again, which costs money and time. It is better for the Department to have a power — I will come to the DUP amendment in a moment — than it is for it to have no power. The real power rests in the Assembly, because it will decide on any regulations that are proposed. We can go around the Chamber and talk about different ifs and whether certain circumstances are to going to arise, but there is a charge for a copy of all other life event certificates, so if we are going to have equality on these matters, that is a reference point for us all.

For the reasons that I have outlined, I oppose the amendment tabled by Eóin. However, to ensure that no family will face a cost for a first baby loss certificate, I propose to amend the Bill at Further Consideration Stage. As I do not want to exclude the possibility of any fees being charged in the future, I have asked my officials to work with Ms Forsythe and Mr Frew, whose amendment is closer to my position, to develop an amendment for the Assembly to consider. That work will be able to take account of the results of our public consultation, which asked the public for their views on the appropriateness of fees. It will also give the Department flexibility to charge fees in the future, subject to the agreement of the Assembly, should it become necessary to do so. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment No 2, and I urge Members to reject it to allow us to develop a narrower provision for inclusion at Further Consideration Stage.

Amendment No 3, tabled by Paul Frew and Diane Forsythe, deals with the same matters as amendment No 2: the charging of fees for baby loss certificates. It proposes to amend the Bill to ensure that the regulations:

However, they:

if needs be.

Although it is not drafted exactly as I would like, the amendment aligns with my view that there should not be a fee for the first certificate. I also recognise the flexibility that it retains for the Department to propose fees in some, likely quite limited, circumstances in the future, again, subject to the approval of the Assembly.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, thank you so much for giving way. I normally do not interrupt a Minister when they are speaking. Will you clarify whether that means that you will have to hold a register of all parents who apply for a baby loss certificate?

Mr O'Dowd: Whether there are fees or not, it is proposed that we will have a register of parents who have applied for a certificate and that we will hold that for at least five years. Some data will have to be held, obviously following sensitive and proper procedures. With or without fees, the proposal is to hold that data for at least five years. That would be the process.

For those reasons, I am content to support the amendment in principle and to work with Ms Forsythe and Mr Frew to propose additional amendments at Further Consideration Stage.

Moving on to amendment No 4 from Mr Gaston —.

Mr Frew: I really appreciate the Minister's giving way. He has spoken to our amendment. Just so that the House is clear: given the Minister's charitable stance, given that our amendment is very similar to his principle and given what he has said about tabling a departmental amendment at Further Consideration Stage, we will not move our amendment today, in order to allow the Department the time and space to develop an amendment to reflect that principle. We will have the right to table our amendment again at Further Consideration Stage, if need be, but we trust in the Minister, given what he has said. Thank you, Minister.

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for those comments. He is being nice to me a lot today. Your move to the Justice Committee has done you the world of good [Laughter.]

I appreciate the manner and tone in which all Members have approached the debate and the entire process. Of course, there will be differences of opinion on various matters, but Members have —.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes; just one second, Eóin.

Members have tried their best to ensure that we approach this in a mature and dignified manner.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for giving way. Minister, it is clear that there will not be support for amendment No 2. In the spirit of allowing space and time for the Department to do further work in collaboration with Ms Forsythe and Mr Frew, I will not move amendment No 2 as part of the voting process.

Mr O'Dowd: Again, I appreciate the Member's approach to the matter and the desire of many in the Chamber for consensus as we move forward.

Amendment No 4 proposes the introduction of subsection 3A to clause 11 to specify fields, such as the name and sex of the baby, that should be included in the content of the baby loss certificate. The amendment also proposes the inclusion of a statement on the certificate recognising the baby as a member of the applicant's family.

Clause 11 enables the Department to make regulations that will provide for the recognition of any loss — importantly, any loss — that occurs before the end of the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. The regulations will set out the specification for the certificate scheme and provide for the content of the baby loss certificate. Those regulations will be brought before the Assembly through the draft affirmative route, which will enable all Members to consider and debate their contents.

I have always emphasised that the scheme will reflect the requirements of those who have experienced a loss and that their views and opinions will help to shape the scheme. To that end, my Department carried out a public consultation exercise between 17 June and 12 September. More than 1,100 responses were received, with people taking the opportunity to provide their views on the content of the scheme and the information that they would like to see included on the baby loss certificate. I thank each and every one of those 1,100 respondents. I am sure that it was very difficult for many of them to respond to that consultation, but they did so for the betterment of all, which is a credit to them.

The baby loss certificate will include a number of details that respondents to the consultation exercise indicated that they want to be included. We expect that those will include the name and sex of the baby, where that can be detailed, along with the date and place of loss and the parents' details. We also expect that applicants for baby loss certificates will not need to provide all that information; they will be able to provide as much or as little information as they wish.

I am confident that the parents and families who have experienced loss already consider their baby to be a member of their family. We will bring forward a full report on the findings from our public consultation in due course, but there was no suggestion, during the process or in discussions with stakeholders, that a statement is required on the certificate to recognise that the baby was a member of the family. There was a clear wish for the certificate to be as similar to other life event certificates as possible, and none of those includes such statements.

As I have outlined, it is vital that the scheme reflects the requirements of those who have experienced a loss. The Bill and the subsequent regulations will provide for that, and the Assembly will have to consider them in detail. I, therefore, do not feel that it is necessary to make changes to clause 11, as proposed by amendment No 4.

I move now to Mr Gaston's amendment No 5, which proposes the insertion of subsection (3A) following clause 11(3) to specify that:

I will take Mr Gaston at his word regarding what he has presented to the Assembly for his motivation behind the amendment. In fairness, the comments of the Speaker in relation to the comments of the Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair at that time, has clarified that position. When you look at clause 11(2), you see that it clearly states:

That encapsulates the concerns that Mr Gaston has expressed today. If the Bill already encapsulates his thinking on those matters, I see no reason for the amendment, and I will not support it.

I move now to amendment No 6 in the name of Mr Tennyson. The amendment would omit clause 11(5) and insert new subsections to provide that:

Amendment No 6 also proposes that the regulations must be:

Again, it is an admirable proposal or amendment, but the difficulty with it relates to its unintended consequences, if, for whatever reason, the Department is not able to produce those regulations within the 12 weeks. If difficulties are going to arise with those regulations, they will arise regardless of whether we have that amendment. The difficulty that might arise, further from that, is that it may call into question the validity of the legislation if we do not produce it within 12 weeks. Again, I ask the Member to consider that. It is a well-intentioned amendment, and I can understand the frustration of the public, at times, at the delays in legislation not only being passed in this place but enacted, but I think that everyone will agree that my departmental officials, in cooperation with the Department of Health, have been working their way through the process admirably.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for giving way. Unfortunately, I will move the amendment because there have been delays around baby loss certification schemes. Issues only arise if the Department does not meet what it has committed to meeting in relation to delivering the scheme. It has said that it will be by the end of the calendar year. This gives you three months from Royal Assent. If you are going to deliver within that time frame, there is no reason why you would not accept that amendment.

Mr O'Dowd: I accept the motivations behind the amendment, but there could be unintended consequences. As I said, my officials are working their way through this at pace. However, if you run into an unexpected problem, you will run into it regardless of whether we have the amendment. The problem is that, if the amendment is in statute, it could call into question the legality of the entire process. The Member has set out his position, and I have set out mine.

I have covered Mr Gaston's comments and emphasised the importance of clause 8 and the schedule to the Bill. The provision will ensure that inequalities in birth and stillbirth processes are removed and that all couples have the same options for the registration of a birth or stillbirth. I urge Members to reflect on the importance of equality in the registration process for different couples and to support the inclusion of the schedule. I draw my remarks to a close.

Mr Gaston: I thank Members for their tone. They might not agree with the amendments that I have tabled, but we have had a good discussion on them. I trust that Members see the heart that is behind the amendments that I have brought to the House. Regardless of the outcome of the debate, due to my amendments being tabled, the Bill firmly applies and recognises that aborted babies, either through choice or led by medical evidence, will be included in the scheme. That was not the case in the debate at an earlier stage. The House has moved on that, and I welcome the fact that we now recognise that babies lost through abortion cannot be left out and need to be recognised. That is a change of direction for the House. The life of a baby starts at conception, and it is important that life is recognised and included in the certificate scheme if — this is the clarity I have tried to bring to the Bill today — and only if the parent wishes to avail themselves of a certificate. Agreement to my amendments will not automatically mean that those who have lost a baby through abortion will automatically get a certificate. That, as I have said, is a misrepresentation of my stance.

I will go through the comments of a few Members. Mr O'Toole, as the Chairman of the Committee, thanked those who provided the 40 responses at Committee Stage. He paid tribute to those who had given personal testimonies. I am sure it was traumatic and delicate, but those who gave their personal testimony need to be recognised, and we must commend them for doing that. Mr O'Toole went on to speak on behalf of the SDLP. Throughout his contribution, I wondered whether he was speaking on behalf of everyone in his party or whether those who sit on the Back Benches are sympathetic to some of the amendments that I have put forward today. He said that he did not object to the principle of amendment No 4. He voiced his objections to amendment No 5. I say to him that Stormont decides the principles; the civil servants fill in the details. It is up to the House to ensure that the Bill includes the principle that no grieving parent should be excluded. As I have said, the lives lost through termination were not included in previous debates.

Jemma Dolan spoke on behalf of Sinn Féin. She said that I oppose equality and cause division. I clarify once again that my amendments reflect basic, first-day biology — it is a biology lesson — and that is where my opposition to the schedule comes from.

Diane Forsythe made a heartfelt contribution, and I felt that some of the thoughts that she put forward reflected a genuine stance. She reminded the House that death is a part of life that we must all navigate. A concern was raised shortly after that, and Ms Armstrong intervened to make the point that the sex of a baby is not known in all cases. To clarify, what I propose is an appendix to the form for the sex and name. No one needs to leave anything blank. If they do not know the details, they do not have to fill in the appendix. It is about the personhood of the unborn child. I trust that that clarifies my proposed subsection 3A(b) of clause 11.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way on that point. As I said, I do not object to the Member's proposal per se. However, given that many bereaved parents have taken the time to respond to the 12-week consultation, does he agree that it would be wrong for us to proceed with primary legislation before we have had an opportunity to take account of their views and listen to them?

Mr Gaston: The Minister said that there were 1,100 responses to the consultation, and I thank everyone who submitted their views, but it is appropriate for the House, at Consideration Stage, to include the amended clause. I hope that that clarity will allow Members to back the amendment.

Diane spoke in support of the amendment that she and Paul Frew tabled. I note that it has been withdrawn pending the outcome of what the Minister said.

Mr Tennyson said that debates such as this are triggering and that language matters. I trust that Members will have heard from my language and how I presented my amendments what I have tried to do in that regard. The Member does not oppose amendment No 4 essentially but will oppose it anyway, and his contribution reflects that. Where his comments on amendment No 5 are concerned, Members should be assured that that amendment has nothing to do with a culture war. It is disingenuous to try to label me as someone who is entering into that sphere. Indeed, it was the Member who brought the culture war into the debate when he went to the press at the weekend to misrepresent my and my party's stance on the issues. Given Mr Tennyson's contribution, biology does not matter, according to the gospel of Eóin. He then stated his opposition to amendment No 5.

Dr Aiken talked about dealing with the matter in compassionate terms, saying that it is important to get it right. I trust and believe that Members have done that today. Dr Aiken went on to thank all those who gave evidence.

Deirdre Hargey gave us the typical equality speech. She said that I was demonising women. That is a misrepresentation of my stance, and it does not reflect the heart that I have behind such matters.

Miss Hargey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy enough to take a point.

Miss Hargey: I speak as a woman with experience on those issues, so yes.

Mr Gaston: At the same time, just because I am a man, that does not mean that my views do not count. I trust that, when I presented my arguments today, I did so sensitively.

Mr Frew very jollily welcomed the fact that we are dealing with legislation. He thanked the staff on the Committee, which he has now left. I am not sure whether they are glad to get rid of him, but he certainly was in his element today when he was putting forward his opinions. He pointed out that this is the first place in the British Isles to legislate for baby loss certificates. Do not let this get lost in the debate that we have had today: everybody in the House supports the scheme. It is just that some Members have a different interpretation of the things that need to be included. However, do not let that take away from where we are and where we are going.

Brian Kingston was first up after lunch. He said that the Bill is consistent with the DUP's pro-life stance, and he agrees with there being a voluntary option for those who want to opt in or, indeed, do not want to avail themselves of the scheme at all.

Kellie Armstrong spoke about how hard the debate has been for her today. I pay tribute to Kellie for giving her personal experiences not just today but in my short time in the Chamber. I must commend her for that. We might agree on some things and disagree on others, but that does not stop me recognising a heartfelt contribution, and that is what Kellie brought to the debate. However, at some stages throughout the debate, she misrepresented me. In an intervention, I pointed out that nobody is suggesting that the words "termination" or "abortion" be included on a certificate or form. It is simply wrong to try to peddle that and to leave it at my feet. That is not at the heart of what we want to achieve. In Kellie's intervention, however, she seemed to take exception to the word "abortion" appearing anywhere in legislation. I realise that that word can be triggering, but it is legislation that we are dealing with here. I support such an inclusion, and my amendments deserve a place in the Bill.

Mr Carroll talked about the gaps in the Bill. He has an issue with charging for certificates. He said that amendment No 4 seems reasonable, but he talked about amendment No 5 stigmatising women and creating a chill factor. Once again, that is certainly not right. I trust that Members today will take on board the heart behind my contribution and my intentions in the amendments.

To sum all that up, my concern is that those who are opposed to my amendments are those who do not agree that conception starts at birth.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Gaston: I will give way in a moment. I am proudly pro-life, and it is issues like this that brought me to the Chamber. I will use every opportunity that I have to get to my feet and raise those issues and concerns. My faith guides my contributions in this Chamber. That is why I am opposed to schedule 8 and it is why I have tabled my amendments.

I am happy to give way.

Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that, if you can acknowledge one Member's heartfelt contribution as a woman with experience, the honourable and decent thing would be to acknowledge both women who spoke from the same perspective, rather than accusing them of the usual equality stance?

Mr Gaston: I certainly acknowledge anybody who spoke in a personal capacity, whether in the Committee or in the Chamber. I acknowledge the hurt and pain that they have gone through. I am sincere when I do that. That, however, does not stop me presenting my amendments in the manner that I have done. I have full sympathy for anybody who has lost a child through miscarriage or termination. That is one of the reasons why I tabled my amendment on abortion. There are those who have aborted a baby who regret it later in life. Those who have had a miscarriage grieve the loss of that child. How could you not grieve the loss of any child? Being a father, I know how much my children mean to me.

I strongly support the scheme because, if my wife was in the same position, I would want to recognise that child and name that child. That is what is at the heart of my amendments. I will move the amendments that are tabled in my name on that basis.

Mr Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind Members that, while we have debated Mr Gaston's opposition to clause 8, the Question will be put in the positive. Furthermore, I advise Members that Mr Gaston's opposition to clause 8 is linked to his opposition to the Question that the schedule stand part, as clause 8 gives effect to the schedule.

Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Mr Speaker: Again, I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Mr Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind Members that we have debated Timothy Gaston's opposition to the schedule, but the Question will be put in the positive as usual.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. I thank all Members who participated in the debate. It was done in a constructive and positive way, and I appreciate your efforts.

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

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I beg to move

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

Mrs Long: I seek the Assembly's approval for the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025, SR 2025/151.

I am grateful to the Justice Committee and the Examiner of Statutory Rules for their scrutiny of the order. Article 2 extends the provisions allowing courts and statutory tribunals in Northern Ireland to receive evidence wholly or in part using audio or video conferencing systems, commonly referred to as "live links". Live links are primarily video systems that are utilised to facilitate the attendance of persons participating remotely in any court or tribunal hearing. The provisions are in addition to legislation that allows the use of a video link for a specific witness or defendant, with all other participants attending in the courtroom. The extension will allow us to maintain access until March 2026 to a digital tool that has proved to be an essential element of the toolkit for addressing the backlog of cases accrued during and since the pandemic.

Members will recall, from the debates on similar motions for approval in 2024 and earlier this year, that we intend to put in place new primary legislation to provide a long-term legislative solution for live links in courts and tribunals. The Justice Bill, which, if enacted, will ultimately resolve the issue, was introduced last year and is at Committee Stage. Meanwhile, this further extension will allow us to maintain efficacy in the system. It will offer an avenue for wider access for participation in the courts where a judge is satisfied that that is in the interests of justice. I remain keen to have the Justice Bill in place as soon as reasonably practical, but it will be well into next year before that can happen, as the Bill's Committee Stage has been extended to March 2026. I am conscious of the concern expressed in past debates on similar motions about relying on emergency-related legislation and wish that there were a practical alternative to continuing to rely on the provisions as a temporary measure. However, there is justification for doing so, in that the legacy of the pandemic continues to have an impact on the justice system today.

Since the pandemic, Northern Ireland, like the other jurisdictions in the UK, has suffered a persistent backlog in the criminal courts. During the pandemic, more cases were received than disposed of in the criminal courts, which meant that the number of outstanding cases rose.

The Department's analysis of live case numbers at any stage, and of processing times for cases that were completed at courts in the years 2019-2020 to 2024-25, indicate that the pandemic not only had an impact at that time but continues to do so. For example, the total number of live Crown Court cases from the point at which a person is charged or informed rose from 940 on 1 March 2020 to a peak of 1,642 on 1 April 2022. That figure remained high on 1 April 2025, at 1,591 cases, up 69·3% from the figure in 1 March 2020.

The number of adult Magistrates' Court cases from the point at which a person is charged also rose from 25,604 on 1 March 2020 to a peak of 30,555 on 1 April 2021. That figure remained high on 1 April 2025 at 29,854 cases, which is an increase of 16% from the figure in March 2020.

There have been also been percentage increases for live cases in the Crown Court over the same period. The number of Crown Court cases, from the first court date after the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) decision to prosecute in the Crown Court, rose from 898 in March 2020 to a peak of 1,612 on 1 April 2022. The level remained high, at 1,585, on 1 April 2025, which is a 76·5% increase on the 1 March 2020 figure.

Within the adult Magistrates' Court, the number of cases from the first court date after the Public Prosecution Service decision to prosecute rose as a result of the pandemic, from 6,081 on 1 March 2020 to a peak of 10,545 on 1 April 2022. That number remained high, at 9,346 cases, on 1 April 2025, which is a 53·7% increase from the figure on 1 March 2020.

The median number of days taken for a case to be completed in all courts from the date when an offence was reported to the date it was dealt with was 189 days in 2024-25, up 26·8% from 149 days in 2019-2020. That number reached a high of 226 days for cases that were dealt with in 2021-22. Similar impacts have been reported in England and Wales, as well as in Scotland.

Although progress is being made, a substantial percentage of cases, adult and youth, have been with the Crown Court and Magistrates' Court for more than three years. While the pandemic is not the sole factor in the level of the backlogs, it is, nevertheless, a significant material factor. Other factors that play a role in the level of the backlogs include limited options for increasing case throughput by stakeholders, industrial action by other players in the criminal justice system and the extraordinary ongoing financial pressures that the Department faces.

Maintaining access to live links has been identified as being an essential means of addressing the caseload backlog, particularly in the criminal courts, and it continues to be a useful tool in facilitating the efficient management of court time. The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service reports that the number of SightLink connections consistently averages approximately 23,000 per month. SightLink is to be replaced by the end of 2025 with a bespoke justice video platform based on Webex and provided by NICS IT Assist.

While there is no guarantee, based on current disposal rates, an optimistic timescale for Crown Courts and Magistrates' Courts to recover would be mid to late 2026. There remains support by court users, particularly those who advocate for victims of crime, for that avenue of participation to be available, subject to judicial approval, to those who would prefer not to attend a court in person. The use of those provisions aligns with commitments that were made, or are reflected in, the Victim Charter. Therefore, whilst I hope that I never have to repeat that lengthy introduction, as I untangle and wrestle with the wording of the motion, I commend the approval of the order to the Assembly and look forward to being in a position, hopefully in the near future, where we no longer have to rely on that temporary measure.

Ms Egan: I put on record my support, and that of my party, for the extension of the regulations relating to the use of live links for courts and tribunals. As all Members across the Chamber will be aware, the renewing of the regulations is an item of business that has come to the Assembly on multiple occasions, modernising our legislation for practical and effective use in the 21st century. Live links play a key role in addressing case backlogs and ensuring access to justice in the most timely and appropriate way possible. The provisions are important in ensuring that those with accessibility requirements have an option to engage in justice in a way that best represents them. The regulations also have adequate safeguards in place: the judiciary must be satisfied that receiving evidence via live links is in the interests of justice and will provide a fair hearing.

I look forward to supporting, in 2026, Minister Long's Justice Bill, which will aim to enshrine the important provisions in primary legislation. That is another reason that we must progress the Justice Bill swiftly and effectively through its Committee Stage. I urge all Members across the Chamber to vote in favour of further extending those successful regulations.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I am pleased to speak briefly on the motion as Chairperson of the Committee for Justice. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Joanne Bunting, for her work as Chairperson. This is the first opportunity that I have had to do so in the House officially as Chair of the Justice Committee.

The Minister has outlined the intention of the statutory rule, which I will not repeat. It is the latest rule in a sequence of statutory rules to extend the provision of live links for courts and tribunals under section 90 of the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee has recommended that the Assembly approve all previous extensions, and, following consideration of the current rule, it maintains that position to extend the provisions until 24 March 2026.

As the previous Committee Chairperson informed the House, the Committee has sought assurances from the Justice Minister that the continuation of the use of powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 remained appropriate and proportionate as an interim arrangement until a permanent provision could be established by means of primary legislation. The House will be aware that the Minister indicated that she plans to introduce an amendment to the Justice Bill at Consideration Stage to make permanent provision for the use of live links in courts and tribunals. That will bring Northern Ireland into line with neighbouring jurisdictions.

The Committee continues to receive evidence on live links as part of its scrutiny work on the Bill and its amendments. The Committee considered the rule at its meeting on 16 October 2025. That included consideration of the Examiner of Statutory Rules's report, which raised no issues regarding the technical aspects of the rule. The Committee agreed to recommend that the rule be approved by the Assembly. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Justice, I support the motion.

I will now speak briefly as an individual MLA and the DUP's justice spokesperson. You will know my views on the Coronavirus Act and what it meant for Northern Ireland and its people: how it harmed our people and destroyed democracy in the Chamber. It turned the Chamber into a zombie Assembly, which I detested. I fought every day against the harmful measures that originated in the Department of Health and were implemented by the Executive. You will all know my views, but I supported wholeheartedly two aspects of the Coronavirus Act. We discussed one earlier: the remote, electronic registration of deaths, stillbirths and births. The second one is what we are talking about now: wider access to the courts through live links. That has been very important to the justice system. I will support anything good that comes out of this place, no matter what vehicle it comes in, so I support access to live links and the wider access to justice that that brings about.

Over the years, the fact that we have had to roll on the extension six months after six months after six months, when it has always been a good idea, has frustrated me. It was always a good idea, even before the COVID pandemic, and we could ask the question: "Why did we not think of that before the necessity of the COVID pandemic?", and so, we find ourselves here.

The Minister is quite right when she states that she is now using the vehicle of the Justice Bill to put these measures on a permanent footing. I welcome that, but I also regret the fact that she had to do it through an amendment that we will see and debate at Consideration Stage, instead of bringing it in the Bill at Second Reading, when we could all have debated the merits of and the reasons that we need it to continue. Notwithstanding all of that, I, as DUP justice spokesperson, am content to support the motion. I hope that there will not be too many more extensions of this provision of the Coronavirus Act and that it can be repealed in the same way in which we discussed repealing the finance provision earlier.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. As there are no other Members listed to speak, I ask the Minister of Justice to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thanks to those Members who contributed to today's discussion. I have a couple of things to say. In addition to enabling access to justice, which is absolutely critical, this legislation has a role in speeding up justice and in bringing some economic efficiencies to bear on the system, so it has been very important for us to get this right.

It is a complex area. Necessity drove the process forward. I understand the point that the Chair makes in asking why nobody had thought of it before, but, of course, we had, and we had sought to engage with our justice partners. That engagement was slightly slow and tenuous in the beginning, but necessity drove engagement on it, and it had to be implemented to sustain court business during the COVID period. That experience of using live links and remote access is something that we can learn from. Very often, people allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good, and we look for everything to be completely tested and thoroughly driven before we are willing to step out and give it a go. In this case, we did not have that luxury, but we found that it worked incredibly well. The issues that arose as a result of live links were ironed out pretty quickly in the courts.

When it comes to wider reform around the delivery of justice, we also have to bear in mind that it will require us to have a greater risk appetite than, perhaps, we have had in the past if we want to make real change to the speed with which we can deal with issues in the justice system. It is incredibly important that live links are available so that people have the opportunity, often through no fault of their own, to be compelled to engage in the justice system. The pressure that that puts on them and, often, on their legal representatives, can be very challenging. Live links can provide an avenue of communication that may reduce that stress or reduce the other pressures that participation in court hearings might bring.

We did take advice on the six-monthly rolling review. Unfortunately, it would not be proportionate for us to do it in a longer block. The six months is all that is allowed for in the original Coronavirus Act, so, unfortunately — speaking as the realist that I am — even if the Committee were to take great haste on its way through the rest of the Bill, we will have still have at least one more rolling review to face, if not, two. However, at least we do it secure in the knowledge that primary legislation on live links is proceeding and that the Committee will have an opportunity, as will the House, to properly scrutinise the basis upon which we will take that forward. Knowing that we had the experience and tested it thoroughly during the COVID period, I would certainly like to see the uptake of live links start to go up again, their having fallen quite dramatically after COVID. I would love to see them being more widely used, because the potential for efficiency savings, in both time and money, would be significant to court users, the system itself and all our justice partners. It is something that I feel quite passionate about.

I hope that that addresses all —. Well, I will not say "all" the issues that the Member had, because I know that the Member has many, many issues with the coronavirus legislation that are way above my pay grade. However, I hope that that has answered the main questions in relation to this particular legislation, and I thank the Members who engaged in the debate this afternoon.

Mr Frew: I beg to move

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

Mr Frew, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that we have a motion today that has been supported by four of the parties in the House. That does my heart good not only because four parties have signed the motion and agreed its wording but because the subject matter is very close to my heart and to that of many families throughout the Province. The armed forces covenant is a vital commitment that aims to ensure that members of the armed forces community, including veterans, service leavers and their families are not disadvantaged in areas such as health, housing and education. In Northern Ireland, however, real and perceived challenges continue to affect the armed forces community, largely stemming from a lack of strategic discussion and policy implementation around the covenant. That has created gaps in communication and understanding, leaving some veterans and their families feeling that they may face disadvantage even when none is intended.

One of the key issues is the ability of veterans to safely and confidently identify their status. For many years, service personnel were, for security reasons, advised to maintain a low profile, use an alias and avoid disclosing details of their service. In a post-operational environment, where reintegration and normalisation should be the focus, that culture of concealment can hinder access to support services. For service families, that can be particularly acute in areas such as education. For example, a family moving from England to Northern Ireland or returning from a posting elsewhere in the UK or abroad may encounter difficulties if a child has a special educational needs statement that was issued elsewhere. Such statements are not always fully recognised, which can disrupt the continuity of educational support and care.

Veterans also face challenges in housing and health provision. In some areas of Northern Ireland, housing allocations may place veterans in locations where they feel unsafe due to past service-related experiences. Veterans may also hesitate to disclose their status to healthcare professionals, including GPs and those in hospitals and mental health services, due to concerns about misunderstanding or lack of empathy. That can prevent them from accessing statutory or third-sector support that could alleviate the pressures on them and on public services. Much of that stems from the absence of accessible armed forces champions in Departments or services. Veterans need a clear and safe point of contact where they can ask questions and access support without fear of prejudice or disadvantage.

While the armed forces question is now widely included in national censuses elsewhere in the UK, it remains absent in Northern Ireland, leaving the local veteran population under-recognised in planning and service delivery. It is essential that veterans living in Northern Ireland are acknowledged, valued and supported. They have served with dignity and professionalism, and they should not experience disadvantage because of their service. Strengthening the implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland is a crucial step forward in ensuring that veterans and their families can access fair and equitable support in all areas of public life.

As we look at conflict around the world, we see that peace, democracy and sovereignty can never be taken for granted. Northern Ireland is playing its part. We are proud to contribute more reservists per capita than anywhere else in the UK. That highlights the deep commitment of our people to serve us and keep us safe. The armed forces protect and serve the community from whom they recruit.

Defence and business must work closely together in the world's changing landscape. That is laid out in the 2025 strategic defence review, which said that it would put personnel at the heart of the UK's defence. The skill set in the armed forces could be of great benefit to our economy and the communities across Northern Ireland, if those skills were celebrated and harnessed. There is a misconception among many in our society when they are asked to think of a veteran. They imagine older gentlemen in their later years of life. However, there are also many veterans and service leavers who are young — like me

— and in middle age who are highly trained professionals and an asset to our communities. They have a skill set that should be harnessed and supported.

We know that reservists are an essential part of the UK's defence strategy. They are called on as individuals for their specific skills or as units to serve alongside the regular forces when required. They have expertise in engineering, logistics and digital sectors and skills in leadership and resilience. They are an asset that can strengthen our economy and national security. Reserve-trained employees bring many professional advantages to civilian roles. The strategic defence review highlighted the overlap in leadership, programme management, cyber, digital and data skills between warfighting and modern workplaces. Northern Ireland has strong engineering and digital sectors, and it is uniquely positioned to contribute to the defence need for innovation.

Defence is an integral part of the UK economy and wider society. It supports 440,000 highly qualified jobs and drives social mobility through the training offered to armed forces personnel and civil servants, with over 24,000 apprenticeships. That is what reservists bring; that is what veterans bring; and that is what the armed forces bring to our communities and way of life. That is why we must support our armed forces and the people in them, be they regular forces or reservists. They are a vital cog in the machine of society and defence. That is why, through our Departments and councils, we must protect them and ensure that they are never disadvantaged. However, because of their service, and because of how they contribute to the safety and defence of our people, they sometimes are disadvantaged, or, if they are not actually disadvantaged, they feel as if they are, and that is just as bad. That is something that we should not tolerate.

These people should be commended for stepping forward to protect us, our families, our homelands and, indeed, the world from terror and wars. That is what being in the armed forces is all about. It is also about a friendship group, teamwork and being together. Sometimes, you can feel very alone when you leave that environment, because, for three, six, nine, 12, 15 or 22 years, someone had your back. Someone was always at your side. Sometimes, when you leave that environment, you can feel exposed. You can feel alone. If you do not have the support of a government agency with housing, health and education for your family, it can make the feeling of alienation and the concerns about safety and security 100 times worse. They always have to check under their car, that the lights are working and whether someone is following them from their home or their work. That is real, and we need to make sure that our veterans are supported so that they do not feel alone and vulnerable.

Where should that support start? It should start with our Executive Departments; the Departments in this country that have the power and responsibility to support our veterans, our people who went overseas to foreign lands and fought on our behalf for our safety but also those who fought in this land against terrorist fire. It is important that the Departments in this place support our veterans and their families.

Ms Sheerin: I rise to oppose the motion on the basis that it promotes inequality and pits one group in society against others, which is something that my party opposes. Sinn Féin supports the provision of public services on the basis of objective need. We believe that there should be equality of opportunity and equality of access to public services across the board. We should treat everyone equally.

The objective of the motion is to ensure that nobody faces disadvantage, and we wholeheartedly agree with that. No one should face disadvantage because of their political ideology or their background, but, problematically, the motion goes much further in requiring the Executive to go beyond the meaning of "due regard" in the armed forces covenant. Obviously, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement copper-fastened our right to be Irish, British or both, and there has to be a reflection of the fact that people have a right to reject symbolic elements of the armed forces covenant. Obviously, I fall into that category.

We have to oppose the motion because it requests that one section of society be held in higher esteem than others. I reiterate that we do not want to see anyone discriminated against or disadvantaged because of their past service in the British Army, military, forces or whatever the case may be. We do not need duplication of services; we already have a Victims' Commissioner whose role is to engage with public services and ensure that those who have served in the British Army can access the support that they need. It is an unnecessary request and something that we cannot support.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: I will give way.

Mr Allen: It appears to me that the Member is struggling to conjure up words to oppose the motion. There is no difficulty in the motion about having "due regard", and that is clearly set out. She then talked about individuals not being disadvantaged, and that is what the motion is about. If they fundamentally believe in individuals not being disadvantaged, there will be no difficulty in supporting the motion.

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

Ms Sheerin: Apologies: I said clearly at the start, in clear English, that we oppose the motion. I have no issue in articulating that. I have said that no one should be disadvantaged, but the motion calls for one section of society to be given extra support. It goes beyond the meaning of "due regard", and I have stated that clearly.

Ms Bradshaw: I am pleased to speak in support of the motion. I thank the motion's sponsors for allowing me to put my name to it in the Order Paper. It is important that we try, as far as possible in this place, to not view this being as a green versus orange issue. I appreciate that there are many in our society who view the armed forces exclusively through the British state lens and that hurt remains as a result of some incidents that happened during the Troubles. I am very much aware of that. However, the motion focuses on the present. It rightly recognises the immense contribution of our serving personnel, service leavers, veterans and their families, and, crucially, it calls for practical action in adhering to the armed forces covenant to ensure that no one faces disadvantage in accessing public services.

It is understandable that, here in Northern Ireland, we associate the armed forces with conflict. However, I recognise that their work extends far beyond the battlefield. Around the world, servicemen and servicewomen are on the front line in securing and maintaining peace, delivering humanitarian aid, supporting post-conflict societies and rebuilding the very foundations of civic governance. For example, when we think of the devastation that has recently been visited upon the island of Jamaica, not many of us will be cognisant of the fact that HMS Trent is standing by ready to deliver humanitarian assistance and help with recovery efforts on the island.

The transition to civilian life is not always straightforward, something to which veterans' associations can attest. For some, it means leaving behind a job and, in some ways, an identity, a sense of belonging and a shared purpose. There is also the impact that spending years on active service will have had on many people's health — I am thinking of mental and physical injuries — and on their ability to secure housing and, in turn, stability. For example, many veterans will have been on active duty overseas when their peers were getting on the property ladder and buying houses, . Furthermore, there are servicemen and servicewomen who have dedicated time and effort to getting trained in specialised roles in the armed forces but found that those qualifications and skills are not fully transferable to other trades and sectors. That is precisely why the armed forces covenant matters. It is a commitment to equality.

The recent legal duty that was placed on our public bodies to uphold the covenant is a welcome step, but, as always, the key is delivery. Every Department, from Economy to Health, must now actively demonstrate how it is meeting that duty. While I appreciate that every Department is facing significant budgetary constraints, I sympathise with the idea of a dedicated departmental armed forces liaison officer to ensure that the needs of veterans and their families are understood and acted upon. This is not about hierarchy; it is about equality, respect and opportunity, and it is about ensuring that those who have served globally are supported when they return home.

I did not think that it would be appropriate to try to amend the motion, knowing the work that the Veterans Commissioner and others have engaged in for many weeks and months in order to agree its wording. However, we, as an Assembly, should consider writing to the Secretary of State regarding section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. I would like to see the Secretary of State reviewing the list of protected characteristics under section 75 to assess whether it would be appropriate or necessary to include ex-service personnel. I have said publicly at the Executive Office Committee several times that that review could also look at greater protections for minority language speakers, the Travelling community and looked-after children. Those are just some examples. There are possibly other sections of society that need extra protection to ensure that they are not being disadvantaged and discriminated against.

As an Alliance representative, I see providing protection for veterans against discrimination as being an integral part of building a shared and inclusive society that respects different experiences and builds bridges not barriers. I support the motion, not only to honour servicemen and servicewomen but to help us in the Assembly to live up to our highest values of fairness, inclusion and equality for all. Let us ensure that our commitment to the covenant is not just written in law but lived out in practice through real support and opportunity for all those who have served.

Mr Stewart: I support this important cross-party motion. I thank the Members who tabled the motion, as well as the Veterans Commissioner and his staff, for carefully wording the motion and for all the efforts that have gone into it. The motion recognises the enormous contribution of all who have served and continue to serve and the families who stand beside them.

I declare an interest as a proud member of His Majesty's Reserve Army. I am very proud to continue to serve alongside hundreds of men and women from across Northern Ireland and from every background, tradition and walk of life. They are the very best of us. I am also immensely proud to be in an MLA team and a party that has a proud tradition of service. I look to my party colleagues on my left: that service and commitment can be no better demonstrated by Andy Allen. We all know the difficulties that Andy has faced, having served on the front line for the nation. I pay tribute to each and every one of my colleagues and every single person who has served our nation over the years.

Through my experience, I have seen, at first-hand, the skills, discipline, teamwork and leadership that military service instils. Those are qualities that our economy and our communities need now more than ever, whether, as the proposer of the motion said, that be in engineering, logistics, healthcare, IT or management. Those who are leaving the forces have transferable skills that represent a powerful asset for employers and our society alike. They will and do make a valuable contribution.

The motion also reminds us that, while service brings strength, it can also bring challenges. The transition from military to civilian life is not always straightforward. We have heard examples of that: finding new employment, adapting to different routines and accessing healthcare, housing and education for you and your family members can all be difficult steps. That is why the armed forces covenant matters. Its guiding principle is simple but profound: no one should suffer disadvantage as a result of their service. It is not about special treatment; it is about fair treatment. It is about recognising the unique sacrifices that are made by our service personnel and their families, and ensuring that they are not left behind when they return to civilian life.

As has been mentioned in the debate, we have made progress in Northern Ireland. The legal duty that has been placed on public bodies to have due regard for the covenant is a significant step forward, but legislation alone is not enough; it must be actively implemented. Departments must be aware of their responsibilities; staff must be trained; and veterans must see the benefits in real terms, and not be hard done by, when it comes to access to GPs, schools and housing offices. That is why I particularly welcome the fact that the motion calls on each Department to appoint an armed forces liaison officer. Having a clear point of contact within government will make a real difference, ensuring that the covenant is not just a statement of intent but a working framework that delivers support on the ground.

I agree with the Members who mentioned the particular role of councils. In 2014, I was proud to introduce the local government covenant to Mid and East Antrim Borough Council. Given the overlap between services, it is essential that central and local government work together to ensure that all the service provision is there. We also need stronger collaboration between government, employers, education providers and veterans' organisations. Many local charities and community groups already do superb work to support veterans with job training, counselling and welfare advice, but, too often, their efforts operate in isolation. We can and should join up that support so that every service leaver knows where they can get help to succeed in civilian life.

I say this very clearly: the armed forces community belongs to each and every one of us; it transcends politics and background. The men and women whom I, and veterans across Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, have served with come from every single background in our community in Northern Ireland, whether that be rural or urban. They are the shared fabric of our society. Supporting our armed forces veterans is not a partisan issue; it is a shared moral responsibility.

I commend the motion to the House and, again, thank everyone who brought it forward. Let us ensure that the promises of the armed forces covenant are fully delivered in Northern Ireland so that no veteran or member of their family feels forgotten and we harness the immense potential that they bring to our society and economy.

Mr O'Toole: We will not be supporting the motion. I want to put some context to that, offer some clarity and engage in an honest way with the text of the motion but also reflect on some of the challenges of the motion and why we cannot support it. However, I acknowledge some of the issues and concerns, and why people are so understandably passionate.

First of all, I acknowledge the importance of service, and the bravery and courage of many service personnel and their families, what they go through and the sacrifices that they make. Those are real things. I would not diminish them in general, and I certainly would not diminish them, particularly when talking to veterans. John Stewart is right that we are talking about veterans who are not exclusively from a unionist background, but it is true to say that it is deeply resonant for people from the unionist community, and we are coming up to Remembrance Day.

Having acknowledged all that context, and the challenges that people from veteran backgrounds, including people in the Chamber, have faced, I just do not think that we can support the motion because we have to acknowledge the many and real ways that Northern Ireland is different. That is not to say that veterans who are from here and live here do not deserve equal right to services. They absolutely do, and let us be clear and on the record in saying that of course they do, and that includes to do with issues that have arisen from their service.

However, Northern Ireland is different from other parts of the UK. Northern Ireland is, of course, the site of the longest deployment by the British military anywhere. That was Operation Banner. That has created a post-conflict context, and having acknowledged, as I did sincerely, the service of many personnel, it would be wrong of me and others not to acknowledge the fact that many people's experience of the British military here in the North of Ireland is not quite the same as that of people in England. That is to put it mildly.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned Operation Banner, and that is a fair and historic point. However, he does know, of course, that Operation Banner ended, and Operation Helvetic started, and it runs today. The very same soldiers whom we are talking about are the very same soldiers who go out to your community to defuse bombs, even today.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

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

Mr O'Toole: As I said, I am not diminishing the service of all individuals, nor am I saying that those people do not deserve fair treatment and equal service. They do, absolutely. However, I am saying, and I stand by this point, that we are in a different context here. This is a more contested space, and it is true to say that the legacy of the conflict runs deep in many communities. I also said — I took time to say it and I meant it sincerely — that I acknowledge the very real service of individuals, their families and, indeed, the broad affinity with the history of service, particularly for the British military, and I will be laying a laurel wreath myself next week, out the front of this Building.

It is true to say that we have equality provisions in law here. It is also true to say that the military covenant does actually apply to Northern Ireland. What the motion is calling for is, in a sense, to go further than that and create — I know that people dislike this comparison — a special category of individuals to have access to additional rights or additional support. I want all serving and former personnel to absolutely get fair provisions —

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will in one second. I want all serving and former personnel to get absolutely fair access to services. Inevitably, however, the question will be asked as to why we would create a distinct category of support for that one group in the context that I talked about.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member highlights some of his difficulty in supporting the text of the motion, and it seems to be around the armed forces liaison officer. Would it not be fair to say that that would be at no additional cost, and it is important that we have the ability for Departments to engage and interact with those affected, and, in turn, remove that disadvantage that we talk about?

Mr O'Toole: I did not use the word "disadvantage". I believe that Paul Givan used that specific word earlier in the debate. [Interruption.]

Apologies. Sincere apologies. [Laughter.]

It was Paul Frew. I put my sincere and genuine apologies to Mr Frew on the record. I really did not mean that. Mr Frew talked about perceived disadvantage. [Laughter.]

The perception is not always quite the same as reality, but I acknowledge that there are service personnel who face real challenges.

I have tried to be respectful in this debate.

I gently say to some colleagues across the Chamber that, in recent weeks, there have been a couple of moments when they could have been so much more generous and thoughtful in how they talked about a particular issue in relation to service personnel in Derry. I do not want to go there in this debate, but it is important that we talk respectfully about such things.

We will not be able to support the motion, but that is not to say that I do not acknowledge that service personnel and their families face real issues. In the context of Northern Ireland, we cannot support the text of the motion or the armed forces covenant being given an excess of status. That is not to say that I do not acknowledge that there are issues that service personnel face.

We will not support the motion, but I hope that the debate continues in as respectful a tone as possible.

Mr Buckley: I am proud to support the motion. It has been a particularly immense privilege to work, from the very genesis of the motion, alongside the UUP's Andy Allen and the TUV's Timothy Gaston to ensure that it could be presented jointly. Our community has long called for such joint leadership, and I hope that that continues.

I pay tribute to the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland, David Johnstone, and his team. They have coordinated and worked with us to ensure that we presented a motion that could get broad consensus in the House to reflect accurately our deep appreciation of all the men and women who have served our country in our armed forces. To Members of the House, present and past, who have served, we thank you sincerely for that service.

The men and women of our armed services embody courage, professionalism and self-sacrifice. They stand ready, often at great personal cost, to protect our freedoms and uphold peace not just abroad but, indeed, as has been mentioned, here at home. It is only right that the Assembly demonstrates our commitment to them in return.

The armed forces covenant is built on two simple principles. The first is "no disadvantage". No serving or former member of the armed forces nor their families should be at a disadvantage when accessing public services such as healthcare, housing or education. The second is "special consideration", particularly for those who have been injured or bereaved in the line of duty. Those principles are not just throwaway remarks or words on paper. They are a moral obligation: the nation's promise to those who have already given this society so much. Through 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), the DUP fought to ensure that the covenant would be properly enshrined in law here, alongside the appointment of a Veterans Commissioner. The legal duty now applies to a range of public bodies across Northern Ireland, but the real litmus test is how we give life to those commitments. Implementation must be robust, not rhetorical.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will indeed.

Mr Frew: The Member makes a valid point, and I am glad that he mentioned the Veterans Commissioner, because we should be grateful for the commissioner's work. He mentioned the duty that is placed on the Departments. That duty should not be one that Departments see as having to be done. In doing that duty, there has to be a spirit of commitment to our veterans, not of it just being something that they are obliged to do.

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

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. In making my earlier point, I omitted to thank him for his work. He stretches the definition of "young" at times

but I can assure you of his youthful and energetic approach to ensuring that this debate happened. It really was of personal note, and I thank him for it. He makes a strong point. He went on to outline the significant contribution that the UK defence sector makes across the United Kingdom: it provides 440,000 jobs. He highlighted how former service personnel, with their characteristic discipline and highly trained adaptability, can be transformational to industry in Northern Ireland. However, I want to focus on a particular challenge, and we must be honest about the challenges that many veterans continue to experience.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will, if I have time. I want to make this point.

Among veterans aged 25 to 44, the rate of suicide remains higher than that of the general population. That truth cannot be ignored. We owe it to them to ensure that our health services and, indeed, every Department are responsible, compassionate and proactive. That is why the appointment of a departmental armed forces liaison officer, which the motion calls for, would be a vital step in ensuring accountability in this area.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. Other Members have referred to the perceived disadvantage or challenges faced by ex-servicepeople. Is the Member able to outline for me specific challenges faced by people as a result of being abroad with the armed forces that are not faced by migrant workers who come here and have difficulties accessing services?

Mr Buckley: The first point that I will make to the Member is that they do so in service to this nation. The second point is that to brashly put it across that they may not face significant challenges is a denial of the reality that they continue to live in. Whether it is their families, as mentioned by Mr Frew, or their personal security, they continue to face significant challenges. I will just say this: let the motion be a clear example of what the Assembly can achieve when it works together, because we value our armed forces and understand the challenges that they face. We will ensure that —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Buckley: — their service is always safeguarded and protected. We are so thankful for that service.

Mr Dickson: As my colleague Paula Bradshaw said, the Alliance Party is pleased to support the motion. Indeed, we do so as a party that is proud to count among its members service leavers, veterans and their families.

The motion, at its heart, is about fairness and about the simple fact that serving your country should never be a source of disadvantage for you or your family. It is not about asking for special treatment but about recognising the real barriers faced by those who have spent years serving elsewhere when they return home.

The armed forces covenant is a promise — a promise that no one who has served should be left behind. We must therefore recognise the progress that has been made. Since the Armed Forces Act 2021, public bodies have had a legal duty to consider the covenant in healthcare, education and housing. We can see that in the Department of Education's pupil premium for service children and the Housing Executive's work on fair access. Those are both positive and tangible steps, and they show that Departments are taking their duties seriously. However, let us be clear: progress is uneven. While some Departments have forged ahead, others are behind, and, critically, we are flying blind. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) estimates that there are between 40,000 and 60,000 veterans in Northern Ireland, yet, without a census question, we are making policy in the dark. If we do not have the data, how can we know whether our measures are truly working or where the most urgent gaps remain?

It is not just a local challenge. The Defence Committee in Westminster recently found that access to the covenant's support has been a postcode lottery across the UK. That alone tells us that we need to be consistent in delivery and stronger in coordination. The covenant truly works only when every part of government, every employer and every Education Department pulls in the same direction. That is the core of the motion. It is a call for joined-up leadership so that, no matter which door a veteran or their family walk through, they will receive consistent, fair and informed responses. When we open those doors, we must remember what service leavers bring back to our society. They come home, as others have said, with skills in leadership, teamwork, engineering and logistics. They are proven problem-solvers who are accustomed to working to a common goal. Helping them settle into civilian life is not just a moral duty; it is a smart economic investment. Veterans do not just need support; they strengthen our workforces and enrich our communities.

We should also acknowledge the work of those who are already leading the way. Organisations like the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, Brooke House and the Reserve Forces' and Cadets' Associations support well-being, provide vital advice and connect the armed forces community to wider society. Their work is living proof that it is partnership, not politics, that delivers real results.

Let me tell you about one veteran, Jacqui. She was always destined to wear a uniform and was proud to be in the Royal Air Force. She relished the camaraderie and the travel until, one day, the pressure hit her. It consumed her. Battling depression, she turned to alcohol. Leaving the RAF and taking off her uniform did not take away her problems; it took away her support network. Alone in civvy street, her problems grew. She struggled to find permanent work and took out loans just to survive. With military friends spread far and wide, all those relationships broke down. It was on the day that she looked in her purse and saw that she was down to her last 60p that Jacqui, ashamed and fearful of judgement, contacted the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen’s Families Association. Her caseworker did not judge her. She saw a mother doing her best and in need of urgent help. Jacqui said that Cathy's kindness as her caseworker meant that she opened up about her situation. Cathy provided her with food parcels before referring her to a charity to help with counselling. Once her debts were consolidated, she had more money to live on and stopped dreading the letters on the doormat. Cathy understood that leaving the military had destroyed Jacqui's confidence and that the community was key to improving her mental health. She invited Jacqui to weekly meet-ups with other veterans, and it became her safe space. She has since met a new partner, and her life has changed beyond recognition.

Supporting our veterans should, can and must be a unifying issue for the Assembly. This is about fairness, opportunity and respect. When we remove disadvantage, we strengthen not just the veteran community —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Dickson: — but the very fabric of Northern Ireland.

Ms Brownlee: Northern Ireland has a long and proud history and an affinity with the armed forces. It is poignant that we debate today's motion during a time of national remembrance. Every one of us in the Chamber today and across Northern Ireland benefits from the immense sacrifices made by so many veterans and serving armed forces personnel. Of course, it is incumbent on us all to ensure that those who have sacrificed so much are supported. The DUP has always been clear about its strong support for our veterans and armed forces. We secured and worked on the creation of the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland and the progression of legislation on the armed forces covenant through the New Decade, New Approach agreement.

In my consistency of East Antrim, we have some incredible individuals and organisations that work tirelessly to support our veterans and armed forces community, such as the Royal British Legion, the UDR veterans association and the cadets association, to name just a few. There are so many incredible organisations throughout Northern Ireland, and it is a pleasure to work with them. I thank them so much for the work that they do.

Veterans' champions have been appointed across a number of councils and are heavily involved in supporting our military service personnel through practical support and events such as veterans' breakfasts and social gatherings, as well as signposting them to support and advice. However, as has just been highlighted, the problem is that that is not happening across the board. It is not equal, and it is not fair. No one should ever be disadvantaged because of their postcode.

The transition from life in uniform to civvy street is significant and can be fraught with uncertainty and challenge. We have heard about the high suicide rates. We have heard about addiction. We have heard about the struggle to gain a house and stay in it. I have spoken to veterans who have found a property but cannot stay there. They are not used to it, because it is not the environment in which they grew up and lived for so long. It is incredibly difficult for them, and they need additional support.

Only a few weeks ago, I was honoured to attend the Northern Irish Veterans Awards. It was fantastic to see so many of our local businesses recognising and supporting our veterans and utilising their transferable skills. Both my colleagues mentioned the strategic defence review, as well as the jobs that the defence sectors across the UK create and the benefits of that for the economy.

We have mentioned here today the duty that is placed on public authorities in Northern Ireland to give due regard to the unique circumstances facing our service personnel in housing, education and healthcare.

I was delighted with the response that I received recently from our Minister of Education on the topic in which he detailed the additional funding for schools, including for transport and to ensure that children of service personnel are not discriminated against in the admissions process, and the fact that they are working closely with the children's education support officer for Northern Ireland, who looks after the children of service personnel in Northern Ireland on education matters. I thank the Minister for his work in that field and for recognising how important it is. He has instructed his officials to undertake a review of current practices in order to identify opportunities for further enhancement.

We should always be looking for better ways to protect those who have sacrificed so much to protect us and our freedoms. It will never again be possible for any Minister to wrongly claim that the armed forces covenant does not apply in Northern Ireland. There is a clear legal duty on our Departments that cannot be ignored. I am immensely proud of our servicemen and servicewomen and our veterans. All of us on the Benches on this side of the House will continue to ensure that we support them in every way we can.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way and for pointing to the example of the Education Minister stepping up to support veterans' families. Does she agree that, if the same approach was adopted across all Departments, our veterans would be in a better place?

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

Ms Brownlee: Thank you. I totally agree. It is incumbent on all Ministers to realise the importance of the veterans community and the disadvantage that veterans experience. Some people do not realise what it is like to come back from serving, how difficult it is and what the challenges are. I have learned so much from my engagement, and I want to see what more we can do and find out more about the challenges that veterans face. It is about all of us opening our eyes to the challenges and barriers that veterans face that we may not even have realised were there.

We owe veterans so much. It is high time that we all stepped up to recognise not just their sacrifice but their continued contribution to society. The issue deserves so much more than gratitude; it demands commitment from us all.

Miss Hargey: Thank you to those who have spoken. Emma highlighted that we will oppose the motion. I had not intended to speak, but I have been listening intently to all the contributions. As Matthew touched on, we are a society that is emerging from decades or, going back, centuries of conflict. As a result, although people have spoken passionately about veterans and the British Army being their army, that is not reflective of all of society here. It is important to say that.

We have a complex and layered history, which means that these things do not run in straight lines. I had a great-grandfather who fought with the British Army in the First World War. He joined the British Army in Ireland as a young person. My father was tortured in Palace Barracks, not too far from here, in the early 1970s. He was arrested under the Special Powers Act and then interned and tortured. We are still grappling with the impact of the conflict here and with how to resolve those issues.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Miss Hargey: Yes, of course.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much. I was not going to intervene, but I have a question. Of the people from Northern Ireland who are currently in the British armed forces, approximately 40% come from what we would describe as a "nationalist" or "republican" background. They have joined the armed forces because they want to serve this nation. We say that there are two communities here, but would the Member agree that there are many people from all communities across Northern Ireland who serve in our wonderful armed forces and that they are doing a fantastic job, keeping our nation safe?

Miss Hargey: That is your perspective, Steve. I never mentioned two communities. I spoke about there being different perspectives and narratives in the community here. We have a conflicted history. It may be your army, but it certainly is not mine, albeit my history does not run in straight lines, as I have shared.

Even though my father was tortured by the British Army and died early as a result of those injuries, I do not agree that anybody in our community or across society should be discriminated against, whether that is in housing or health. Such inequalities have to be addressed on the basis of objective need. Another Member mentioned changing the protected characteristics in section 75. If there was to be any change to that, the biggest issue to address in order to have an impact on inequality would be social class. When we look at issues affecting those in working-class communities, whether they are a working-class British Army soldier, a working-class republican or a working-class migrant, we see that they are discriminated against not because of those characteristics or backgrounds but because of where they were born and their social class. That has a bigger impact on inequalities in health, education, childcare, where people live and how long they will live. I would much prefer to have a conversation about social class, because that would have a bigger impact and address those issues on the basis of objective need, rather than lifting one need above another.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I listed a few examples, but I totally agree that socio-economic background could be looked at as a category. However, some people sign up for the armed forces to escape poverty, because they see the opportunities that would be afforded to them through the different forces. I want that to be on the record too.

Miss Hargey: My point is that, if you looked at social class, you would pick up not only those people but everybody else. You would not elevate one over the other; again, it would be done on the basis of objective need. That is the core theme of our point and, unfortunately, our opposition to the motion.

Mr Gaston: It is fitting that the motion comes before the House on the Assembly's final sitting day before Remembrance Sunday. In a few days, men, women and children across Northern Ireland will stand in silence. We will lay wreaths and honour courage, sacrifice and duty. Remembrance, however, cannot be a mere sentiment; it must be practical. If our words and actions on Sunday are to be sincere, our actions in the Chamber will reflect them.

The motion recognises the value that our service personnel, veterans and their families bring to our society. It affirms that they should not be disadvantaged in accessing services. It welcomes the legal duty to give due regard to the armed forces covenant. On paper, it is sound, but we must be honest with ourselves: the experience of too many veterans here tells us a different story. Earlier this week, some of us from my office spoke with a veteran who was injured while serving his country. We showed him the motion and asked him to give his thoughts on it. I quote some of what he said:

He went on:

Here is perhaps the most sobering line of all:

If we ask people to risk life and limb for their country, we owe them more than platitudes when they come home. The motion does not call for special treatment; it calls for fairness. It is unacceptable that, years after service, men and women in other parts of the United Kingdom benefit from the covenant, but people in Northern Ireland cannot see it delivering for them. In Northern Ireland, service-related injuries are treated differently, and there is no understanding of their impact, with repeated assessments. Government staff lack covenant training. Mental health support is left to charities, often without core funding from the health service. Military qualifications are not properly recognised by employers. That is a disadvantage; that is failure; and that must change. Yes, I welcome the motion, and I am proud to add my name to it, but let me be clear: warm words are not delivery.

At this stage of the debate, I pay tribute to the Veterans Commissioner and his staff for the help and support that they give and deliver to veterans the length and breadth of this country. I also thank Mr Buckley, Mr Frew and, indeed, Andy Allen for tabling the motion, especially Andy for bringing his lived experience. He has served this country with distinction, and I pay tribute to the service that he has given to us.

Respect is expressed not in motions but in meaningful policy. During the remembrance service on Remembrance Sunday, we will rightly say. "We will remember them." Today, let us prove that we mean it by removing disadvantage, not merely acknowledging it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you to the Members who have contributed to the debate. I call Andy Allen to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Mr Allen, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Allen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I declare an interest not only as a veteran but as a trustee of a veterans' charity that delivers many of the services that have been highlighted by Members across the House.

The motion can be broken down into distinct areas. First, the fact that veterans — service personnel — have transferable skills, which many Members have spoken about, for example, their dedication to service; commitment to leadership, teamwork and professional development; and the practical skills that can strengthen communities, businesses and voluntary work. Their contribution continues well beyond service and should rightly be recognised. I have the immense honour of getting to see much of it being delivered in practice. I have seen and supported many veterans through the vast array of organisations that I have the privilege of working with in delivering tangible outcomes and making sure that veterans are connected with employment opportunities and with local community groups and organisations. One example is that many veterans have gained qualifications in football through the Irish Football Association (IFA) and have gone on to deliver those skills and outputs in football clubs across our community and society.

The next and, perhaps, key part of the motion refers to the fact that no service person or veteran should face disadvantage. The key is disadvantage. They should not face disadvantage, and I think that every Member has rightly referenced that no one should face disadvantage, not least those who serve our country. Whether in relation to housing, healthcare, education or employment, they should not face disadvantage, but, in some respects, they do. Many have challenges, and Members across the Chamber asked us to highlight some of those disadvantages. There are many, but one element that creates a disadvantage is hypervigilance, and it is not perceived by many in the community that I am proud to represent. They still live with the fear of what has gone on in this place. They are restricted in where they can put down as an area of choice for housing, for example, so that is a disadvantage. They are limited; they still have that hypervigilance. They still have challenges when they go to their GP service. They have challenges when they interact with the health service. They do not want to divulge their background. They are afraid of that, and we need to break that down and address it. It will take a very long time. A start could be for all of us to send the message in the Chamber, and I understand that, perhaps, Members across the Chamber cannot be convinced to support the motion.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member recognise that, whilst there is hypersensitivity for anybody who serves across the United Kingdom, it is even more acute when it comes to Northern Ireland?

Mr Allen: It absolutely is, and I have highlighted that. I was going on to say that a powerful message to show how far we have come as a society would perhaps be for the Members on the other side of the House to abstain instead of going through the No Lobby. I know that that would not send the entire message to the veterans' community, but it would at least be progress.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a really valid point. When I served in the Royal Irish Rangers and the Royal Irish Regiment, many of my colleagues treated their Irishness as what made them special. Indeed, the Royal Irish is renowned for its Irishness and proud of it. That is the difference between the Royal Irish and the rest of the regiments in the British Army. So many of those people would have voted for parties on that side of the House.

Mr Allen: The Member has made an interesting point. I was proud to serve and stand on a battlefield with many courageous and selfless individuals. Indeed, some of them put themselves in harm's way to extract me from a danger zone. They rushed in, not knowing that there were several other IEDs that had not detonated, and many of those individuals came from a different background from mine. It is that cultural enrichment that has helped me.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. In their contributions, he and the previous Member to speak are getting to the heart of the matter. We do not want anyone to be discriminated against. Other Members have referred to community background or Irish identity, but that is not what the debate is about. We are saying that one cohort in society should not be elevated above all others, and that is why we cannot support the motion. We have reiterated that a number of times.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for her point, but she is missing the point of the motion. It is not about elevating members of the armed forces above others in society. It is about saying that, where a disadvantage exists, we recognise it, and we will face it head on and address it. We would do that for any other section of society that faces disadvantage, and I have highlighted examples of disadvantage that may exist. Where no disadvantage is highlighted or is supported by evidence, nothing needs to be done, but there is disadvantage, and the greatest message that Members can send out, if they are truly for tackling and addressing disadvantage, is to support the motion. I know that they will not do that, but they could at least abstain.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I did not mention this, because I always mention it in the Chamber, but when my son left the RAF, he was told about the bars and clubs that he was not to go to, not just because of republican paramilitary threat but because of loyalist paramilitary threat. I echo the point made to the other side of the Chamber that a really important message could be sent that the past should be left in the past and the threat from paramilitary control, coercion and potential violence to any section of society should be shunned. Supporting the motion would send a message that the days of the paramilitaries and the threat that they pose to society are over.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for making that point, and I wholeheartedly agree. Threats, wherever they come from, are wrong. They must be called out and challenged. I do not care where they come from: they are wrong, and I will challenge them.

I am running out of time. Perhaps Members will not make any further interventions, as I do not want to refuse them.

As has been stated, public bodies rightly have a legal duty to uphold the covenant, but delivery, as has been highlighted, remains inconsistent. The Defence Committee's recent report highlighted confusion about what "due regard" means in practice. Each Department should take responsibility, with a named liaison officer to ensure that its obligations are met. I emphasise that that would come at no additional cost, because the liaison officer could be identified within the existing staff complement, but it would provide a dedicated point of contact that would create better coordination across government at all levels. That is needed to make the covenant work in real terms.

For some, the move from service to civilian life can be difficult, as we have heard. Access to housing, healthcare and employment support is essential. As we have heard, whilst military qualifications are vast and can contribute to our economy, they do not always map across to the civilian equivalent. There is a process by which to be able to do that. I implore the UK Government and the MOD to look at how they can ensure that every veteran or serviceperson, upon transition, can have those qualifications actively mapped into their civilian equivalents.

The recent removal of the Northern Ireland Veterans' Support Office has created challenges. The Veterans' Support Office provided a dedicated pathway that could bring together that coordination function. The loss of funding for the office makes the call for those armed forces liaison officers more important, because they can act as that coordination function.

I know that I am running out of time, so I will probably not get to address Members' contributions. I apologise for that. In closing, I, too, pay tribute to the current Veterans Commissioner, David Johnstone, and my former party colleague Danny Kinahan, who charted the way in establishing the office. There were many challenges. Both Veterans Commissioners have done sterling work, and there is much more work to be done. I pay tribute to all those volunteers —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr Allen: — who work day and night behind the scenes to deliver services for our wider armed forces community. Thank you.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Allen. You did that just in time. Thank you for concluding the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease while we make a change at the Table before moving to the next item.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): An amendment was selected and published on the Marshalled List in Ms Sugden's name, however she is unwell and unable to attend the Chamber to move that amendment.

Ms Hunter: I beg to move

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

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am raising this issue in the House yet again, and, if I am to be frank, I am sick, sore and tired of doing so. It is an issue that rightfully angers so many of my constituents. The rising number of second homes is pushing them out of the very towns that they were raised in. There are no children in the streets. There are over 532 second homes in the one small town of Portstewart. That leads not only to a breakdown of community but to so much more. As the SDLP has stated many times in the Chamber, we are in a housing crisis and a housing emergency, yet we are forced to repeat the conversation yet again today.

The challenge to secure housing for all is incredibly complex. There are onerous planning regulations; there is a lack of adequate sewage infrastructure; there is a lack of security in private rentals; there are rising rents; and, of course, there is a failure to build social housing at the pace that is so desperately needed. For those who do not have a home of their own or a secure and sustainable tenancy, the problem is acute and painful, but that problem bleeds into every single aspect of their life and impacts on entire families.

I recently spoke in my office with the Portstewart Community Association. That group has made it incredibly clear that the lack of housing and the explosion of second homeownership in our constituency, particularly at the north coast, is leading to the unravelling of community life and of the sense of community as we know it. People from the north coast in particular — people who grew up there; people whom I know who were schooled there; and people who have roots and connections there dating back decades and generations — are increasingly being forced to make lives elsewhere when they do not want to. It is not fair, and it is not right. It is ruining the very fabric of our towns and villages. Our towns are literally dying. We need the Executive to listen to us. We have empty streets with no children in them, and we have empty houses with no people in them. It really is killing our sense of community.

The failure to build homes, and the failure of the Communities Minister to monitor or regulate second homes, are huge failures. The knock-on impact of a lack of available housing is displacement, emigration and despair for the thousands who, sadly, find themselves reduced to a life of sofa-surfing. Just last week, I helped an elderly man in his 70s who is homeless. It was devastating to see the situation — probably, one of the worst cases that I have had as an MLA — and heartbreaking to witness at first-hand the way that he has to live each and every day without a sense of security. It speaks to the failure that we have in the North of Ireland to address the housing crisis. It has led to the separation of families, a brain drain and economic decline in our communities, and schools have faced challenges as a result of the lack of available housing, which is particularly driven by second homeownership.

On the north coast, our once-thriving nightclubs languish as students from the west and beyond are forced into a life of commuting. We have seen a change in how students live: fewer are coming to live in the Coleraine/Portstewart area. Cultural institutions are struggling for numbers, while thousands of locals live in misery as they compete with hundreds to rent a property. This week, I heard of a young family who applied for over 100 houses in the north coast area, were unsuccessful in securing one and now have to live in Ballycastle. That speaks to the severity of the issue.

The proliferation of second homes is a problem that must be faced down if we are to make meaningful progress on the problem. As I said in an Adjournment debate here months ago, the reality of the industry being left unchecked is fragmented communities, soaring house prices, and villages and towns, such as those in my constituency, being left desolate in the off-season as homes sit unoccupied. I urge the Minister for Communities and the wider Executive to, please, grasp the severity of this — grasp the nettle — and take action to remedy this genuinely horrific state of affairs. Each and every day, I speak with families who are homeless, who are sofa-surfing, whose children cannot bring friends over after school and who are living in their parents' living rooms. It is devastating. The home is the foundation on which you build your life, your stability and your sense of security. Without homes, people struggle severely.

We need to find solutions. Ahead of today, I conducted some research into how other places are dealing with the issue. In Wales, local councils have been empowered to introduce planning rules to limit new second homes and apply higher council tax premiums where they hollow out local communities similar to ours. In Cornwall, new housing developments can now be reserved for people who live there all year round. In France, they have gone further and allow towns where second homes exceed 20% of housing stock to zone land for primary residents only. In Spain, such cities as Malaga and Seville have begun freezing new short-term rental licences to keep homes for local families to avoid pushing them out.

I thank my colleague Claire Sugden — I hope that she feels better. She, too, is passionate about this topic and, as I have done, has met constituents who are living through the most horrific circumstances. Each of the places across Europe that I have mentioned have recognised the same truth that we now must face here in Northern Ireland: unrestrained second homeownership and unchecked short-term letting are not benign byproducts of tourism. They are drivers of housing insecurity and social decline in our communities. As the SDLP MLA for East Derry, I know that it is important to keep pushing the issue again and again in the House. I cannot reiterate enough the need for data and the need to monitor the issue. Constituents feel that they are not being listened to. So much more could be done. It is vital that the Executive fight for local communities and the people whose families have lived in our towns for generations and protect their right to live and work in the place in which they grew up and call home.

Ms Ferguson: Sustainable, affordable and year-round vibrant communities must be achievable across all our rural, coastal and urban communities. The reality is this: our schools, businesses, services and communities cannot exist without people.

Therefore, we all have a duty to ensure that all people have the opportunity to live, work and make a life for themselves in their local area and community.

I thank the Members who tabled the motion, which is similar to one that we debated in May 2024. It acknowledges specific concerns about certain coastal towns and scenic areas, such as the Causeway Coast and Glens area and the Mourne Mountains, and our city centres. The motion notes the growth of unregulated short-term and holiday lets, which, due to rising house prices, risks eroding the very existence of our local communities who make those areas so special. Further to that, as a Derry MLA, I express my deep-rooted concerns about the general lack of delivery of social and affordable housing.

In our constituency offices, we all have a significant number of daily interactions about the lack of suitable social and affordable housing for struggling renters, students, workers and families. Whilst we are making headway on economic development plans, including investing in our universities and the economy, there are still significant questions about the status of the Housing Executive's revitalisation and how, practically, we are going to deliver the targets laid out in the housing supply strategy, which runs until 2039. Balanced regulation can work, and tourism and community can coexist; however, that is only deliverable if social and affordable housing is delivered at scale to meet the level of existing need and if we place sustainability before short-term gain.

With nearly 50,000 households on our social housing waiting list as of March this year, which is the highest total number of applicants since 2010, I cannot emphasise this point enough: we have a moral responsibility to make housing accessible and affordable for all. A lack of affordable housing affects not just individuals but entire communities. Businesses cannot attract and maintain workers, schools lose pupils and staff, hospitals lose key workers, and whole communities become unstable and unsustainable.

As an MLA for Foyle, I emphasise that, whilst we are immensely proud of the history and culture of the area, from the Bogside to the Waterside, we are equally angry about the sight of boarded-up homes and the reality of rising rents and house prices when families are desperately calling out for support to find suitable, affordable and sustainable places to call "home".

Across Ireland, we do not lack space, nor do we lack heart; however, housing policy and investment are not keeping pace with people's needs. We need more investment now, in social and affordable homes. We need genuinely collaborative partnership working across our councils, housing associations, the Housing Executive and our communities. We need balanced regulation and common-sense approaches to tourism and investment as interconnected drivers of economic growth.

Additionally, we urgently need to see the delivery of social and affordable housing at scale, the prioritisation of community wealth building and regeneration projects and, fundamentally, the eradication of poverty and homelessness once and for all.

Mr Bradley: I rise to speak not just about housing but about the future of rural Northern Ireland and whether we will act or continue to manage decline with half measures.

On the north coast, in areas such as Portstewart, Portrush, Ballycastle, Portballintrae and beyond, even into the town of Coleraine, the sharp edge of our housing crisis is being driven by the unchecked growth of second homes and short-term lets. Since 2013, house prices in the Causeway Coast and Glens area have surged by almost 70% while wages have barely moved. The price of an average home now sits at about £245,000, and over 85% of properties are out of reach for the median earner. That is not a market: it is a locked door to local families, young people and key workers.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Bradley: Yes.

Mr Brooks: I entirely agree with the Member. Does he agree that the problem is not only second homeownership but those who have a portfolio of family homes that they have turned into Airbnbs? We need not only a low cap but a sufficiently punitive sanction for those who refuse to register.

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

Mr Bradley: The Member raises a very valid point. There is a proliferation of Airbnbs in coastal areas. People find it more profitable to have Airbnbs instead of permanent rental people in their houses. It is a massive problem that needs to be addressed along with the rest.

Behind the postcards and summer football on the north coast, communities are hollowing out. Streets that once echoed with school runs and neighbourly chat now fall silent for months. Shops, GP practices and bus routes struggle when year-round residents are displaced by properties that lie empty for most of the year or churn over with short-term visitors every weekend. We are building a visitor economy without residents to make it liveable. When people look at the social housing safety net, they find threads. Nearly 4,000 people in our area are on the waiting list. Over 2,000 are in housing stress, yet we are delivering roughly 52 social homes a year. That is not a strategy; it is a managed scarcity. This is about more than roofs and rents; it is about the character and cohesion of our coastal towns. High concentrations of short-term lets mean transient occupation and constant turnover. Neighbourhoods do not have time to become communities. Local schools lose pupils, clubs lose volunteers and the fabric frays. Noise, litter and poorly maintained properties follow when regulation fails, deterring the very visitors who value the north coast for its clean, peaceful environment.

The economic picture is no less stark. Economic inactivity remains stubbornly high, and too many of the jobs that we are creating on the north coast are low wage and seasonal. If we want a resilient economy, we cannot push the workforce out of the places where work should grow. I see no effect of the Executive's regional balance. I see no investment in employment opportunities, higher education or equitable healthcare. To me, it seems like, "Let's look at what Coleraine and the Causeway coast have so that we can move it here, there or anywhere", rather than investing in what is already there and working well.

So what must we do? First, we need to introduce robust planning controls where second homes and short-term lets are harming community cohesion. That means a primary residence test in pressured areas; a distinct change of use class for short-term lets so that councils can set caps; a licensing regime with real enforcement; and the power to levy council tax surcharges on homes that are kept empty for most of the year. Secondly, we need to prioritise building truly affordable and social homes where demand is greatest; set binding targets for the north coast and fund them; use public land proactively; and tie planning approvals for new developments to local occupancy and affordability conditions that actually bite. Thirdly, we need to rebalance our economy; bring public-sector and high-quality remote jobs to Coleraine and East Londonderry; invest in digital infrastructure, transport links and childcare so that people can get to work and stay in work; invest in equitable healthcare and job creation; and make sure that training aligns with year-round sectors such as advanced manufacturing, green energy, health and social care, not just summer tourism. Finally, we need to back communities to lead and give councils the data, tools and discretion to act street by street if needed and support residents' groups that are holding their places together.

Without urgent intervention, we risk becoming a postcard economy: beautiful to visit, impossible to live in. Let us choose better. Let us invest in people and not just in visitor numbers. Let us deliver housing justice and economic dignity on the north coast and ensure that our towns are living communities 12 months of the year. I support the motion.

Ms Mulholland: As an MLA for North Antrim, I have the privilege of representing communities that take in much of our north coast. I was delighted to hear Ms Hunter referencing Ballycastle. It is just a wee nod that the north coast does not stop on the road out of Portballintrae; it goes right the way around. What unites those places is not just their beauty; it is their popularity. From Bushmills to Ballycastle and Cushendun to Portballintrae, the balance between tourism and community is vulnerable to tipping too far.

The motion goes right to the core of what I see as mattering most to me in my job. It is about maintaining those thriving, sustainable communities where our local shops, local schools and services flourish by being able to depend on people to live and work locally all year round. It is a common issue right across the coast, and there is now an urgency about it. I thank the proposer of the motion for bringing it once again to the House.

What once was a housing crisis is now a real threat to the very sustenance of our rural and coastal communities. I see that every day for myself as I drive around and when I am driving home. I see the darkened rows of houses that sit empty through the week and especially through the winter. Our high streets quieten as soon as the tourists leave, and the schools struggle to keep their doors open. Barnish Primary School in Carey closed because families have had to move away. I hear about the situation so often in my surgeries, particularly in what I call the north of North Antrim, which is situated in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area. People there have told me that they cannot find homes that they can afford. What once was a real concern about housing affordability has turned into a community crisis. The proliferation of second homes and short-term rentals is absolutely reshaping our coast and our rural way of life.

The Department for Communities says that 13% of the homes in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area have no usual residents. That is more than double the Northern Ireland average of around 6%, and, in some coastal settlements, it is far higher. The council has told us that in Portballintrae, which straddles the two constituencies, between 45% and 51% of properties are second homes. When you go canvassing and walk past those homes, you will knock six doors before you come across someone who lives in the house full-time. Those are extraordinary figures for any community that is trying to sustain schools, services and civic life.

On top of that, there is a striking disparity because Causeway Coast and Glens has both the lowest average wage and the highest average house price in Northern Ireland. That tells its own story. Local people are being priced out while homes sit dark for most of the year, once the summer sun sets. I have spoken to constituents who have had to move to Ballymena, Ballymoney or Coleraine just to find somewhere that is affordable to buy. The knock-on effects of that are so significant, particularly with childcare pressures, longer commutes and families who are growing up without the close network of grandparents and family members nearby. As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child, but so many people on the north coast are losing that village life.

For those who are unable to buy, the picture is no better. Between 2018 and 2023, private rents in Causeway Coast and Glens increased faster than in any other council area in Northern Ireland. When landlords can earn several times more from a short-term let, the incentive to remove properties from the long-term rental market is clear, and it is devastating. Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council has also said that 40% of all certified self-catering accommodation units in Northern Ireland are registered in the Causeway Coast and Glens area. As has been mentioned before, those are just the ones that are properly registered. Anecdotally, many of us know about countless others that are operating informally throughout the wider north coast area and are not properly registered.

We need better data and transparency and a public register of short-term lets and second homes, as is the case in Scotland and Wales. We need to empower our councils, and we need to be able to designate short-term let control areas or to introduce new planning use for short-term lets and second homes. We need rates reform, like Wales and Scotland. We should explore a fair premium on non-primary residences, with revenue being reinvested in affordable housing or for waste infrastructure in order to allow new homes to be built. That has to be an Executive-wide plan. Housing should not be a privilege that is dictated by economic disparity; rather, it should be a basic right and the foundation of every thriving, sustainable community.

Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion, which highlights the growing impact of second and holiday homes on our rural and coastal communities, particularly along the north coast.

The motion recognises the impact of holiday homes and short-term lets on local communities. That recognition is important. There are 549 registered self-catering properties in Portrush, and, as has been mentioned, there are a further 532 such properties in Portstewart. Those figures from Tourism NI show the extent to which the market has become concentrated in a small area. The effect of that on local housing availability is significant. When hundreds of homes are occupied only part of the year, that drives up prices and reduces supply for those who wish to live and work locally. The result is that many young people, who would once have started families or built careers in those towns, are now forced to look elsewhere. The consequences of that can be seen clearly on the ground. In the off-season, streets fall silent, and communities that were once thriving year-round are left with fewer permanent residents.

Local schools such as Mill Strand Integrated Primary School and Nursery and Hezlett Primary School have seen their enrolments decline as young families have moved away. This is not simply a housing issue; it is about the long-term sustainability of our communities and the services that support them.

The motion rightly expresses concern about rising house prices and the availability of affordable housing. However, our response must be based on data, not assumptions. The Department for Communities has confirmed that around 6% of homes across Northern Ireland have no usual residents. In the Causeway Coast and Glens area, however, that figure, as Sian said, is 13%. That includes vacant, renovated and holiday homes, but we still do not know precisely how many of those are genuine second properties. We also need to acknowledge that our wider housing challenge runs deeper that this one issue. The shortage of affordable and social housing has persisted for far too long. Placing the blame solely on the tourism sector will not resolve that. The problem is far more complex and demands long-term investment in new and affordable housing stock.

The motion warns that the issue threatens the social fabric of communities. That is true, but we must not overlook the fact that tourism — the self-catering sector in particular — supports thousands of jobs and businesses across Northern Ireland. The challenge, therefore, is to find balance and protect community life whilst sustaining livelihoods.

The motion calls on the Executive to bring forward proposals to address the impacts. I support that call, provided that the proposals are targeted, proportionate and informed by reliable data.

The Ulster Unionist Party believes in empowering local authorities to manage concentrations of holiday homes through their local development plans, in line with the Executive's housing supply strategy. We must avoid blunt, one-size-fits-all restrictions that could damage our tourism economy. The motion focuses too much on absolutes and lacks the balance that our communities deserve. Holiday homes and short-term lets are not inherently negative, but, without effective regulation, they can become problematic, and we have heard good examples of that this evening. We need policies that safeguard local families, ensure that housing remains affordable and support tourism — an industry that so many rely on.

The Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion.

Mrs Mason: Housing stress and housing pressure are felt across the North. We have heard a lot about Derry and the north coast this evening, but those pressures are also prevalent in South Down. Due to the increasing demand for housing in our rural and coastal communities, it is a harsh reality that young people and families across South Down are being locked out of owning a home or living in the community in which they grew up.

South Down is an area of outstanding natural beauty, and we are so lucky to have the stunning Lecale coastline, the iconic Mountains of Mourne, seaside towns such as Newcastle and idyllic villages such as Dundrum, Ardglass and Killough. That makes the area an attractive location to go to for days trips and short holidays or even to relocate to permanently. The reality, however, is that that puts the available housing stock in the area under more and more pressure due to an increase in demand.

More and more people face housing pressure, whether that is due to the lack of housing in general, the rising cost of rent, limited access to the market or the increase in the number of short-term lets and holiday homes. The housing crisis is, as has been said, complex. It is multifaceted, but it is spiralling out of control. The crux of the challenge continues to be about ensuring the availability and affordability of housing alongside providing adequate support to tackle poverty and help low-income households. The housing crisis will not, however, be solved by tackling one aspect of the problem alone. We need to see cross-cutting action that will make a real impact in addressing rising housing pressure.

Rural communities across South Down need to be able to access affordable and social housing. As of June 2025, there were 3,994 people on the social housing waiting list. Of those, 3,355 were experiencing housing stress. We need to be creative. We need solutions to develop affordable and social homes in areas such as Newcastle, Downpatrick, Castlewellan and across South Down and, indeed, the North. I have been working recently with Clanmil on the transformation of the old Downe Hospital site into much-needed family homes in the heart of Downpatrick. We need to see more of that creative thinking. Working with housing organisations and other groups is key to building more affordable social housing. It is vital that families and young people are not locked out of the opportunity to live in the communities in which they grew up. Safeguarding future generations is key to protecting the fabric of our rural, coastal and small communities. The Communities Minister should, as a priority, work at pace to deliver more social and affordable housing.

Mr Robinson: I am pleased to speak on the impact of holiday homes and short-term lets in our coastal regions. I will focus on the unique circumstances facing our north coast, including the Causeway coast and surrounding villages, where the growth in the number of second homes and short-term holiday lets is certainly one factor that is impacting on housing access. Some go further and say that it impacts on the fabric of the towns and villages in that area. In the north coast area and across the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area, data from coastal villages such as Portballintrae and Cushendun indicates that second homes and short-term lets are becoming a dominant part of the housing stock. According to a report by Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, up to half of the properties in Portballintrae are estimated to be second homes. The same report estimates that roughly 31% of houses in Cushendun are being used as holiday lets.

For Northern Ireland as a whole, the legislation remains unchanged. A change from a permanent dwelling to a second home or a short-term let does not require planning permission. In some of our most beautiful coastal villages, a substantial fraction of the housing stock is being removed either wholly or part-time from the permanent residential stock and, instead, used for seasonal second homes, holiday lets or non-resident ownership.

Those of us who represent the area will have heard how young adults who work locally in hospitality, tourism and retail increasingly struggle to find accommodation in the locality in which they grew up. We have heard of families who might have expected to buy a modest home being priced out, as demand is driven not by local need but by holiday-home demand or investment return from short-term lets. We have heard of the long-term rental sector being squeezed. Some houses that were once available for year-round rent are being moved into the holiday market where yields are higher, or the owners prefer to use them for themselves.

If homes are vacant for much of the year and used not by full-time residents but by holidaymakers, the fabric of a village or coastal resort can be impacted negatively. As has been said, schools, youth clubs, sports clubs and local shops all depend on a stable population. When many homes become seasonal, the viability of local services can decline. Indeed, minutes of Causeway Coast planning meetings record concern from councillors that the inability of young people to secure housing in rural areas is impacting on local settlement patterns, schools and sports clubs. A home —.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with what he says. We have seen rural local schools come under threat because there are not enough children in the area to keep them viable. Does the Member agree that it would be prudent for our councils to consider, as part of their local development plans, limiting the number of short-term lets and Airbnb rentals, for instance, so that families can live in the area?

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

Mr Robinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council is actively considering that.

A home that lies empty for months or that is occupied only for transient stays does not support the community ties that a long-term resident does. While tourism is vital, we must guard against creating a situation in which the only people who can live permanently in the area are those of significant means, thereby skewing the character of the place and potentially undermining the local workforce.

A number of factors add to the issue. The cost-of-living crisis has increased pressure on housing, and there is the need for affordable new-build homes. Rural and coastal communities in East Londonderry already face demographic and economic challenges, including the outward migration of younger people and their distance from major employment centres. The packaging of holiday homes as holiday lets adds another barrier to those seeking to live and work locally.

On the north coast, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty and tourism importance but also a place where people live all year round and raise families, it is said that the balance has tipped much too far. The beauty of the north coast — somewhere that I am incredibly proud to call "home" — the shopping towns nearby, the golf courses and the beaches all attract investors and holidaymakers, but what is attractive to an outsider for a week's stay also makes the property less accessible to a local, living-wage earner who is seeking a home. As one councillor noted in the minutes of a planning committee meeting in Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council three years ago, the issue is the inability of young people to secure housing and the impact on settlements, schools and sports clubs.

Some might argue that motions such as this are anti-tourism, but they are far from it. Our tourism offer is one of our greatest assets, but tourism cannot become the sole driver of the housing market. Otherwise, we will lose balanced, liveable areas and restrict who can afford to live and work here. The growth of holiday homes and short-term lets on the north coast is having a real and material impact on housing affordability, the availability of homes for local resident families and workers and the sustainability of community life in the villages and towns in that part of Northern Ireland. The evidence is becoming clearer, and the local voices on the north coast are growing louder. We must listen to those voices.

Mr McMurray: I thank Ms Hunter and the Opposition for tabling the motion.

The issue is certainly raised with me in my office regularly. I am lucky that South Down is a brilliant part of Northern Ireland, as Mrs Mason has already pointed out. Colin McGrath will no doubt get in there too. It is famously a place where the Mourne Mountains swoop down to the sea, and it boasts wonderful beaches, forests and the peaks and crags of the hills. It is easy to understand why people wish to visit the area, and, accordingly, they need somewhere to stay. The tourism industry is making important economic contributions to the area, and there can be no doubt about that. All that is positive, within reason. However, increasingly, the balance is tipping the wrong way. I hear from constituents who want to live in the area but have been completely priced out of doing so in towns such as Newcastle and villages such as Dundrum and Bryansford. Young couples soon to be married are not able to move to an area that is geographically central to their family and their work, and parents express concern that their children will not be able to afford a property in the area in which they grew up. It is as much about economic growth as anything else.

At this stage, I thank the Minister — the Minister is not here; I will need to rejig my notes. I acknowledge that the motion calls on the whole Executive, so there must be various messages to various Ministers. I have also heard from constituents who find that, at times, every other house in a development is rarely occupied. Indeed, at this time of the year, when the clocks have changed, that is certainly a bit more prominent, and there is many an evening when many a house is unlit. Again, that really contributes to the sense of community detachment. Likewise, some properties are occupied for mere weeks of the year.

Tourism NI statistics show that the number of self-catering units in the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area has increased by almost 50% in two years, from 414 in 2022 to 619 in 2024. At times, that presents a difficult conundrum for tourist areas to grapple with. Yes, they understand the need to accommodate visitors and the economic benefits that come with that, but they also feel that the balance is not always fairly struck at the minute. Some of the previous contributors referenced that.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr McMurray: Certainly, Mr Brooks.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member agree that one of the problems with short-term lets is that they also undercut some of the legitimate tourism businesses, which are subject to much more regulation and greater checks? I was at the event upstairs yesterday to do with electrical checks and regulations. They were talking about how private houses have to have many more checks than some of the short-term lets. Our hotels and so on also face that situation. Does the Member agree?

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

Mr McMurray: I certainly do, yes. One bit of feedback that we get is about that undercutting and the lack of regulation. The bona fide tourist operators have really well-cared-for and safe properties. The Member referenced the electrical checks. That is something to bear in mind.

The motion calls on the whole Executive and for good reason. It is a complex, cross-departmental issue, and Ministers need to work together to find a sustainable way forward. I have a couple of thoughts on that. One of the moves should be towards diversification and sustainability.

Towards the end of the summer, the National Trust held a symposium on sustainable tourism. One of the strongest themes to come out of that was that there is a need to ensure that communities are supported and sustainable. If we get it right for the community, we will get it right for the tourists; if there is no community, tourism will not survive.

Mr Bradley quite rightly pointed out that other economic drivers can be utilised to drive sustainability in housing and get people into the area. One driver that I can think of is the offshore renewable sector, as represented in Kilkeel in South Down. If it is supported, that sector could develop, meaning that companies would keep and offer well-paid jobs in South Down rather than further afield. Therefore, although I appreciate the sentiment of the motion, which is very much about tourism and second homes, wider economic development can go some way towards easing the pressure and ensuring that young families can stay in their locale.

The fact that we need stronger regulation and a stronger planning response to short-term lets was touched on. The current situation is putting unsustainable pressures on housing in certain parts of the country, and we cannot let that continue. Councils have a role to play, but so do the Communities Minister, the Infrastructure Minister and the Economy Minister, and we are yet to see decisive action from some of those Departments. The Infrastructure Minister has stated that she has no plans to restrict the conversion of residential properties into short-term holiday lets but that she is open to looking at the issue under the planning improvement programme. We encourage her to do that. I hope, too, that the Finance Minister will have another look at the rates response and see what can be done from that angle. There are areas such as the Lake District in Cumbria — Ms Hunter referenced some others — that have utilised that tool to offset the broader socio-economic costs for an area that is facing this issue.

Ultimately, we can all agree that we cannot elevate the needs of the tourism industry above the basic needs of the people whom we serve, and there are few needs more basic than a safe and stable home. I urge all parties to do their best to support this issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Colin McGrath to wind. Colin, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

What a vicious and nasty arena this room can be, but is it not a pleasure that we have just got through a debate in which we all agreed on something and that we are trying to put our thoughts in the right place to help those who elected us to be here? The debate has managed to restore a bit of faith in what we can do when we discuss things that we agree on and scope out whether we can pitch something to Ministers to see whether there is a way in which we can influence them to change the policies that will guide our constituents and, hopefully, help people as they face some of the problems that have been so eloquently expressed by Members this evening.

To take a positive from the debate, it has been a great tour around Northern Ireland in which we heard people talk about their areas, putting forward the beauty of the north coast or of Fermanagh, for example, and we will not forget the cities: Belfast, Derry and the other places that were referenced. Of course, I will not get through my contribution without mentioning South Down and joining my colleagues in highlighting the beauty that is there. We would be naive not to realise that with that beauty, and with our wish to have places where people want to be, comes the problem of people taking up and occupying properties by purchasing them but, in whatever way it may be, not using them. That erodes the sense of community.

It is the role of the person who is winding up the debate to reflect on the remarks that were made in it. It is interesting that, probably to a T, everybody mentioned the same things. We mentioned the fact that the important thing for an area is a sense of community. Community is not the bricks and mortar but the people who live in it: people who come together and become part of local sporting clubs, go to local schools and shop in local shops. For them to do that, however, they need to be in that community regularly. There is no easier way of being a positive advocate for an area than to actually live there and use the local facilities. It is clear that people will miss those things once they are gone. By that stage, it is too late, but, often, that is when you realise that things have been taken away.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Of course I will, Kellie.

Ms K Armstrong: I am not standing up to talk about the wonderful Strangford and my Ards peninsula. The Member talked about services being taken away. Quite a lot of Members here live in rural areas, and we know the impact of there not being a local community: it means losing the school and the post office, the banks disappearing and the local shops going down to the size of a corner store. That drives tourism away. If there is no community, we do away with tourism as well, and we may as well have those bushes blowing past.

Ms Mulholland: Tumbleweed.

Ms K Armstrong: It becomes an empty town. Does the Member agree that we threaten community life by taking people away, because services then come away?

Mr McGrath: I am not going to discuss pilfering in great detail, but, given that the Member's constituency has stolen part of our constituency, I am bound to say that great swathes of Strangford are absolutely beautiful. I know many of those areas, because I was born and raised and went to school in a part that is now moving over into her constituency. The Member's point is well made. It is about how acutely that difference is noticed. It can take longer in a city to notice that those sorts of services are being eroded. That does not mean that you do not notice it. However, especially in rural communities, as anyone who you speak to about them will tell you, it is the people who make the area. It is about knowing who is going to be in the local shops and going about their daily business in those areas.

I acknowledge the point — I do not think it was an intentional absence — in Diana's remarks on behalf of the Ulster Unionists. We get that point; we get that it is a balance. You cannot exist without tourism. We all need it. It supports a massive industry, and, in some areas, probably the biggest industry. It was really good to see so many Members contributing by saying that it is about getting the balance right and making sure that we do not tip over into having too many people removed from an area, because it all becomes too tourist-focused. Likewise, you have to have those tourists. In places in my constituency such as Newcastle, Warrenpoint and others, we know about the importance of tourism, because of the money that it brings in and the jobs that it supports and how that supports the community that we are talking about trying to support. Diana referred to balance, but everybody, I think, took the opportunity to refer to the balance that is needed.

In acknowledging that there is a problem, which is probably most felt in the north coast area, a number of Members referenced the importance of not reinventing the wheel. Scotland, Wales, France and other places that were referenced face these problems. They are having to get to grips with that. Some of them are years ahead of us in the problem of over-saturation, but they are also years ahead of us in trying to find the solutions to deal with it. I encourage any departmental officials who might be listening to the debate to scope out other places that have managed the problem and come up with a solution.

Many Members referenced the important point that taking these second properties, Airbnbs and other types of lets out of the housing stock means that there is pressure on the rest of the stock. Business is business. That drives the price of properties up. That means that, for people in our local community who are trying to get on to the housing ladder for the first time in an area close to their families and to that support and community that we all referenced, it becomes increasingly difficult, because house prices are going up to £300,000, £400,000 or £500,000. That prices first-time buyers out of the market. We want to keep that healthy balance that we spoke about, but how can you have that balance if you are needing half a million pounds to buy a house? You just cannot do it. Even MLAs could not afford that, although many people out there think that we can afford anything.

I appreciate everyone's support for the motion. It is great to see that we have that commonality. Our phrasing did not include reference to a Minister. We wanted to call on the whole Executive, because it is a cross-cutting issue that a number of Departments need to look at. The downside of that is that we do not have any Ministers here, but I do not think that that means that there is any lack of interest among the Ministers around the Executive table. They know that the problem is there, and they have the good, solid Back-Benchers from all the parties pushing forward what we want to see. Hopefully, together, we can get a solution that will help the local communities that we all represent.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Cheryl Brownlee to raise the matter of installing a sensory room in the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. Cheryl, you have up to 15 minutes.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a real privilege to bring today's Adjournment debate to the Floor. I pay full tribute to Erin McAllister. She is here with us today and is the founder of the Northern Ireland Community for Parents/Carers of Children with Complex Needs group. The group has been driving a petition, which has been signed by over 1,000 people in Northern Ireland. It was Erin's lived experience, determination and passion that have brought the topic to the Floor today, and she should be incredibly proud.

Most of us will agree that no one likes going to A&E. It is stressful, noisy and unpredictable, but, for most people, it is manageable. However, for a child with sensory processing difficulties, autism, ADHD or a learning disability, it is not just stressful; it is impossible. The lights are too bright, the alarms are too loud, the crowds are too close, and the waiting is too long. When their senses become overwhelmed and that invisible bucket finally overflows, there is nothing that anyone can do but wait. That is when you see the flailing, the crying, the biting and the panic that takes over their little bodies. It is not a tantrum. It is not bad behaviour. It is just distress. It is a child's nervous system screaming, "I just cannot cope anymore". That distress does not just affect them; it ripples through the entire waiting room. It affects the parents who are holding back tears, terrified that people are judging them. It affects the staff who want to help but have nowhere calm to take the child, and it affects every person in that place.

That is why we are asking for something so simple, yet so transformative: a sensory room — a small, calm space within or near the A&E department; a space with soft lighting, comfortable seating and gentle sounds; somewhere a child can breathe; and somewhere they can regulate before they unravel. It is not a "nice to have"; it is a reasonable adjustment and a necessary step to make emergency care accessible to children who experience the world differently.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 makes it clear that public services must make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities. It is to be done not as an afterthought when a crisis hits but proactively. Other hospitals across Northern Ireland have already shown what is possible. At Altnagelvin Area Hospital, a triage room was transformed into a beautiful sensory space with colour-changing lights, comfy chairs and calming sounds. Staff say that it has changed everything, allowing patients with learning disabilities to receive care in peace. In the South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen, a sensory room project won a national award for "Low Cost High Impact", which proves that it is not about money or luxury; it is about compassion, inclusion and creative thinking. My colleague Deborah Erskine is probably watching. When she talks about regional balance, I am very jealous of the services in her area, although they are absolutely credible and fully deserved.

At the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children — a hospital that serves the most complex and vulnerable children from across Northern Ireland — there is still no sensory room in A&E. Every year, around 34,000 children pass through that department, and many of them have additional needs. Many are autistic, and many have known sensory challenges. Yet, in their moment of crisis, there is no space that is safe and quiet for them to go to. I know that the trust has huge pressures. Space is limited, budgets are stretched and staff are exhausted, but I have seen it myself. I have been there. I have sat in the corridors with my child and have seen how impossible it can be even to find that moment of calm.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Ms Brownlee: Yes.

Mr Clarke: The Member is right to point out the financial pressures, but, given the difficulty that some of those children face, addressing them in a calm and timely manner would be much more efficient and could actually save money in the long term for the staff. Does the Member agree?

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Member for the intervention. He makes a very valid point, which I will get on to slightly later. Many parents are put off going to A&E, because of the stress that it will cause to the child, to them and to the people around them. They do not go, and the child's condition can get worse.

I was not going to talk about my experience, but at home we put off going to A&E with my son. We were worried about the stress that it would cause him and the stress that, we knew, we would be walking into, but we went. He was in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). That was when we found out that he had diabetes. If I had left that, he would have died. It is about those moments — those hours and minutes. If, for a second, parents think, "I am not going to go, because of that stress", it could be critical, so it is a case of invest to save and save lives.

If there is no room for a permanent space now, we have to start with something mobile — a pod or a modular sensory unit — that is close by. It is important that we act. The truth is that, when we do not make space for those children, families stop coming. Parents delay bringing their child to A&E, terrified of what the experience will do to them. Alternatively, they go to A&E but leave before being seen, because the stress becomes too much. That is not equality or accessibility; it is just fear.

No family should have to choose between their child's medical needs and their emotional safety. We are not asking for a luxury or for a playroom but for understanding. We ask that our children who experience the world differently will be given the same right to care, safety and dignity as any other child. A sensory room would mean a calmer, safer and more inclusive A&E for patients, parents and staff alike. It would help turn that chaos into calm and that panic into peace. It would also show that the Royal not only treats children's bodies but cares for their minds and their wee hearts.

Our children did not choose to experience the world differently. They do not ask for more; they ask only for enough. Their needs are different, but they are not lesser. Every child deserves to feel safe, even in an emergency.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, Cheryl. All other Members who are called to speak will have approximately five minutes.

Ms Flynn: I thank Cheryl and the DUP for securing this important Adjournment debate. Cheryl has articulately outlined the risks that are at play if we cannot provide that type of facility for parents who are already really worried, stressed and concerned, with sick children who really need that kind of space, particularly when they are in that difficult environment. She also mentioned Erin, who, fair play to her, has probably reached out to most of us with her petition and the campaign that she has undertaken. That has definitely given the issue a bit of a lift and focused people's minds on it. I hope that we will receive some good news from the Minister when he responds to the debate.

I will not repeat Cheryl's points. She talked about her personal experience, and the chances are that anyone in the Chamber who has been blessed with being a mother or a father will have had to bring their child or sick baby into a hospital environment. This time last year, I was in that position with a sick child. I think that he had just turned two; it is coming up to a year ago, so he was a very sick two-year-old. The emergency department was completely chaotic, because, in the wintertime, with the winter pressures, there are more people in those departments. It was particularly bad because there were so many wee, sick, vulnerable, upset and frail children everywhere, and, on top of that, there were all the really concerned, worried and distressed parents. When all the issues that Cheryl mentioned for a child with additional needs are put into the mix, there is additional trauma for that wee child, who is already not well, in that environment. I do not think that anyone would disagree with the need to call for those facilities.

Around a month or two ago, a delegation of Belfast MLAs and MPs met the chief executive of the Belfast Trust. At that stage, Maureen Edwards was still in post, so the meeting was not with the new chief executive, Jennifer Welsh. We raised the issue of the sensory space. The trust discussed issues of capacity, the room, the set-up of that ED and where you would physically put that space. It raised the issues of risk from the spread of infection, the fact that you are dealing with very sick children and whether a separate sensory space would create more risk for children, who would want to leave their parents to play and mix together. Those are all genuine issues that the clinicians, doctors and nurses who treat the kids have to think about. At the meeting, they agreed to go away and look at some models that are already in place. I think that it was Gerry Kelly who mentioned at the meeting that a school in north Belfast had put in place a mobile sensory room. I genuinely do not know what has taken place since the meeting, but I saw that, recently, the Minister responded to a question for written answer by saying that options may be explored with a charity for some type of mobile sensory room. I hope that we can get that over the line in the coming months. That would be very welcome. With regard to the longer term, staff reassured us that the new regional children's hospital has been designed and built with children with additional needs and sensory needs at its heart.

I thank the Member for tabling the Adjournment topic. I am happy to support it.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Member for tabling this incredibly important topic for debate and bringing attention to the lived experience of disabled children and their families across Northern Ireland.

I got an email from Erin as well, and I wrote to the trust to ask it what services were currently available in Belfast Trust hospitals to support children with sensory needs who attend children's A&E and whether there were any plans to implement such services. The trust replied that, while it understood the requirement for that type of space and its impact, it was awaiting confirmation of funding to purchase a mobile sensory pod, so, currently, there was no specific area. I fully believe that we need to give our public bodies the tools to understand that something like that is about more than just a bottom line on a budget paper and that it is about equal participation in society and the ability to access the same rights as everyone else. It is not an optional addition. As the proposer stated, it is not a "nice to have".

It is incredibly important to me personally, because, for the past year, I have been working on consultations with the disability community for the purpose of bringing forward a Bill that would put the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) into the fabric of public policy and decision-making in Northern Ireland and intends to build a foundation for progress in situations exactly like the one that we are discussing. To ensure that the voices and lived experience of disabled people in Northern Ireland are embedded and to go beyond symbolic gestures or box ticking, the consultation process has been intentionally extended to allow for as much involvement as possible.

When I looked at Erin's campaign for the installation of a sensory room around the A&E waiting area, I was struck by what I had heard so many times throughout that consultation process about the need to explain or prove a disability. That should never be the case. There is dismissal, misunderstanding and disregard for the frustrations of a lifetime of sub-par rights or considerations, which are often met with apathy when raised. Adjustments or specific requirements on the basis of disability are treated as optional. As was mentioned, disability protections in Northern Ireland are behind those of the rest of the UK and Ireland and are mainly based on outdated legislation from 30 years ago that is older than the Assembly itself — an Assembly that, in six of the past 10 years, has been impacted by shutdowns and political instability. A consequence of that instability has been the retrogression of disability rights in a number of areas.

The sensory room is necessary for children who have sensory processing difficulties, including those with autism or ADHD. As Erin states in her campaign message, the experience of A&E can be overwhelming for neurotypical children, but, for children with high sensory needs, the bright and noisy environment can cause serious dysregulation, which can have a massive impact on their health, especially considering that sensory meltdown can lead to increased body temperature, vomiting and self-harming behaviours. As Cheryl highlighted, that may put parents off attending A&E and result in the sick child not getting timely treatment.

The Health Committee recently heard a presentation from a provider of mobile sensory rooms about the benefits to young people and their families in those environments. The Committee wrote to the Minister, and maybe he will refer to it. We recently received a response from him that states:

It also states:

It is important that the services are co-designed with families and organisations with specialist knowledge in the area.

I have spoken to Erin about the issue, and I would be happy to meet anyone affected by the lack of provision for disability in public services. It should go without saying that disabled people in Northern Ireland deserve better protections and that equality should never be an option. I fully support this debate.

Mr Chambers: I certainly welcome this extremely important debate. I also welcome the broad cross-party recognition of the growing and well-documented value that sensory rooms and sensory pods can bring to healthcare settings. As MLAs, we often have people coming to our constituency offices to relay their experiences of the health service. That includes families who sometimes face the sensory challenge of a busy hospital environment. For any child, hospitals can be a strange and overwhelming environment, but, for children who are neurodiverse or live with sensory processing difficulties, it can be an even greater challenge. Any family with such a child will know how quickly distress can escalate when the environment feels unsafe to them or out of their control. That is why sensory rooms are so important. They provide a breathing space, offer a much better environment for a young person and allow them to receive care with minimised distress. While there is provision for such spaces across the health estate, there is a shortfall at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. I know from engaging with the Department on the matter that the Belfast Trust has been seeking to identify the necessary space adjacent to the paediatric emergency department to create a dedicated sensory room in the near future. That is a really positive step. I am hopeful that that shortage in provision can soon be resolved.

I beg your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to highlight a development in Bangor, albeit that it is aimed at a different cohort. The council recently opened a dementia-friendly sensory garden in Ward Park. That has proved to be a calming oasis for dementia patients and their families. The plants have not reached full maturity, but, next year, they will. I certainly welcome that facility.

Mr McGrath: I thank Cheryl for bringing the topic to the Chamber and for achieving the second full agreement in a row about what needs to happen. There is no issue more important than this one. I also thank Erin McAllister. I received the email and signed up to the petition because of its importance and its sense. Sometimes there are complicated reasons for doing or not doing things, but there are other times at which things are so obvious that you wonder why we have not already done them.

Although this is an Adjournment debate about the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children and whilst the hospital goes to great pains to point out that it is not a regional service for everything, some of what it does is on a regional basis, so we can all subscribe to the fact that our constituents may be using that facility and benefiting from it.

In doing some gentle research in preparation for the debate, I thought about who could actually benefit from a sensory room. If we look at the figures, we see that 5·9% of our school-age children have autism, somewhere in the broad region of 45,000 to 60,000 have ADHD and 31,000 have learning difficulties. There certainly is not and cannot be a suggestion that there is no need for a facility such as that. When we look at why we should have such facilities — others mentioned this — we see that it is about the fact that it reduces the stress and the pressure.

We know that emergency departments are busy places. Thankfully, in the past year or two, I have only had one occasion to be in an emergency department. It was busier than an airport and than a bus station; so much was happening. Whilst I was there with somebody who was sick, I really felt for the people who were sick and having to be that environment. I thought, "This just is not the place to be". There is nothing calming or comforting in it — it is a very harsh environment — so I can only imagine how the effect of it is multiplied for people who really struggle with all the things that take place around them. We also have a legal duty on equality: if we are going to provide services and do so on an equal basis, it is really important that we provide for those with autism, ADHD or learning difficulties so that they are able to access services in a way that works for them.

We have a number of good examples in various units around the country. The South West Acute Hospital's sensory room has been referenced, we have the Bluestone unit at Craigavon Hospital, and Altnagelvin Area Hospital has a sensory room that opened in 2021 for those with learning difficulties, so we have lots of examples about the place. Maybe it is about extending that provision rather than having to start again from the very beginning.

When it comes to cost and practicality, the emergency department is a small space and every inch of it is crucial to delivering its aims, but, as has been mentioned — this is well rehearsed — there is a cost benefit to spending a little money and securing the space: it gets people through the emergency department more quickly. That means that people are able to go to it in the first instance, so there is less opportunity for illnesses and conditions to progress. When people turn up much later, it costs much more to put it all together. When we look at it from that cost perspective, we see that it is reasonable and sensible to try to help to move that on.

There are a couple of things that we would all love to see — the SDLP would subscribe to them — including the space being made available in the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children and its being co-designed with users. Experts out there have been contacting us about it, and we have experts in the Public Gallery who, I am sure, would be only too willing to give of their experience and expertise to make sure that what could be provided would really work for people. That is something that we should try for, so that, when it is delivered, hopefully, and people need something from us, we will know that it will help them.

Thank you for securing the debate today; I am delighted to support it.

Mr Baker: Cheryl, thank you for securing the debate this evening and for sharing your story.

Society and the system make our children with additional needs vulnerable. This is about a very basic ask; it should be there in the first place. In my constituency, I find it very frustrating that so many families need us intervene in order for them to get some of the most basic equality measures. In education, children with additional needs are offered places that do not exist. We do not do that to mainstream children, so why do it to children who need that support? In health, I have been blown away by some of the cases that I have to deal with. I think of children who need a dental appointment: very recently, I had a case of a child having to wait eight months for an appointment, and it was only with my intervention that that took place. My child does not have to wait eight months to get a filling or have an abscess treated. I cannot wrap my head around it: eight months of a wee child biting the hand off themselves in pain.

That is happening day and daily, so that is a system that is completely failing. If we cannot even deliver a sensory room in 2025 and not have that, there is something seriously wrong. Going forward, we need to start getting everything right. We need to make sure that families are heard at the table. It is not just about an architect designing a room or a building; it has to be there to meet the needs of that child, and it is simply not happening. It is not happening across the board, and it needs to start happening now.

There is commentary coming from across the water that is starting to bed in here where we are now trying to see the reasons why children have autism as if we are trying to understand that. It is appalling language where some people are wanting to bring this. These are children in our society who are being made vulnerable because the system is broken, and we need to start getting it right. Families need to stop having to fight for absolutely every single thing, and policy and Ministers and us as MLAs need to start understanding the challenges from the bedroom to the bathroom, from the bathroom to the kitchen and from the kitchen to the classroom or into the ER.

Thank you for sharing your story. I have no doubt that it is a difficult decision to bring your child there. They are maybe not too sick to bring, because what they have to go through is so traumatic, but it is the knock-on effect that that could have had going forward. It something that we all have to work together on, and that is not me trying to single out any particular Minister, whether it is Education, Communities with welfare, or Health. It is about us all working together to get it better going forward. We need to start getting it right now.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister of Health, and, Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Mr McGrath said, the spirit of harmonious agreement has really broken out. We could be on for a hat-trick on Monday, but I would not bet on that because I have seen the running order.

To Cheryl Brownlee, thanks for bringing the debate. We are in agreement. It is an area where, for once, I am not going to say that the biggest issue is finance and money. It is not. It is actually space, and I will come to that in a second.

Multidisciplinary environments are becoming an increasingly vital part of paediatric healthcare, particularly for children with neurodiverse needs or sensory processing conditions. To follow on from Mr Baker, and to be fair to the Belfast Trust, these sensory rooms were not a thing when the hospital was built, so the issue is space, and a mobile is where I would be putting my money for where the trust will get to.

It is only in recent years that there has been this big shift in thinking about how we understand and respond to the needs of individuals with sensory processing challenges. The shift, of course, is driven by a deeper awareness of neurodiversity and the unique ways in which people experience the world around them. Sensory rooms and sensory pods are at the forefront of the movement because they offer safe, therapeutic environments where individuals can regulate their sensory input. The growing importance of those spaces, along with the wide range of equipment and aids that they offer, are now well recognised as valuable tools for professionals working in those clinical settings. Those spaces are designed to meet a wide range of needs, and they are proving to be especially beneficial in high-stress environments such as emergency departments, where children and young people, as has been said, become overwhelmed and overstimulated really quickly. EDs are often loud and often bright. They are chaotic places that can be distressing for any child, especially those with autism spectrum disorder or ADHD, and also those with anxiety, mental health challenges, developmental disabilities and other sensory processing disorders. I have visited a lot of EDs, and I am struck by how bright they are, by necessity; how noisy they are, because of demand; and how unsuitable they are for people with neurodiversity issues.

Sensory rooms are not just limited to supporting children with diagnosed conditions; they provide comfort and regulation for any child or young person experiencing heightened stress or anxiety such as at a time of trauma or in the middle of a medical crisis. We can supply that support in two main ways. First, through a fixed sensory room: a dedicated space within a facility designed and equipped to provide a consistent sensory experience. Those rooms are often tailored to meet the specific needs of the population they serve, and they can include a wide range of equipment and design features. Secondly, there are mobile sensory pods. They are portable units that bring sensory equipment directly to the child when they are in the hospital. That flexibility is particularly valuable in settings where space is limited, as is the case with the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. Equipment in those settings can stimulate or sooth through visual, tactile, auditory or olfactory means, depending on the individual's needs. For example, visual stimulation can include bubble tubes, fibre-optic lights or projection systems; tactile stimulation can be provided by textured or padded walls, or soft furnishings; auditory elements might include calming music or white-noise machines; and olfactory equipment may include aromatherapy diffusers with soothing scents.

In a hospital sensory room, you will typically find a variety of specialist equipment and features that are designed to help children and young people to manage stress, anxiety and sensory-processing challenges. The tools are often selected to provide calming, stimulating or regulating sensory input across multiple senses, including sight, sound, touch, smell and movement. The goal is to create an environment that feels safe and predictable and which is responsive to the child's needs. Much of the equipment is mobile. That allows it to be repositioned or repurposed as needed, and it adds to the versatility of the space. It also means that it can be individualised for a child's needs.

As Members will be aware, construction of a new state-of-the-art children's hospital is under way on the current Belfast Trust site. It is a 10-storey facility, which will accommodate up to 155 inpatients and include 10 theatres. It represents a significant step forward in delivering a world-class service in world-class facilities. It is expected that it will be completed by 2030. The hospital will be designed with the needs of children and families at its heart. I am confident that sensory support will be an integral part of that vision. Mr Donnelly talked about co-design. I am keen on that. Some months ago, I was in Dublin and visited its new children's hospital — it is not yet open, but it is pretty much complete and just needs to be commissioned. They have given much attention to the needs of the child and thought about sounds, echoes, tactile issues and the sort of visuals required. This is so cool — I hope that we do it with our children's hospital — the window-cleaning contract stipulates that the window cleaners who will be going up and down the outside of the building have to wear superhero outfits. How cool is that for children who are stressed out and sick? It is magnificent. I cannot impose it on the trust, but I hope that it sees the sense of doing that.

At the moment, my officials are engaging with senior staff at the Belfast Trust. We are exploring the possibility of introducing a sensory room at the current hospital for sick children. However, it is an old facility, and that makes it difficult to change the building, despite the need to include a sensory room particularly close to the paediatric emergency department. The trust has confirmed that it has actively considered the inclusion of a sensory room but feels that the current layout and capacity constraints make it unfeasible, at present. However, I have asked the trust to look at it again, because, as Órlaithí or anyone else who has been there will know, there is a corridor round to your left, just past the entrance, and then there is what they are calling the garden area. I am not convinced that the garden area is big enough, and the trust is not convinced that it is big enough, but I have asked the trust to take one final look at that garden area to see whether it could get in a sensory room, because those sensory rooms are not particularly big. In fact, because they are one-on-one, they are pretty small.

Mr Clarke: I appreciate the Minister giving way, and I appreciate his language in the debate. It has been very helpful and encouraging for Erin and the families who are listening. He said that space is at a premium. There is a suggestion that there is a disused shop on the site. Will the Minister explore the genesis of that story that is going around? It is a shop that has been disused for some time, and questions remain unanswered about its purpose.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I was unaware that there may be a disused shop. A shop is probably a good size for a sensory room. I will look at that. Notwithstanding that, the current direction of travel is the trust investigating the procurement of a mobile sensory unit. That would allow the equipment to be brought directly to children when they are in the hospital. It is a flexible solution, and it could provide much-needed support.

Encouragingly, the trust is exploring the use of charitable funds to acquire the necessary equipment. Those funds can be allocated to projects of that nature. That approach demonstrates resourcefulness during a challenging financial time, and it demonstrates how the generous contributions received from the public of Northern Ireland can help support the well-being of its youngest and most vulnerable children. Charitable contributions have long played a vital role in enhancing hospital services and the experience of patients, and I am keen that the initiative resonates with donors and supporters.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes.

Mr Donnelly: Minister, you mentioned the new children's hospital. Are you aware of any space that has been identified in the plans for the new children's hospital?

Mr Nesbitt: I cannot tell you exactly where it will be, but it will be a big building. As I said in my opening remarks, the direction of travel is towards recognising the benefit of sensory aids for children who have anxiety, stress and neurodivergent needs that we have to deal with.

We are in a positive and proactive position. The point has been made that sensory rooms are not a luxury; they are a necessity for many children. Their presence can transform a child's hospital experience from one of fear and distress by taking them out of a clinical situation and putting them into something much more homely, acceptable and calming. I have asked my officials to maintain regular contact with the Belfast Trust. We will monitor progress and provide updates as the work continues. Mr Clarke has given me some homework, which is to find a disused shop that we could turn, at speed, into a sensory room.

Ms Brownlee: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: I have two seconds.

Ms Brownlee: Hopefully, you will give me a bit of latitude, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I do not get to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I will give you a bit of latitude.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his attitude and for the way in which he has come to the Chamber. I want to nail down whether he has any time frame for the project. As we have said, parents are passionate about the issue. Do you have any time frames for the work? Can we get some definite answers for the people of Northern Ireland about a sensory room at the Royal?

Mr Nesbitt: I understand why you ask the question, but, if you have been listening to me over the last few days, you will know that I have stopped giving timelines because, as a Department, we keep saying that we will do things by a certain date or month but tend to honour them in the breach. All I can say is that it will be done at pace.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Minister. Thank you to those in the Public Gallery for coming to see something a bit more positive than usual in the Assembly.