Official Report: Tuesday 18 November 2025

Mr Delargy: Last week's news that the price of school meals will increase is another blow for hard-working parents. The extra £10 a month per child will push many families further into food poverty. Let me be abundantly clear: hiking the price of school meals is a political choice to shift the Department's budgetary pressures on to the shoulders of ordinary, hard-working families. For years, Audit Office reports have highlighted inefficiencies and waste in the Education Authority (EA) and the Department of Education, yet no action has been taken. Ordinary families are now picking up the bill for years of poor financial management by successive DUP Ministers of Education.

As a teacher, I know that many hard-pressed families work hard to make ends meet. It is not a luxury to provide a hot dinner at lunchtime but a necessity. In addition, the Minister has rolled back on making school uniforms more affordable, is considering hiking the fees for music tuition in schools further and has failed to roll out an affordable childcare strategy in full. Is it any wonder that ordinary families are struggling? This is about cutting services for those families who can least afford them. The Minister can reverse the policies. He can show children and families that he is serious about creating an education system that provides equal opportunities and that allows children to flourish, regardless of their socio-economic background. The Minister needs to listen to parents. He needs to listen to parents in Derry, to parents in his constituency and to parents right across the North.

Mr Clarke: Like many in the Chamber, I was invited to the Men's Alliance NI domestic violence event that was held on Saturday in Writers' Square in Belfast. It is very disappointing that Members across the Chamber did not support that event. Many have much to say about domestic violence, but one could be forgiven for thinking that, because it was a men's event, they decided not to attend.

Thirty-five per cent of reported cases of domestic violence are suffered by men. That is a startling statistic. It is difficult for all those who suffer from domestic violence to come forward, but most Members would accept that it is more so for men because of pride.

When I attended the event, I was surprised, because it was led by women. There is nothing more powerful than women walking down the street in Belfast with a loud message about domestic violence. To be fair to them, they are against domestic violence against all. I met two young girls who lost their father through domestic violence. They spoke of an incident in which he had been publicly attacked by his ex-partner on a bus service in Belfast. He was too shy to come forward or make a complaint. Unfortunately, that man paid with his life: he was stabbed to death in his bed. In that case, thankfully, someone was brought to justice and will serve 14 years in prison. I am sure that, if that man is looking down on his daughters, he is proud of them for leading the Men's Alliance event in Belfast on Saturday. They carried that banner not only in memory of their father but for all the other men and others who suffer from domestic violence.

I spoke to others at the event who described themselves as feminists but put the issue of domestic violence at the forefront. One of their banners stated:

Another banner called for more support services for men, and I agree with that. We have not got the services that we really need in Northern Ireland, and it is only through the efforts of the Men's Alliance in raising awareness that we know that. We need more support services for men, and we need shelters for men as much as we need them for women.

It would be great if, some day, we could talk in the Chamber about there being no domestic violence because we had got rid of it. Unfortunately, that is not the case: it is here, and it looks as though it is here to stay. We have to do more for all victims: be they men or women, we need to do more.

Mr Donnelly: I recognise the success of Antrim Coast Dance Academy in Larne at the recent World Irish Dance Championships in Salthill, Galway. The academy brought 27 dancers to the event, and every one of them placed in the top 10 in their category. That alone says a lot about the hard work and commitment of those young people and the support that they receive from their families and teachers.

Seven dancers from the academy came home as world title winners. Eva Quinlan became the under-9s intermediate world champion. Bailey Smith won the under-11s primary world title. Lacey Mitchell took the under-11s intermediate title after only one year of dancing, which is an incredible achievement for anyone who is starting out. Grace McKeown became the under-14s intermediate world champion. Grace lives with mild learning disabilities and had struggled to find her place until she discovered dance, which makes her success all the more meaningful. Erin Millar won the under-14s open world title. Melissa Galway became the under-16s open champion, winning her second world title. She also achieved nine GCSE A* grades at St Killian's College, Carnlough, this year. Jodi McCourt won the under-21 ladies' open title and has not been beaten in any competition in the past three years.

The academy has been running for 10 years and is led by two dedicated teachers. It has about 30 dancers aged between three and 21. What they have built gives children and young people the space to grow in confidence and talent, and their results in Galway show how far that has taken them. I offer my warmest congratulations to every dancer who was involved and to the teachers and parents who give so much time and care to help them thrive.

Mr McHugh: Tá na dálaí tiomána ag gabháil in olcas de réir mar atáimid ag druidim le tréimhse na Nollag: tá an lá ag cailleadh, bíonn na bealaí fliuch, bíonn sioc agus oighear orthu agus bíonn níos mó tráchta ar na bealaí mar gheall ar dhaoine ag déanamh shiopadóireacht na Nollag nó ag gabháil ag amharc ar a ndaoine muinteartha. Ba mhaith liom aird a tharraignt ar an tsábháilteacht ar bhóithre inniu i gcomhar le Lá Domhanda i gCuimhne ar Dhaoine a d’Fhulaing de dheasca Timpistí ar Bhóithre. Ardaím an t-ábhar sin, ní hé amháin le cuimhneamh ar dhaoine a d’fhulaing de dheasca timpistí ar bhóithre ach le húsáideoirí bóithre a spreagadh le bheith ar a seacht n-airdeall thar thréimhse na Nollag.

Fuair muid scéala uafásach, ag deireadh na seachtaine, go bhfuair cúigear daoine faoi 25 bliana d’aois bás i dtimpiste i gcontae Lú. Gabhaim mo chomhbhrón lena muintir agus guím ar son na ndaoine a tugadh chuig an ospidéal i ndiaidh an teagmhais. Go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a n-anam.

An té atá ag gabháil an bóthar, ba chóir dó ceann cúrsa a bhaint amach, pé acu coisí, rothaí, tiománaí nó paisinéir é. Cé go spreagaimid úsáideoirí bóithre le céimeanna riachtanacha a ghlacadh, ní mór dúinn, sa Teach seo, céimeanna riachtanacha a ghlacadh fosta lenár n-úsáideoirí bóithre a chosaint, go háirithe i gcás Bhóthar A5. De réir an fheachtais Is Leor Sin, fuair 57 nduine bás ó cuireadh tús ar fheachtas Bhóthar A5. Sin 57 nduine nár bhain ceann cúrsa amach. Is minic agus is rómhinic a tharla tubaiste agus crá croí ar Bhóthar A5, rud a d’fhág teaghlaigh ar fud an oileáin faoi choscairt. Caithfidh gach duine againn bheith ag tacú leis an phobal agus leis na daoine sin a chaill daoine muinteartha agus bheith ag obair le chéile lena chinntiú go ndéanfar an bóthar sin. Sábhálfaidh an feachtas sin beatha daoine. Leanfaidh Sinn Féin de bheith ag obair le feachtasóirí, le páirtithe eile agus leis an Aire Bonneagair lena chinntiú go gcuirfear an tionscadal ríthábhachtach sin i gcrích. Abraimis ar lá seo an chuimhneacháin go ndéanfaimid ár seacht ndícheall leis an fheachtas sin a chur i gcrích.

Mr Brett: On 16 October, when the Minister for the Economy issued her politically charged ministerial statement attacking the state of Israel and undermining the aerospace, defence and space sector in Northern Ireland, this party made it clear that we would challenge that decision at every possible turn. That is why, jointly with the Ulster Unionist Party and Traditional Unionist Voice, this party tabled a call-in petition to the Business Office in relation to that decision. We warmly welcome the fact that a ruling has been made that that decision must now come before the Executive. As we made clear at the time, the attempted decision by the Minister for the Economy was controversial and significant.

For the avoidance of doubt, Sinn Féin does not and will not ever set UK trade policy. That is a reserved matter for His Majesty's Government, and the DUP call-in justifies that decision. The value of the aerospace, defence and space sector in Northern Ireland is £2·2 billion a year, and it employs 10,000 people. The Minister for the Economy is entitled to her personal views on that industry, but she is not entitled to use her office to undermine those jobs and investments. In every corner of Northern Ireland, people from all backgrounds, traditions and none work in that sector. We will not allow their jobs to be put at risk by a Minister who fears more from attack from parties to my left than from delivering in her role as Minister for the Economy.

While others may talk Northern Ireland down, try to cost us jobs and not welcome investment, this party will proudly take every opportunity to speak up for the people of Northern Ireland and ensure that our economy continues to flourish.

Ms Nicholl: People come to us MLAs with a number of matters, including potholes in their street and issues with housing, health and education. It is a privilege to represent them, but, every so often, you get a case that really stays with you.

About 11 months ago, I met an extraordinary woman whose husband was tragically killed while cycling. When you speak to her, you can feel the grief and the love that she had for her husband, and the gap that he left in their family is much felt.

The trauma of his death, however, was compounded by the fact that the person who was driving and who killed him was not meant to be on the road. He had been told that he could not drive any more. It is clear that there is a gap in the system. In some cases, medical professionals will report drivers to the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) if they suspect that that they will not give up their licence themselves. In most cases, however, it is left to the individual to contact the DVA. We know enough about human nature and how people behave to know that they will do the easiest thing. In this case, the man was told that he was not allowed to drive because of a medical condition, but he continued to drive. As a result, a family lost a cherished father, husband and friend.

About 11 months ago, I made a Member's statement in the House about this matter, about how there is a gap and how, by closing it, we can help to save lives. Since then, along with my constituent, we have made steady progress, having spoken to the Infrastructure Minister, who was deeply sympathetic and empathetic, as well as the BMA and the Courts and Tribunals Service. We have written to the Department of Health, and I understand that the Health and Infrastructure Ministers have discussed the matter. We need to keep it on the agenda, however, because the situation needs to stop. There must be other people in our society who have been affected in the same way, and I would love for them to reach out to me so that we can build more of a campaign around the issue.

There is no reason why medical professionals cannot report directly to the DVA because they already do it in some instances. Let us make it the rule instead of the exception. This woman, who is my constituent, is extraordinary and is so dedicated to changing the law so that no one else has to go through the pain that she did. I hope that as Members, we can work together to help save lives as a result.

Mr Gaston: Northern Ireland's fishing industry is standing on the edge of a cliff. Unless there is a swift and decisive intervention, we may soon witness the collapse of one of our oldest and proudest but most vulnerable industries. Last week, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea issued its latest scientific advice. It proposes a staggering 70% reduction in the total allowable catch of mackerel in the north-east Atlantic in 2026. At the same time, when it comes to nephrops in the Irish Sea's functional unit 15, which are the lifeblood of our small and medium-sized vessels, the advice is for a 35% cut from just over 10,000 tonnes to 6,493 tonnes.

Those are not minor adjustments, but seismic shocks that hit two species on which Northern Ireland's fleet most depends. Those cuts mean something very simple for crews in Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie. They mean that boats are tied up, income is slashed and processors are running idle. Once a vessel is sold off, a processor closes its doors or a skilled team is broken up, the industry cannot simply be switched back on again when the science changes. The capacity is gone, the skills are gone and the supply chain is gone, and the fishing community is left hollowed out.

This crisis has been compounded by a legacy of disadvantage. Vessels cannot simply stream to alternative grounds. Fuel costs, long transits, crewing pressures and the realities of the Irish Sea make that impossible. Add to that the continued regulatory constraints of the protocol and the Windsor framework and you have a fleet that is exposed on every side, scientifically, economically and politically.

We need to know what assessment Mr Muir has made of the combined impact of those cuts. What defence of Northern Ireland's share has been mounted? Let us be clear, Mr Muir: if those proposals proceed unchallenged, and if your Department fails to act, the devastation for the fishing industry will be real and unrepairable.

Mr Carroll: It has been well documented how important speech and language assistance and support can be for children and young people who have additional communication needs. There is no doubt that investment in speech and language provision through well-paid staff and appropriate support can and does have transformative and life-changing impacts for those young people. We often hear in this Building about the need for early intervention and preventative work to take place. Sometimes it does happen, but quite often it does not. Parents and carers often face barriers to securing the appropriate setting and support, including community support, for their children with additional communication needs. I do not think that it has to be like that.

Today, I pay tribute to all the people working and delivering speech and language units and supports in other settings and to all the young people who avail themselves of those very important services. Disgracefully, only four speech and language-specific units exist across Belfast, and, today, I speak to the issue of pupils in St Teresa's Primary School. I know that the parents and carers are watching this morning. St Teresa's is an excellent mainstream school in west Belfast that provides a speech and language unit to children who need that support and assistance. Shockingly, the support and service stop when the children and young people finish primary 4. There has been no explanation or rationale for why that important and crucial service stops at some arbitrary, plucked-out-of-the-sky date. As things stand, come June next year, 12 pupils will have no idea of where they will go. They will have to leave St Teresa's Primary School with no idea of what support will be in place. For some, that will be their third school in four years, which is totally unacceptable.

St Teresa's Primary School supports the call for speech and language provision to remain on site for young people up until primary 7. Nobody, especially children with additional communication needs, deserves to be uprooted and removed from an educational setting just to save pennies and pounds. A small investment in staff at the school for services to be extended for another three years would be absolutely transformative for the pupils, their families and, obviously, the wider community. This morning, I call on the Department of Education, the Education Authority and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust to urgently intervene and work together to provide some clarity and assurances for those families and the wider community to make sure that those services exist for another three years up until primary 7. They say, if it is not broke, do not try to fix it. This service certainly is not broken. It is working and it needs to be extended, and clarity and security needs to be provided. If Departments do not respond, we are getting ready —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Carroll: — to march, to fight and to kick up a fuss about this.

Ms Sheerin: Last week, I visited the West Bank as part of an international delegation to discuss what is happening in Palestine. The West Bank is often referred to as the "normal" part of Palestine. Of course, there is nothing normal about a place where the Israeli settlers grade people as if they were meat. There is nothing normal about a system that determines your value on your identity. Even before we got there, in Jordan, I met Palestinians who had never been in their own country because they are not allowed. From my experience of the Jordanian border crossing, unpleasant as that was, it is not the hostility of the Israeli officials that I will remember, and not the dry heat, but the warmth and kindness and spirit of young Palestinians who went out of their way to make our experience easier, lifting our suitcases, pointing us in the right direction and trying to ease my obvious apprehension at being faced with a border crossing that I had no knowledge of prior to going through it. We then got into Ramallah and were told, "It's not that bad here". How twisted a world we live in when the barometer for suffering is babies starving to death in a place where the water is turned on once a week, where you can only go to work through border checkpoints and where you cannot leave the country. I met families who have never left the country because they are not allowed to. We then got to the university where we were having our congress, and I heard from students who had already been arrested and detained without trial, because getting educated in the West Bank is an act of resistance. I heard that they had buried five students from their one university in the past four years. Again, they said, "It is not that bad here". In Gaza, they knocked all their schools and universities to the ground, and yet such was the determination of those people that they walked for miles, set up school camps and educated their young people in the face of a genocide. We spoke to young people who told us how planting crops, as the Israelis steal the land from under them, is an act of resistance. I will carry those stories with me and continue to be a voice for the Palestinian people who seemingly cannot be heard by the rest of the Western world.

Mr Kingston: This week is Road Safety Week, which is held annually across the United Kingdom on the third week of November. The annual campaign, organised by the road safety charity Brake, focuses on raising awareness and promoting life-saving messages to reduce casualties on our roads.

Our thoughts and prayers remain very much with all those affected by the shocking tragedy that occurred on Saturday, when five young adults, aged between 21 and 23, lost their lives in a road traffic accident near Dundalk. On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I express our deepest sympathies and condolences to their families and friends. The scale of that tragedy is chilling. We do not know the circumstances, which are under investigation, but the devastating outcome is a reminder to us all of the dangers, particularly when travelling at speed, and the need for concentration and caution when driving, because lives can be suddenly and utterly changed or ended.

The theme of Road Safety Week changes each year, but it often focuses on critical areas, such as the devastating consequences of speeding; vehicle safety and checking that vehicles are roadworthy; using modern safety technology; and the personal responsibility of every road user when it comes to their safety and that of others with whom they share the road. We are told that 1,671 people died on UK roads last year, which is between four and five people every day. Nearly 29,000 people suffered serious life-changing injuries last year, which is almost 80 people every day. The theme for 2025 is "Safe vehicles save lives". It highlights the importance of maintaining vehicles to ensure that they are roadworthy and utilising modern technology, such as automated driver assistance systems, to prevent collisions.

I expect that all drivers have had the experience of someone driving behind them, particularly on country roads, and causing them to feel under pressure to drive that bit faster. This week is a reminder to us all never to be pressured into driving at a higher speed that would cause us to feel not in control or unsafe and never to be the one who pressures another driver for the sake of arriving a few seconds or minutes earlier. It is better to arrive a bit later but to do so safely.

Mr McNulty: I will speak about a deeply troubling story that appears today on the front page of 'The Irish News' and that strikes at the heart of what our health service is supposed to represent: dignity, care and compassion. According to the report, a man who was gravely ill with cancer and connected to an IV drip was forced to lie on the floor at Altnagelvin Area Hospital for over 50 hours simply because there were no available beds. That is not a statistic; it is a vulnerable, frightened human being who was without even the most basic comfort of a bed. He was given a blanket and a pillow, but that does not erase the indignity of being made to wait on the floor in a hospital, a place where we entrust our life to others and expect to be treated with care. The Western Health and Social Care Trust acknowledged that its hospitals are under extreme pressure and operating far beyond their funded capacity. However, it is not just an operational issue; it is a profound moral failing.

Reports from oversight bodies warn of systemic problems: patients forced to wait in corridors or in chairs for days; insufficient beds; and a lack of basic dignity. When a health system allows someone in their darkest hour to lie on a hospital floor, we must ask this: have we lost sight of what care truly means? We cannot let that become a new normal. Hospital care in corridors has become too commonplace in Daisy Hill, Craigavon and hospitals across the North. We must demand urgent concrete action, more capacity, better funding, improved infrastructure and, most important, respect for the dignity of every patient.

Mr Frew: The Northern Ireland Assembly passed the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act in 2022. It was a private Member's Bill, but it was fully supported by the Minister for the Economy and the Economy Department, yet we still do not have it enacted. Why is the Minister for the Economy dragging her heels on that important issue?

The Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act creates a right of 10 days' paid leave for all victims of domestic and sexual violence. It was good enough to be voted for and passed in the House, yet the Department for the Economy drags its heels. It was the first legislation of its kind to be passed in the British Isles, yet the Department for the Economy is now failing victims of domestic and sexual violence. Why is that? Regulations should be made immediately to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence, to keep them in work and ensure that their workplace is a safe place for them. That is a noble cause, and I will continue to press the Department for the Economy on it.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. That brings to a conclusion Members' statements.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your ruling yesterday that the Economy Minister's decision was significant and controversial, I wish to draw to the Assembly's attention an important clarification letter. Jim Allister MP has received a letter from the Secretary of State in which Mr Benn makes it explicitly clear that international relations are a reserved matter and that negotiations on trade with Israel are conducted by the UK Government on behalf of all parts of the UK. The subject on which the Minister purported to act therefore lies outside her legal competence. In light of that clarification, will you consider the procedural implications for ministerial authority and whether the Assembly was misled as to the scope of devolved powers in that area? Will you also outline what safeguards exist to prevent ministerial overreach when issuing directions to bodies such as Invest NI?

Mr Speaker: In the first instance, I am not sure that that is a point of order. Secondly, I need to clarify that I did not make a ruling that the decision was significant or controversial, because I was not asked to make that ruling. I was asked to make a ruling on whether it was an issue of public importance, and I outlined the reasons why we arrived at that conclusion. It is now a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, and it will be left with them to make a decision on how to take it forward after the decision that was made yesterday.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I wish to provide Members with an update on the progress made on the review of the rating system and my intended steps over the coming weeks.

Less than a year ago, it was announced that my Department would undertake a systematic review of all rates supports. Substantial progress has been made to date, with four policy reviews completed. I am accelerating the review process and can confirm today that every rate support will have been reviewed by the end of the 2027-28 rating year. The remaining policy areas will be front-loaded in order of strategic importance within the remaining time frame.

The aim of the process has been and remains to secure positive and progressive changes to the rating system. That need has been echoed strongly by interested parties through the course of significant engagement with my officials. Today, I will outline how I intend to bring about change that will see enhanced support for small businesses, which are the backbone of our local economy; change that tackles the high level of vacancies in our town and city centres; change that supports businesses that are starting out; and change that helps accelerate business growth. I cannot do that in isolation, and I have spoken many times in the House and around the Executive table of the constrained financial environment within which we operate. In terms of how we deliver rating change in such a context, the interlinked nature of rating policy, both domestic and non-domestic, is critical. That is particularly the case as we aim to improve the system with limited resources. Where changes to make the system more progressive can act to deliver change in one area, those savings can then allow us to ease the tax burden on others.

Following the public consultation on increasing the maximum capital value and reducing the early payment discount, which concluded in April, responses were assessed and proposals put forward to the Executive in June for a decision. Those proposals have the potential to unlock £9 million of government spending power. To illustrate the significance of that in rating terms, that £9 million being diverted to the small business rate scheme enhances an existing scheme that costs £22 million and already supports 30,000 ratepayers.

Many in the Chamber have called for additional support for small businesses since the Executive returned last year. The proposals that I am bringing forward pave the way for that while recognising the financial realities within which we are operating. It would be easy for me to set out my policy aims and seek additional funding to support them: that is not what I am doing. Operating a responsive and progressive rating system cannot mean layering additional supports at the cost of other Executive priorities. Instead, we must carefully consider how best the limited support levers available can be applied in the current operating context to best effect. I am not seeking additional funding to enhance support for businesses; instead, I am asking for support to deliver changes in one part of the rating system that allow additional support in another, with the two adjustments operating on a cost-neutral basis. I want to see extra help going to small business properties that provide vital employment and support workers, families and communities. Today's proposals, which stem from the discussions with businesses, align with my desire to deliver positive change for businesses and boost economic growth.

First, I will talk about the small business rate relief scheme. It was clear from the strategic review of that area that there was an appetite among representative bodies, industry and local government for enhanced support to be delivered to small businesses. Our local economy is overwhelmingly made up of SME businesses, and around 90% of them are classified as microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees. I fully endorse such an approach. A sustainable small business sector is at the heart of a thriving economy. It comes as no surprise that other jurisdictions are also supporting that ambition through their own policy proposals.

The analysis from my Department concurred that there was a need to enhance support aimed at bolstering businesses in smaller properties. While the approach taken in other jurisdictions has been to cherry-pick specific sectors, that is often done on the basis of legacy support put in place during the pandemic. I have listened to the views provided and am instead in favour of taking a sector-neutral approach to any enhancement of small business rate support. I want to create an environment that brings businesses into town and city centres. However, I want that to be an environment that creates a level playing field for all types of businesses by enhancing support across business types. I see no hierarchy in need.

I want to encourage business start-ups of any type and to do what we can by lowering operating costs for businesses in that category. There are two methods by which I can deliver an enhancement to the current small business rate relief scheme. The first method is to increase the amount of reductions delivered under the scheme. The current reduction levels of 20%, 25% and 50% have remained static since the scheme was last reviewed in 2012. It is my preference to increase those reduction levels. The second method of enhancement is to increase the upper valuation threshold that applies in the scheme. Again, that upper valuation level has not been increased since 2012 and needs adjusted to modern rental values.

Given that Reval2026 will be the fourth revaluation process in 11 years, it is my preference to raise the rental value thresholds so that they are broadly in line with valuation list growth. I will consult in the next few weeks on both methods in order to continue to allow changes to be made for the next rating year. The scalability pertaining to both forms of enhancement is critical and forms a key part of the discussion. It is no secret that the Executive's finances are under significant pressure at present. I have brought forward proposals on two policy areas that would raise £9 million. Likewise, lowering operating costs through rate support will in itself have the potential to grow the tax base by bringing more businesses into the rating system and generating more revenue in overall terms. Those two factors, plus the fact that changes can be made alongside doing the revaluation exercise, give us an opportunity to make important changes while maintaining the overall level of rating revenue generated through the broader rating system.

I am also willing to consider all ideas on co-funding models from Departments and councils to enhance small business rate relief support. Supporting small businesses should be high on all our agendas, and working in partnership to optimise joint efforts is my preferred approach. My officials are working at pace to put out proposals for consultation between now and the new year in order to get the views of businesses before final proposals are submitted to Executive colleagues for decision.

The progress made on taking forward policy considerations on rate relief demonstrates my commitment to delivering positive change. To be clear, in order to translate policy into action, Members must understand that progressive rating does not mean considering policy proposals in isolation but as a whole.

On the second area for review, I have already stated in the Chamber and at the Finance Committee that I want to increase the level of liability for non-domestic vacant rating. Admittedly, the views on that policy varied in the review feedback. The case for increasing liability was clear-cut for commercially attractive areas and for areas where there is clear regeneration potential. Support for increasing liability was understandably weaker for less commercially viable areas, where owners can struggle to let properties, despite taking active steps to do so. On balance, however, I take the view that, in order to tackle the high prevalence of vacant units, I now need to move the non-domestic vacant rate from 50% to 75% and then to 100%. When fully implemented, it is estimated that the changes have the potential to unlock a further £20 million of revenue between central and local government.

Given the Executive's Programme for Government (PFG) commitments on housing and regeneration and the work being done on preventing dilapidation, there is a unique window of opportunity to maximise the impact of the changes through working actively across Departments. It is, however, a significant change, connecting so many strands of Executive policy, so Executive agreement will be required before the change can be implemented. I have instructed my officials to take forward the policy work that is required to secure Executive agreement. I also appreciate that, in order to respond to the concerns expressed during the review, there will need to be sufficient lead-in time for any change to allow owners to respond to that future shift in policy direction.

As I have stated, engagement with stakeholders over the summer was extensive. One of the discussion points was this: what can be done through the rating system to encourage business expansion? When a business makes a decision to expand, its rates liability will usually increase immediately after the work is completed. In turn, that additional rates liability creates more revenue for public services. I recognise, however, that the initial outlay, coupled with the associated increased rates liability, can be off-putting for some businesses that are waiting to take steps towards expansion. To that end, I want to progress rating policy so that the additional rates liability incurred is staggered. That may mean the difference between a business deciding to expand and deciding not to.

I am happy to announce that my Department will undertake a consultation process in the new year to progress development of the business growth accelerator policy. The consultation will seek views on policy options for using the rating system to aid business expansion rather than inhibit it, while also unlocking future increased rates income for local and central government. That unlocking of future tax-base growth will operate alongside initiatives that have been brought in since the restoration of the Executive last year, such as the Back in Business scheme.

As part of the review, we worked closely with the hospitality sector. Since the Executive returned, a central ask from that sector has been for an assessment of the valuation methodology for the receipts and expenditure method of valuation, where that is used for pubs and hospitality. Similar sentiments have been expressed in Scotland and England, and both jurisdictions have announced that they will review how the methodology is used there. I am pleased to confirm that we will take account of any findings of those review processes in order to assess any implications that they may have for our local valuation processes.

My Department has done significant work over a period of less than a year since the strategic review of rates was announced. We remain on track to facilitate changes for businesses by April 2026, provided that political agreement can be achieved to do so. I recognise that change is hard, but, if we keep doing the same thing, we will keep getting the same outcomes. People elected us to serve and deliver, and I want to deliver positive change, but that will require buy-in and partnership working.

Mr O'Toole: I support a more progressive rating system, and I support more support for small businesses. To be clear, however, the Minister is not announcing either of those things today; he is announcing more reviews. If I were to list the consultations on and reviews of the rating system that have taken place since last February, the Deputy Speaker would intervene on me — I know that he likes to do that, but I will not test his patience — because it would take a very long time. To small businesses and others who are interested in a more progressive rating system, the strategic road map appears to be a road to nowhere. So that I can be clear, Minister, do you have any intention of changing the rating system before the end of the mandate, considering that, so far, nothing has happened?

Mr O'Dowd: One criticism that I recall hearing from the Member is that we have not progressed reviews quickly enough. He now criticises me for progressing reviews too quickly. As the Member will be aware, the fact of the matter is that to change policy and legislation, there has to be a review framework. and there has to be consultation and engagement with the sector. Following that, we can come forward with either a policy change or legislative change. In my statement, I set out a number of areas in which, I believe, both policy change and legislative change will benefit our business sector, and I set a time frame within which I wish to make those changes. I assure the Member that I am dedicated to driving that agenda forward. I concluded my remarks by saying that partnership working in the Chamber and around the Executive table will be required if the changes are to be delivered. I believe that, when Members have had the opportunity to scrutinise what I am proposing, they will see the benefit to the business sector and the fact that it is the proper and right way to move forward. If we keep that in mind, progress can be made quickly.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. I also place on record my thanks to his officials and particularly to Andrew McAvoy, who gives us regular updates on policy in the area. It is welcome that, having initially been announced as a 10-year process, the review is being brought down to two years, which is something that we discussed at Committee. Non-domestic vacant rating is raised regularly with me by businesses that are struggling to pay their rates when a dilapidated building next door to them is not paying rates. Minister, you said that there is potential to unlock a further £20 million of revenue. That is huge potential, which the Communities Minister also referenced yesterday with regard to housing. I welcome your mention of the need for a cross-departmental approach.

What is the estimated time frame for seeing this make a difference to dilapidated buildings in our towns for businesses and housing?

Mr O'Dowd: It will require cross-departmental working. I am conscious of the AERA Minister's Dilapidation Bill. Through the rates process here, we can assist in regenerating our town centres. Centrally, that is the Communities Minister's role, although the AERA Minister is playing a role, and I can play a role as Finance Minister. With a fair wind, we can complete some of the work within the mandate. That will require some legislative changes to be made, and I have asked officials to start work on those immediately to see how quickly we can progress the matter.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, what engagement has your Department had with the Commissioner for Older People on changes to the early payment discount and maximum capital?

Mr O'Dowd: There has been engagement on that through a previous review. While the Older People's Commissioner can obviously speak for herself, the commission is on record as saying that the review and proposals that we have brought forward are workable. Protections are in place for the most vulnerable in our society, and older people will come under those protections if the changes that we propose bring them into a category for that. That engagement has proven worthwhile, both to the commission, hopefully, and to my officials for planning a way forward on the proposal. As I said in my statement, change is difficult, but we have to do things differently and, as an Executive, look at areas where we can raise additional finances. I believe that the changes that I have proposed are fair and equitable and have protections in place for the vulnerable.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome compressing the timetable from 10 years to two years and the intent to support small businesses and tackle vacant property. Minister, will the changes that you are proposing for supporting small businesses be possible without raising money elsewhere in the rating system? Why have we not seen the changes to the early payment discount or maximum capital value emerge from the Executive?

Mr O'Dowd: Some of the changes are possible with the non-domestic vacant rating policy. We have to identify finances to go towards more support for small businesses through the small business rate relief scheme. I could come to the Chamber and say, "I want to do this, but I need more money", I could look at myself and say, "Can you give me more money?", or I could bring forward proposals that identify from where within the current system we could raise finances that are fair and equitable and put protections in place, and we could then move forward in that direction. We have not yet had discussion or agreement at the Executive on the proposals. I continue to hope that that paper will be presented and that we can have discussion and make progress on it. I think that it is fair and equitable. If others have alternative proposals, I am open to hearing those as well.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for the statement. I welcome the indication that the business growth accelerator will be looked at as a means of staggering rates for businesses in expansion. However, like other Members, I want to ask about timelines. Given the ongoing review of the valuation methodology for pubs and hospitality businesses, what tangible impact do you expect that to have on the hospitality sector by the end of the mandate? I am talking about real on-the-ground support rather than further data collection or consultations.

Mr O'Dowd: It is worth noting that 75% of our small businesses receive support through the rates system. It costs the Executive somewhere in the region of, I think, a quarter of a billion pounds annually. That includes pubs and the hospitality sector, so quite a significant support package is in place. However, I thought that it was only right and proper that, given that Scotland and England are going through a process and will garner data and information that is similar to what we require for our system, we await their review. There is no point in my duplicating work that is going on elsewhere at this stage. Work is about to start, I understand. We will garner the information and challenges from that and see how we can support our business or what changes need to be made through that. I can understand some of the frustration that is in sectors out there about this, but we have to work our way through those processes and be mindful that significant supports are already in place.

Miss Dolan: Minister, I welcome the statement. Will you provide more detail on the business growth accelerator that you mentioned?

Mr O'Dowd: That is a very innovative way to move forward and encourage our businesses that want to expand to do so. Quite understandably, when a business owner is looking at their future business plans and to expand, they will have to take into account whether their rates will go up as a result of that and whether, while they are establishing that expansion of their business, they will be able to afford it. If the proposal goes through, we will say to businesses, "Yes, move ahead with that expansion and create a larger premises. We will support you, at least in the first year of that expansion, in relation to your rates. We won't charge you for the additional space that you have". That will allow them time to develop that expansion of their business. If we can encourage more businesses to expand physically, that will be good news for our construction sector and our economy in general. I am delighted to be able to bring forward the proposal, and I hope that it will move forward quite quickly.

Mr Kingston: I welcome that the Minister is investigating tackling blight and increasing funds for public services by increasing the level of liability for non-domestic vacant premises. The Minister will be aware of the need to disincentivise domestic properties — houses — being left vacant with reduced rates liability in certain circumstances. Does he have any intention of reviewing the removal of rates liability for domestic properties that are vacant and causing blight?

Mr O'Dowd: Taxation has a number of policy intentions. One is, obviously, to raise revenue. Another is to support habits that a Government want to progress. The revitalisation of our town centres, city centres and villages is important. Non-domestic properties lying vacant is a blight. The proposal fits in with work that other Ministers are doing.

As I said in my statement, all rating policies will be reviewed over the next number of years. That review will include whatever support or lack of support is in place at that stage. We want to see properties being brought back into use. The Communities Minister is facing challenges with social housing and housing. If I can assist in a way that brings properties back into use, whether for housing, commercial use or something else, I will do so.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister. It is good to see a progressive rating system being brought in. We have called for that for some time, particularly for small businesses; we want to see the regeneration of our town centres. Minister, you said that the changes are cost-neutral to the Department, but you also talked about an additional £9 million coming in. In addition, you talked about bringing businesses into the rating system. Will you outline what they are, what sectors you are thinking of, and what type of premises will see an increase in rates?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not exactly sure of the point that the Member is making. Apologies. All businesses pay some form of rates, with the exception of charity shops. My intention through the small business rate relief scheme is to support more businesses by looking at support from 20% up to 50% and looking at what categories those fall into. Non-domestic vacant rating is currently sitting at 50%. I want to see that rise over a number of years up to 75%, and then up to 100%. When that is fully operational, it will bring us in around £20 million extra. I will provide further clarity to the Member if I have not correctly understood the point that he made. My understanding is that all businesses are involved in the payment of rates of some kind. This is about how we support small businesses, enhance our town centres and city centres and move away from the blight of vacant properties.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister. It is no surprise that the rating system is seen by many businesses as a barrier to their development and something that precludes a bustling high street. The statement referenced rental values. For some, the barrier is not the rental price but the rates payment on top of it. How will the proposals help those who wish to establish a business on the high street?

Mr O'Dowd: Rent levels are driven by the market and what people are prepared to pay, and I have limited ability to change that. However, if we support more businesses through the small business rate relief scheme, the burden of the rent that is placed on them will be lessened, because their rates will be reduced.

If they are prepared to expand, we will also support them through that proposal. There is a balance to be achieved in all of those things, but looking to expand the small business rate relief scheme is a good way forward.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for the statement. It is certainly nice to hear some of the positive proposals in the statement. Businesses will be glad to hear them. They will be even gladder to see them. It would be nice if we could get some indication of when that might be. Given that previous proposals have been sat at the Executive for nearly six months now without even making it on to the agenda, have the Minister and his colleagues considered invoking the three-meeting rule?

Mr O'Dowd: Across a wide range of topics, challenges and opportunities facing the Assembly and the Executive, we need to work in partnership with one another. Doing so will mean that there has to be give and take on all sides and being open to ideas and discussions around proposals on all of these things. The reality is that no one is expecting the Chancellor to announce a Budget that will alleviate the pressures that our public services, business communities and workers and families are under. Therefore, the Executive have to look at new and imaginative ways in which we can help ourselves. I believe that the proposals that I have outlined today and the proposals in the previous paper that I put before the Executive are imaginative and assist the Executive to meet their challenges and opportunities moving forward.

Mr Gaston: Minister, under your vacant rating plan, you say that your policy could raise £20 million. How much of the £20 million, do you estimate, will be net after administration and enforcement costs? Will that figure simply be added to the uncollected rates debt?

Mr O'Dowd: As the Member knows from a previous debate here, the rates debt has reduced by 20%. We continue to take action on the rates debt. I want to see further reduction in that, but, when you are collecting the scale of revenue that we are collecting, there will be a certain amount of debt because of factors including representations from MLAs to my Department around trying to assist ratepayers who find themselves facing genuine challenges, so there is a balance to be got in all of those things. However, there are also those who will not pay or refuse to pay, and they will be pursued vigorously through the courts.

As for the estimated £20 million in revenue collection, at this stage, I am not sure what percentage will be used for what the Member has outlined. However, if we are bringing in significant extra revenue, there is a cost associated with collecting that revenue, but, as long as we collect more revenue in a fair and equitable way, the Member will, I think, accept that there are costs associated with that.

Mr Carroll: Minister, you talk about a more progressive system and fairer ideas. I want to expand on a previous point: what plans do you have to reform the rates system to disincentivise and financially penalise the people who are leaving tens of thousands of properties empty across the North? It should be illegal to allow properties to lie empty when around 50,000 people are on housing waiting lists. That could address the housing crisis and bring in large amounts of revenue. What plans does your Department have to tackle the issue?

Mr O'Dowd: The non-domestic vacant rating policy that I am announcing today and the proposals for it will encourage property owners to make those properties usable again, whether that is by reletting it to a business or a business entering it because of the other small business rate relief enhancements that we want to do or because of the expansion of businesses or whether it is driven through the fact that a property owner may say to himself, "Well, if I continue to leave this former business property empty, I will have to pay increased rates on it. Why do I not use it for housing? Why do I not convert it into property?". Will it be more attractive when they put it on the market and housing associations perhaps purchase those properties moving forward? The proposals that I put before us today open up the property market to a challenge and an opportunity that, thus far, is only lying vacant and empty.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much, Minister, for your statement. It shows that you are a Minister who is listening and is willing to take action. How will other rate reliefs, particularly those for people on low incomes, sit alongside any increase to the maximum capital value?

Mr O'Dowd: Those protections remain in place and will continue to protect those people. If people find themselves having to pay a greater percentage of rates, because the maximum capital value rises, and if their income qualifies them for protections, those protections will continue. The Older People's Commissioner recognised that protections are in place in his response to the consultation. Both the proposals that the Member refers to and the proposals that I am announcing today are fair and equitable and protect the most vulnerable in our society.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that concludes questions —.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want some advice — it may not be for today — on the appropriateness of making oral ministerial statements on proposals that are not practical proposals in the sense that they are only ideas. I say that because, a year ago, an oral ministerial statement was made by the previous Finance Minister about changes to the domestic rating system that still have not happened; one week later, we got a written ministerial statement on the 2025-26 Budget. Will the Speaker's Office give us advice on the appropriateness of making an oral statement on proposals that are not happening and then making extremely substantive statements via a written statement?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, in the first instance, it is up to a Minister what they make a statement on and what they wish to make a statement on. However, the comments that you have made will be brought to the Speaker's Office for consideration.

Mr O'Dowd: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, what would be the appropriateness of the Opposition coming forward with any proposals or any idea? [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, we are straying somewhat from actual points of order. I will move on to the next item.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they should be concise in asking their questions and that there should not be long introductions.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I wish to make a statement to the Assembly on the funding and development of new social homes across Northern Ireland. I begin by recognising the efforts of our key partners in delivering new social homes via the new-build programme in times of constraint and uncertainty. The solid partnership arrangements between my Department, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) and housing associations ensure that there is a steady and increasing supply of new social homes for people on the waiting list. I am grateful for their steadfast commitment to delivering the programme. However, the Department and the sector face many challenges in relation to the budget required to support that work. Despite my efforts to secure an adequate budget allocation to meet the need for new social homes and my intention to continue to maximise delivery, I, along with the sector, have not received sufficient capital allocations in any budget rounds. Every party in the Chamber talks of their passion for housing and support for more social homes. At the Executive, we agreed a housing supply strategy with clear targets for housebuilding. In the Programme for Government (PFG), one of the few targets agreed was on social housing, yet I continue to receive insufficient capital funding. I cannot be the only one to make the case for housing.

Today, I have taken the decision to review the funding allocation to housing associations to ensure that we get the most out of every pound that we spend. This is an opportunity to look at the programme afresh and identify opportunities to be creative. We need to do more with less, collectively working to address the barriers to finance and social housing supply.

I met the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA), housing association representatives and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in late October to give them advance notice of the changes that I have announced. At that meeting, I advised the sector of the new indicative costs and grant rates for new build social homes that will be effective from 1 December 2025 to the end of March 2027.

New social homes are funded through a combination of grant from my Department and borrowing by the developing housing association, creating a match funding-style arrangement that gives value for the public money invested. Following careful consideration, I have decided to increase the benchmark costs — the assumed cost of building a new social home — by 13·7%, from an average of £181,164 to an average of £206,100. That reflects the increased costs to the sector due to inflationary increases, new building regulations and increases in Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) connection charges, among other things. It is an acknowledgement that relevant costs have increased since the benchmark costs and grant rates were last changed, in 2023. However, while construction costs have increased, rents have also increased. As a result and in the interest of securing the maximum possible number of new social homes from the Department's budget, the proportion of grant paid by the Department for Communities for new social housing starts will decrease from an average of 54·2% to an average of 46·52%. To give certainty to the sector, those new benchmark costs and grant rates will be kept in place until the end of the 2026-27 financial year, unless there are very exceptional circumstances that require a change to the rates.

I have set out to the housing association sector my expectation that it, like the public sector, must deliver in challenging financial circumstances and strive for efficiencies. It will be for each individual housing association to decide how much private finance it can borrow and how much risk it can take on. The impact of that will be to make my budget allocation stretch further and enable us to build more homes with the funding that is available. I am asking housing associations to do more: drive innovation, find efficiencies and increase private financing to make up the small shortfall. However, let me be clear: I am not cutting funding to the programme. I am making changes to ensure that the £177·5 million allocated from my budget that will be spent this year on new social homes and the funds spent next year go as far as possible. Every new home matters.

I have listened to the housing association sector. That is why I have also announced reviews, which have been called for by the associations, of how we subsidise new-build social housing and the standards to which that housing is built. Our ambition is that at least some of the value-increasing measures that those reviews propose may be introduced to the development programme in the next financial year and that all the reviews are completed by September 2026.

Achieving the Programme for Government target of 5,850 social housing starts within this mandate will be extremely challenging, given the constrained budgets. Changes must be made. We must achieve more with less. I am fully committed to delivering on the PFG target and realising the longer-term ambition of the housing supply strategy to deliver at least 100,000 homes, of which one third will be social. Achieving those will require innovation and creativity and, ultimately, at the outset, adequate funding allocations.

Earlier this year, I chaired a housing round-table meeting that brought together key stakeholders to share knowledge on how to increase social housing delivery in the current challenging environment. My officials are taking forward work with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the wider sector on proposals aimed at increasing or improving delivery of the new-build programme in future years. As previously advised, I am bringing a proposal to the Executive to make better use of public land in a way that can act in lieu of grant and support the delivery of more affordable homes. We must maximise supply with the resources that we have. The whole-system issues, such as waste water capacity, planning and land availability, must be addressed to unlock the homes that we need. My housing supply strategy provides the framework for how we can do that, and, collectively, the Executive have committed to it. The quality of actions to implement it will determine our success in delivering the strategy vision.

I require an action plan that demonstrates real intent to remove barriers. Therefore, as it moves closer to being finalised, I have written to my ministerial colleagues to challenge them to propose actions that will genuinely deliver progress in meeting the significant challenges that we face.

I have also written to the other Ministers in the Executive to seek their support for a sufficient budget allocation to the social housing development programme to enable delivery against our commitments. I unashamedly make that case again today.

I can assure the House that I am committed to delivering value for money in the social housing development programme and to doing everything in my power to ensure that a sufficient budget allocation is made to enable delivery of our PFG target. However, the House should take note that I am not prepared to keep doing things the way that we have always done them. I will always seek to be innovative and to try new things to maximise delivery. That is what I have been doing since I took up post. I have used more financial transactions capital (FTC) for homes with cheaper rents; used the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's reserves to reduce temporary accommodation costs; done away with intimidation points to create a level playing field; and found new ways to subsidise public housing. Those are changes that we needed, and I will continue to bring in changes so that we can deliver more for the people of Northern Ireland.

I have played my part. Now it is time for the House and my Executive colleagues to rise to the challenge and take the decisive action that is needed to ensure that our shared ambition truly meets the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement. The reduction of the housing association grant in other areas has either contributed to or coincided with a reduction in the number of homes delivered, although I appreciate that there will have been multiple factors at play. Come 2027, how will the success or otherwise of the Minister's decision be measured? Does he expect it to have any impact on rental costs for housing association tenants?

Mr Lyons: Rents have already gone up, which is one of the reasons why I am taking action today. Ultimately, success will be measured by the number of additional homes that would not otherwise have been delivered if we had stuck with the status quo. I am not cutting the funding for housing associations. [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: The Member has already has his opportunity to ask the question.

I am not cutting the money that is going to housing associations; the £177·5 million is still there. I am cutting the amount per unit, so that other sources of private funding can be looked at. The Member seems to be annoyed about what I am doing, but it is quite clear that if I stuck with the status quo, not only would we not be building more homes, we would be building fewer homes because the costs have gone up. Those costs cannot be left in their entirety for the Department to shoulder. What I am proposing is fair and will enable more homes to be built and more investment in public housing.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for the statement. Minister, the Committee has asked in writing for further information on the change, given that it was announced during recess, which was more than two weeks ago. We look forward to receiving that information.

Who will carry the financial risk that is created by the reduced grant rate? I am particularly concerned about smaller housing associations in that regard. What assessment has your Department made of its borrowing capacity under the new arrangements?

Mr Lyons: I am confident that the borrowing capacity exists for housing associations to continue doing their work and, through the changes, make sure that we are building more homes. It is right that we share the burden, and I commend housing associations for the work that they have done, often in challenging circumstances. However, we all need to do more, which is why I have asked housing associations to shoulder more as we move forward.

Of course, in return, there will be additional benefits for them. We are looking more widely at the design guides, including Secured by Design, and are providing housing associations with the stability of knowing what is coming. Altogether, there is a package of measures that, along with the changes that I have outlined, will have a net benefit and allow us to build more social homes, which is what it is all about. We have a target, and I am determined that we do everything in our power to meet it. Some of that is outside my control, but I will play my part, and today is another example of how I am working to achieve that.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his statement, particularly his commitment to being innovative and trying new things to maximise delivery. Does he have any figures on the economic value that building social housing brings to Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: There is huge value from homebuilding for those who get the houses. That is why I have placed such emphasis on making sure that we have houses. I have said time and again in the Chamber that someone having a safe and warm home in which to live and grow up helps their life chances, and it takes pressure off other Departments. Huge economic value also comes from housebuilding in Northern Ireland. In 2024-25, the estimated economic impact of the social housing development programme was over £1 billion. It needs to be kept in mind that we are not just providing additional homes for people but creating economic benefit.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I appreciate that your budget for new builds has been extremely testing, and I support your comments about housing associations, but there is a risk in your proposals, and it concerns how much the housing associations will be able to borrow in order to deliver the new homes. Are you satisfied that they have the capacity for the increased borrowing that they will have to take on? Will you clarify whether the new rate will affect houses that are in the process of being built or apply only to future applications?

Mr Lyons: The new rate will take effect from 1 December, so it will not affect houses that are already under construction or that begin construction before that date. Yes, the housing associations have the capacity. The borrowing facility is there, and the banks are satisfied that they will be able to provide the money. The Member talks about risk, but the bigger risk is in doing nothing, because that will result in fewer homes being built.

Time and again in the House, Members call for action — for things to happen — and action is what I am taking today. I am taking action to make sure that we build more social homes.

Mr Allen: The Minister advised my Committee colleague on the other side of the House that housing association rents have already gone up. Can he guarantee the House that rents will not go up further as a result of the change? If I am not taking liberties by asking, what co-design approach — we often hear about such an approach — was undertaken with housing associations to arrive at the new rate?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to confirm that there is, as the Member would expect, regular engagement with housing associations. We hold quarterly meetings at official level, and I meet housing associations individually and collectively. The matter has been on the radar, and the housing associations have for some time been aware of the options that were in front of me. I met them a few weeks ago to outline the rationale behind what I am doing and the justification for it. I will continue to work with them. It will ultimately be for them to decide where they put their funding and where they build. They have the capacity to do that, however. The private finance is available that will allow us to do what this is ultimately all about, which is building more social homes.

Mrs Mason: Minister, you said that you intend to bring proposals to the Executive on greater utilisation of public land. Have you carried out any analysis of the amount of land that could be used for housing? Which Departments or other bodies will provide the bulk of that land?

Mr Lyons: I have been engaging with the Department of Finance on the matter. It is complex, but we are getting to a good spot. I have not been directly involved in identifying such land, but the Housing Executive has some information. Moreover, the Department of Finance and, in particular, Land and Property Services (LPS) have information about where that land would be. As time goes on, we will be able to identify land that would make good sites for social housing. Ultimately, we need public subsidy in order to build social housing. If Executive colleagues say that they do not have any capital or cannot give up any in order for us to build, I will lean on them and say, "There's a site that you have" or, "Here's another way in which you can help". We will explore every option, as we are not yet at the stage of identifying sites, but that new and innovative way of doing things could go a long way to contributing to the proportion of the cost that would fall to government. It will enable us to build more homes. That is being discussed, and I hope that it can be progressed soon.

Mr Middleton: Minister, I welcome your statement and the new initiatives that you are bringing forward to deliver more housing. If you had not made this intervention, what would the overall impact have been on social housing development?

Mr Lyons: If we had maintained the grant rate where it was, we would be building fewer homes, and that would not be good value for money. That is why we have brought forward these measures today. Maintaining the grant rate would have meant fewer homes. The changes mean that we will not only keep up with what we have done in the past but be able to build more homes.

We are also looking at the design guides and standards. That is important. Housing associations have told me that the guides require many things that are not really necessary or value for money. That is why I want to work with them. If they say that they can build more homes at better value and that not all homes need to be built to the same specification, I want to help them with that. I am not always looking for more money; I am also looking for ways in which we can reduce costs. That is why today's announcement is so important.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for his statement. The average grant rate is 46·5%. In Scotland, it is 55%, and in Wales, it is 67%. How did the Department arrive at 46·5%? What calculation was that based on?

Mr Lyons: It is complex. In essence, there are total cost indicators (TCIs) and the housing association grant (HAG). The HAG reflects the uplifts that are identified by the Central Procurement Directorate's housing advisory unit. The HAG rate reflects the 30th percentile of rents and the average borrowing rate of 3·5%. Those are the benchmarks that are used to determine what is required, taking rental figures into consideration.

I am happy to provide the Member with more detailed information on that. It is not straightforward for those who are not involved in it every day, but it can be clearly set out. I will be happy to provide that to the Member, as I will to the Committee. I will perhaps also put it in the Assembly Library.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

Minister, you referenced reviews of the design standards to which social housing must be built. Can you confirm what the scope of those reviews will be? Will you continue to ensure that homes are built to a high energy efficiency rating and that they are suitable for people with disabilities?

Mr Lyons: Yes. I do not intend to change the energy efficiency standards of social homes. We want to make sure that our homes are as energy efficient as possible. However, some additional measures have been put in, for example, around lifetime homes. I want to make sure that we have provision for disabled people in Northern Ireland, but it does not make sense to ensure that every home is built to that standard when doing so could add considerable cost to a home that, over its lifetime, may never be used for that purpose.

We need to be smarter in how we build our homes and how we allocate them. If we can build more homes that are appropriate for people, we should do so, rather than have a one-size-fits-all model that ends up being more expensive. I absolutely believe that we should have homes that can be adapted and used for people who have additional needs, but there is no point in building them all to that standard if doing so results in fewer homes overall.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his move towards sensible and pragmatic approaches to the budget situation. Minister, can you confirm that, at every possible opportunity in Budget and monitoring rounds, you have bid for the equivalent capital required to meet the housebuilding target that was agreed in your housing supply strategy and in the Programme for Government?

Mr Lyons: The Finance Minister has just walked in. He could answer that question as well. [Laughter.]

He will be able to confirm that, at every possible opportunity, I have bid for the capital that I have required to build homes.

I will continue to do that. Last year, we bid for £230 million, and, in total, we have received £177·5 million with, I hope, some additional money to come this year in monitoring rounds.

Ultimately, however, we need to make sure that we meet our targets. The Programme for Government had a clear target for housing. The actions that I am taking today are my attempt to make sure that we do everything that we can to increase the number of builds with the money that we have. We need more money, however. We need to increase that in order for us to meet that target. I have no doubt that the Finance Minister wants to make sure that we meet our social housing targets. The sector is watching, as are the construction industry and, most important, our constituents, so we need to make sure that a Budget is brought forward that gives us the capital that we need so that we can meet our targets.

This is not just about somebody having a home but about all the other things that come from that. I have spoken in the House again and again about the importance of housing and how a good, warm home can take pressures off elsewhere. We need to realise not just that this is about helping people to find somewhere to live but that it is an investment, so we need the money for that.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for his statement. I am sure, Minister, that you are similar to all of us in the Chamber in finding that the lack of housing is one of the things that keep us busiest in our offices. We welcome the announcement. Some will be envious of the fact that it will cost £206,000 to build a social home given the quality of those houses, which should be lost on no one. That said, Minister, housing association rents are considerably dearer, which another Member remarked on. Is there any danger that those costs will increase, and, if so, do you have a mechanism to prevent that?

If I may add this, to be cheeky: how are we coming along on the funding for the Housing Executive, which can deliver at a much reduced cost?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, you can answer all or some of those questions.

Mr Lyons: Those are the costs that have been provided as our estimates for building a social home. Many people will be surprised at their cost, which is why I want to make sure that we look at how we can make it cheaper to build social homes. The housing associations need to build those homes to a certain standard. I want to make sure that everything that we build is necessary. We will look at the design guide and at Secured by Design so that we can bring in additional certainty and do everything that we can to bring that cost down. We are also looking at how we can use land, because that is a massive part of the cost of housing overall. We are looking at all the elements of that. Rent is up to the housing associations, but I will take rents into consideration, as well as the return that housing associations get for their properties, when I am determining the housing association grant in future.

The Member mentioned the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I want to see that revitalisation take place, and I am glad that that is now part of the fiscal framework discussions. We need to see that accelerated and delivered, however, because we are losing money every month by not proceeding with it and by not having the powers to invest in our stock and to build new stock.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you indicated that you are prepared to undertake a review, which housing associations have welcomed. Who will carry out the review, which is to be completed by September 2026, and will it be co-designed with housing associations and tenants?

Mr Lyons: It absolutely will include housing associations. I am more than happy to bring other voices into that review. The housing associations asked for a review, and I am keen that it is done as soon as possible. I was encouraged by my conversations with them, and I think that they want to move even more quickly on it. It is to their benefit and ours to make sure that it is done as quickly as possible. We will, of course, listen to others who may have something to bring to the table.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for coming to the House today with the statement. We know that housing associations are independent businesses in their own right that and that it is up to their boards to determine whether, with such a significant change, they can afford to continue to deliver new homes. Minister, will you give us a wee bit of insight into your basis for saying that you do not think that this will impact on the number of new homes that will be started?

Mr Lyons: The number of new homes that we could start would have been impacted if we had done nothing, because our budget is not increasing in line with the cost of building homes. We either build fewer homes, or we increase the funding that is available. In the absence of that funding being available from the Executive at this time, we are looking to housing associations and the private finance that they can draw on and that we are unable to draw on. I have consulted housing associations; I have had conversations with banks; and I have had conversations with the Housing Executive. We do not believe that this will have a net negative impact; in fact, we believe that it will help us to build more homes, and I hope that the Member will be supportive of that.

I thought that the Member was chuntering during my speech, but I think that it turned out to be a sneeze on her part [Laughter.]

I hope that it was not negative noises coming from the bottom of the Chamber, and I hope that she is actually in support.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his comments and his statement. Will the reduction in the grant for housing associations impact on the viability of some schemes? If so, what will be the overall impact on the programme?

Mr Lyons: Ultimately, it will be for each housing association to determine and assess the viability of each of the schemes, but reviewing the grant levels will also come with a review on standards, so it is important that we ensure that the ecosystem for housing drives efficiency and innovation. In my conversations, I have been encouraged to hear that we are in a healthy lending environment. Housing associations have the ability to borrow, and that leverages the capital that we can invest in the programme.

Hopefully, housing associations will understand that, first, I am providing certainty over a long period and, secondly, I am reviewing the design guides and the standards to see how homes can be built more cheaply, ensuring that we can, therefore, build more homes. That is what I am trying to do, and it is a positive measure. The alternative would mean fewer homes. What I am doing today not only maintains the current trajectory that we are on but will mean that we can build more homes.

Mr Gaston: Minister, picking up on your proposal to the Executive to make better use of public land, I note that a recent planning application for a new build for Slemish College in Ballymena had to be withdrawn, as neither the Education Department nor the Infrastructure Department would pay for the new road to open up land. If you take the lead on the project to develop public land, will you take the view that interested Departments need to share the infrastructure costs to open up land to ensure that it can be developed for housing, schools and regeneration projects and ensure that sites such as that at Ballee Road West will not lie dormant due to the Executive continuing to work in silos?

Mr Lyons: That is exactly why I brought forward a housing supply strategy that commits all Executive Departments to working towards the goal on the number of homes that we want to build and ensures that we work together to achieve that as soon as possible. Absolutely, there is a responsibility and an onus on everybody to make sure that they play their part, and I will not be found wanting in making sure that other Departments play the roles that they need to play. I want other Departments to give me the funding that is necessary, and I want other Departments to help on issues such as waste water and other infrastructure. I will play my part, and I hope that others will play theirs.

Mr Carroll: You say that you have listened to the housing associations and the sector, but NIFHA has said that the proposals have been developed without consultation with the sector and that their full impact has not been assessed. Minister, the statement will mean, despite what you have said, that funding from your Department to housing associations will be cut. What assessment have you made of the impact that that will have on rent increases for people who are struggling already and living in housing association properties?

Mr Lyons: I repeat the point that doing nothing would result in fewer homes being built. I do not know whether that is the Member's position, but it certainly sounds like it. I want to build more social homes, in contrast to the Member. It is right that we take this step, because the alternative would mean that you would, potentially, push more people into the private rented sector and the rents that many people face there.

I make no apology for doing what I can to build more homes. The Member has opposed me on nearly every move that I have made to increase housing supply, which makes me think that I am doing something right.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that concludes questions on the statement. Please take your ease before we move on to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, to move the Further 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 single amendment for debate. The amendment will be debated under the group heading:

I remind Members that, once the debate on the amendment is completed, the Question on the amendment will be taken. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

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

Members will recall from the Consideration Stage debate two weeks ago that the Bill will do three important things. First, it will place the temporary power contained in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that enables the remote registration of deaths and stillbirths and the electronic transfer of registration documents on a permanent footing. Secondly, it will rectify differences in the birth and stillbirth registration processes for some opposite-sex and same-sex female parents. Thirdly, it will enable the making of secondary legislation for the introduction of a baby loss certificate scheme. I am grateful to Members for the support that they have shown for the Bill to date and, in particular, for the favourable comments from all sides on the proposed baby loss certificate scheme.

I draw Members' attention to the report on our recent public consultation on the details of the baby loss certificate scheme that was published last week. The report sets out the views and opinions of the 1,182 people and organisations that responded to the consultation on a wide range of matters, including eligibility criteria, certificate content and changes. I am grateful to all those who took the time to contribute to the consultation, and I am sure that it was difficult for many contributors as they reflected on their personal sad experiences. The consultation will help to shape the scheme around the needs and expectations of families.

I turn to the amendment. It has always been my intention that the baby loss certificate scheme should be a compassionate service open to anyone who has suffered a loss early in pregnancy. Although a certificate cannot undo the pain of their experience, it can provide families with a formal recognition of their 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. At Consideration Stage, two amendments were tabled on the matter of charges for baby loss certificates. Neither amendment was moved at Consideration Stage after I suggested that the Department would work with Members to agree a consensus amendment that would ensure that no family would be charged for the first two baby loss certificates. I thank Mr Frew, Ms Forsythe and Mr Tennyson for working with my officials to draft and provisionally agree the language of the amendment that I propose today.

The amendment is narrowly drawn. It states that the regulations may provide for there to be no fees for a first baby loss certificate and a first duplicate of that certificate and no charges for amended certificates. It makes arrangements for baby loss certificates that are similar to those for other life events in that it allows for the possibility of charges for subsequent copies of certificates and charges for an expedited delivery service, subject — this is the important part — to the agreement of the Assembly. The amendment will mean that a family applying for a first baby loss certificate will not be charged for it and that, if they require a duplicate copy for any reason, they will not be charged for that either. If the family discover an error in a baby loss certificate or want to add information to it, such as the name or sex of the baby, they will also be able to do that free of charge. No fee will be applied in respect of amended certificates.

That is consistent with the compassionate service that we are seeking to provide.

The proposed amendment will give the Department the flexibility to charge fees in the future, again subject to the agreement of the Assembly, for subsequent copies of the baby loss certificate when first and second copies have been issued. The amendment will also enable a fee to be applied, subject to the view of the Assembly, for the provision of a faster delivery service for a baby loss certificate. Although an option will be retained for a free standard delivery service, a faster service will enable an application for a baby loss certificate to be accepted and processed within one hour at General Register Office (GRO) public counters or issued on the same day for online or postal applications. Those arrangements will be in line with the faster services options offered for other life event certificates.

Using the faster service would not affect a person's entitlement to get their free first certificate and duplicate certificate. Any changes levied would be for the faster service not the certificate. Charges in those two circumstances for the faster delivery service and for a third subsequent certificate can be introduced only with the approval of the Assembly. As clause 11(5) sets out, the regulations will specify the detail of the scheme and follow the draft affirmative process, whereby Members will be given the opportunity to consider and debate any changes proposed.

It is important to me that the proposal is closely aligned with the findings of the public consultation on the details of the baby loss certificate scheme that the Department conducted over the summer. That told us that the public overwhelmingly favoured baby loss certificates being free and believed that amendments to certificates should also be free but that it was reasonable to charge for duplicate certificates. Although the public were narrowly split on the question of a charge for a faster delivery service, the amendment also seeks the power to charge for that service. We will bring specific proposals on that matter to the Assembly for consideration through the regulations.

One of the unfortunate aspects of making legislation is that we have to discuss matters such as fees. I appreciate that Members will remain focused on the purpose of the legislation and the purpose of the baby loss certificates. As legislators, we have to create legislation that is workable and future-proofed as best we can, and sometimes you have to get into areas that are unsavoury, for want of a better word, but those are the things that we as legislators have to do. However, I am sure that Members are focused on the purpose of what we are about today.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak to the Finance Committee's scrutiny of the Bill as Chair of the Committee and to the one amendment on the Marshalled List.

Clause 11 gives the Department the power to introduce a baby loss certificate scheme. The House previously supported the introduction of baby loss certificates, and it was the Finance Committee that ensured that those were included in the Bill. I am really proud of the work of the Committee on a cross-party basis and the constructive work that took place with the Minister and his Department. There was unanimity on the Committee that such a scheme be introduced. Committee discussions were, therefore, centred mostly around the potential in the future for a monetary charge. The Department confirmed to the Committee that a charge could not and would not be introduced without the approval of the House, and that is an important point. Even following the passing, I assume, of the amendment, that measure would have to come forward via a draft affirmative resolution in the future.

As I said, 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 subordination legislation through the draft affirmative process, allowing the statutory rule to be debated and amended. The Committee agreed, therefore, to proceed without its own amendment on the issue, although individual Members submitted their own amendments, as the Minister said. During Consideration Stage, the Committee was aware of those amendments submitted regarding the potential for charging for a certificate but did not take a specific view on them.

I note that the amendments were not moved in order to allow the Department the space to develop its own amendment that clarified the position on the potential for charging for a certificate. The Minister has now submitted his amendment on the issue, and I state for the record that the Committee has not discussed the amendment and, therefore, has not taken a position on it. I further note that current and former members of the Committee who submitted the previous amendments worked with the Department to bring a resolution to the issue, and I thank them for that work.

I reiterate to the Chamber the Committee's unanimous support for the Bill. The ability to register deaths, in general, electronically and putting that into permanent legislation is an important consolidation of a change that happened during COVID. That will now be put on the statute book. Also, the ability to create a baby loss certificate is a really important opportunity for bereaved parents, as we have discussed and, I am sure, will discuss again at Final Stage. As I indicated, the Committee welcomes the Bill. We were critical to the introduction of the baby loss certificate provision. We undertook our scrutiny, and we are fully supportive of the process to move the Bill to Final Stage.

I will briefly say one or two sentences in a party capacity. I acknowledge that the Minister has worked constructively on this. It is an important example of how the legislative process should work. Obviously, it helps when there is an issue on which there is a degree of unanimity around the outcome, but it is important — I acknowledge the position that the Minister made clear — to say that this is not a desire to impose a charge willy-nilly at some point in the future. It is about designing legislation that is completely robust and can be operational when the secondary legislation enacting the scheme is finally brought forward. As a party, we are supportive of the position today and look forward to the Bill moving to Final Stage and then being enacted.

Miss Dolan: I welcome the continued progress of the Bill, which modernises our process for registering deaths and stillbirths and introduces a baby loss certificate scheme. It is important legislation with compassion and equality at its core. It will help to reduce stress for those who have suffered a bereavement by enabling the electronic transfer of documents, providing the same rights as others for same-sex female couples and ensuring formal recognition for parents who have lost a baby prior to 24 weeks.

During the Committee Stage, it was extremely poignant to hear directly from parents who have had a heartbreaking loss, and I welcome the Finance Minister's commitment to engage with parents to help shape the development of the baby loss certificate scheme. I again acknowledge those parents who shared their stories with us and thank them for their role in shaping the legislation. One significant aspect of their contributions was that we ensure that the scheme is as accessible as possible. I share the desire that I have heard from others in the Chamber that there should be no unnecessary barriers to people accessing a certificate during a time of immense loss, and I will therefore support the amendment, which prohibits charging for either the original certificate or its copy.

While our different political views are often on display here, this legislation is an example of positive changes that, by working together in partnership, this Assembly can provide for people in emotionally challenging circumstances.

Ms Forsythe: I am pleased to speak at the Further Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. As I have previously stated, I am pleased that the House has worked together with a clear voice to agree this legislation, which embeds compassion into modernising the legislative process of registering deaths in Northern Ireland. I am also pleased that, through this new law, here in Northern Ireland, we are clearly recognising the precious life of every single unborn baby from the moment that they are formed within the womb. No longer will those babies who are heartbreakingly lost prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy be without formal recognition of their life.

The legislation introduces baby loss certificates. In the Finance Committee, we ensured that those were included in the Bill. It is really good to see that work delivered through the legislation. A key principle of the baby loss certificates was that they should be free of charge. The Department had advised that, as this was coming forward in legislation rather than policy in Northern Ireland, a safeguard provision to charge should be included. My colleague Paul Frew and I felt that that was not clear in stating the intention that a certificate and copy should be guaranteed as free, so we drafted an amendment. We are pleased to have worked with the Department on the wording of the amendment, and we support the Minister's amendment today, which encapsulates our intention.

I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill and to have played a small part in delivering this legislation. The ability to register death and stillbirths without having to attend a registration office in person is to be welcomed. The opportunity for bereaved parents to obtain a baby loss certificate is hugely significant. Having a new law in Northern Ireland that recognises that every life matters is something that we, as an Assembly and a society, should be proud of.

I express sympathy to all who have lost loved ones and are affected by this legislation. I hope that the process to deliver guidelines and practicalities progresses efficiently, with compassion remaining at the heart of the process. The DUP supports the Bill.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for bringing the Further Consideration Stage today. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I am pleased to confirm our support for the Minister's amendment.

The registration of deaths and stillbirths, including the provision, now, of baby loss certificates, is extremely important to the many of us in the House who will have to go through registering one or more of them. A compromise arrangement has been agreed. The Minister's original proposal will be changed by the amendment thanks to the input of the DUP, which suggested the compromise of free certificates. Thank you for that, and thank you to all who worked together on it. This process is an example of how we can be a compassionate House. Through compromise, careful negotiation and debate, we have come to the stage at which we will have, at long last, baby loss certificates, and I thank you all for that.

I look forward to seeing the regulations that are published when the Bill is finally passed. It is key that they are as flexible as possible in the area of baby loss certificates to ensure that those who may not know the gender of their baby, or those for whom the date may be difficult to determine and so on, will have an opportunity to register their baby in a way that suits them.

I do not sit on the Finance Committee and I am not in the Department of Finance. It has been a difficult debate for me to take part in the debates on the Bill, so I thank all those who have taken evidence and been so careful with it. I worked for many years as a bereavement counsellor for people who had suffered miscarriages, and I have not been behind the door in telling everyone about my losses. However, today is an important day. I cannot make that more clear. Having baby loss certificates will be of value to parents, and it is important that we recognise that the difficult work that has been done.

It has been difficult to hear the evidence. It is a very emotive issue, but today we in this House can congratulate ourselves on doing something that is compassionate and has been needed for a long time. Thank you, Minister, and thank you to your Department.

Mr Frew: I will limit my remarks to the amendment.

The debate is welcome, and the amendment brought forward by the Minister is very much welcome. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill is a very important piece of legislation for a number of reasons, one of which is that it deals with death. It is important, therefore, that we treat it with respect and sensitivity. Throughout the Bill's passage, we have done that in both the Chamber and the Committee for Finance.

I commend the work of the Committee for Finance, which I have now left. I took great interest in the Bill from the start and pushed the Department to bring it forward as quickly as possible and include baby loss certificates.

That brings me to the amendment. I place on record my thanks to the departmental officials, the Department and the Minister for listening and working with Members to get the best possible legislation. On this side of the House, we recognise that the Department, because it was making provision for baby loss certificates through legislation, needed to ensure that there were parameters in the regulations to which it would otherwise not have wished to stretch. However, it needed that cover in legislation in case something arose in the future. With that knowledge, we proceeded down the route of a compromise amendment to send to the Minister and ascertain his thoughts on it. We did not move it at Consideration Stage because we felt that there had been good engagement from the Department and the Minister. We took the Minister at his word at Consideration Stage, and we have been delighted with the engagement since then.

This is an example of the House operating in the best way possible. When we work constructively together, we should acknowledge it. Therefore, I thank the Minister and the Department and its officials for the work they undertook, with not only us — myself and Diane Forsythe from the DUP — but also Eóin Tennyson of the Alliance Party, to ensure that the amendment was tabled today and the House, including the two parties involved, was content and supportive of its wording.

That has come to pass.

Today is a really good day for the Assembly, and it is a better day for all those who have been and those who will be bereaved, especially those mourning the loss of a baby before 24 weeks. My heart goes out to those who have suffered in that way, but at least they know that the Assembly and the Department are listening.

Mr Carroll: I will briefly speak against the amendment. I have said previously that such an amendment goes against the spirit of the Bill and even against what the Minister said at the Bill's earlier stages. It also goes against the heartfelt and emotional evidence that we received at the Finance Committee. It is unlikely that people will ever request more than one copy of a certificate. If they do, we should presume that it is for a valid, humane and possibly emotionally charged reason. Imposing a charge is unnecessary, and no rationale has been provided for it, apart from the possibility of a situation arising in the future. Even then, that could be traumatic and upsetting for people who have suffered a stillbirth, baby loss or other tragedy. For that reason, I oppose the amendment. I appreciate that I may be in an opposition of one, but I am happy to put my position on the record.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance to make a winding-up speech.

Mr O'Dowd: I thank all the Members who contributed to the heartfelt debates on the matter, who corresponded with my office and who otherwise engaged meaningfully to help push forward this important Bill. I am grateful for the support from across the House for the element of the Bill that establishes a legal footing for a baby loss certificate scheme. I particularly thank the Members who spoke so sensitively on the matter and those who worked with my officials to draft and provisionally agree the language of today's amendment. I also express my gratitude to the Committee for its work on the legislation.

I tabled an amendment that will ensure that the vast majority of families will never face a charge for a baby loss certificate. It will happen only in exceptional circumstances, if that is the will of the Assembly. I urge Members to continue to support the passage of the Bill and to support the amendment in order to ground in permanent legislation the remote registration practice for deaths and stillbirths, to remove inequalities in registration procedures and to provide for the establishment of a baby loss certificate. Each of those important steps will contribute to the building of a more equal, empathetic and efficient registration service for people at key points in their lives. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

I thank Members for the way in which they have conducted themselves throughout the debates on the Bill thus far. The Assembly is to be commended for its work on the Bill.

Members should take their ease for a moment while a change is made to the Chair.

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

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

Mr Muir: I am grateful for the opportunity to propose the motion. By way of background, the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP) represents a bespoke programme of farm support that is targeted to meet the needs of Northern Ireland and seeks to implement policies and strategies that benefit the environment and support our economically significant agri-food sector.

The sustainable agriculture programme has been developed with a range of agriculture and environment stakeholders, including the agricultural policy stakeholder group (APSG), which has brought robustness to the development process. As part of the roll-out of the sustainable agriculture programme, the farm sustainability payment (FSP) scheme is planned for introduction in 2026 and will replace the current farm sustainability transition payment (FSTP). The FSP, which is expected to attract approximately 22,000 applications annually, will act as a balance between providing a safety net that will help a farm business to withstand shocks that are beyond its ability to manage effectively and encouraging farm businesses to become more environmentally sustainable, efficient and resilient.

The introduction of FSP will see the roll-out of the following key policy changes: implementation of the historical years exercise; progressive capping; new land eligibility rules; new farm sustainability standards to replace cross-compliance; and the introduction of conditionalities. The Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 will give my Department the legal powers to introduce the farm sustainability payment and the various elements outlined with effect from 1 January 2026.

By way of background, a consultation exercise on the proposed farm sustainability payment scheme, along with other elements of future agricultural policy, was undertaken in late 2021, and the responses informed policy decisions that were announced by my predecessor in March 2022. Any decisions that I have taken subsequently in relation to scheme requirements are intended to have a positive impact on FSP applicants and the wider agricultural community. For example, one decision had been to increase the minimum claim size for FSP from three hectares to five hectares. Following further consultation with the AERA Committee and stakeholders, I decided that the minimum claim size for FSP will remain at three hectares. Applicants to the FSP scheme in 2026 will therefore need to activate three entitlements on three hectares of eligible land to meet FSP requirements.

The historical years requirement was included in the Farm Sustainability (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, which were made earlier this year. The regulations being debated today amend the transitional regulations and clarify that businesses that do not meet the historical years requirement will not be eligible for the FSP scheme in 2026 only and that their entitlements may be transferred only to an existing eligible farm business. The Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations introduce progressive capping of the FSP payments, phased in over two-year period, for payments over £60,000, with capping levels increasing in bands based on the size of payments.

As I stated, the policy intent of FSP is to provide agricultural support to act as a balance between providing a safety net that will help a farm business to withstand shocks that are beyond its ability to manage effectively and encouraging farm businesses to become more environmentally sustainable, efficient and resilient. High support payments can encourage unwarranted risk-taking and reduce the incentive to manage risk within a farm business. By introducing progressive capping, my intention is to strike a balance between providing a safety net that helps a farm business to withstand shocks that are beyond its ability to manage risk effectively and dampening the incentive to be efficient and competitive and to manage risk proactively.

The decision to introduce progressive capping of FSP payments was announced in 2022, giving businesses time to adjust. In addition, progressive capping is being introduced over two years, with 50% of final capping deductions being introduced in the first year and full implementation in the second year. Phasing that in over two years will allow farm businesses time to adapt.

The regulations also introduce simplified land eligibility rules for the FSP scheme compared with those that were in place previously. The objective of the revised rules is to establish practical land eligibility rules that complement the FSP scheme's objectives and that can be easily understood and efficiently and effectively controlled. The regulations include a list of features and land use types that will be ineligible for the FSP scheme, such as building sites, public and private gardens, public parks, golf courses and airstrips. To support the simplified land eligibility rules and mitigate any unintended consequences, the regulations amend the eligibility requirements for the FSP scheme to state that only active farmers undertaking agricultural activity are eligible to apply. They must also have management control of the land used to activate the entitlements. Consequently, the regulations require applicants to the FSP scheme to carry out agricultural activity on at least 3 hectares of land used to activate entitlements. However, where an applicant submits a claim for fewer than 5 hectares, they must carry out agricultural activity on at least 2 hectares of land.

To ensure equality across schemes, the land eligibility rules introduced by the regulations will also apply to environmental farming scheme (EFS) higher agreements made by my Department before the date on which the regulations come into operation. The regulations legislate that, in order to receive their full payment and to ensure that farm businesses gain the maximum benefit from the schemes, applicants to the FSP scheme will be required to meet the following conditionalities to drive the uptake of data schemes that are critical for soil health, carbon management and genetic improvement. The conditionalities will be phased in.

The first conditionality is participation in the soil nutrient health scheme (SNHS). That scheme has been developed to assist farm businesses in planning their farm nutrient management more effectively. It will help to facilitate improvements to our water environment and future platform for carbon measures. The information provided by the scheme will allow farm businesses to better target the application of crop nutrients, reduce nutrient waste and help to increase farm profitability. To meet the conditionality, farm businesses must have registered for the soil nutrient health scheme and completed the training offered to them by the close of the single application form window on 15 May 2027. For farm businesses that are not compliant at that stage, the regulations legislate that a 10% reduction will be applied to their farm sustainability payment in 2027. That reduction will be increased to 15% for continued non-compliance in 2028 and will continue to be applied at 15% until the conditionality has been met.

The second planned conditionality is participation in the bovine genetics project (BGP). The bovine genetics project is of significant interest to industry and government due to the benefits of breeding animals with improved health and welfare, enhanced production and efficiency, a lower carbon footprint and lower pollution potential. Genetic improvement is identified as a key measure in the bovine tuberculosis Northern Ireland blueprint for eradication. It is also one of the measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the draft climate action plan 2023-27 and is one of the mitigations identified in the draft ammonia strategy. My Department is delivering the project in partnership with the agri-food industry through a not-for-profit company called Sustainable Ruminant Genetics Limited (SRG). SRG is providing industry leadership and is working with my Department to deliver several key functions, including the supply of industry data and the promotion and marketing of the project to producers and other stakeholders.

The bovine genetics conditionality requires farm businesses with bovine animals to register for the project and complete the training offered to them by the close of the single application form window on 15 May 2028. As with the soil nutrient health scheme, there is conditionality for farm businesses that are not compliant at that stage. The regulations legislate that a 10% reduction will be applied to their farm sustainability payment in 2028. That reduction will be increased to 15% for continued non-compliance in 2029 and will continue to be applied at 15% until the conditionality has been met. The regulations also legislate that penalties for failure to meet FSP scheme conditionalities should be applied concurrently.

A third conditionality of participation in the carbon footprinting project is also planned. That conditionality is not included in the regulations as the timeline for roll-out of the project has still to be set. The regulations reset the two-year entitlement confiscation rule from the commencement of the scheme, meaning that no entitlements will be confiscated for non-activation in 2026 because the FSTP and the FSP schemes are being treated as two separate schemes

The technical changes included in the regulations define the order in which my Department will apply scheme penalties, as follows: first, the over-declaration penalty, which includes duplicate fields; then, the late claim penalty; then, conditionality reductions; and, finally, farm sustainability standards (FSS) penalties. Under-declaration and late fee penalties have been removed, and the penalty for over-declaration of land has been increased from 1·5 times the difference found to twice the difference found. Preliminary checks will no longer be mandatory. My Department retains the authority to implement other checks, as required. The mandatory, on-the-spot checks inspection rate has been removed and replaced with a requirement for my Department to define the rate, as land eligibility controls will be carried out using remote sensing techniques, thereby completely removing that requirement.

The regulations remove penalties that exceed 100% of the payment due in respect of what were previously area-based payments under pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy, chiefly, agrienvironment and forestry payments. Those penalties apply to a very small number of businesses and were complicated to administer, as they involved a deduction to payments in following years. Finally, the regulations simplify the requirements regarding control reports for farm sustainability standard checks.

That concludes my overview of the Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. I thank the officials who have engaged with the Committee to date on what is a complicated area of legislation, and I am happy to answer any questions that may arise as a result of the debate.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not being in my seat at the start of the debate, as proceedings have moved rather quickly today.

The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has been scrutinising the draft regulations over a number of meetings. I rise to represent the view of the Committee, and, at the end, if I have a few moments, I will share that of the Ulster Unionist Party.
The Committee is unable to support the motion unanimously, having voted four members for and four against. In its consideration, the Committee engaged substantively with the Department, having received initial oral briefings on the scheme from officials on 26 June. If we track the regulations back to the Department's consultation on sustainable agriculture programme proposals and the ambition for a resilience payment in 2021, it was at least heartening to hear that the Department is now seeking to make regulations that are planned to take effect on 1 January 2026.

On 9 October, the Committee received an oral briefing from officials on the SL1 for these draft regulations, and, for the record, the Examiner of Statutory Rules advised that the SR was not drawn to the special attention of the Assembly. The stated ambition of the Department was that the farm sustainability payment should provide a balance between providing a safety net for those financial shocks, to which the Minister referred, that farm businesses cannot be expected to manage. It is also about encouraging farm businesses to become more environmentally sustainable, efficient and resilient. The regulations do indeed help to bring those key policy changes to the fore.

Regarding the implementation of the historical years exercise, there are new, simplified land eligibility rules, new farm sustainability standards to replace cross-compliance and progressive capping for payments above £60,000. To qualify, applicants will also have to fulfil certain conditionality requirements, such as participating in a particular scheme or project. Non-compliance will lead to penalties that will see a reduction in the FSP until that conditionality has been met or restored. It is apparent from the recap that there was plenty for the Committee to consider.

I will make some points on the Committee's agreed position, but I am confident that Committee members in the Chamber will add their particular positions articulately and clearly as the debate progresses. Concerns were raised, particularly in placing the phased-in conditionality on payments. That was viewed by some members as a further imposition on farmers without sufficient clear incentives, and some members questioned whether enough work had been done to gain the confidence of farmers. The Department has told us that it does not want farm businesses to receive penalties for non-participation in the bovine genetics project and the soil nutrient health scheme but, instead, wishes farm businesses to participate in the schemes to gain the benefits that they will deliver.

You will understand that the Committee was not able to agree that there was the required level of assurance for farmers that the conditionality aspect was clear and did not penalise non-participants unduly. Further concern was raised that some farmers who may not be fully aware of the conditionalities would see a penalty being imposed and that the risk of additional compliance requirements on an already heavily scrutinised sector perhaps adds its own risk, and certainly causes concern, for farming families. The Committee was pleased to note that the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) is planning communication, promotions, training and awareness events on aspects of the conditionality for farmers, agents and other agriprofessionals to ensure that farmers can avoid finding themselves in a position where a penalty would be applied. However, the Committee does not agree that the carrot and the stick are balanced in that case.

On the matter of progressive capping, officials advised that that feature will be introduced, as it is believed that high support payments can encourage unwarranted risk-taking and reduce the incentive to manage risk within the farm business. Concerns were expressed that that would be viewed as a disincentive to progress for larger farms with no alternative income sources, which may require higher levels of investment and therefore carry a greater risk of debt, given their size, and that it may also place a brake on entrepreneurism in that vital sector.

I hope that I have reflected the concerns raised by the Committee about the regulations. In short, those opposed to them, including me at that point, were really concerned about the balance between incentives and capping, penalties and conditionalities. As I mentioned earlier, Committee members will, I am sure, add their own thoughts and considerations.

In conclusion, before I add my own words, the Committee was unable to recommend that the draft Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved by the Assembly, but Committee members will get their chance to vote on the regulations and speak in the debate.

On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the draft Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. I do so in a spirit that is firm, constructive and rooted in the Ulster Unionist Party's unwavering support for our farming families, our agri-food sector and the future resilience of Northern Ireland.

At the outset, it is right to recognise that the scheme was not created overnight. It is the culmination of a suite of support consultations launched by the then Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Edwin Poots, back in 2021. It is equally right to acknowledge that the conditionalities that were proposed at that time, which are perhaps the most difficult part of the regulations, have been the most technically challenging to get our heads around. That would secure assurances, clarity and workable timetables. It has taken the Department time to develop that and to provide confidence not just to us as legislators but to the farming and agri-food sector. However, that is the reality of trying to strike a balance between providing a dependable basic payment that protects farm viability and driving the broader ambition for a better environmental stewardship programme, improved soil health, lower carbon emissions and long-term farm sustainability. I am sure that most Members recognise that reconciling all those aims is difficult, but it is necessary if we are serious about the future of Northern Ireland and food production here.

A key part of that in the presentations must be the bovine genetics programme. It is here that some of the greatest long-tail benefits can be realised, and we should be very confident and clear when we speak about it. Better genetics mean more efficient livestock, improved fertility, reduced methane intensity and stronger disease resistance. That includes, importantly, helping to reduce the spread and impact of bovine TB, which we have talked about many, many times in the Chamber. Fewer sick animals, lower losses and a lower carbon footprint are wins not simply for farm families but for the economy and the environment that we share.

I appreciate that conditionality has raised concerns, and it should. I have consistently made it clear that any new requirements must be introduced fairly, proportionately and with proper support. Farmers must know what is expected of them and have access to the training and tools that are needed to meet those expectations. We welcome CAFRE's commitment to communication, training and awareness events, because no farmer should ever fall into penalty through confusion or lack of information.

There are, however, areas where the Minister has listened, and that listening matters. The reduction in the minimum land size requirement from 5 hectares to 3 hectares is a victory for common sense and fairness, and we thank the Minister for that. It ensures that smaller family farms — the backbone of our rural economy — are not pushed out or penalised simply because of scale. Likewise, the Minister's assurances to the hundreds of farmers who have been caught in the historical years issue will offer some confidence. I assume that that will only apply in 2026 and that, going forward, the scheme will operate annually, with the ability to buy and sell and purchase entitlements, therefore restoring eligibility.

The Ulster Unionist Party supports the scheme because it supports farm families. However, our support comes with a long-term vision: food security, energy security, climate responsibility and economic opportunity all working together for our rural areas. We cannot pit one against the other. Northern Ireland has the opportunity to lead the way: from better genetics to better soils; from sustainable livestock to the development of anaerobic digestion technologies, biogas capacity and decarbonised rural energy settings; and in systems that complement, not compete with, food production. Our farming future must be one of resilience, innovation and fairness. The scheme is not perfect — no scheme ever is — but it is a step towards equipping our agri-food sector for the challenges and opportunities for the next generation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, with those comments, I confirm that the Ulster Unionist Party will support the regulations and our ongoing commitment to Northern Ireland's farming families, our countryside and our shared future.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Robbie.

Given the time and the fact that the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue at 2.45 pm after Question Time, and Patsy McGlone will be the first Member to be called to speak.

Mr Speaker: Questions 4 and 6 have been withdrawn.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): The Education Authority (EA), as the proposer of the development proposal to establish the new Causeway Academy, is proceeding with its implementation. The new Causeway Academy will open in September 2026 and will operate across the three existing sites. The EA is working with the school’s principal designate on the configuration of the three sites. The approach will be student-centred with the objective of minimising movement for students throughout their post-primary career. It will maximise the educational experience and achievement of all students, whilst allowing exam year groups to complete their education on their current sites. Students will also benefit from a familiar environment and understanding the established routines, relationships and support systems on their current site. A communications plan is in place to provide updates to current and prospective pupils, parents, staff, governors and the wider school community at key times.

While there was support among stakeholders for a single-site solution for the new school, the cost of approximately £20 million that was presented to me was simply not affordable within my Department’s current capital budget envelope. The costs to support the outworking of an approved development proposal are usually modest, connected with rebranding, signage, toilets and modest additional accommodation. Whilst it is not ideal, newly amalgamated schools will, in the main, operate on a split-site basis until they secure a place to advance in planning under the major capital works programme, following a call for applications.

The £20 million costs were not expected or anticipated when the development proposal was approved. My Department has never had such significant day-1 costs arising from a development proposal or committed to such significant day-1 works without the full rigors of a major capital works call for projects.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister. At the time of the proposed amalgamation, the school was described as a flagship school for the whole island, yet we have had delay after delay, the interim board of governors resigning and three school communities feeling abandoned. I have spoken to their prinicipals. When will we get funding for a single-site campus? When will the plans begin?

Mr Givan: I understand the frustration but also the ambition for the school to be delivered in a new-build setting. As I outlined, when the development proposal was approved, it was not anticipated that there would be a £20 million capital requirement for a day-1 solution to provide a single-site facility. The Department faces considerable financial challenges with a significant number of major new capital builds and school enhancement programmes, as well as the special needs provision that has to be given first call on expenditure. I will continue to make the case to my Executive colleagues for funding for capital expenditure.

I want to make sure that the work continues — that is happening with the current arrangements of an interim board of governors and a principal designate — to provide the best possible opportunity for the school to operate on three sites. I share the ambition for a future single-site solution, but we are somewhat constrained by those significant financial challenges.

Mr Bradley: Can the Minister detail the communications strategy that is in place for the three-school campus model?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. Mr Bradley has been a vociferous campaigner for the three schools concerned and clearly wants the single-site solution. He has made that clear to me on a number of occasions when he has made representations on behalf of his constituency. I know that he will continue to unapologetically advocate on behalf of the schools to get the single-site solution up and running.

We will continue to engage with the Education Authority on the communications approach. The EA proposed the development proposal for the new school, and it is taking forward that approach. A Causeway Academy newsletter has been issued to staff and parents that provides milestone updates on the new Causeway Academy. A plan is in place to provide further updates to current and prospective pupils, parents, staff, governors and the wider school community at key times. The EA will continue to work with the principal designate on the configuration of the sites for the opening of the new school on 1 September 2026. When that has been confirmed, the principal designate will issue the relevant communications via newsletter and social media.

I commend Mr Bradley for the work that he continues to do. He has expressed to me his concern and his understanding of the reasons for the withdrawal from the interim board of governors by governors from one of the schools. I want all the stakeholders to be able to engage on this, and we will continue to work towards that.

Mr Gaston: Minister, the EA's handling of the amalgamation of the three existing schools to form Causeway Academy has been extremely poor. What commitment will you give to finding a permanent single-site solution for the school? Will you commit to attending a cross-party meeting with the principal designate and local MLAs to try to resolve the list of outstanding issues ahead of its opening in 2026?

Mr Givan: I have engaged on the issue not just in my Department but with the Education Authority as the proposer of the new school and as the body responsible for taking forward the capital requirement of £20 million that was indicated for the day-1 costs associated with the single site. I will continue to engage on the issue. When the decision was taken, the decision maker at the time — it was not me — did not anticipate such a cost being associated with finding a single site for day 1. Other schools operate on split-site solutions, so it is not unusual to do so as we continue to work towards providing a single-site facility.

If we really want to address capital needs, we should not look just at those of the proposed new Causeway Academy. I have 114 projects in the major capital programme. Of those, 42 have been completed; six are on-site; 14 are at the technical design stage; 14 are at the early design stage; and 38 are either at the feasibility stage or on hold. The projected time frame to complete that list runs to decades, and that is before we add Causeway Academy. If Members are serious about providing solutions, as, I believe, they are, we need an Executive that will allocate capital funds on the basis of their priorities so that I can take forward the demands that Members rightly make on behalf of their constituents. We cannot do that if funding does not follow what people articulate in the Chamber.

Mr Givan: Officials are working through the necessary checks on the schools that have self-nominated, and I will make an announcement soon. It is my intention then to issue a written statement detailing the primary schools that will participate in the pilot exercise for covered outdoor sports space provision.

Ms Flynn: Minister, you will remember our conversation at Bunscoil Phobal Feirste about the lack of outdoor space and, in particular, the high number of special educational needs (SEN) pupils at that school, which is the case at many of our schools. Feedback from the EA suggests that Health does not seem to be at the table when it comes more broadly to special educational needs support and specialised services in our schools. Are you aware of those issues? What is being done to support our SEN pupils?

Mr Givan: I am aware of those issues, and they are a cause of deep frustration to me; indeed, I am concerned that the increased financial pressures on my Department are a result of the withdrawal of services by some of our health trusts and the Department of Health as it seeks to mitigate its projected overcommitment. Schools are having to pick up the pieces, but, where we have children who require additional support, that cannot fall on the shoulders of just the Department of Education and our school leaders. We need our health professionals to be empowered by the trusts and the Department of Health to support those children. Schools are there to provide an education, but, where pupils have increasing medical needs and complexities, we need the Department of Health to step up. My fear is that the Department is stepping back, and a number of principals have raised the same concern. That is a retrograde measure about which I have raised concerns.

Mr Robinson: What criteria were applied to applications for the pilot exercise for the provision of outdoor covered sports spaces?

Mr Givan: I hope to make an announcement about that soon. A call for applications was issued in August. It went to all primary schools seeking to be considered for the pilot exercise. Some 213 schools responded for inclusion in the pilot exercise. That indicates the level of demand and need, but, in order to have an effective pilot scheme, we will be able to take forward only about 10% of applications. My officials have advised schools that the initial pilot for the 20 successful applications will be drawn up using an element of random selection. I want to ensure that there is a mix of school sectors represented. That mix will include urban and rural schools and will be based on school enrolment figures. My officials are working through the necessary checks of how the criteria will be applied through the process, but, as I said, I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Mr McNulty: The recent Ulster University study 'Sport is NOT a luxury' revealed that 85% of parents believe that sport helps children to manage stress, yet, sadly, cost prevents many children from participating. Will you commit to introducing a statutory minimum of 120 minutes of physical education a week in all schools in order to support children's mental health, reduce inequalities and allow every child to have the opportunity to be part of a team?

Mr Givan: I will do my best to link my answer to the question. Physical literacy is an important aspect of the school curriculum. Principals have raised issues about the lack of facilities to enable pupils to get 120 minutes of physical education, particularly outdoor activity, a week. The pilot scheme is therefore designed to provide what, for some, may be a covered outdoor area that can be protected from the elements, meaning that some physical activities can take place.

The Member's view is one that I share. It is hugely important for our young people to be engaged in sport not just for its physical benefit but for its benefits for overall well-being. Sport creates great opportunities for social interaction and developing leadership skills. It creates a wider network of friendships and peers in a school setting. All of that helps children feel part of a whole-school community, which then benefits their academic attainment in a classroom setting.

The Member is right to highlight the issue, and I make common cause with him. The pilot scheme and the other work that I am taking forward in the area, as well the provision of synthetic football-type pitches for the post-primary sector, is being done to try to provide the appropriate school estate for the physical education curriculum to be delivered more effectively.

Mr Givan: The guidelines on school uniforms follow the provisions in the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill, which passed its Final Stage in the Assembly on 13 October. The legislation will come into operation on the day after the Bill gains Royal Assent, at which time the duty on the Department of Education to issue the guidelines and lay them in the Assembly, as well as the duty on schools to adhere to them, will go live.

While the Bill awaits Royal Assent, I instructed my officials to issue a copy of the guidelines to schools to assist them in making sure that their uniform policies are compliant for the 2026-27 school year. The school uniforms guidelines were therefore issued to schools on 12 November. I also instructed my officials to provide a copy to the Education Committee on that day.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. In the guidelines, the definition of "excessive costs" is:

What do you think is reasonable for a low-income household to pay for a child's post-primary school uniform?

Mr Givan: There are two points to consider. The first is that we are consulting on a cap. We made provision in the legislation that we could introduce a cap. The cap could be made up of two component parts: either a financial limit or a limit on the number of items that pertain to a school's uniform provision. Alternatively, it could be a hybrid model, using both. We will consult on what that would look like. We were prudent, however, and we put the powers in primary legislation so that, were we to introduce a cap, having carried out our proper due diligence, we would be in a place to do that.

The Bill that was passed by the Assembly gives legislative underpinning to the guidance, which we have enhanced. The guidance was already there, and schools were aware of what they should be doing, but now they have to do it, because of the legislation that was passed. Affordability is at the very core of that legislation. That was the number-one issue that came out when we consulted with our stakeholders. It was all about affordability. That was the key aspect, which now has to be central for schools as they develop their school uniform policies, carry out their reviews and consult with parents, pupils and stakeholders. The transparency that is associated with that must demonstrate how schools have taken the underpinning principles around affordability into account.

Mr Frew: How have legal advice and the views of schools informed the guidelines?

Mr Givan: We sought legal advice on the draft guidelines throughout the process. The guidelines were tested for their workability through focus groups that we conducted with teachers and parents in June. That highlighted the need for further legal advice at that time to ensure that there was clarity and that the guidelines would be workable and would deliver for parents and schools. The legal advice resulted in the updated guidelines, which were set out clearly. Feedback on the guidelines has been provided by principals recently, and the guidelines have been updated where that was appropriate. Ultimately, the guidelines must follow the Bill's requirements; they follow the legislation that was passed. I assure the Member that legal advice was sought throughout the process, and that has informed the way in which the guidelines have been produced.

Mr Burrows: Does the Minister agree that it is frustrating that some parents report that schools do not permit children to wear coats to school, nor do they provide somewhere for coats to be stored? That is a practical concern, coming into winter.

Mr Givan: Constituents have raised that issue with me. When it comes to pupils wearing coats to school, it seems that schools give priority to having the school uniform and emblem on display, even when children and young people need protection from inclement weather. Schools need to reflect on that. It is important that our young people can get to school and are comfortable when they are in school. They will not be comfortable if their uniform is saturated as a result of the weather. If schools prohibit their young people from wearing an overcoat and insist that they should wear only a school blazer, meaning that they are not protected from the elements, that is wrong, and they should put that right.

Mr Givan: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 5 and 8 together.

Since the independent review of teacher workload panel was appointed in May 2025, it has undertaken a structured programme of work with the aim of submitting a final report by the end of November. That has included a review of existing reports and work streams that was taken forward by the Teachers' Negotiating Committee, as well as direct engagement with a range of stakeholders. The panel has also conducted benchmarking exercises with officials in neighbouring jurisdictions in order to assess comparative approaches to teacher workload management.

In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the key workload issues and, more importantly, the steps that could be taken to address them, the panel wrote to boards of governors to seek written submissions on the workload position in their schools. In addition, it issued an engagement questionnaire to all teachers and school leaders in Northern Ireland. Over 7,500 responses to that questionnaire were received. The independent panel is finalising its report, and I look forward to receiving it in the next few weeks.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for the answer to question 5. Can you give me an assurance that you are committed to delivering the panel's recommendations in their entirety?

Mr Givan: I cannot, obviously, prejudge the report's recommendations. I am looking forward to receiving the report. It was at my request that the panel was established. It came about as a result of the discussions to resolve industrial relations on teachers' pay last year and the connected issues on workload. In order to find a way through, I recommended that we set up that panel. Given that I commissioned that work and that I have secured the involvement of the key stakeholders, particularly the trade unions, I look forward to receiving the report. I very much want to take forward the report's recommendations, but I cannot prejudge what it will say. Obviously, we will need to review what the recommendations actually say. I certainly want to implement them. That is the direction of travel, but I need to await what is in the recommendations.

Mr McHugh: Minister, the workload agreement that will be delivered will have the confidence of teachers and of unions. With that in mind, Minister, are you in a position yet to provide an update on teachers' pay talks for the forthcoming year?

Mr Givan: I can update the House on that. The financial year for teachers is different to that for, for example, health workers. It runs not from April to April but from September to September. Therefore, the point at which such matters crystallise is not the same as in some of the other public-sector organisations that we have to deal with. The workload aspect was one part of the agreement from the previous set of discussions, and it is an important part of getting that received so that we can look at what measures could be taken forward.

I also want to move to a position in which we can make a pay offer to teachers. I have already had work carried out not only in my Department but in the Executive so that the financial requirement for teaching staff, which we have costed to be in the region of £37 million, will be made available from funding from the Executive. As the monitoring round will follow the Chancellor's statement next Wednesday, I trust that the Finance Minister will bring a paper to the Executive. I expect an allocation to be in that that relates to teachers' pay. That is the case that I have made, and that would then allow me to move forward in making, through the appropriate structures, a formal offer. I want to get a resolution to the matter before the end of January, which is the cut-off point for these discussions. If I can move earlier and get it resolved before Christmas, that is my intention and the basis on which I am operating. However, we need that monitoring round to provide the funding, because there are significant and well-documented financial pressures in the Department and in EA, but that should not come at the detriment of teachers getting an appropriate pay increase.

Mr McGlone: Minister, Stranmillis University College's centre for research in educational underachievement found that teachers in the Irish-medium sector are working far in excess of agreed limits, largely driven by the constant need to create and adapt resources in the absence of sufficient and suitable Irish language materials, so what new actions can you take, and will you take, to ensure manageable workloads?

Mr Givan: We are taking forward a bespoke Irish-medium strategy, and in that will be an element related to workforce. The report that Stranmillis produced will inform the workings of that strategy document. Those issues will be considered. I am not in a position to outline to the Member today what the outworkings of that will be, but the centre has made the case about the needs of the workforce. I am taking that forward by looking at it through the Irish-medium education strategy, which I hope to publish in due course.

Miss McAllister: Teachers' workload is, of course, a very important issue, because it has an effect on their private and family life. The issue of workload is also an important one for children. Will the Minister's Department seek to review the workload, particularly homework, for very young children now or in the future? There is a disparity across schools in Northern Ireland, and it has an effect on children and family life.

Mr Givan: The Member highlights the disparity and differences that exist between some schools, and that is right. Different schools take different approaches to the amount of homework that they issue. As part of the TransformED NI work, we are reviewing issues around the curriculum. I have indicated that that work will provide a narrower curriculum that allows much greater depth and understanding to be achieved. One issue that our young people are really struggling with is a broad curriculum that only skims the surface of the subject matter, which means that they then have to catch up and that a lot more work is needed. Reviewing the curriculum and taking the approach recommended by experts in that area will have a knock-on benefit for young people when it comes to pressure and workload.

The work on qualifications is aligned with that. As I have said before in the House, we test our young people in what is, in old money for me, fourth year, fifth year, lower sixth and upper sixth. For four years, significant examinations are required. That puts additional workload on them because of revision, practice, mock preparation and examinations. As part of looking at the qualifications, we need to ask questions about the relevancy of what those qualifications might look like when aligned to a reviewed curriculum and how it impacts on the amount of work that our young people have to deal with. The Member raises an important question. The answer to it is multifaceted, and no single answer will resolve it. Our direction of travel with TransformED will benefit our young people and teachers.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. I have issued the draft early learning and childcare strategy to my Executive colleagues for consideration. Once agreed, it will be published for public consultation. The strategy will build on the significant investment of £80 million that has already been allocated by the Executive over the past two years, which is already making a positive difference for thousands of children, families and providers.

One of the most successful initiatives has been the establishment of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme. The scheme has resulted in real savings for parents, with a 15% reduction in registered childcare costs and potential savings of up to 32% when that is combined with tax-free childcare. Eligible working parents have saved almost £18 million since the launch of the scheme in September 2024, and, when that is combined with the savings from tax-free childcare, parents in Northern Ireland have saved an estimated £38 million.

I have funded the increase of 2,500 more pre-school places to full-time sessions with the provision of a free school meal for eligible children, and further increases are planned for next September. Additional funding has also been provided to support children who face disadvantage and to a range of programmes to support children with additional needs or disabilities.

Those initial actions are an integral part of the strategy and provide the foundation for further progress to support our children, families and the early learning and childcare sector. I encourage stakeholders to respond to the consultation once it is issued. Their comments will be used to inform the final version of the strategy and delivery plan.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I am delighted to hear that the draft strategy has gone to the Executive. You promised to meet the deadline of autumn; that is about to pass, and families are still waiting for that support. Given the fact that consultation on the strategy will take at least 12 weeks, it could be April before we see a real start. Will you explain why the Executive are not moving more quickly on that? How quickly will you overcome some potential areas of disagreement in order to get the consultation out and start supporting families?

Mr Speaker: A very brief answer, please, Minister.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. The Member and her party leader met me before the schemes were developed. That helped to inform the process that we were following. It was a manifesto commitment by my party, but it is not exclusive to my party. It is being delivered through the Executive, and I put on record my appreciation for the Member's work in this area. Aligned with developing the strategy — and it is now submitted to the Executive. We have an Executive meeting on Thursday, so I hope that it will be on the agenda to allow it to get it out for public consultation and get feedback. I will then turn it around very quickly in order for it to align with the Budget process. Some of the proposals in the strategy require additional finance. Therefore, that needs to be informed by the Budget-making process within the Executive to allow for an allocation to be made to give effect to some of the recommendations that I want to see taken forward.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mr Givan: The Member highlights the challenges of mobile phone devices in our schools. That is why, last summer, I produced clear departmental guidance that primary schools should not even have phones coming in, and, in post-primary, phones should not be used between the hours of 9.00 am and 3.00 pm, when pupils have left the school. That is why I have taken forward a pilot scheme in nine schools. I was in St Ronan's College, Lurgan, one of the largest schools in Northern Ireland with 1,600 pupils, and the feedback that the school provided to me was appreciation for the opportunity to have magnetic sealed pouches. It has been the single most transformative act that the school has taken to address issues around behaviour, concentration and the well-being of young people. When we get the evaluation, which is being carried out independently by King's College London, and if my instincts are right and the initial feedback is reflected in that report, it will demonstrate that that is something that we will need to take very seriously because the benefits that will come from minimising mobile phone usage in schools will be transformative, particularly when it comes to the well-being of children and young people.

Ms Hunter: We do not agree on much, Minister, but I am glad that we agree that smartphones do not belong in schools, so I welcome that. Referring to my initial point about instilling confidence in young people, there are school projects in the South that teach 11- to 17-year-olds how to be critical about media influence and build self-resilience and self-worth. In the North, there is nothing mandatory on the curriculum on that issue. There is no class or compulsory module for every school to provide that education. Does that concern you, and, if so, will you consider changing that, reviewing that or looking at it further?

Mr Givan: The Member raises an important point. This morning, I met three dads whose daughters committed suicide — took their own lives. The challenge that they presented to me was what was being done in schools to talk about those serious issues when it comes to mental health and well-being but also addressing suicidal ideation. I was very much struck by the testimony of those three dads, who spoke about their three daughters who tragically lost their lives due to suicide. During the meeting, I was able to relay some of the work that we do carry out in Education and Health. There is a framework in place, and support is available.

The Member rightly highlights the fact that the learning for life and work aspect of the curriculum does not provide the necessary support for young people. That is why Lucy Crehan, in her independent review of our curriculum, found that it was not effective and recommended that it should be broken up and that there should be a clearer way in the curriculum to provide support in a number of areas that LLW had addressed, including the well-being of young people.

I gave an assurance to those three dads this morning about what I very much want to happen. As part of the review of that subject, there is a subject working group, as is the case with all subjects. As part of the curriculum review that is being established, practitioners are being appointed to provide support across every subject, including LLW. Mental health, well-being and suicide should be part of the work of the subgroup that is looking at that aspect of our curriculum, because I believe that we need to do more in that area. I will give close attention to that.

Mr Givan: The Member is right. I know the school well, and I have visited the school. I know that it was subject to an inspection and that a number of action points, not just related to the physical capacity and build, need to be taken forward as a result of that inspection. We will continue to monitor that.

The Member rightly raises the poor condition of the college. It requires work, and, when I visited the school, I gave an assurance that the Education Authority would look at the various measures that need to be taken to address a number of the deficits associated with it. I will follow up with the Member on where that work currently is and what is needed. Fort Hill college is one of countless schools that are facing chronic maintenance backlogs, as I relayed earlier. Hundreds of millions of pounds is needed to address schools that successive reports have said are crumbling, and that has a negative impact on the delivery of the curriculum in those school settings. Fort Hill, like other schools, needs support. However, I can provide that support only when the appropriate financial resources are provided. I will continue to make the case for that funding, and I would appreciate colleagues supporting me in securing that resource.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Minister. The costs are high, and the Public Accounts Committee recently did a report on that. The neglect over the years has been phenomenal. The Minister will be well aware that Fort Hill was promised a new school building for more than a decade, and, at his direction, that Fresh Start funding was removed as soon as the Assembly returned. Minister, given the severe budgetary situation that you have just talked about, can your Department now confirm whether any of the current pupils at that school will see the new building during their time there?

Mr Givan: I cannot. Just to correct the Member: I did not take away Fresh Start funding from schools. When it came to Fresh Start, the United Kingdom Government identified £500 million, and they carried out a process for integrated schools to be identified for new builds. That funding was then allocated to the Strule Shared Education Campus project, delivering for 4,000 pupils. What was my response? When schools such as Fort Hill and others were left high and dry by the UK Government, I brought them into my Department's conventional capital programme, and it is my Department that continues to take forward that work. Therefore, far from what the Member alleges, which is that I took money away, I actually stepped in to protect schools such as Fort Hill. That was the action that I carried out, and I will continue to make the case. However, when the Alliance Party and others are around the Executive table, will you prioritise prisons and prisoners and provide things such as a canteen in Magilligan, or will you prioritise pupils? I say this to the Alliance Party: give the priority to our pupils. I look forward to your ministerial colleagues in the Executive supporting me when it comes to our schools.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for raising this issue, because it gives me an opportunity to put on record the current position. Misinformation has been provided and reported on. Just to make it clear, the figures that were recently issued to Unite the union in response to its freedom of information request related to temporary school support staff across the whole education system. In addition to classroom assistants, they included figures for a range of other staff groups: for example, admin staff, cleaners, catering staff, instrumental tutors and EA headquarters staff. Unite the union wrongly claimed that the total relates solely to special school support staff. At best, that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the information. The union then compared the overall, system-wide figure to an earlier figure from January, which related only to special schools, and falsely claimed that there had been a 200% increase. That was another basic inaccuracy. Whatever the reason for that misrepresentation, it risks spreading unfounded fear among parents.

To be clear, the figures cited by the union in January related to 108 classroom assistants in special schools who were awaiting clearance. Today, that figure stands at 14. Unite has therefore presented an 81% reduction as a 200% increase. The average turnaround time for the issuing of AccessNI certificates is five working days from presentation of all the relevant paperwork. The number of staff who are employed through a temporary engagement form will constantly change. As of today, the total number of such staff across the education system is 173. That reflects the reality that any large workforce will require some temporary staff.

I thank the Member for allowing me to correct the record on that issue.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer and for bringing accuracy to the issue. The last thing that we want to do is cause undue alarm. However, the fact that the temporary engagement form regime still exists leaves some risk. Is the Minister content that that is a manageable risk, or will he take steps to change the process so that no one is working in schools without the requisite AccessNI clearance?

Mr Givan: The issues around AccessNI were well documented a number of months ago. At that point, I took action. I engaged with the Education Authority in respect of the alarming figures. EA then engaged very robustly with schools, because it is schools, as the employer, that bring in temporary staff. Schools have a requirement to ensure that the appropriate AccessNI arrangements are in place. EA also made it clear that no member of staff who had not been AccessNI cleared would be paid, in order to ensure that priority was given to the issue. That addressed a significant backlog of hundreds of staff who had not been AccessNI cleared — some for an unacceptably long period. In the cases of the very small number of people who are engaged in emergency cover and whose application to AccessNI has not been processed, there must be direct supervision by appropriate staff who have been Access NI cleared. That should occur only in cases of extremity. Significant work has been done to address that issue with the AccessNI clearing system.

Mr Givan: I am not aware of that particular case, but I am happy to come back to the Member in more detail on the question.

Mr McGuigan: I appreciate that. I will forward the information to the Minister. In a similar vein, the EA has resisted parents' request for the bus, on its same route home, to stop at childminders' premises. The EA insists on the bus stopping at parental homes, despite the fact that parents are working and homes are empty. What is the defined policy in that scenario?

Mr Givan: I will look into that for the Member. At times, bus routes have fixed locations at which buses have to stop. The ability to accommodate a different drop-off point may be impacted on by other issues: for example, the need to ensure that it is safe. Again, I do not know, but, if the Member wants to write to me with the details, I will be happy to come back to him.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Education.

Mr McNulty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. According to Standing Order 19(1)(a), a Member may ask written questions of any Minister:

It is clear that some Ministers are in breach of that rule, as they answer questions on certain issues that fall within their official purview by saying that are on "operational matters" or should be redirected to statutory bodies within their Department in order to:

I ask the Minister for a ruling —.

Some Members: The Speaker.

Mr McNulty: Sorry, I ask the Speaker for a ruling that will stop Ministers trying to deflect and exonerate themselves from their ministerial responsibility to answer questions from Members, who seek only to represent their constituents.

Mr Speaker: There already is a ruling. Ministers are expected to answer questions. I say that as a former Health Minister who, at one stage, had, I think, six or seven times more questions to answer than any other Minister and got through them. I have no truck with Ministers who say that they are busy and all of that. If you take on the job, you take on the responsibility and answer the questions. It is clear that Ministers are accountable to the House, and the House is accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. Get on with the job and answer the questions.

In a small number of cases, there are questions that refer to operational matters, particularly for the Justice Minister, which means that they have to go through the Policing Board and so forth. Let me be clear, however, that that happens only in a small number of cases. Ministers should not farm questions out to arm's-length bodies to answer on their behalf.

Members should take their ease while we change the Table.

Mr McGlone: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme Regulations. The proposals represent a significant and necessary step towards a more resilient, productive and environmentally sustainable agriculture sector that can do well economically while meeting our environmental obligations and some of the other challenges that can no longer be ignored.

What sets the regulations apart is the clear and constructive link between public investment and meaningful environmental action, which is important. The conditionality built into the scheme should be viewed not as a burden but as an opportunity. It ensures that the substantial public funding that goes into agriculture will help farmers to build long-term resilience financially and environmentally.

By supporting improvements to soil health, the scheme encourages the practices that can build genuine sustainability. Healthy soils mean improved grass growth and reduced reliance on costly inputs. Those are practical, proven steps that strengthen farm businesses while enhancing the natural capital on which agriculture ultimately depends.

The same is true of the incentives on livestock genetics. I have spoken to a number of people involved in that sector. Better genetics mean more productive and healthier animals, improved animal welfare and reduced emissions per unit of output. It is about future-proofing our livestock sector to ensure that Northern Ireland remains competitive while lowering its environmental footprint.

When it comes to reducing emissions, agriculture must play its part along with the rest of us. The regulations support farmers to make those changes in a planned and supported way that works with the sector rather than against it.

It is important to recognise that the regulations are not a sudden departure, nor are they an invention of the current Minister. They implement the policy intent set out by a previous AERA Minister, a DUP Minister, who, if I recall correctly, consulted on future agriculture policy proposals in 2022. What we see today is the continuation of a direction of travel that has already been endorsed across multiple Administrations and political leaderships. It is not a particularly partisan project, nor should it be. It is a long-term reform programme that recognises the need to link public funding to resilience, sustainability and productivity.

It is important to highlight a particularly positive element of the regulations, which is the removal of the old in-field eligibility requirements. For years, those rules had the unintended effect of discouraging farmers from retaining or enhancing features such as hedgerows, scrub and other semi-natural habitats, despite their being some of the most valuable areas on farms for encouraging and supporting biodiversity, carbon storage and, indeed, water management. Their removal is a welcome correction, as it ensures that farmers are no longer penalised for protecting the very features that we now recognise as essential to a healthy landscape.

Crucially, none of this is being rushed, nor would any of us wish it to be. The lead-in times for participation are reasonable and deliberately paced to give businesses time to prepare and adapt. Many farmers are already in the soil nutrient health scheme, which has already mapped the soil on a large proportion of many of our farms. Farmers' willingness to engage in that initiative shows that the sector understands the need for change and adaptability and is prepared to work with government to deliver it. Those steps will make a real difference to addressing some of the most serious environmental challenges, including the one at my back door: Lough Neagh. Better nutrient management, improved soil testing and more efficient use of slurry and fertiliser are exactly the kinds of measures that can reduce nutrient run-off while keeping farms productive and profitable. They demonstrate that environmental restoration and agriculture viability can and must go hand in hand. Yes, some people say that the stick is needed — there are circumstances in which that is the case — but let us not forget that the most successful instances are when people cooperate and are incentivised to do so.

Throughout, farmers will continue to have an economic safety net. The scheme maintains the principle that public investment in agriculture is essential for food production, for rural communities and for the other services that farmers uniquely deliver. We must acknowledge the challenge ahead, however. If we want agriculture to deliver improved soil health, lower emissions, better water quality, restored habitats and a resilient food system, it must be funded at a sufficient scale to meet those ambitions. The regulations set the right direction, but they must be backed up by the right resources to support transition and change on farms. That is why having a multi-year agriculture budget is so crucial. Farmers cannot plan on one-year cycles. Environmental improvements cannot be delivered on one-year cycles. Long-term investment in genetics, technology, slurry storage and nutrient management requires long-term certainty for financial planning and business planning. A multi-year budget would give the sector the stability and confidence that it needs to plan, invest and innovate.

The regulations respond to the pressures that farmers face and help address the environmental crisis that is before us. They help set agriculture in Northern Ireland on a path towards a more productive, sustainable and resilient future. The SDLP is pleased to support them.

Ms Murphy: The statutory rule (SR) will give legal effect to the new farm sustainability payment (FSP), which will replace the farm sustainability transition payment (FSTP) on 1 January 2026. The scheme is expected to attract around 22,000 applications each year and marks an important shift in how we support active farm businesses. The regulations introduce progressive capping of payments above £60,000, which will be phased in over two years. They also simplify land eligibility rules, allowing certain land features and areas of woodland to qualify, as set out in legislation. The FSP is restricted to active farmers who have management control of the land and carry out agricultural activity on at least 3 hectares. The rules will also apply to environmental farming scheme (EFS) higher-level agreements that are already in place. The regulations also reset the two-year entitlement confiscation rule, meaning that no entitlements will be lost for non-activation in 2026. That reflects the fact that the FSTP and the FSP are being treated as separate schemes.

The order of penalties under the scheme is clearly defined in legislation. Participation in the soil nutrient health scheme and the bovine genetics programme will be mandatory for applicants. In Committee, I sought clarity on farmers' concerns around conditionality, particularly regarding genotyping becoming mandatory in the future. Last week, the Department confirmed in writing that the bovine genetics genotyping scheme will remain voluntary, although participation in the education programme will be compulsory. The regulations also clarify that businesses that do not meet the historical years test will not be eligible for the FSP in 2026. They may qualify in later years but only by acquiring FSP entitlements on the market and meeting all other requirements. A restriction is also placed on transferring entitlements from ineligible businesses to new businesses established after the regulations are made in order to prevent circumvention.

I restate Sinn Féin's concerns regarding entrants and those who began farming after 2021. Unlike in the South of Ireland, where young farmers can benefit from the national reserve and enhanced entitlements, new entrants here have no such support.

In conclusion, I will be crystal clear: the entire policy redesign was triggered by Brexit. Farmers now have to navigate more complex and uncertain landscapes due to Brexit. The SR establishes the legal footing for the next phase of support, but it also highlights the gaps and vulnerabilities created by the loss of EU funding streams for our farming community.

Miss McIlveen: The Democratic Unionist Party has concerns about the proposals for progressive capping and conditionalities in respect of the farm sustainability payment. We voted against laying the rule in Committee for that reason. I am conscious of the comments of Members who have spoken previously. The context today is somewhat different from when those measures were consulted on over four years ago, not least because climate targets have primacy, a fact that has created a variety of additional burdens for farm businesses.

There is very much a sense that agriculture is being subjected to death by a thousand cuts. The vote of no confidence in the Department by the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) reinforces that point. That is not to say that we do not support the objective of encouraging more sustainable environmental practices on farms or that we oppose ensuring that payments to larger businesses represent value for money. We absolutely want to encourage entry into excellent schemes, such as the bovine genetics programme, which, ironically — the Alliance Party may not wish to acknowledge this — was an action of the much-maligned Going for Growth strategy. However, does handing down financial penalties on an indefinite basis really incentivise that or encourage those taking part to do so with the right mindset?

The rather singular focus of the regulations on conditionalities, capping and penalties cannot be viewed in isolation from an assessment of barriers to profitability and productivity in agriculture. In many cases, barriers such as the impact of ammonia controls on planning, the scourge of TB and slow progress on a just transition fund for agriculture are not being satisfactorily addressed by the Minister. We need all the challenges and opportunities facing primary production to be dealt with in the round. Will progressive capping stifle investment, growth and entrepreneurship? Will some larger businesses limit their sustainability ambitions as a result? Could it encourage smaller farm units? Are the running costs for larger businesses any less demanding or proportionate than those for smaller businesses? Will the proposed timescale for registration and training for the various schemes give businesses enough time, given everything else that they have to grapple with each day? Those are all legitimate questions. While the issue of conditionality will, of course, be downplayed by the Minister and others in the Chamber, we are setting a precedent that I am not comfortable with and will not support.

Mr Blair: I rise as a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to express my support and that of the Alliance Party for the farm sustainability payment scheme regulations.

As stated today and on previous occasions, the regulations are a result of our need to transition away from EU agricultural policy.

Before I continue, I express my thanks to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and his departmental officials for their work in navigating the complexities of transitioning between schemes and for their efforts in keeping Committee members updated. During briefings that my fellow Committee members and I received on the regulations, it was emphasised that, at the core of the regulations, is a strong commitment to create a more sustainable future for agriculture in Northern Ireland. While the payments might seem to some to be simple financial support, they represent crucial investment in the agriculture sector's future. By encouraging farmers to adopt sustainable practices through initiatives such as Farming with Nature, the soil nutrient health scheme and the beef carbon reduction scheme, the industry can move towards becoming more resilient and environmentally responsible. Schemes such as those are essential for reaching our climate change targets. They are also absolutely essential for securing better environmental outcomes. Collaborating with the farming community to promote practices that restore ecosystems, enhance soil health and lower greenhouse gas emissions helps us to protect Northern Ireland's natural beauty and preserve our valuable environment.

I recognise that some Members have voiced legitimate concerns about aspects of the regulations. However, I urge them to see the bigger picture, which is the potential benefits that those measures hold for our natural environment, local economy and food security. Now more than ever, we must prioritise policies that balance those three pillars, ensuring that each supports and strengthens the other.

The Alliance Party remains steadfast in advocating policies that align our environmental ambitions with economic viability and the ongoing security of our food supply. We believe that progress in one area must not come at the expense of the others. Therefore, I, alongside my colleagues in Alliance, am pleased to offer our full support to the regulations. We hope that Members will join us in allowing Northern Ireland's farming community to move forward with confidence towards a more sustainable and prosperous future.

If I may, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I would like to leave Members with this thought: there has been mention today, which I have heard before, of carrots and sticks. I hear it at the Committee on a regular basis. If we do not support this Minister in bringing forward the necessary regulations to the legislation for that sustainable future, there will be no carrots for the sticks, because we will have destroyed the ground that they grow in.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, John. I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank everyone for the debate on the regulations. As I said at the outset, these regulations are essential to ensuring that I can deliver for our farming community by opening the farm sustainability payment as planned on 2 March 2026. They deliver on policy proposals that were consulted on and decisions that were announced in 2022. Some may look back at Hansard to see those announcements and reacquaint themselves with them.

Failure to approve the regulations does not mean that I can revert to the FSTP scheme that was delivered in 2025. Considerable work will be necessary, which will inevitably result in a delay in opening the scheme in 2026, with unavoidable delays in payments to farm businesses in 2026. It will also impact on officials' ability to take forward work on future support for the sheep sector and on the continued development and delivery of other key sustainable agricultural programme schemes, such as Farming with Nature.

In conclusion, I highlight a point that was raised in the debate: the work that my Department continues to do on agriculture often relates to Brexit. The requirement to have this debate and to put the regulations in place is a direct outworking of Brexit. I will continue to focus on solutions and deliver for the farming community of Northern Ireland. I commend the regulations to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so in an orderly fashion.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

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

Mr Lyons: The Pension Schemes Bill intends to strengthen pension investment by supporting over 15 million people who save in private-sector pension schemes to get better outcomes from their pension assets and to support the UK Government's mission to deliver growth. The Bill seeks to create a private pensions market that encourages consolidation and focuses on value and outcomes for members, enabling people to have security in retirement and pension schemes to invest in a wider range of assets, driving growth.

I will give a brief overview of each clause that extends to Northern Ireland. Clause 48 relates to contractual override and makes provision for pension scheme providers to transfer a member's contract to another provider or vary contractual terms without the need for individual consent where that is in the member's best interests.

Clauses 104 to 107 relate to the contracting-out regime that applied between 1997 and its abolition in 2016. The clauses seek to restore certainty about scheme liabilities and funding by allowing schemes to retrospectively obtain actuarial confirmation that benefit changes made during that period meet the reference scheme test even if written confirmation was not obtained at the time.

Clause 108 seeks to restore the Pensions Ombudsman's original 1993 role by reaffirming its status as a competent court. That change will remove the need for schemes to seek court enforcement, reducing costs and delays for courts, schemes and members and ensuring an efficient, accessible way of resolving pension disputes.

Clause 109 seeks to extend the terminal illness definition from six months to 12 months for individuals who are entitled to compensation payments from the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and the financial assistance scheme (FAS), bringing it into line with similar provisions in social security and tax legislation. The Assembly previously approved that measure through a legislative consent motion (LCM) for its inclusion in a Westminster private Member's Bill; however, that Bill fell at the dissolution of Parliament for the 2024 general election.

Clause 111 allows the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS) to include on its dashboard information relating to the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme, including individual-level data. At present, the Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme are excluded from dashboards because they are classified as compensation schemes rather than traditional pension schemes. However, many individuals rely on those payments as part of their retirement income, and their inclusion would significantly enhance the effectiveness and completeness of the service for members of those schemes.

The provisions enacted by the clauses listed in the legislative consent motion are intended to become operational shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That means that it will not be possible for an Executive Bill to be passed to meet the same operational date as the Westminster Bill for those measures unless the accelerated passage procedure is used. Agreement that clauses 48, 104 to 109 and 111 should extend here will allow those important provisions to be enacted across all jurisdictions at the same time.

Whilst I seek to avoid using the legislative consent motion process where possible, it seemed sensible to secure the pension scheme benefits afforded by those provisions for Northern Ireland members by agreeing to an LCM in respect of the clauses listed. The intention is to introduce in the Assembly a parity Bill for all remaining clauses in the Westminster Bill.

I am aware of the importance of the Assembly's role in considering legislation and, in particular, of the value of the Committee's scrutiny role. I am grateful to the Communities Committee for the time that it has taken to consider the measures in such a short timescale. Its report is thorough, and I appreciate its noting that, while it:

it is content with the LCM and recognises, based on the evidence received by the Committee, that the changes are beneficial to people in Northern Ireland. I look forward to a robust and thrilling debate on those issues.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for his statement. As Chair of the Committee for Communities, I will contribute to the debate on the legislative consent motion for the Pension Schemes Bill.

The Committee for Communities undertook its scrutiny of the LCM over the full 15 days that were afforded to the Committee under Standing Order 42A(7). We initially received a detailed briefing from departmental officials and then immediately sought written evidence from key stakeholders, including the Association of British Insurers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU). Following that scrutiny, the Committee published a comprehensive report. That has been laid in the Business Office and the Assembly Library, so all Members have the opportunity to review it. Having completed that work, the Committee for Communities is content to support the motion.

The Committee is strongly of the opinion that, as the Minister stated, legislation on devolved matters should originate in the Assembly. However, pensions policy, while devolved, effectively operates as a single system across Britain and the North, as Members will be aware.

The Department also advised us that the Westminster Bill is expected to be operative by spring 2026 and that it would not be practically possible for a separate Assembly parity Bill to complete its passage in time to meet that date. Therefore, in this case, the Committee accepts the Department's rationale for using an LCM. To do otherwise could create a situation in which people here in the North are treated less favourably than those in Britain, delaying their access to entirely beneficial changes.

We also note that the LCM covers only five specific measures that are deemed to be time critical. A separate Executive Bill will be progressed for the remaining provisions in the Westminster Bill. The Committee welcomed assurances from officials that proceeding with the LCM will mean operational alignment with the British implementation timeline, thereby avoiding any gaps in provision here.

I will not go into detail and summarise the provisions. The Minister has very helpfully set those out, so I will not reiterate them. I will move instead to outline the Committee's scrutiny and key considerations.

During the evidence sessions, the Committee received vital clarification on two important points. First, residents in the South of Ireland who hold UK-based pensions will receive all the benefits of the changes in the legislation. Secondly, the Department does not believe that there is any diminution of members' rights as a result of those changes. However, our stakeholders raised several important points of concern. The Committee shares those points of concern and has detailed them in its report.

The contractual override provision rightly received the most scrutiny. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions expressed valid concerns about enabling providers to vary contracts without individual consent and urged that those powers be tightly constrained with robust safeguards and independent oversight. Furthermore, the Association of British Insurers stressed to us that the sequencing of the reforms is crucial. It argued that the contractual override power must be implemented before the new value-for-money framework and before any UK ministerial review of market fragmentation in order to enable providers to consolidate low-value schemes first. The Committee agrees that that sequencing appears logical and efficient.

Regarding the so-called Virgin Media provision, the Committee shares ICTU's view that robust safeguards must be in place to ensure that retrospective validation does not disadvantage any member or diminish their accrued benefits.

Finally, the Committee noted stakeholder calls for adequate resourcing of the Pensions Ombudsman so that it is able to efficiently handle any caseload and for a comprehensive communication strategy to be developed and implemented in relation to the pensions dashboard.

The Committee queried the Department's description of the changes as being "largely beneficial" rather than entirely so. Officials clarified that the wording reflects that some measures are technical fixes that are not necessarily advantageous, but are not disadvantageous, to individuals. Having read the evidence, the Committee accepts that position.

Overall, the Committee for Communities is content with the legislative consent motion. We recognise that the changes, which are based on the evidence that was received, are beneficial to people in the North and accept that the motion is an appropriate route towards ensuring parity and timely access to pension benefits. In closing, I thank the departmental officials for assisting and advising the Committee on the LCM.

Mrs Dillon: We support the legislative consent motion on the Pension Schemes Bill, in particular the provisions that relate to terminal illness. We raised that matter with the Minister previously, and I appreciate that the LCM has come forward now. We also welcome the provisions on pension protection and the wider reforms that will extend important protections to people in the North.

Marie Curie's report 'Dying in Poverty 2024' laid bare the reality that, every year, thousands of people across the North spend their final months in poverty. One in four terminally ill people of working age dies below the poverty line. Those are not abstract statistics but, rather, mothers, fathers, partners and friends. They are human beings, many of whom have worked all their life and paid into the system. They have raised a family and contributed to society, yet they are told that they must wait until pensionable age to access the very support that they themselves funded. That is indefensible.

Some months ago, I attended a meeting of the all-party group (APG) on cancer. I thank Marie Curie for its work and for using the opportunity at the APG meeting to raise the issue of early access to their pension for people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. It was on the back of Marie Curie's presentation that I tabled a motion that called for legislation to ensure that people with a terminal illness can get early access to their pension. There was unanimous support from all parties for the motion, which called on the British Government to allow those with a terminal diagnosis early access to the state pension and further called on the Minister for Communities to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions to make the necessary legislative and administrative changes a reality.

The message from the Assembly then was unambiguous. It was that compassion must shape policy. Financial security in the final months of life is a matter of dignity, fairness and humanity. The LCM aligns with that principle and reflects progress. The Pension Schemes Bill will ensure that those who belong to the Pension Protection Fund and are in the financial assistance scheme who are diagnosed with a terminal illness and given one year to live can access an early payout. The increase from six months is a step forward that is long overdue. Again, I acknowledge the work of Marie Curie to lobby and campaign on the issue in the Assembly and in the other legislatures.

For too long, people have received the worst possible news while also facing the cruel and unnecessary burden of navigating complex systems, financial insecurity and delays that robs them of peace of mind in their final months. The legislation will begin to correct that injustice. It is a step in the right direction and reflects what Sinn Féin has consistently argued for, which is that it is unfair and inhumane to expect people who are living with a terminal illness to wait for the support that they may never live to receive.

Let me be equally clear, however, that our work here is not finished. We want the protections to be extended further. We want all those who are facing incurable illnesses to have the ability to access their pension early so that they and their families can, in the time remaining to them, live their life with dignity and without fear of hardship or being forced into painful financial choices during a period that is already filled with enough heartbreak.

The LCM ensures that the positive changes that will be made at Westminster will apply here and that people in the North are not left behind. It reinforces the direction that the Assembly set earlier this year, which is that compassion must be embedded in how we legislate, particularly for those who need it most. I therefore support the motion and welcome the fact that this is the second time today that we have debated legislation that is compassionate. I hope that the motion will be supported. I am sure that it will. It is something to be able to say that, twice in one day, we were able to debate compassionate legislation that everybody in the House supported.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No other Members have indicated that they wish to speak. I therefore call the Minister for Communities to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. I thank the Chair of the Committee for Communities and Committee members for their support for the LCM. The Chair raised a number of issues but specifically that of contractual override. I understand the concerns that have been expressed, but we want to make sure that people who are in pension schemes have the best return. We want to make sure that poor value and poor outcomes are not being delivered. There is sometimes a lack of engagement from pension scheme members, and there is often little that providers can do to address that. The measure is intended to enable pension providers to transfer a saver's pension to another arrangement or provider without their consent but when it is in their best interests. I understand the concern about who decides whether something is in their best interests, but, as the regulator responsible, the Financial Conduct Authority will have supervisory oversight of contractual overrides and will be notified about proposed transfers. It will also oversee a range of safeguards and procedures that must be followed before a variation or transfer can occur. I assure the Committee Chair that strong consumer safeguards and consumer protections will be in place in the new regime. Contractual overrides will be permitted only when they are in savers' best interests. I thank him for his comments and for the Committee's support.

I am also grateful to Linda Dillon for her comments. We have a common position on that issue. It has been debated in the House, and she will be aware of the correspondence that I have had with the UK Government on it. It is likely that that provision will impact on only a small number of people. Around 10 to 15 members across the UK will benefit from it as a result of being members of the PPF or the FAS, but, if just one person benefits, it is worth our doing it. I am pleased to have her support, and I expect the support of the whole Chamber today.

I thank officials for the work that they have done on the LCM to make sure that we are all kept right, and I echo the comments of the Member who spoke previously. Although the changes are small, this is a good day and is indicative of the work that we can do to improve people's lives.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. As usual, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question. This is not an opportunity for debate or for long introductions.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): During the passage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, the House approved an amendment placing a statutory duty on my Department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review of the liquor licensing system, including the surrender principle. In fulfilment of that duty, my Department appointed a consortium, led by the University of Stirling, to undertake the review. The resulting report, published on 21 February 2025, contained 26 wide-ranging recommendations covering the operation and administration of the regime; its impact on public health and the economy; and its responsiveness to consumer and community needs. The recommendations are publicly available, and I encourage Members to read them.

The Act also required my Department to produce and publish a plan setting out how it proposes to respond to the report. My officials have considered each of the 26 recommendations faithfully and in detail, and a comprehensive response to each can be found in the document published this morning. In some circumstances, my Department's response is to definitively accept or not accept the author's recommendation. Other recommendations require a more nuanced approach. That includes where the Department partially accepts the recommendation or where the underlying objective is already satisfied in the current regime.

In providing this update to fellow Members, let me reaffirm a core and guiding principle: alcohol is not an ordinary commodity. Its sale is, rightly, subject to the regulation of a licensing regime that dictates who can sell alcohol, where, when and in what circumstances. The purpose of the controls is to ensure that the right balance is struck between facilitating the responsible sale and consumption of alcohol and protecting public health, public safety and public order. In that way, the licensing regime also plays a role in assisting our hospitality sector in its sustainability and attractiveness to customers. Our licensed premises are vital for the Northern Ireland economy. They support tourism, provide employment and serve as important social spaces in our communities. That is why I have decided not to accept the authors' recommendation for targeted reform of the surrender principle.

The Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 delivered the most significant reform of our licensing system in over 25 years. It modernised a regime that had remained largely unchanged since 1996 by introducing extended opening hours, removing outdated restrictions and creating new licence categories to reflect changing consumer habits and support local producers. Those reforms were evidence-based, phased and carefully calibrated to support both the public interest and sector sustainability. Any further reform must be held to the same standard. The recommendation to reform the surrender principle and the authors' other recommendations were not impact assessed or costed, and I am not persuaded that the authors have made a compelling case for such a fundamental change, which could have significant and unintended consequences for the economic viability of our hospitality sector at a time when many are operating below viability thresholds. I understand that recent figures from Hospitality Ulster highlight the fact that 27% of operators are now operating at a loss and that another 20% are just breaking even.

That is not a rejection of progress. The report also provided my Department with the opportunity to consider how the regime can be further improved and modernised. I have directed my officials to explore how the current licensing regime has contributed to the growth in off-sales and the relative decline in pub licences, as well as to explore the policy options that are available to us to effectively address any corresponding growth in alcohol-related harms. The role that a licensing regime can play in supporting market diversity and innovation will also inform my Department's response to recommendations on local producers' licences, which were introduced in 2022. Those recommendations will be taken forward following the completion of a statutory review and will be accompanied by direct and meaningful engagement between my Department and representatives from the sector.

The action that my Department takes in response to all those recommendations reflects my priority, which is to ensure that the licensing regime is as effective as possible in addressing alcohol-related harm. That includes clear commitments to work with our delivery partners, such as those in the Department of Health, to explore how best to reflect public health concerns in the administration of the licensing regime, including via the application of the adequacy principle, which ensures that a licence will not be granted if an adequate number of licensed premises are already in the vicinity.

I will also take action in a number of other areas. For example, community input into licensing decisions will be strengthened by reviewing the objections process. Transparency and accessibility will be enhanced. I am not taking forward the recommendation to establish a new licensing authority; however, I have asked my officials to work with their delivery partners to make the system easier for applicants and stakeholders to navigate. A number of the authors' recommendations fall within the responsibility of the Department of Justice and its agencies. I will write to my Executive colleague the Minister of Justice to bring those recommendations to her attention and seek her views.

The review provided a valuable opportunity to reflect on how our licensing regime can evolve, but reform must be proportionate, evidence-led and aligned with the needs of our communities and economy. I am committed to working with delivery partners, stakeholders and industry representatives to ensure that any changes are consulted on, fully impact assessed and subject to meaningful engagement. In the meantime, we will focus on what can be done now in the existing regime to improve awareness, accessibility and responsiveness. That includes ensuring that public health concerns are not just acknowledged but actively addressed. I commend the statement to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Colm Gildernew.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Go raibh maith agat —.

Mr O'Toole: I —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Matthew nearly had a stroke there. You are right, Matthew. I call Matthew O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. It was a bit like last orders there as I shouted to get my spake in first.

Minister, I am disappointed in that response, to say the least. I grew up, as it were, in pubs, having had pubs in my family and having worked in them. I care about protecting small and rural pubs.

This, I am afraid, does nothing to protect them. It simply furthers the situation whereby they close. As for public health, when rural pubs close, off-sales open, where people buy 10 cans that they drink at home rather than two pints in the local pub.

To look on the bright side, since you said that you will bring forward other proposals for reform or will examine reform, when will we have those proposals? I think that lots of people looking at our system, with all the vexatious legislation and all the public health harms and the fact that rural pubs are shutting — we have the lowest number of pubs in the UK or Ireland — will be asking, "When will we have your proposals for reform?". Lots of people will be disappointed in the response today.

Mr Lyons: To answer the last question, I will bring those proposals forward as soon as possible. I do not have a definitive timescale for the Member, but I will bring forward proposals that are costed and have had their impact assessed. Frankly, the Member is responsible for me standing here today by bringing the amendment and report through.

Mr O'Toole: You voted for it.

Mr Lyons: Yes, but it was the Member's initiative that brought that forward. Frankly, I am a little surprised that he has not realised or mentioned the other consequences that it will have. He wants me to move in one direction, but he fails to recognise or understand that there are consequences of every action that we take in that area. Therefore, moving away on the surrender principle or some of those other issues that he might want us to move on will have direct and real consequences for other people. Unfortunately, that was not noted in the report that was produced, and it is disappointing that those issues were not taken into consideration.

Another point to raise with the Member is that it is not the licensing regime in itself or the licensing regime alone that is contributing to some of the issues that we see in society. Over recent months, in GB alone, which has a different licensing regime, we saw more than 200 pubs close, so it is wrong to say that licensing is a major or the only factor that is contributing to that. Also, multiple issues contribute to the wider health issues that he mentions. It is important that when we consider time, we do not come with half-baked ideas but take time to consider all the implications and not how it will affect just one group of people.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, the number of pubs in the North is decreasing at an alarming rate, and the surrender principle has been highlighted as a key factor in the sector's rapid decline. Many hospitality businesses will be frustrated to hear that you have decided not to introduce any reforms to the surrender principle, despite the independent review recommending changes. What advice did your officials provide to you in relation to reform of the surrender principle, and did you accept that advice?

Mr Lyons: Let me make it clear that I am the person who is sitting in this chair, and I am the one who makes the decisions. I am fed up with people coming to the House and asking, "Well, what did officials say on this?". Officials are not elected. Officials are not held accountable: I am, though I am happy to confirm to the Member that there was no disagreement on the issue with officials because we have a team in the Department that is very aware of the issues and knowledgeable on what is going on.

I understand that there will be disappointment for some who might say that we do not have changes in place. It is not that there will be no changes. Some reform will take place, and reviews of existing legislation will be under way at the start of next year. We have to understand, however, that what may be a positive consequence for one person might have a detrimental or, in some cases, devastating impact on other people, and those all need to be taken into consideration. That is why I think that we are taking the right approach, which is making sure that we cost proposals, that we impact-assess proposals and that we make sure that they contribute to the overall goals that we have. That is what I am committed to doing.

Mr Bradley: Minister, you highlight the value that the hospitality sector adds to the economy. What is that value in real terms?

Mr Lyons: The Member is right to highlight the value of the hospitality sector to the economy more widely. The report states that around 6,000 people are directly employed in the pub sector and the wider licensed trade, excluding grocers and supermarkets, and that it directly employs an estimated 27,500 people and sustains 36,000 jobs overall. The report also quotes an independent report commissioned by Hospitality Ulster that states that, in 2017, hospitality provided 8·7% of jobs in Northern Ireland, contributed £1·6 billion to the Northern Ireland economy and generated £88·4 million in tax revenue. That indicates just how important the hospitality sector is to the economy in Northern Ireland and why we need to be careful about making significant changes without having them properly costed or impact-assessed. I would reiterate that point to Mr O'Toole, who took great interest in the subject but seems to have left the Chamber already.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I understand that recommendations 25 and 26 in the response talk about some changes relating to smaller venues and creative spaces and things like that. How does the Department intend to ensure that smaller arts and cultural venues, which often rely on occasional alcohol sales to sustain their programming, are not disadvantaged by any current legislation and by the licensing regime, given that there is no provision for them to really feed in to that? What engagement, if any —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Kellie —.

Ms Mulholland: — was had during the review process?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, I meant "Sian", not "Kellie". Thank you.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for her question. I have spoken directly to organisations that are affected by this. Although the Department did not accept the author's recommendation to introduce a new category of licence, I recognise the role that the licensing regime plays when it comes to the issues that the Member raised. I have asked my officials to explore the current regime, which provides 13 categories of licence, to see how we can support this and provide potential solutions, if those are required, which they are.

Mr Allen: The Minister's statement rightly highlights the balance between the sale and consumption of alcohol and public health. He will recall that minimum unit pricing featured heavily in the debates during the passage of the legislation. What is the Minister's view on that policy? What engagement has he had with the Health Minister in that regard?

Mr Lyons: My views on the issue will be led by the evidence. I am not convinced on that; I speak from personal opinion. I want to deal with alcohol-related harm, and there are different tools at our disposal to do that. There is some contradictory evidence coming from Scotland on that, and I have asked for more information to help better inform those discussions. I have no objection in principle to these things, but I want to make sure that we have a robust evidence base so that any changes that we bring in will be effective in dealing with the problem and will lead to improved health outcomes.

Mr McHugh: Minister, you do not accept the recommendation to establish a new licensing authority, so how will you ensure that the current licensing regime is reformed to increase accessibility and consistency in the sector?

Mr Lyons: We certainly want to make sure that the necessary licensing regime and the enforcement of that are in place, but the cost of doing that would have been prohibitive. It is not a priority for us at this time, but, of course, the issues will be kept under review. I do not think that the report went into the detail that we needed on that issue.

Mr Brett: It is hugely discourteous that the leader of the Opposition asked his question and then walked out of the Chamber.

Minister, there will be genuine relief among many owners of licensed premises that you have not given in on the surrender principle. Those people have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds and risked their houses, and they would have disappeared overnight had the change been introduced. Will the Minister agree that the amendment passed by the leader of the Opposition, which cost £500,000 according to the report, would have been better used to support the night-time economy across Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: Yes, of course. I would have loved the money to have been spent in other ways, although we have got some useful information and data from it. I certainly agree that I would like to see the night-time economy being supported. The Member has been vocal in ensuring that contributions have been made from Departments, including mine, to make sure that that money can be used for the night-time economy. It shows the need for us to recognise the constraints on Departments and the requirement to sometimes outsource some of the work. It is something that we should all be careful of when passing legislation.

Ms K Armstrong: The independent review concluded that:

Under the response to recommendation 20, the Department confirmed that opportunity for growth for the independent and locally produced products will fall to the Department for the Economy and Invest NI. If those organisations confirm that the licensing arrangements for our independent producers are not working to enable them to take the opportunities, is the Minister open to reviewing that part of the licence?

Mr Lyons: I am sorry to repeat what is already in the report, but those are matters for the Department for the Economy. However, I would certainly be supportive of that.

Mrs Mason: Minister, in the absence of any substantial reforms in today's statement, what immediate actions will you take to ensure that there is support for small businesses such as the independent brewers and micro-pubs?

Mr Lyons: That is an area of concern. It will be looked at as part of the three-year review that follows the legislation being passed in 2022, and that will begin next year. We will look at suggested reforms of the producer's licence at that time.

Mr Martin: I will pick up on the question that my colleague across the way asked. Minister, can you elaborate on why you did not take forward the suggested reforms specifically around the producer's licence, including extended opening hours for taprooms? I think in particular of microbreweries.

Mr Lyons: We have not rejected outright the authors' recommendations on the producer's licence. The reforms were introduced by the Department to modernise the liquor licensing regime. That followed extensive consultation with the industry representatives, and it came into force only in 2022. The number of local producers' licences granted by a court has grown from seven in 2022 to 15 in 2023 and 20 in 2024. We are under a statutory obligation to review those provisions three years after they came into force. I anticipate that the review of the provisions on the producer's licence will be launched early next year, and the need for further reform will be considered in the context of the responses to that wider review. I have asked officials to undertake proactive and meaningful engagement with the sector throughout the process, because it is important that we help where we can.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I welcome your comments on concern for the economic viability of the hospitality sector. Do you accept that now is not the time to shake up the hospitality industry and put more pressure on a sector that is struggling?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I agree, and I highlighted that in my speech. There are many that are under pressure and many that are just about keeping their head above water. This would be a seismic change and not one that has been properly costed or its impact properly assessed. It is important that that is all kept at the forefront of people's minds. It is easy to come to the House and say, "Minister, we should change x or y", but that can have direct consequences for other people and that needs to be kept in mind. We must put in place reforms that are fair and proportionate, and changes to the surrender principle in the way suggested would not have fulfilled that.

Mr Harvey: Minister, you note that the authors did not cost the impact of their proposed reform of the surrender principle. Is it possible to advise how much it would cost?

Mr Lyons: Although we do not have those figures ourselves, figures have been provided by Hospitality Ulster. It has suggested that the cost of reform of the surrender principle, when you factor in loss of trading value, could be up to £313·7 million.

That is why we do not take such decisions lightly. We have to take into consideration the impact that it would have. Unfortunately, as the Member noted, the authors did not cost the impact of their proposed reform, which is why it would be irresponsible of me to take that forward.

Mr Honeyford: Minister, you said that you will not reform the surrender principle. Maybe this is the question to ask: has your Department made any attempt to estimate the cost, or are outside bodies telling you the cost?

Mr Lyons: Hospitality Ulster provided us with those figures. The authors of the report echoed the findings of a 2007 Grant Thornton report on the surrender principle, which was commissioned by what was then the Department for Social Development. It said that it would be challenging to calculate the cost of reform with any degree of certainty. That is why it is important that we also listen to the evidence that others bring forward.

Costs of reform to the surrender principle need to take into account the impact on licensed premises, potential changes in job numbers and the impact on the profitability of the sector as a whole. That is why it is good to listen to those on the ground — those with lived experience, shall we say, about whom we are often keen to talk in this place. Hospitality Ulster did that when it took all those impacts into consideration, and it is useful for us to listen to that.

Mr Durkan: I declare an interest: my family owns licensed premises.

Recommendation 6, which is:

has been rejected because a system is already in place. How many licences have been suspended or rejected in, say, the past five years?

Mr Lyons: I apologise to the House, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, because I do not have that information to hand, but I will be happy to provide it to the Member directly in writing.

Mr McMurray: Minister, do you believe that the social well-being aspect of licensed premises — both as community hubs and as more regulated spaces — should be prioritised ahead of cheap alcohol from supermarket off-licences?

Mr Lyons: That is important and should be taken into consideration when we look at the licensing regime.

Mr Gaston: Minister, in dealing with the licence acquisition process, paragraph 4.2 of the review report recounts multiple reports from interviewees, which are sufficient in number and diversity as to make it credible, that dealing with objections often involved, to put it in simple terms, paying off objectors with cash. Will the Minister undertake to investigate the allegations made in the report?

Mr Lyons: I am certainly happy to look at those allegations and get more information, if necessary. I will come back to the Member in writing, once that has been carried out.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. I take your point about the dangers of alcohol — I know about them all too well — but I hope that you will take my point that people are being ripped off in most places when they buy a pint or a glass of wine. That is connected to the surrender principle but also to naked profiteering.

What consideration have you given to Unite the union's Get Me Home Safely campaign, which places duties on employers that are connected to the granting of licences to ensure that staff — the 6,000 that you mentioned — get home safely, that taxis are paid for by employers and that there is zero tolerance of sexual harassment in the workplace. Are you open to supporting that campaign?

Mr Lyons: There is certainly no room for any harassment whatsoever of employees or anyone in any position. However, it is important that we look at the impacts of the decisions that we make here. If we were to bring in a regime that required businesses to pay for their staff's travel home, it would add significant costs to —. The Member shakes his head, but he has complained about the cost of drinks. Where does that cost come from? It comes from the fact that there are overheads, staffing costs and other issues. He is saying that cost should be added to —

Mr Carroll: Safety.

Mr Lyons: — which would put —.

Mr Carroll: Safety.

Mr Lyons: This is ridiculous stuff, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: No, you are ridiculous. [Inaudible.]

Mr Lyons: It is ridiculous stuff.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Lyons: You do not understand —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Lyons: You have no idea and no understanding —.

Mr Carroll: Its a question. Will you answer it?

Mr Lyons: It is a stupid question at that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Lyons: You have no idea whatsoever how business works —

Mr Carroll: You are a disgrace.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Lyons: — and you just expect that money will magically appear to do whatever it is that you think needs to be done.

Mr Carroll: Wind your neck in.

Mr Lyons: It is the Member who needs to wise up. I think that I have spent enough time answering his question.

Ms Bradshaw: I apologise that I missed the start of your statement, Minister. Yesterday, I raised with the Economy Minister the difficulty that independent businesses have in competing with multinationals. With regard to your statement, I am wondering about the multinational brewing businesses that have a stranglehold due to the surrender principle and their use of restrictive supply agreements, which the review referenced. Will you ask the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate the beer and pubs market here?

Mr Lyons: I certainly recognise that issue. It has been raised with me, and it is one of the reasons why we took seriously the recommendation that the provision of a guest tap, featuring a local producer's product, could be part of getting a licence. That would be very important for our local producers. We do not have the power to require pubs to provide a guest beer tap on their premises. However, I will refer that to the Department for the Economy and Invest NI. I would support such a move.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement. Members may take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Butler: 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. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mr Butler: I rise to propose the motion to the House. Whilst I welcome the sentiment behind the amendment, I fear that I may not be able to support it because at this point — we have a debate to come — it falls short of what our constituents expect of us, what our animal welfare organisations are pleading for and what our communities clearly need.

The amendment narrows the debate to one issue: penalties. It proposes that we:

That is not a strategy or a programme of reform. It is certainly not the comprehensive response that I believe that the people who have contacted me are looking for. It is, at best, a tiny slice of the answer. I will, however, listen to the debate to learn more about the amendment. The truth is that we cannot simply enforce our way out of the problem. Rather, we have to engage properly with the problem and be properly educated about it, and we are not properly regulating in 2025 if we are using legislation from 2002.

If Members think back to a couple of weeks ago, they will realise that it was a Halloween like no other. I know that because I was out with my own children during the celebrations, and there were extreme explosions in the urban area that I was in. The noise was disconcerting even for my children. The next day, my inbox, phone and social media were overwhelmed. I had never before witnessed the scale of concern from across Northern Ireland emanate from a Halloween celebration. The power, volume and frequency of fireworks set off in back gardens and on street corners was unlike anything that I had experienced before. Households that had never previously purchased fireworks suddenly seemed to have access to powerful, high-noise devices that, frankly, did not look or sound like the types of garden fireworks that are normally available. That is exactly why constituents have told me that they know that there is an issue. One lady who wrote to me after watching a video that I had posted on social media said:

Another person — a parent — wrote to me to say:

Many of us will have read the recent report in 'The Irish News' about Rosie, the much-loved dog from Ballyclare, whose owner said that she suffered a stroke that was brought on by sheer terror after a night of intense fireworks. The family described Rosie as shaking uncontrollably and panicking and said that she never recovered from the ordeal. Their vet confirmed that the stress that Rosie endured was consistent with the kind of anxiety-induced collapse that the family had witnessed. Those fireworks were therefore not a celebration but a harm.

We are certainly not trying to be the fun police. Fireworks used appropriately in the right environment can be something to enjoy, but we cannot ignore the inescapable truth, which is that their impact is real, widespread and, in many cases, severe.

Who is affected? The victims of the irresponsible use of unregulated fireworks are not a small or niche group. They include pets, especially cats and dogs, whose hearing is multiple times more sensitive than our own; farm animals, which are already stressed by unpredictable weather and farming pressures and can become agitated, leading to milk production going down and, at certain times of the year, dangers in pregnancies; wildlife, for which the bursts of light and noise are disorientating and sometimes fatal; older people, particularly those living alone, who experience fireworks as fear rather than as festivity; babies and young people, whose developing nervous systems are sensitive to loud, unexpected and, this year, concerted high noise levels; and people living with PTSD, including former or serving members of our security forces, for whom the sound of explosive bangs is not entertainment and could be re-traumatising. There are then, of course, our ordinary neighbours, who simply want peace in their home.

Those are not isolated incidents or rare events but predictable outcomes of a system that allows the widespread private use of powerful fireworks —.

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Yes, I will.

Mr Allen: Does the Member acknowledge that many of our young people are unaware of the dangers of fireworks and that, when they fall into their hands, their safety is jeopardised?

Mr Butler: I absolutely concur with the Member. That is one of the reasons that I am looking to hear more about the amendment. The legislation at the moment does not lean towards engagement and education, which is where, if we see change, the real benefits will materialise in the future.

The Explosives (Fireworks) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 are now 23 years old, which is older than many of the young people who are setting off fireworks. The regulations were written in a world in which the retail market was entirely different. Online sales were not a factor, cross-border flows were smaller and the range of available fireworks was much less powerful. Our legislation is being outpaced by how fireworks are being marketed, sold and used.

To those supporting the amendment, which says that fireworks regulation in Northern Ireland is:

I say that "robust" does not mean "effective", and it certainly does not mean "adequate". We have robust rules on paper, yet little public awareness of them; we have robust penalties, yet little enforcement of them; and we have robust licensing requirements, yet an explosion, literally, of unlicensed fireworks in our communities this year. A system that is robust but ineffective is not a system worth defending. The evidence is clear: the public want change.

A number of pet advocacy groups have contacted me. Dogs Trust commissioned a UK-wide YouGov poll in October 2025. The results for Northern Ireland could not be clearer: 95% of respondents want fireworks to be restricted to licensed displays; 93% want limits on dates and times; 83% say that fireworks have a negative impact on their lives due to their pets' distress; 83% want more regulation; 76% feel unsafe during private, unregulated displays; 70% support the sale of low-noise fireworks only; and 31% support a complete ban. When 95% of people in Northern Ireland agree on anything, the Assembly should sit up and listen.

Cats Protection also calls for restricting the use of fireworks to licensed public events at set times of the year; ensuring that local authorities consider the proximity of rehoming centres, farms and rescue centres; reducing the maximum permitted noise levels to 90 decibels; restricting online sales; and supporting alternative displays, such as drones and low-noise options. Arguably, those are practical, proportionate and enforceable measures for some, and they come from respected charities. They are not radical proposals, and they are not necessarily what we propose. What we are saying is that the call today is backed by animal advocacy groups and they are coming up with solutions.

The amendment focuses on punishment, whereas our motion calls for prevention, which is always a better strategy. We need a strategy that, first, engages with communities, retailers, young people and online platforms. We want to see a strategy that educates people about safe use, the law and the impact of fireworks on animals and vulnerable groups. We can then move to enforcement with targeted campaigns, better reporting mechanisms and intelligence-led policing. Right now, we do very little of the first two and little of the third.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate his tabling this important motion. I just want to get clarity. The motion calls specifically for a legislation review, but a lot of his comments have centred on education, a strategy and better enforcement. Which is it? Is the legislation not right, or is he looking for better practice in enforcing it?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for that point. The legislation should mandate education and engagement. My party colleagues —.

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

Mr Butler: I will not. I have only one minute left, Minister.

My two party colleagues will engage more on the legislative side and point out, perhaps, the flaws and shortfalls in that. I am building the public case for change, which is why we are here.

Right now, we have very little of the first two and little of the third, but we will get to the facts and figures of that afterwards. Prevention is always better than prosecution.

The motion asks for "an urgent and comprehensive review": nothing more but, certainly, nothing less. Our constituents expect leadership, not lip service; they want safety, not stress; and they want celebration, not chaos. As I said, the amendment, whilst well intentioned, diminishes the scope and ambition of what we need to do to achieve change, so I urge Members listening to the debate to support the motion.

Ms Egan: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Connie, you will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I propose the Alliance Party amendment to the motion on the misuse of fireworks across Northern Ireland and record our position on suitable and appropriate next steps to make real, tangible progress on the issue. I really welcome the chance to speak on the topic, on which many of my North Down constituents have written to me with concerns, particularly about animal welfare during the recent Halloween period.

To be clear, the illegal purchasing and use of fireworks can cause serious harm and create real danger not just for those igniting the fuse of those fireworks without the appropriate knowledge or safety equipment but for our wider communities. As the motion notes, the misuse of fireworks can lead to huge distress to:

It is so important that we strike the balance between those who enjoy fireworks safely and considerately and those who do not.

Fireworks, when licensed and used appropriately with notification, are meant to be about celebration and excitement and not about creating fear and anxiety. Too often, however, that is what we see in our communities. Our existing regulatory frameworks require display operators to have a licence when igniting fireworks. It does not matter whether the application is for residential use by a member of the public or for professional displays by community groups, councils or private venues: it is essential to have a licence for legal use in Northern Ireland. Those licences, where appropriate, can have conditions to notify neighbours and animal owners, including farmers, in advance of the use of fireworks to ensure responsible and considerate displays. The usage of fireworks becomes an issue when those processes and conditions are not adhered to. We saw that in particular at the end of October this year, when fireworks that were often procured without a licence were used unexpectedly in parks, gardens, alleys, residential streets and other places in our communities. Sudden and unpredicted loud noises can create great fear and challenge for those who are nearby. I think particularly of those with sensory processing issues, those with trauma and PTSD and, of course, beloved pets, who are often left terrified and panicked in their homes.

The licensing process for firework displays and the conditions that are set are the powers that we have as that intervention point and to prevent harms coming to people and animals. To note, Northern Ireland is the only region across these islands where that regulation is in place. The legal frameworks governing fireworks in our Explosive (Fireworks) Regulations 2002 are some of the most robust that exist. Given what we can control and set the direction for, there is no evidence to suggest that the issues that we seek to deal with lie within our existing legal frameworks. The Alliance amendment seeks to reflect that. Prioritising an extensive and urgent review of the regulations will not solve the problems at hand but will instead incur potentially lofty costs to the public purse in an already challenging financial landscape. Alliance believes that that approach is not the best use of our limited public funds. More important, it will not produce the results that everybody across the Chamber wants to see. Instead, we call on our Justice Minister to consider changes to the penalties available for the illegal use and sale of fireworks in the pending review of sentencing issues. That approach, which focuses on the enforcement of legislation, explores potentially different and harsher penalties than those that already exist.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Egan: Yes, I am happy to give way.

Mr Burrows: The Justice Minister is proposing a consultation on lowering the penalty for offences such as assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assault on police from a prosecution to a ticket. Are we really suggesting that we increase penalties for children who have fireworks while we give a ticket to someone who has assaulted someone else and left them with an injury?

Ms Egan: I thank the Member for his intervention. The Justice Minister has raised and addressed that point with you before. I will get back to the response that the Justice Minister gave to me when I raised it with her. However, I would like to make progress on the issue at hand.

The current licensing system supports the PSNI and other partners to identify unlicensed and illegal firework use. A review of the penalties in the sentencing review could better support and equip them to deal with misuse and create improved, long-lasting outcomes, effectively giving them better tools. With the time that we have left in the mandate and in the financial context, we believe that the pending sentencing review is the most appropriate vehicle through which to achieve progress. I welcome that Minister Long has already committed to that in a response to a question that I submitted this week. Alliance is committed to the fair and safe use of fireworks.

It is pertinent to state for clarity that noise limits for fireworks are a reserved matter for the UK Government, rather than being the responsibility of any devolved Department. Many people, including concerned North Down residents, have reached out to my office on the topic of noise as its relates to the regulation of fireworks and bangers, highlighting the distress caused to animals and the loss of local beloved pets due to the stress and vulnerability that it inflicts. Whilst, at a devolved level, we are restricted in what can be progressed regarding the noise of fireworks, specifically, my colleague Andrew Muir, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, is taking steps to engage on the animal welfare concerns.

Fireworks, when used legally and safely, can be exciting displays of celebration to mark special occasions, but the misuse of fireworks can present serious dangers and potential harm to animals, vulnerable individuals and communities, as well as those using them. The Alliance amendment sets out what, we believe, are the best and most tangible next steps to progress further minimalisation of the distress that fireworks can cause. I urge all in the Chamber —

Mr Allen: Will the Member give way?

Ms Egan: I am just wrapping up; thank you. I urge all in the Chamber to support the Alliance amendment and let us tackle the misuse of fireworks.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Deirdre Hargey. Deirdre, you have up to five minutes. Over to you.

Miss Hargey: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thanks to those who tabled the motion and the amendment. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue. It is an issue that affects many communities across the North, particularly at key times of the year, as has been outlined, so it is right that we look at the current system and the areas that are working and those that are not working.

Fireworks, when used responsibly, safely and in an organised way, can be a source of joy and can bring our communities together at different times of the year. Many of us will know the positive and inclusive atmosphere around Halloween events, for instance, community festivals and seasonal celebrations. I saw it recently over the Halloween period with Féile an Phobail in west Belfast, when we saw thousands of children, young people and adults dressed up for the Halloween festivities and going to the Falls Park in an organised way. The main event there was a fireworks display that the community in west Belfast put on. There are good examples of how such things can be organised in a controlled environment, where it can be done safely and, of course, where much of the community supports those activities.

Equally, there is another side to the story. That is the story of serious injuries, burns, lifelong scarring and trauma, as has been mentioned, which can be caused by fireworks, particularly when they are misused or obtained illegally. Every year, our emergency departments report cases that could have been avoided. We want to make sure that we avoid such incidents.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Miss Hargey: Yes, of course.

Mrs Long: Does the Member agree that it is encouraging that the Department of Health has stopped reporting the number of injuries due to fireworks? They have fallen to such a low level in the past number of years that the Department does not produce an annual report in the way that it used to.

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

Miss Hargey: Thank you. Yes, that is a welcome step. It shows that the more controlled events we have, the more we can look at health and safety, hold the events in a managed way and people can get enjoyment from them, if that is what they want.

We know that a section of our community — particularly older residents, children, maybe those with sensory needs and, of course, our beloved pets, which are part of the family — does not always take joy from fireworks. It can be distressing when fireworks are set off, particularly when it is not done in a controlled way and when due regard is not shown for how it might have an impact. We must always look at those issues.

We need a system that balances community celebration with the community safety aspects and supports well-run public displays, while cracking down on illegal supply, the antisocial behaviour that raises its head and, importantly, unsafe use. When we look at tackling the issues, whether through legislation or ongoing improvements in prevention and education, it is crucial that we do so in a coordinated way. That is one of the key issues. Are all of the agencies working in a coordinated fashion? Are they speaking to one another, particularly around prevention and not just when something goes wrong? That is important. We must always look at it from a preventative and proactive perspective rather than wait until something goes wrong. Of course, engagement with local communities is also key to getting a balance between all of the rights: how people can celebrate and how we mitigate the worst excesses.

A joined-up, cross-departmental approach is important for the agencies that need to be there. Of course, I agree that prevention is the best cure, but where there is a need for enforcement, that can be looked at in the forthcoming sentencing Bill, which would be a good way to provide clear guidance to tackle the issue. I welcome the debate, and I have listened intently. I look forward to hearing the rest of the speeches.

Mr Frew: I see merit in the motion and the amendment, and it is a pity that we cannot splurge the two together because, if the amendment passes, we lose something from the motion, but if the amendment is not made, we lose something by not having the amendment. It is a pity that the two cannot be splurged together. They are coterminous, because we need a comprehensive review of fireworks legislation to ensure that it provides the appropriate safeguards; promotes responsible celebration; and better protects the welfare of people, including veterans, and animals, including pets and wildlife; and, of course, victims of terrorism and antisocial behaviour. The comprehensive review may then feed into the pending sentencing Bill, and the two may be coterminous in some way. If the Minister and the Assembly have the will, it could be achievable in the not-too-distant future.

One thing I am sure of is that, when people are preyed on by antisocial behaviour, the use of fireworks takes it to a new level. When people are the victims of antisocial behaviour, they are traumatised, they cannot get a break, they cannot get a rest and they are worried in their homes, and if fireworks are fired at your property and, on some occasions, at your person, put through letter boxes or banged against windows when you are trying to sleep, it can have a devastating effect on people's lives. That is where we need to target any real change in sentencing.

We also have the issue of the overall control of licensed fireworks and how we can change behaviours and raise awareness of the potential damage that large-scale firework displays can have on people's pets. It amazes me that we always talk about pets, and the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA) say that 80% of pet owners report that pets were distressed or frightened as a result of fireworks. I suspect that figure is replicated for wildlife in the environment. For every display we have or bang that goes off, even if it is a domestic thing such as a family having a fireworks display, the wildlife could be devastated, and we do not know that that is taking place when we decide to have a fireworks display.

When I was growing up, we did not have fireworks displays. You had what was classified as indoor fireworks — these silly things coming out of sheets of paper — and that was all that we had when I was young. [Laughter.]

I am showing my age, Minister. I know you are laughing.

Mrs Long: That is because I remember them too.

Mr Frew: We have come a long way, and we are in a better and safer environment, where we can have controlled fireworks displays. However, that has a downside, too. This debate is relevant, because it is time to take stock.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to draw on a personal experience that happened 35 years ago. I was working on a newspaper, and we always worked late. I got home late one Halloween night — too late for the dog — and I was met by a terrified golden retriever that was shaking like a leaf. It had gouged big claw marks down the door frame and the door, and his front paws were cut to ribbons and he needed to visit the vet. That was before we had the powerful fireworks of today, so I have absolutely no doubt that the legislation needs to be changed. It is out of date. It is not only about pets but livestock, and not only livestock but horses —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Maurice. An intervention should be short. If you want to make a speech, there is stacks of room on the list to add you.

Mr Bradley: I apologise.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Please come and add your name to the list; I would be more than happy to add you. Please keep your interventions short. Mr Frew, you will get only an extra minute and no more.

Mr Frew: I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that merits a 10-minute extension for me.

The Member makes a valid point. Imagine that you are a veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and that you happen to have a pet for company. Imagine the devastation in that one household. Based on that alone, the matter merits consideration. We need to take stock of it and use the opportunities that come before the end of this Assembly term to change the law to protect the most vulnerable in society: people, pets and, of course, wildlife. We owe it to people and to society.

It is not about ruining anybody's fun. It is not about taking away fireworks displays, although the modifications to them that involve drones produce sophisticated displays that can be just as incredibly entertaining as fireworks going up. When I see a fireworks display, my first question on leaving it is always, "How much did that cost?". Drones that could be used year in, year out could be of great benefit with regard to financial constraints.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Could the Member bring his droning to an end, please?

Mr Frew: I will. I thought that I was getting an extra 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr McGlone: The SDLP welcomes and, indeed, supports the motion. The legislation that regulates the use of fireworks is almost a quarter of a century old and needs to be modernised. Every year, the same warnings are issued. The public are reminded that they need a licence to use fireworks and that it is an offence to buy, possess and use certain types of fireworks without a licence. Every year, however, a significant number of people ignore those warnings, and, every year, unnecessary injuries, stress and anxiety are caused by people using fireworks incorrectly. Fireworks are not toys, as we are repeatedly reminded: they are explosive devices.

We know that sudden, loud explosions from traditional fireworks can cause significant stress and anxiety for people, pets and wildlife. Animals will often experience intense panic. Dogs and cats may suffer heightened anxiety, disorientation and, in some of the more vicious cases, injuries. Wildlife is similarly affected. People with conditions such as PTSD, young people with autism and other neurodiverse people can experience heightened anxiety and panic during fireworks displays.

The Minister has said in response to questions for written answer that she is not considering a review of the legal framework for the buying and selling of fireworks here. She said that she has:

— that is the important bit that needs to be done — and:

Over 1,000 fireworks incidents were reported to the PSNI in each of the past four years, and almost 2,000 such incidents were reported in 2020, yet the PSNI does not appear to know whether the fireworks in those incidents were possessed legally. How can the legislation be enforced if that is not known?

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yes, certainly.

Mrs Long: Every firework incident that someone reports could be part of a licensed display or the result of somebody letting off a firework in their garden. The source of the noise that is heard will not necessarily be known, which is why the PSNI cannot verify on all occasions whether a firework was part of a licensed display. It is not about the regulations not working; it is simply about the verification of where the item was let off.

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

Mr McGlone: Thank you very much indeed. I thank the Minister for that clarification. It would be useful to know, however, how many cases were actively pursued by the police and in how many such cases the location was identified and the perpetrators, if they were perpetrators, were cautioned or the police took other measures.

In the Assembly last week, the Minister said that she was "not entirely sure" that a review of the legislation would be appropriate, given the limited resources available to the Department. At the same time, the Minister suggested that she might do something around penalties and enforcement, and we see that in the amendment today. That would, of course, require the PSNI to identify those in breach of the legislation, which is the very point that the Minister made. The Minister should look at strengthening penalties and enforcement for breaches of the firework legislation, if the evidence supports it. The best way to get that evidence would be to review the effectiveness of the legislation. However, that was, at least, a tacit acknowledgement by the Minister that the current regulations are not as effective or as robust as they should be.

The Minister has also claimed that the reduction in the number of firework licences being granted by the Department indicates that people are moving to other kinds of celebratory displays. The reality is that responsible, organised events, which might, in previous years, have involved traditional fireworks displays, are, increasingly, moving to safer methods of celebration, which is good. We have seen how those celebratory events attract young people and families, such as the one at the marina in Ballyronan, which is not that far from my home. Such celebrations better protect the welfare of people, animals and communities and demonstrate a better understanding of the responsibility of living in a shared environment. However, generally, it is not the responsible, organised events that cause the problems, as we well know. A reduction in the number of licences being granted could just as easily mean that, overall, fewer people are applying for those licences, not that more people are moving away from the use of fireworks.

The SDLP is certainly not calling for a complete ban on the sale of fireworks here, and neither is the motion. A review would ensure that the legislation provides appropriate safeguards, promotes responsible celebration and better protects the welfare of people, animals and communities. That is what we believe the public wants to see, and it is why we support the motion.

Mr Kingston: Like most dog owners, I had the experience of seeing my dog distressed by the sound of fireworks, particularly the loudest ones, a few weeks ago at Halloween. I am aware that fireworks can also be very distressing for elderly and vulnerable people. Therefore, we support calls for the Justice Minister to engage with the Government around the possibility of reducing maximum noise levels for all types of fireworks. It should be recognised that most fireworks displays are safe and well managed. They are a source of enjoyment and wonder, and they contribute to national, community and family events across the country. However, as others have said, fireworks can also be misused in manners that are dangerous, inconsiderate and malicious.

As my colleague referenced, a report by the USPCA in 2024 showed that 80% of pet owners said that their dogs had been distressed or frightened by fireworks. Every year, we hear heartbreaking stories of pets that run away and become lost after being frightened by fireworks. As well as looking at reducing noise levels, the Minister should consider an enhanced public awareness campaign that relates specifically to animals and pet owners and focuses on the Halloween and New Year periods.

The regulations for manufacturing fireworks, particularly in respect of maximum permitted noise levels, remain a UK Government competence, but, regrettably, successive Governments have ensured that Northern Ireland slavishly follows EU rules on the matter, which is a nonsense. We want to make it clear that if, at any stage, the UK Government bring forward proposals to increase protections against the negative impacts of fireworks, such changes must be applicable throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.

The licensing system in Northern Ireland, which is one of the most robust, makes it possible for authorities to identify illegal firework use and supply. However, the current system is not perfect. The Minister should consider further measures to tackle the illegal supply of fireworks. The main fireworks legislation here was created in 2002. It has not had any substantive reviews or changes in over 20 years. Legislation needs to keep pace with technological advancements and tackle the problems with enforcement in the modern day.

We thank the Ulster Unionist Party for tabling the motion. We will support it and the Alliance Party's amendment.

Mr Burrows: It is refreshing to again be talking about issues that are kitchen-table politics. Last night, the issue was the cost of living, and, today, it is one that affects our constituents up and down the length of our country. Pet owners and farmers in particular talk frequently about the impact on their animals when fireworks are set off. We need to listen to that loud and clear call from across communities. This is a cross-community issue that should unite us. Something needs to change fundamentally around fireworks legislation.

There are two key problems, if you want to distil them. One is that there is an unpredictability with fireworks. When are they going to go off? The other problem is the loud noise that they make. All the enforcement in the world will not change those two things; only fresh laws can.

Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way towards the end.

I want to outline some testimony that I have heard from pet owners. I have surveyed some people and asked them to give me their personal examples. In my constituency, Jeffrey, a giant rabbit, died of a stroke this Halloween. Buddy the dachshund is still missing in Northern Ireland after bolting when a rocket exploded without notice. A sighthound called Rosie had a fatal stroke after fireworks were set off. A red panda in Edinburgh, which was up a tree in a zoo, had a stroke when it heard a firework and fell down. Its orphaned baby died a few weeks later. This is serious stuff, and it needs to be taken seriously. We also have issues with livestock up and down the country. For what? To have bangs — unpredictable noises that people cannot manage — during the week of Halloween? That can be changed, but laws are needed.

I find it incongruous that the Alliance Party's amendment is about toughening up existing legislation for fireworks. As I said in my earlier intervention, that party — certainly the Justice Minister — has proposed a consultation on downgrading penalties for crimes such as burglary, fraud, antisocial behaviour and assault of police officers to a ticket.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will not give way at the moment. I will come back in a second.

Mrs Long: No, I am not surprised.

Mr Burrows: OK, thank you.

What sort of society do we live in when we want to throw a heavier book at those who have fireworks instead of changing the law, but give a slap on the wrist to those who assault our police officers —

Mrs Long: Nonsense.

Mr Burrows: — commit burglary or fraud —

Mrs Long: Nonsense.

Mr Burrows: — or who commit assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

Mrs Long: Nonsense.

Mr Burrows: The detail is in the consultation document that you issued.

Mrs Long: Nonsense.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way in a second. There is an incongruous thing there. The Alliance Party also proposes to reduce the age of criminal responsibility. There is, perhaps, merit in that, but many —.

Mrs Long: Any chance of the motion?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask the Member to concentrate on the issue of fireworks.

Mr Burrows: Yes, but this is about enforcement, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will come to that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Please do.

Mr Burrows: It is very difficult to enforce legislation when, outside of the main events, the people who have the bangers and fireworks that cause the problems are mostly children. They generally fall outside typical prosecutions and tend to get diversions and cautions. So, enforcement is not the answer. The answer is a change to the legislation that allows for noise reduction and specific time periods in which fireworks can be used

Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way in literally 30 seconds. That will allow pet owners to plan accordingly. I declare an interest — I am going to give way in 10 seconds — in that my dog, Nancy, suffers very significantly from anxiety. I see it myself: we cannot cope over the two weeks of Halloween because we do not know when the fireworks are going to go off.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. He made repeated references to noise levels of fireworks. Does he concede that we do not have jurisdiction over that in Northern Ireland because it is a reserved matter? We should not pretend to the public that a review will result in a change in that.

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

Mr Burrows: The point of the motion is to highlight the fact that this is a significant issue that we need to address. [Laughter.]

I know that some people find it funny, but many people up and down the country —. [Interruption.]

Allow me to speak. Many people up and down the country do not find it amusing. We need to impress on Westminster that there are issues and that we need support in order to address them. Fireworks here have got out of control. They are being set off right throughout the year, while the PSNI's resources are entirely stretched.

It therefore comes down to the enforcement point. Only this week, it has emerged that, on the issue of cybercrime, for one of the most dangerous predators that we have ever seen, the police did not have the resources to triage in order to deal with his phone quickly enough. It is being suggested that the police will drop things to do more enforcement of fireworks laws, but we need to live on planet reality. We need an acceptance right across the House —.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member is referring to an ombudsman's report and is doing so in a way that misrepresents its content. First, the actions that were looked at occurred between 2016 and 2019, when the PSNI was fully staffed. Secondly, the responsibility for resourcing within the PSNI and the allocation of resources is what was actually criticised in the ombudsman's report.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Minister has made her remarks for the record, and they will remain on the record. Mr Burrows, you do not get any extra time. You have 30 seconds left.

Mr Burrows: It is a matter of record that the PSNI could not get those things examined. There is a backlog of devices owned by people who were abusing children and by people who were involved in domestic violence. Anyone who thinks that the PSNI will drop all of that to deal with the enforcement of fireworks laws is wrong. The answer is to change the law, make representations to Westminster, deal with the noise and deal with the unpredictability of fireworks legislation. All that needs to be done for pet owners and farmers —

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

Mr Burrows: — up and down the country.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Maurice Bradley, I get to call you now.

Mr Bradley: I am not prepared for making a speech. [Laughter.]

Mrs Long: You do not have to, Maurice.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Speak.

Mr Bradley: I will find something. [Laughter.]

Apologies, folks.

I will start with the PSNI's response to an FOI request in 2019, which showed an upward trend in the offences of buying, possessing or using fireworks without a licence. In 2019-2020, there were over 1,400 incidents of antisocial behaviour involving fireworks, on top of a similar number of incidents the year before, and that is before we take under-reporting into account. My take is that the legislation, as Patsy McGlone said, is nearly a quarter of a century out of date. It was introduced to deal with a situation that is completely different from the situation now, considering the price and ferocity of fireworks today. The legislation therefore needs to be updated.

EU rules as they apply under the Windsor framework allow fireworks of up to 120 decibels. That is far too loud. In my day, the decibel limit was much lower: at least half of that. We also have to deal with antisocial behaviour of young people running around letting off fireworks in people's entries and at their front doors, which is a real nuisance. Again, most of that behaviour goes unreported. People just put up with it.

In an intervention earlier, I highlighted the effect of fireworks on pets. I can still vividly see what my pet went through that particular night. Its paws were stripped from gouging a door. It was unbelievable. Fireworks affect not just pets but livestock. When fireworks go off in a rural area, cattle will stampede. Horses in a field will stampede at great speed. Clydesdales will run through anything, and when it is dark, they cannot see where they are running. There is therefore a danger to farm animals as well. No offence, Minister, but the legislation is out of date.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for giving way. He makes some very valid points, particularly about the under-reporting of firework incidents. Much of the public have given up all hope of anything being done, so most incidents are not reported. He rightly talks about the need for a review of the legislation. Unfortunately, the Alliance amendment removes the call for a review of the legislation. Supporting the amendment would therefore rule out a review. Does he agree that the legislation should be looked at again?

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

Mr Bradley: I will not need it, but thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I agree with the Member, and I thank him for his intervention. I will be supporting the motion and not the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you to all Members who engaged in the debate.

My Department is the relevant authority in respect of explosives licensing, and it grants licences for the storage, possession, selling or legal use of fireworks. The setting of decibel noise limits on the fireworks available to consumers is a reserved matter and is the UK Government's responsibility as a trading standards issue. Whilst I cannot mandate low-noise fireworks, I can, nevertheless, promote and encourage their use in my communications, as I do, and ensure that information on them is available year round on nidirect. At the conclusion of the debate, I would be happy to raise that issue with ministerial colleagues in Westminster. Members should note, however, that they have, to date, refused to undertake a review of their fireworks licensing, which is much more lax than ours.

I recognise that, following a number of serious concerns being raised over the Halloween period, the current Northern Ireland fireworks licensing controls have been brought into focus, and questions have arisen over whether the regulations and controls are sufficient. Fireworks regulation in Northern Ireland is among the most robust and effective in the United Kingdom, and this is the only jurisdiction in the UK where a fireworks licence is required for members of the public and professional displays. Furthermore, display-type fireworks in Northern Ireland are limited to professional use, unlike in other jurisdictions.

Fireworks licences are issued by the Department only when it is safe to do so. They are restricted to one date, with an approved location and a list of fireworks appended, and will generally not be issued past 11.00 pm, with the exception of special occasions such as New Year's Eve. The purchase of fireworks online in NI is not lawful, as a licence for their use will not be granted. When you apply for a licence, you have to list in the schedule your supplier and the reference numbers for the fireworks that you intend to use, or you will not get a licence.

Fireworks are safely enjoyed by many through private and publicly organised events. I have always said that there is a balance to be struck between those who enjoy fireworks and those who do not. I am mindful of the number of businesses that rely on income from fireworks displays.

Under the current licensing arrangements, it is illegal for a registered or licensed retailer to sell fireworks to anyone under the age of 18 — making the discussions around the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) somewhat of a diversion — with the exception of sparklers, or to anyone who does not hold a valid fireworks licence issued by the Department of Justice.

There is an important distinction to be made between licensed displays, where the appropriate checks have been carried out, and fireworks that are sold and used illegally, which is, ultimately, a matter of enforcement. Illegal fireworks are unsafe, and users are unlikely to comply with the restrictions that are placed on a licensed display, such as noise abatement hours, unsafe locations and the use of display fireworks, which should be used only by trained professional display operators. Such behaviour is as reckless as it is antisocial, placing those who use such fireworks at risk of serious injury and causing distress to others, given the unpredictability of when they will be used. However, that must be balanced against the facts, and a number of Members raised the issue of the number of reported fireworks incidents. In 2020, 1,949 fireworks incidents were reported; in 2024, at year end,1,033 were reported; and up until 16 October, which precludes the Halloween period, 563 incidents were reported. On accidents involving fireworks resulting in injury, there was one in 2020 and one in 2025. That number rose to a peak in 2022 with four injuries.

The firearms and explosives branch in my Department processes applications all year round. Annually, the team generally receives over 500 applications for various types of events, with Halloween being the busiest time of year.

I am conscious of the impact that fireworks can have on the elderly, those with noise sensitivity and more vulnerable members of the community, including those with PTSD, as well as on domestic and wild animals and livestock. As a dog owner and animal lover, I am conscious of the unintentional impact that fireworks can have on animals, particularly where they are used unpredictably. For community events, a fireworks licence may be issued with a condition that local residents have to be informed in advance of the fireworks display to allow them to take such precautions as may be necessary. Again, licensed displays are appropriately checked, and, through advertisements, local residents are aware of when they will take place to enable them to take appropriate measures to mitigate distress to humans and animals who do not enjoy fireworks and find them distressing.

When it comes to calls for a public awareness campaign and an education campaign, each year, as Halloween approaches, I issue reminders to the public that it is an offence to buy or be in possession of fireworks without a valid licence and urge the public to comply with the law. I also advise that fireworks bought from illegal sources may not be safe and may result in prosecution. Through my messaging and reminders, I continue to ask the public to be considerate of others, especially vulnerable people and animals. I will also continue to promote low-noise fireworks, which are available to purchase. Making those simple changes could help make Halloween and other events more enjoyable and reduce the distress caused.

Mr Burrows: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: No. The Member did not offer me the courtesy when I asked.

I also note that other agencies, such as the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service, DAERA and local councils promoted similar Halloween firework safety messages via their social media platforms.

I encourage and will continue to encourage the public and councils to consider low-noise alternatives, such as drone displays, when celebrating seasonal events. I note, for example, that Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council held a low-noise display followed by a traditional fireworks display to provide options for those who enjoy fireworks with less noise.

I will now turn to enforcement. Some Members seem to be under the illusion that better legislation would solve the problem, but, of course, legislation is not worth the paper that it is written on unless it is enforced. Enforcement is, perhaps, the key to this, because the legislation is quite robust. My officials work closely with relevant agencies to ensure that fireworks licences are issued only when it is deemed safe to do so and that any concerns or breaches of the legislation are reported to PSNI. Since 2016 — I believe that it was Patsy McGlone who asked — over 1,000 prosecutions for possession of unlicensed fireworks have taken place, averaging around 100 per year by PSNI. The PSNI will also deal with other, less serious incidents by way of other disposals out of court.

My Department regularly arranges health and safety inspections of firework retailers and wholesalers and frequently checks records of sales to ensure compliance with the regulations on selling fireworks, because it can be cross-referenced with the fireworks licence to check that they were purchased and used as intended. My Department has also refused and revoked licences to store and sell fireworks on the ground of fitness.

I am focused on the safe and responsible use of fireworks. Information on fireworks safety and the availability of low-noise fireworks is available all year round on nidirect. The web page also has the application form and a list of registered retailers, as well as the fireworks helpline. We want to encourage and make it easy for the public to follow the law and obtain a fireworks licence along with everything that goes with it. The price for a licence remains unchanged at £30 for small private displays, and work is under way to bring that application process online.

There is no short-term solution to tackling antisocial behaviour that engages the use of fireworks. It requires concerted and sustained effort, and it is vital that the public play an active role in reporting any concerns regarding the misuse or illegal selling of fireworks or other fireworks infractions to PSNI so that the appropriate actions can be taken. Policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs), which are funded by my Department, and the Northern Ireland Policing Board play a key role in the Department's operational response to community safety concerns at a local level. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a key strategic priority for PCSPs, which engage with local communities, statutory agencies and the community and voluntary sector to develop planned, purposeful, structured interventions to address issues in each council area. They also support —

A Member: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will not at this point.

They also support partner messaging on social media, such as the PSNI Halloween safety campaign — another element of education.

Therefore, I am not currently considering either a review of the legal framework or a ban on fireworks. Members will be well aware of the limited resources available to my Department and the challenges that I have faced in ensuring that sufficient resourcing is available for critical public safety issues, including adequate support for front-line services. The Member for North Antrim raised the issue of the challenges that the police face from cybercrime, yet we spend this afternoon discussing fireworks. I cannot do everything, so I am prioritising the things that are most important, as you would expect me to. A full-scale review of the legislative framework would require me to take resources away from other parts of Justice to do that work. Reviewing regulations that already do many of the things that Members have called for would not be an effective use of my resources, and I continue to prioritise the areas that will make the biggest impact on public safety and access to justice within the constraints of my budget.

To the Members who insist that I launch a review, particularly the party that moved the motion today, I say this: what other part of the justice system should I defund and deprioritise in order to deliver this? Would you have me take resources away from front-line policing, child protection, victim services? Where is the resource to come from? We do not have it in the Department of Justice. Should we take it from Prison Service and reduce our opportunities to deal with reoffending? Furthermore, even an outright ban is not guaranteed to stop the misuse of fireworks and could, in fact, have unintended consequences, including a possible increase in the illegal sale of dangerous fireworks with greater potential to cause injury. For example, in Ireland, the sale of most fireworks to the public is illegal. Nevertheless, their use in recent public disorder indicates that they are still available illegally.

The current regulations provide a robust and effective framework that seeks to ensure that fireworks are sold and bought through a licensing system for responsible use. It aids partners, including PSNI, to identify unlicensed and illegal fireworks and bear down on that problem. The fact that we have seen a decrease in complaints evidences the fact that there has been some improvement. However, in recognition of the genuine public concern around the misuse of fireworks, I have instructed my officials to examine penalties and enforcement concerning the illegal use or sale of fireworks in the pending review of sentencing issues that we intend to launch before the end of the year. That will provide an opportunity to consider the associated penalties for breaching the existing regulations and may act as a further deterrent.

Mr Butler said at the beginning that he would not support the amendment because it falls short of what his constituents want, but I have in front of me the emails that were sent from the social media petition in this regard, and it says:

The first is:

Well, I cannot do that. I can write to colleagues in London, but it is a reserved matter, so I cannot do it. The second thing is:

We do; in fact, I am suggesting improving enforcement. The third thing is:

We do. We say where they can be used and when they can be used.

Mr Butler: You can change it.

Mrs Long: There is no point in changing it when the problem is those who do not measure their behaviour in line with the law. The problem that we have is illegal fireworks, and it is on those that we need to bear down. The licensing system is fit for purpose. It would be a diversion from enforcement of the licensing for us to spend money on this. [Interruption.]

The Member may well chunter and say, "No, of course, it wouldn't", but he does not sit on a daily basis and face the challenges that I face in managing my budget and my resources in a Department that has been drained of resources over 10 years. I have to prioritise carefully what I do in order that I have the most impact on public safety, and a review of what is already robust legislation will not make any difference to the people who breach it. What will matter is enforcement of it to ensure that it is taken seriously by everyone. That will bring about the safe and considerate use that, we all say, we want. I encourage people to support the amendment, because it is the most effective way to deliver what constituents have asked for.

Mr Mathison: I rise to wind on the Alliance amendment. In the main, there is an awful lot that we agree on in the Chamber on the issue. We all need to acknowledge that, and it would be a shame if something positive did not come through because of minor differences on the right way to approach things.

A lot of what people have been speaking about is the need for a better strategy for tackling the illegal use of fireworks, the need for better education, the need for engagement with PCSPs at local level and the need for the PSNI to take on proactive education programmes. There is a role for neighbourhood policing there. There is a lot of stuff that does not require legislation. We need to acknowledge that we probably agree on the vast majority of the issues being discussed.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Mathison: Briefly. I do not get any extra time, so I cannot guarantee that I will take any others.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that it is exactly when such things happen that we do not have the problems? I give an example of one Halloween in Coalisland when there was no fireworks display and £140,000 of damage was done. With investment from the PCSP and others, £5,000 was all it cost to put on a fireworks display, and not one penny of damage was done that Halloween.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for that intervention. That is exactly my point: local solutions would be far more effective than a costly review of legislation.

I thank the Members who tabled the motion. We may disagree on the right approach to deal with this, but we all agree that the irresponsible use and, particularly, the illegal use of fireworks causes huge distress and is a massive issue of animal welfare in particular.

I was keen to speak to the motion because I am the owner of a very anxious dog. Dexter came to us as a foster dog a number of years ago. On the first Halloween after we got Dexter, he escaped in absolute distress. I had a night that I do not want to repeat, running around the streets of Newtownards in the darkness trying to find a dog. Thankfully, he is white — he is a little West Highland terrier — which made it easier, as he stood out very obviously against the dark night. He was utterly distraught, and it has become worse year-on-year. It is so upsetting to see the distress that is caused by fireworks. To be clear, as an animal lover and a dog owner, I completely understand the concerns and have been contacted by constituents about them.

Illegal and irresponsible firework use can be problematic and distressing, but the key problems that have been highlighted are noise and illegal and antisocial use. The Minister has been clear that we do not have the legal power here to deal with the decibel levels of fireworks. Let us not pretend to the public that we can do something about that with a legislative review; let us focus on what we can do to tackle the irresponsible use of fireworks. That is where the review of sentencing provisions is relevant.

It is welcome that the Minister set out clearly the intentions to address the issue in the upcoming sentencing review by including penalties for the illegal use and sale of fireworks. That feels like the appropriate targeted and proportionate response. As I said, as a dog owner who fully understands the impact of fireworks and the distress that they cause, I am clear that a review of legislation would not reduce those noise levels or stop those who are engaged in antisocial behaviour at 2.00 am, setting off fireworks that they have acquired illegally. That, clearly, is a matter of enforcement.

Mr Butler: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will give way if I have time. Let me just finish some of my remarks.

The effective intervention in this space is much more likely to be tougher penalties that could result in more effective prosecutions.

I have referenced the local interventions that are likely to be relevant, such as neighbourhood police teams proactively engaging on the ground during October. All of us have a responsibility to engage with our local PSNI teams on those issues and to look at what PCSPs can do. Those creative local solutions have been referenced already, and I would like to see all of us in the Chamber getting around to constructively support them.

I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I will give way to Mr Butler, and then I will conclude my remarks.

Mr Butler: I will try to keep this brief. We did not mention a ban, but we suggested a review that would look at things such as notification requirements and zoning around areas such as animal sanctuaries. A review could, hopefully, pick such things out. We are trying to look at other areas and not just at taking draconian measures.

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

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member —

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: — for that intervention. I was going to say that some of the licensing provisions cover that, but the Minister can speak to that more effectively than I could.

Mrs Long: First, I will clarify that it is already possible to identify whether animal sanctuaries would be an appropriate location. There is also the opportunity to specify times, dates and all the other things. If people were to read the fireworks regulations, it would help to inform the debate.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention. I am conscious that I am running out of time.

I commend the Alliance amendment to the House. I think that we agree on more than we disagree on in the debate. Whatever comes out of the debate, it would be good if a clear message went out to people across Northern Ireland that the Assembly is united on this as a serious issue that causes real distress, that it is not inconsequential and that we should make a proportionate and effective response.

I will finish my remarks by saying, Mr Frew, that I recall indoor firework displays. They were the highlight of many's the Halloween in my granny's house in Monkstown, so thank you for reminding me of that.

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

I call Doug Beattie to make a winding-up speech. Doug, you have 10 minutes. Over to you.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will reflect on those indoor fireworks. I thought that they were absolutely fantastic, and they are still out there. You can still buy them, so, if any Members want a bit of nostalgia, they should get online and buy themselves a set of indoor fireworks. I remember speaking to some of my friends in England and telling them about that. They thought that I was joking when I told them that there were indoor fireworks. They could not believe it.

The motion is clear and simple: it is about future-proofing our legislation on the use of fireworks; nothing more. The argument that we have the most robust legislation on these islands, which is what it says in the amendment, is subjective, because Ireland has a near total ban on fireworks. The legislation covers well fireworks that are used correctly, including at organised events. The problem is the proliferation of fireworks and the misuse and illegal use of them, which is having a major impact. Things have changed in the past 20 years. That is just fact.

I will reflect on areas of the current legislation and examine the effectiveness that we talk about. The first thing that I have to be clear on is that we want everybody to adhere to the law on fireworks. The Minister summed it up really well: a lot of what we are talking about is illegal use of fireworks, which is a criminal justice issue. However, there are loopholes in there that we have to try to close. The age for purchase of fireworks is 18, but we all know that companies out there will sell fireworks to people who are under 18. They will not ask for proof of age or whether somebody has a licence. About an hour before the debate started, I checked that myself.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: Just let me get through my remarks a bit. In fact, go ahead.

Mrs Long: Without being rude, the Member does look considerably over 18. [Interruption.]

In fairness, if you sell fireworks to people who are under 18, that is one reason why you would be considered unfit to hold a fireworks sale licence, and that licence would be removed. There are cases where people were sold fireworks without having a certificate for a fireworks display, and those salespeople's licences were removed.

Mr Beattie: You are absolutely right, Minister, but here is part of the problem: those fireworks are not coming from within the United Kingdom or these islands; a lot of them are coming from international suppliers and shippers. We have a problem there.

Fireworks licensing — both year-round licensing and temporary licensing — is done by the Department of Justice. I think that there are around 500 permanent licences out there, give or take 50 or so, and I am not sure how many temporary licences are out there — I could not get a hold of those figures — yet the smuggling of fireworks across the border has increased, as have online sales. Fireworks are now far more available than they were 20 years ago. That is just a simple fact. Given that fact alone, the legislation should be reviewed. Indeed, as I have mentioned, many online sales go unchallenged.

The legislation also talks about a curfew on the use of fireworks, which is between 11.00 pm and 7.00 am, as it is for most things. That is pretty normal. However, some fireworks are sold as having added noise. That is how they are sold: with added noise. That is not like the continuous humming of machinery; it is loud bangs — added noise — of up to 120 decibels. That is well beyond what is acceptable at 11.00 pm for many people. The World Health Organization, for example, says that 85 decibels risks hearing damage, yet we have 120-decibel fireworks. I will touch on that in a minute. The Minister is right to say that we do not have a say in that, because it is not a devolved matter. We have sales periods from 15 October to 10 November and 12 December to 31 December, and for various cultural events, such as the Chinese New Year and Diwali. I think that sales begin two days before the start of each of those events and go on until just afterwards. However, there remains concern about year-round online sales that can circumvent those time periods.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: I will just get on, Minister, because you are probably going back to the exact same thing.

Mrs Long: I am not.

Mr Beattie: I will come to you if I have time, if you do not mind.

Northern Ireland follows the rules of the EU due to the Windsor framework, which means that it diverges from the UKCA marking. Indeed, it retains the EU laws that set the decibel limit at 120. How do you get round that? You do it by having rules that reduce the explosive content in fireworks and not letting other ones in. I think that, at present, the maximum here is 1·3 grams. If you made it 1 gram, you would reduce the decibel level. It is simple fact — simple maths. We can do that by saying that we do not allow fireworks to come in that have over 1 gram of explosive content. If you break the rules — for example, if you were to sell outside permitted periods without a licence — the penalties are pretty hefty already: up to six months' imprisonment and/or a £5,000 fine. We had one such case just last year in Bellaghy, where an individual was arrested for selling thousands of illegal fireworks. There has been no outcome of that — certainly not that I know of — but there was an arrest. We have had no bang to that particular issue. If you are under 18, possessing fireworks, throwing fireworks or breaching the fireworks curfew could get you a fine of up to £5,000. That is pretty hefty. I have seen far less for other offences. We all know that under-18s do it: we know that it happens this time of the year, and we know about antisocial behaviour. Yet, very few under-18s are arrested for possession of fireworks. Why? The police confiscate the fireworks and send the young people on their way. That is what they do, whether we believe it or not. They want to deal with things quickly and get the fireworks off the street.

I will give way to the Minister if she still wants to intervene.

Mrs Long: Imports and exports are, again, a reserved matter, so that is not something that we can control. However, we monitor imports, including where they are delivered to, in order to avoid things being brought either across the border or into Northern Ireland ports that do not meet our requirements. When it comes to trading standards, which govern the strength of the fireworks, the responsibility does not fall to us.

Mr Beattie: There are many things that we are talking about. If we review the legislation, we can try to close some of the loopholes. The problem with the Alliance Party's amendment is that all that it wants to do is increase the sentences. It does not want to review. I absolutely get what the Minister said about resources — I do not envy her — but the legislation needs to be reviewed because we need to see how things have changed in the past 20 years.

Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beattie: I will see whether I can give you a bit of time.

There are things that we can look at. I will just fire them out. Let us increase awareness of the misuse and the effect of fireworks. It is about education. Let us reduce the explosive content of fireworks and create low-noise options. We can do that. Let us have fireworks exclusion zones around hospitals, farms and animal rehoming centres. Let us ban for life any businesses from selling fireworks if they are caught selling outside dedicated times, selling to under-18s or importing illegally. Let us have a mandatory legal duty on all organisations that conduct fireworks displays to inform homes that may be affected.

I give way.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. I will be very brief. Much of what you have said has referenced how robust our regime is. Would we not, therefore, be better focusing on effective but cheaper local solutions to deal with issues as they arise?

Mr Beattie: First, you need to understand the problem. You cannot understand the problem unless you grab hold of the legislation and say, "I'm going to go through this. I'm going to review this. I'm going to see where the loopholes are". You are absolutely right: some solutions could be delivered at a local level, but some of them will need something else or something higher. Somebody might need something that closes a loophole that we identified because we reviewed the legislation.

Let us stop all fireworks in residential areas, unless they are licensed public displays. Let us reduce the curfew from 11.00 pm to 10.00 pm because of older people. Let us proactively tackle the antisocial behaviour that is linked to fireworks. Let us deal with the online sale of fireworks to give legal clarity. Let us review the legislation, as per the motion that was moved by my colleague Robbie Butler.

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the debate on the independent review of liquor licensing, the Minister for Communities dismissed my entirely reasonable question about Unite the union's Get me Home Safely campaign as a "stupid question". Leaving aside the arrogance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Standing Order 19(5) states:

Does the Minister's dismissal of my question mean a breach of Standing Orders? [Interruption.]

Have there been previous rulings against Ministers — I will not be shouted down — dismissing valid questions as "stupid questions"? Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We will refer your question to the Speaker's Office, and then we will refer back to you.

Ladies and gentlemen, take your ease while we switch over the top Table for the next item of business.

Mrs Dodds: 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. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mrs Dodds: In introducing the debate today, I am aware that this is a sensitive issue. A cancer diagnosis is life-altering for both the patient and their family. Life is changed in that instant of diagnosis. I know that the House will treat the debate with sensitivity and compassion. The motion is not meant to diminish the incredible work of the clinicians and all those who work to provide care and support for those on a cancer journey. We know that patients who are receiving cancer care feel well supported by staff, and I put on record our thanks for their incredible work. All that being said, in the hope that we will make diagnoses, treatment and outcomes better for cancer patients, we should not shy away from hard facts.

We all know that cancer does not wait. Every day, 28 people are diagnosed with cancer in Northern Ireland. While patients are waiting, they may lose curative options or become too sick to withstand treatment, and that is a harsh reality for too many. Cancer statistics in Northern Ireland are startling, but, in every statistic, there is a person — a mother, a daughter, a father, a son or grandparents — who are thrown into the scary world of cancer diagnosis and treatment. In the words of one woman who was diagnosed with cervical cancer and who campaigns here regularly, "cancer changes you".

As I open the debate, I want the House to hear about one woman's cancer journey. She is not a statistic but a wife and a mother of young children. She is 41 years old. In January this year, she had a mammogram, and all was clear. In June, she found a lump under her arm, had to wait to see her GP and was red-flagged on 5 July. In week eight of her journey, after multiple phone calls, she received an outpatient appointment and had a mammogram, ultrasound and biopsy. In week nine, on 28 August, she had a diagnosis of stage 2-3 cancer. In week 10, she received a CT and an MRI. In week 12, a PET scan confirmed a metastatic diagnosis: her cancer was now stage 4 and had spread to her lungs. In week 15, in October, she started treatment. She had to wait 112 days in total from her red-flag referral to treatment. The target set by the Department is 62 days.

That, unfortunately, is not the only story of its kind. It represents the devastating impact that delays to treatment can have. In the quarter to June 2025, 840 patients — more than two thirds — waited longer than 62 days to start treatment. For comparison, 69% of patients in England and 70% of patients in Scotland were seen within 62 days.

Our outcomes for two cancers are particularly startling. Of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in Northern Ireland, 31% will not survive one year after diagnosis. For patients with pancreatic cancer, outcomes are worrying, with the majority of patients being diagnosed at stage 4. Too many cancers are diagnosed late and through emergency admissions: 31·4% of stage 4 breast cancers are diagnosed via emergency admissions, and 56·7% of stage 4 lung cancers and 48·9% of stage 4 colorectal cancers are diagnosed too late.

I am conscious of the fact that cancer diagnoses in Northern Ireland are rising, but that is also the case in England and Scotland. Minister, I suggest that we are suffering from a long-term failure to plan for the predicted rise and that, as a consequence, the wait for diagnosis and treatment has become longer and the outcomes for patients poorer.

The 'British Medical Journal' records:

and advises:

It also records that, for 1,000 women with breast cancer, surgery delayed for four weeks would result in 10 additional deaths. An eight-week delay would equate to 20 additional deaths, and 12 weeks would see an additional 31 deaths. In light of the delay in regional breast cancer lists, Minister, and when it is crystallised in that way by clinicians who operate in the field, that is a serious issue.

Minister, your budget contains a ring-fenced budget of £215 million for waiting lists. The House needs to hear how that is being managed. How has the £85 million set aside for red-flag cases been allocated? What is being done to identify the patients most at risk due to long waits and to prioritise them for diagnosis and treatment? What transformation resource is being deployed in the trusts to support waiting-time recovery? How are trust chief executives being held to account for trust performance? We need to see every patient's cancer journey tracked and the most urgent cases prioritised. Is there an official in your Department who has responsibility for those things?

Of the rest of the £215 million, Minister, I know that £40 million was set aside for those who have been waiting for a procedure for more than four years. However, I have also been informed that £73·5 million has been taken away from waiting list initiatives and allocated to the deficit: is that accurate? The House deserves a straight answer on that important question. It is incredible that money designed to tackle the most appalling waiting lists could be used in that way. I say that with full acknowledgement that the Health budget is in significant difficulty. Taking £73·5 million away from waiting lists would be a serious breach with the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that you can clarify that for me, Minister, and that you will respond specifically to it in your remarks.

Cancer waiting times such as we have in Northern Ireland would not be tolerated in England, and they should not be tolerated here. Sadly, I sometimes think that we have become numbed by waiting lists; the difficulty in getting the right and timely diagnosis; and all the hurdles that health bureaucracy seems to put in our way. We need to see system improvements here.

Many patients whom I talk to are grateful for the care that they receive when they get into the system, but, as the debate shows, the real difficulty is with initial diagnosis and treatment. What is the plan, Minister? It would be morally indefensible to go on as we are. Will you complete a demand and capacity analysis so that money can be properly directed? Will you demand that trusts submit improvement plans for backlog clearance and show their plans to deal with future demand? Will you ensure that the long-term sustainability of cancer services is a priority on the agenda of the Health Department?

Everyone in the Chamber wants to see better services for cancer patients. Cancer can touch all our lives. However, too many people struggle to access services, and waiting lists are, as Mark Taylor suggested when he took up his new post, a national scandal. Minister, it is time for action and system reform.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. I call Philip McGuigan to move the amendment.

Mr McGuigan: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

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

I thank the Members opposite for tabling the motion. We had a similar discussion on cancer waiting times in May, but this is such an important issue that it is right that we keep a focus on it until such times as the shocking figures improve and cancer patients in the North get better outcomes.

The statistics and impacts for cancer patients in the North are truly shocking and are well outside clinically safe standards. I do not want to use all of my 10 minutes reeling off statistics, but some are worth highlighting. In the quarter from April to June 2025, 67% of patients waited longer than the desired 62 days to start treatment for cancer following an urgent GP referral for suspected cancer. That is two out of every three patients waiting longer than they should. While performance on the 31-days-to-treatment target appears better, I am mindful that that is 31 days not from diagnosis but from the decision to treat. More imaging, biopsies etc may need to be completed before a decision to treat is made, and it is important to understand whether there are additional delays at that point. In the quarter ending June 2025, 1,947 patients were seen by a breast cancer specialist following an urgent referral for suspected breast cancer in the Belfast, Northern and South Eastern Trusts. Of those, only 6·6 patients were seen within 14 days of their urgent referral for breast cancer. That is a truly shocking figure.

As I have said in similar debates, the statistics are shocking, but they account for real people: our friends and family members. The delays that those people face, either for diagnosis or treatment, impact directly on their outcomes, their quality of life and, indeed, their chances of survival. Whilst the information that we have available paints a dire picture, what we do not know might make it worse. For example, we do not know how much longer than 62 days patients ended up waiting for treatment. Additionally, the 62-day target measures red-flag referrals, but not all patients are diagnosed via that route. Some come through A&E; some come through screening; and others come through secondary care appointments. How long are they waiting for treatment, and why are they not counted?

Additional data is required, and further questions need to be asked. I completely concur with the questions that Diane has asked. The Minister may not be able to provide answers this evening, but, further to those questions, I ask whether the size of the backlog in each trust for each speciality could be published, as well as the average and longest waiting time. I also want to ask whether a region- and trust-specific demand/capacity analysis has been done in order to understand the extent of the problem.

With regard to the amendment, we feel that, while tackling capacity and reforming elective care are essential to addressing the waiting times crisis, we must also fully harness the potential for cross-border cancer care collaboration. Doing so can expand access to clinical trials, strengthen diagnostic capacity, enhance research quality and innovation and create more integrated treatment pathways, all of which can contribute directly to improved patient outcomes and survival rates.

The Good Friday Agreement recognised that cancer is a shared challenge. The memorandum of understanding on cancer research and cancer care between the North, the South and the US National Cancer Institute, which was agreed a year after the signing of the agreement, has led not only to greater and more impactful collaboration on the quantity and quality of research outputs but to over 40,000 patients being involved in cancer clinical trials, potentially saving thousands of lives. Building on that consortium, the All-Island Cancer Research Institute has brought together 10 universities on the island of Ireland to work together to develop a framework for cancer research and share expertise across the island.

Given our small population, the case for working collaboratively on an all-Ireland basis is clear. Many clinical trials require large numbers of eligible patients, so that is particularly important for people with rare cancers. Joint infrastructure reduces duplication, cuts costs and allows for the more effective use of resources. Shared training opportunities and access to specialist expertise could strengthen capacity across the system. We have already seen the success of cross-border radiotherapy provision in the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin Hospital, where patients from Donegal have been receiving timely treatment close to home. Access to life-saving healthcare should not be determined by the boundaries of the system; patients should be able to access their closest facility.

I commend Cancer Research and all the other cancer organisations for their ongoing efforts to highlight the impact of delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment. As I said, it is important to remember, in this debate and in all debates, that the figures that we are discussing are not just statistics but equate to real people whose lives are placed at greater risk because our system is failing to treat cancer with the urgency that it demands. Any delay in diagnosis or treatment has the potential to impact on physical and mental health. We are acutely aware of the importance of catching and treating cancer earlier in order to improve outcomes. Awareness-raising campaigns that encourage us all to be alert to early indications of certain types of cancer have been effective, and opportunities for screening people without symptoms continue to grow. There is no doubt that they have helped to save lives, so it is important that they are followed up with timely intervention.

We are now into the third year of a 10-year cancer strategy. Progress is happening, but it is nowhere near fast enough. We need to see the Minister building on the recommendations in that strategy, which has a key role in improving diagnostics, treatment options and, ultimately, patient outcomes.

We also need to see the publication of the cancer research strategy. In his response, the Minister will hopefully advise us on where that is at. We need a dynamic, responsive cancer research strategy. It is essential if we are to reverse the trends that we are confronted with today.

It is important that the issues identified in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report about the condition of imaging equipment, including MRI and CT scanners, be fully resolved. Reliable, modern imaging systems are a critical component of any effective diagnostic pathway.

Where improvements in reducing waiting times are being made, however, they should be acknowledged. Progress is being made as a result of the rapid diagnostic centre and the mega-clinics. I welcome the additional £10 million that has been allocated to mega-clinics and the commitment to invest in red-flag and time-critical services, in capacity building and in clearing the backlog. There is still a long way to go, however, and patients cannot continue to be failed.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. It is important that we keep our eye on the issue. When the waiting list statistics for cancer come out every quarter, it is often important to raise them in the Chamber and in the Health Committee. We will support the motion and the amendment. I think that we all agree that waiting times are a national shame, and that is no better evidenced than through the impact that they have on the lives of individuals. It is very important to highlight, as Members who have spoken previously did, the hard work that health service workers do and the compassion that they show to those who have been diagnosed with cancer and to those who are waiting on a diagnosis. Treatment is essential, but so is research, and I pay tribute to the many hard-working individuals who have the innovative skills to work in what is a difficult climate in Northern Ireland. They are competing with the rest of the world to ensure that Northern Ireland has a firm footing in clinical trials now and into the future.

We have a target here of at least 98% of patients who are diagnosed with cancer receiving their first definitive treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat. In the quarter from April until June of this year, only 87% of patients began their treatment within that 31-day period. The 31-day period is not the only significant target. Where a patient has suspected cancer, we also have the 62-day target from referral by a GP to beginning their first definitive treatment. Only 32% of patients began their treatment within that period. England and Scotland sit at 67% and 69% respectively, so it is evident that we are falling behind, and that is not acceptable. As if that were not concerning enough on its own, Cancer Research UK highlights the fact that we do not know the true scale of the problem, because the statistics from the Department of Health do not tell us how many patients are waiting beyond the 62-day period, nor do they tell us exactly how many patients are still waiting.

An issue that we have raised many times in the Chamber concerns the impact that the roll-out of Encompass has had on statistical analysis. We often wait for the publication of statistics from many trusts, only to hear that there are issues with the roll-out of the system. I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide us with an update on when we can expect all trusts to have completed the full roll-out of Encompass so that we no longer have to wait to receive the full statistics. Although we are talking about the importance of collecting and analysing data so that we in the Assembly can then scrutinise it, data is also important for clinicians and academics who work in the field of research. As members of the Health Committee, my colleagues and I have been approached by many organisations about the use of secondary data and what they can do to process it. Often, they cannot get their hands on it. I appreciate that there are privacy and confidentiality issues involved in data sharing, and I also appreciate that there are issues with sharing data with external providers, but I hope that we can move towards having a system through which data can be shared appropriately in order to enable and encourage that innovation.

We all know the impact that delays in receiving treatment can have on cancer patients. The proposer of the motion spoke about her constituent's breast cancer referral, and many of us in the Chamber will share the sense of sadness and frustration, knowing the impact that that can have on someone's private and family life. We need to get to a position in which those who are waiting receive communication, because we all understand that the health service is under pressure. However, when you are waiting for a yes or no diagnosis and do not know what your future looks like, silence is worse than waiting. It is important that we up our game when it comes to communication.

I also want to focus on research. The Minister, in responding to the previous motion on waiting lists, which was in May, focused on the progress that we have made, and it is important for all of us across the Chamber to point to the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin Hospital, the Shared Island Fund being its main promoter. It is important that the amendment focuses on cross-border collaboration, which is why we will support it, because health does not know borders. We must also pay tribute to the Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, which works with Queen's University and Cancer Research UK. Without those people and the clinicians doing that work, we would not have the better outcomes for clinicians and medical practitioners to deliver treatment.

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

Mr Chambers: Few issues that are brought before the House carry the same priority or urgency as cancer care. Cancer is a disease that can thrive in a vacuum. That is why every possible step should be taken to stamp down on avoidable delays in diagnosis. As has been said, every postponed treatment represents not just a statistic but a person, so it is for them that we must approach this discussion with the seriousness and focus that it deserves.

I acknowledge the work that is under way not just in the Department but across the senior clinical leadership on not just sustaining but improving cancer services. The cancer strategy is something that every Member should get behind. No matter where patients may live in Northern Ireland, they should have equitable and timely access to world-class cancer referral, diagnosis, treatment and person-centred care. That is not an aspiration; it is a necessity. As has so often been discussed in the Chamber, however, we must also be honest with ourselves. The gap between the strategy's ambition and the available resources is significant. The strategy anticipated recurring funding approaching £55 million by year 4 and rising further over the decade. Today, the Minister is working with just over £10 million. It is a credit to our healthcare staff that good progress has been made in such trying circumstances.

Cancer waiting times in particular must be addressed with a renewed sense of urgency. The Minister has often acknowledged, and will likely and rightly do so again today, that too many people are waiting beyond the targets and far beyond what any of us would be willing to tolerate. Whilst that is undoubtedly the case, it is important that we look at the broader data. Thankfully, our outcomes suggest that, on the whole, patients still receive the high quality of care and treatments that they require. That is important for us to emphasise, because patients and their families deserve encouragement and hope. Of course, every delay is one too many, not least because early treatment saves lives, as does early diagnosis. Removing avoidable delays can literally save lives.

I very much welcome the elective care framework and the implementation plan that has directed substantial funding of £85 million into red-flag and time-critical care. That is evidence of a system that is trying within its constraints to do what is right. The targeted investments in endoscopy, diagnostics, systemic anti-cancer therapy and cancer nursing capacity are all steps in the right direction. As the most recent published reports show, those focused investments are beginning to have a real impact. Waiting lists for endoscopy have been reduced dramatically. Rapid diagnostic centres (RDCs) are streamlining care for patients whose symptoms do not point clearly to one cancer type but whose need for swift assessment is no less urgent. The expansion of CT and MRI capacity, not just at the RDCs but at other acute sites, is also helping to reduce some of the longest waits on record.

There was a decision earlier this year to move to a regional breast assessment list. Whilst it was never going to be easy, it was still the right thing to do. Waiting times for breast assessment, which rightly concerned us at the end of the summer, are now beginning to show significant improvement. Importantly, the new approach has ended the wholly intolerable postcode lottery for patients, including for my constituents in the South Eastern Trust area, who had previously faced some of the longest waits.

The motion understandably references the cancer research strategy. The idea was to publish it earlier this year, but, as the Minister has rightly said, he wanted much more than a plan for a plan's sake, so it was the right thing to do to take time to get it right and, importantly, to gain support from the wider research community.

This is an important debate on an important issue. Progress is being made, but we can all see that there is still much to do. I place on record our appreciation and thanks to all the medical staff who provide care and comfort to people who are suffering from this insidious disease.

Ms McLaughlin: I speak to today's motion with a deep sense of empathy for every family across the North who has faced the fear, the uncertainty and the anguish that a cancer diagnosis brings. I am thinking, in particular, of one family who just got bad news yesterday. Behind every statistic in the debate is a person who is waiting for news, family and friends who are pacing corridors and communities that are holding their breath, and it is for them that the Assembly must act with urgency and unity.

The motion outlines what we already know to be true: our waiting times are unacceptable and are costing lives.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. It is obviously a very emotional issue for you, given the news that you have just heard. We in the SDLP are fully behind the motion and want to see the elimination of delays when it comes to accessing cancer services, and fundamental to that is the adoption of an all-island approach. Just last week, a constituent of mine, Fergal Sherry, bravely went on BBC radio and told the story of his wife Catherine contracting cancer and getting the diagnosis and how they told their three young sons. It was blood cancer, and the treatment that was necessary was chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. The Minister knows all about that. The family was forced to travel to London to get access to treatment, and it would have been so much easier if the treatment had been available in Dublin. We have pressed the Minister on multiple occasions on how an all-island approach to cancer care must be adopted. That would be better for everybody involved.

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

Ms McLaughlin: Only around one third of patients who are urgently referred with suspected cancer begin treatment within the 62-day target. For breast cancer, in the most recent quarter, just 6·6% of urgent referrals were seen within 14 days. Since regional transformation of the services has taken place, the Western Trust referrals waiting list time has increased quite significantly, which is devastating news for my constituents. We have the lowest one-year survival rates for ovarian and pancreatic cancer anywhere on these islands. Those delays mean later diagnosis, more invasive treatment, poor outcomes and, tragically, lives lost that could have been saved. We cannot allow that to continue.

While we confront the scale of the problem, we must also acknowledge that solutions exist, if we choose to grasp them. Cancer does not recognise borders, and neither should the response. Each day, people from Derry, Fermanagh and Newry go across the border, into the Republic, for treatment, and they do so because they cannot wait and because cooperation works. We have already seen the success of the North West Cancer Centre. It is truly first in its class. It treats patients from Donegal and demonstrates that shared services improve outcomes for everyone. We should be expanding that collaborative model, including through shared diagnostic capacity, cross-border workforce planning and joint investment in specialist services, and we should be fully utilising the EU-UK pathways that still allow structured health cooperation on this island.

When the nearest radiologist, the fastest diagnostic slot or the most appropriate surgeon is 20 minutes across the border, the question should never be: is this jurisdictionally tidy?

The question should be, "Is this in the best interest of the patient?", because patients deserve a system that meets them with compassion, not complexity.

To the Minister I say that the cancer strategy sets the right direction but, without sustained funding, workforce planning and radical reform of diagnostic services, it will remain a plan on a page. We need rapid diagnostic centres operating at full capacity, meaningful investment in imaging and a real strategy for recruitment and retention, including cooperation with our neighbours, who face many of the same challenges. This is not at all an attack on the Minister, because we know that he works under a constrained budget, but we need the culture in the Executive to reflect the desire for meaningful change for the better.

Colleagues, cancer is a disease that demands urgency. The studies tell us that a four-week delay in treatment increases the risk of death by up to 8%. Every additional week is a week too long. It is our task to meet this moment with empathy, ambition and partnership North/South and east-west. The people we serve deserve nothing less. I support the motion and the amendment.

Ms Flynn: I also welcome the chance to speak on this important issue. As has been said, cancer impacts on every one of us, those in the Chamber and the families that we represent in our constituencies. I reiterate that cancer waiting times are not an abstract policy issue; they are sleepless nights and anxious weeks, while patients and their loved ones are left wondering whether they will live or die.

Nuala talked about the silence when people are waiting and the unknown future. I am sorry to see Sinéad get upset from whatever she is going through at the moment. When we last debated the issue of cancer in the Assembly, in late May or early June, I was unable to take part in the debate because my mother was just going through a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. I get that it is personal to every one of us in one way or another. It also is for all the families and individuals whom we represent. It is a very current, raw and difficult issue to deal with and even to talk about.

Thanks to the DUP for tabling the motion in the first instance. Hopefully, the amendment will get some cross-party support as well, to make some improvements. Across the North, we are simply not seeing people quickly enough, although many families are lucky enough to receive the gold-standard, life-saving care and make it through to the other side. People are grateful for that. However, Diane spoke about one of her constituents, and, sadly, we are not catching everyone. There are still people waiting outside those timelines, where their diagnosis and treatment should have started much more quickly. That might have saved their lives.

The international evidence has been mentioned. Even a four-week delay in treatment can increase the risk of death by between 6% and 8%. In the breakdown of the numbers that Diane provided, every one of those figures represents someone who has lost their life who potentially might not have been in that situation. It was powerful just to listen to that breakdown. That is what we are dealing with.

I will bring us back to my constituency, West Belfast. We have held meetings on something more specific: the screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) in particular and the vaccinations. All of us try to give that plug to every one of our constituents. Where vaccines are available that can help prevent cancers or pick them up earlier, please get them. It is the right thing to do. Then, hopefully, you will not be in that situation at the other end of the health service where you are requiring treatment to treat your cancer.

In the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, the HPV uptake for girls sits at only 72%. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that 90% of 15-year-olds should have received that vaccination. There are ways in which we are falling behind. We could be getting more people vaccinated and screened at an earlier point, and that would mean that they were not coming into the system with the diagnosis of cancer further down the line. I will push that vaccine and promote it in West Belfast to try to get an increase in uptake.

We know that the prevention stuff alone will not fix the problem. We need to put in place a series of measures. My party's amendment speaks about an all-island approach. There was discussion about that at last week's meeting of the North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association here in Stormont; Linda might give us a bit of an update on that. The all-island stuff speaks for itself: if it is the right thing to do, let us do it. If it will save a life, let us do it. Philip mentioned some of the good practice in the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin. If we can build on any of that, please let us do that. I know that it is not just as simple as that and that it all takes funding, collaboration and hard work, but, hopefully, following the debate on today's motion, we can move closer to that point.

Ms Forsythe: Sadly, cancer touches the lives of most people in Northern Ireland in some form. One in two of us will have cancer in our lifetime.

Cancer services are essential. There are many amazing healthcare staff and voluntary and community sector organisations that provide a range of care and support. The excellent work that is going on does not, however, hide the fact that we must see transformation in cancer outcomes and stabilisation in cancer waiting times. The people who are waiting for cancer referrals and treatment are people we know, anxiously waiting for answers and clarity on what is happening to their body.

The issues span a wide range. We do not have a high enough awareness of various types of cancers and their symptoms, of what to look out for or of what screening is available. Our motion highlights the fact that, in Northern Ireland, we have the lowest one-year pancreatic and ovarian cancer survival rate in the UK, which is horrifying. A former colleague of mine, Stephen McCormick, recently lost his wife, Julie, to ovarian cancer. Ever since then, he has campaigned tirelessly, in memory of his Julie, to raise awareness among others of the symptoms. Often, as with many women's health issues, the concerns are not well known, and the issues are cast aside, put down to other things and not taken seriously. It is so important to raise awareness in order to help to increase early detection and to improve outcomes for patients. It is truly horrifying that 31% of women in Northern Ireland who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer will not survive a year.

Awareness of breast cancer is also somewhat lacking. As screening is not in place in the NHS for women until they are 50, it is a common misconception that it is a disease of older women. That is completely wrong, and awareness of how to check for lumps needs to be increased. My colleague Joanne Bunting MLA has spoken out strongly and shared her experience to raise awareness and encourage women to check. A neighbour of mine, in my constituency, Natalie Charleton, spoke out so bravely about her experiences this year. As a young mum of two in her mid-30s, she had a shock breast cancer diagnosis this year, resulting in surgery and treatment. Natalie has been a huge factor in raising awareness of breast cancer in the Mournes area. She had the Action Cancer Big Bus out to Ballymartin today, such is her dedication to raising awareness and helping others. She is truly inspiring.

We hear so many stories of individuals raising awareness through their experiences and of local charities from throughout the voluntary and community sector providing many of the services and support. That is all so welcome, but we need to see more from our central Department of Health in leading the way.

As well as increasing awareness, we need to acknowledge some of the barriers to accessing GPs in Northern Ireland, which the Audit Office has reported on. We have a live inquiry in the Public Accounts Committee in which there has been huge public interest. People cannot access their GP to raise their concerns and symptoms. They cannot get into the system to begin with to even get a diagnosis or an initial referral. Some will give up trying to get that appointment, and those who do face further delays.

As Diane Dodds outlined, the Department of Health has set a target that at least 95% of patients with an urgent referral for suspicion of cancer must start treatment within 62 days. That 62-days-to-treatment target has never been met, and performance continues to decline. That is terrible. Constituents regularly get in touch with me in absolute despair about that. A four-week delay in cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality, and every four-week delay in surgery results in a 6% to 8% increased risk of death. The numbers are horrific. As it has been said, they are not just numbers; they are people's lives. They are people whom we know and love. Sometimes, they are even ourselves.

Northern Ireland lags behind other nations. Are we now so numb to such shocking statistics that they pass us by, or have we decided that that is just the way it is? Too many patients wait too long for diagnosis and treatment. The Assembly must do better. We need to hear answers from the Minister on how he will proceed.

Northern Ireland needs cancer waiting times stabilisation and a recovery plan that learns from what other regions of the United Kingdom have done to turn this around. Everyone in the Chamber will be united in wanting all cancer patients in Northern Ireland to have the highest quality of treatment and outcomes. Cancer services in Northern Ireland need to improve. People deserve better.

Mr Donnelly: In 2008, the Department of Health set a target that 95% of patients must begin treatment within 62 days of an urgent GP referral for suspected cancer. In June 2008, we were close, achieving an 88% compliance rate. By June 2025, that figure had collapsed to just 33%. In 2008, the target was that 100% of breast cancer patients would be seen within 14 days following an urgent referral. In June 2008, it was delivered for 99% of patients. By December 2024, that promise was broken for the majority of patients, with only 30% being seen within the target time. We have heard of the risks of delayed diagnosis. Those are not just statistics but stark evidence of almost 20 years of systemic failure. The people who are affected are our friends, family members and neighbours. Recently, I spoke to a constituent who is a young mum. She had been red-flagged by her GP and told that she would have a 10-week wait for an urgent breast assessment. Imagine the stress of that 10 weeks, knowing that the target is two weeks.

Often, we hear the phrase, "Change does not happen overnight", but neither does that kind of neglect and dilapidation. It is a pattern of continually losing sight of real priorities. The evidence is unambiguous. The question now is not whether the system is failing but what we intend to do about it. What we need now is focus — focus on early diagnosis, focus on shortening treatment waits, focus on building the workforce that we require and focus on ensuring that investment is aligned with need.

Delivering better cancer outcomes is achievable. Embracing an all-Ireland approach offers the opportunity to improve the availability of services. Recently, I attended the North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association plenary session, where one of the topics under discussion was cross-border cancer care. We heard that, while our regions operate distinct systems, our progress and challenges in cancer care are strikingly similar. Crucially, cross-border collaboration is not a theory but a proven model. Existing successes, including the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin, radiotherapy sharing, joint research and integrated care pathways, demonstrate that cooperation is a feasible and essential path to building resilient cancer services for all citizens on this island. Previously, we heard in the Chamber about the sad death of young mum Catherine Sherry, who was severely immunocompromised, after travelling to London for treatment that is available in Dublin. Reports of the All-Island Cancer Research Institute and a cancer summit endorse the plan, highlighting the unique potential to leverage health data to save lives, drive innovation and become a global leader in oncology research.

We must seize opportunities that allow us to move away from the two decades of failure and give us the chance to provide better services, better outcomes and a system that the people of Northern Ireland can rely on in their time of need. That must go hand in hand with addressing the dignity of survivors. We must also ensure that a person who has survived cancer is not discriminated against by other systems. I refer specifically to the right to be forgotten, which was highlighted recently at the all-party group on cancer, chaired by Stewart Dickson. That principle ensures that cancer survivors can return to a productive life without facing financial discrimination just because they have been through a serious illness. Research suggests that that should be after five years.

There is so much work to be done to restore faith in our systems and deliver for those who have faced or are facing cancer. We need to start somewhere. This is our opportunity to stop managing decline and start building something that works.

Mr Dickson: As chair of the all-party group on cancer, and as a cancer survivor, I welcome the debate this evening. For all our political differences in this place, cancer is not a party political issue; it is about people. People are waiting, worried and often afraid to ask how long they can afford to wait. Today, I ask that the political will of the Chamber be brought to bear on the Minister and the Department. Whatever it takes — north, south, east or west — cancer simply cannot wait.

I have brought people who are affected by cancer to the Assembly, including Isla Gear from Scotland, who presented her pancreatic cancer petition in memory of her late brother, and a constituent of mine whose niece has terminal brain cancer. Time is everything. Evidence shows that, for many cancers, a delay of just four weeks in starting treatment increases the risk of death by 6% to 8%. Behind every percentage point in those statistics are lives shortened, families changed and opportunities for cure lost. Shamefully, Northern Ireland has one of the worst cancer waiting times in the United Kingdom. We are not diagnosing quickly enough, and we are not treating soon enough. Cancer Research UK estimates that, between July 2024 and June 2025, for red-flag referrals alone, which account for one third of cancer cases, 35,000 people in Northern Ireland did not start their treatment on time. With regards to targets, we do not really know the true scale of the backlog, or, more importantly, the human cost. That is simply unacceptable.

Cancer also remains the largest killer by disease of children and young people in Northern Ireland. Our one-year survival rates are also the lowest in the United Kingdom for pancreatic and ovarian cancers. The proportion of people diagnosed at an early stage has not improved for over 10 years. For too many families, the tragic fact is that the first certainty that they get is that it is already too late.

Our clinicians work tirelessly. I can certainly attest to that, having seen the nurses, doctors and oncologists who looked after me. However, they are operating in a system that was built for a population that no longer exists. There are many bottlenecks because of imaging and endoscopy capacity and overstretched pathology services. There are serious gaps in our workforce, including in oncology, radiology and specialist nursing.

Many of our imaging systems are, quite simply, clapped out. Sixteen per cent of scanners are already obsolete, and that number is rising. Some of the machines that are diagnosing cancer today in Northern Ireland have been in service since before some of our doctors left secondary school. The Department allocates only £3 million a year for equipment, even though there is a real need for replacement, the cost of which is somewhere near £25 million. That is not just an inefficiency; it is unsafe and unfair. We also hear about the postponed Northern Ireland imaging academy being a permanent solution, but there is no confirmation, no funding and no timetable. Without investment in scanners, training and workforce development, we cannot fix waiting times. All of that must be treated as a core part of our cancer strategy rather than as an afterthought.

There has been progress. The opening of rapid diagnostic centres at Whiteabbey Hospital and South Tyrone Hospital are welcome. The new regional breast cancer service, which pools resources across trusts, shows how joined-up care can work, but pilots and patches to the system cannot repair it; it is in firefighting rather than delivery mode. Cancer Research UK is clear that improvement is possible. With a focus on clinical safety, in addition to a whole-system approach that stabilises services and strategic investment in capacity, the situation can be turned around. A coordinated path with clear governance and realistic future funding is essential. Ultimately, the Health Minister must commit to substantial improvement to overall cancer waiting times and put in place a road map to achieve that.

Cancer cannot wait. The situation is fixable if the Minister has the will to fix it and the Assembly and Executive are behind him in delivering that. It is time for us all to stand up to cancer.

Mr Carroll: I acknowledge the significance of Members' speeches. I pay tribute to Sinéad, and I wish her friend or family member the best. I am glad to hear that Órlaithí's mother has received good news. Although I do not know him, it would also be remiss of me not to mention Ernie Irvine from Fermanagh, who was on the front page of 'The Irish News' today. He was forced to wait for 50 hours in Altnagelvin Hospital's ED at the weekend, despite his having cancer. That is completely unacceptable. Our best wishes go to him also.

Our cancer waiting times, as Members have said, are by far the worst across these islands, and they are getting worse by the day. Prevention, early diagnosis and fast treatment are life-saving measures and are literally a matter of life and death, as Members have indicated. The longer that people wait for a diagnosis and for treatment, the more that opportunities for treatment are missed. The 'British Medical Journal' estimates that a four-week delay results in a 6% to 8% increased risk of death. Not to be dramatic or flippant about it, but that can be a death sentence for so many people.

Cancer Research tells us that, in the past year, 3,500 people with a red-flag referral did not get their treatment on time. Members have already said that, but it is worth repeating that shocking statistic. Those are people with the most serious and urgent cases of suspected cancer, and the 62-day target from referral to first treatment has never been met in full since it was introduced in 2008. Right now, less than a third of patients in the North are being treated within 62 days. In England and Scotland, around 70% are being treated, so we are way behind.

Missing the 62-day target is just the tip of the iceberg, as that includes only GP red-flag referrals. It does not include screening, non-urgent referrals or emergency department presentations, so we do not have access to some very basic but important information, including on how long people are waiting from diagnosis to treatment.

I was made aware of the case of a man who was red-flagged for prostate cancer in January. He started his treatment only this month, in November, and it seems that he will now need treatment for a year. How different would his outcome be had he been treated in time? At the bare minimum, the Department should regularly publish more comprehensive data on waiting times — I do not know anyone who could disagree with that — as well as the disaggregated data on children, young people and women within broader cancer statistics. That is crucial in order to understand the reasons behind delays and what is being done to fix them.

Children and young people also need to be mentioned in the debate, given that 125 children and young people, all under the age of 25, are diagnosed with cancer each year in the North. Young Lives Vs Cancer reports that most young people do not tend to wait a long time from diagnosis to treatment, but there are significant delays in their even getting a diagnosis after first presenting to health services. Too many children and young people, and, indeed, people of all ages, face an uphill battle for their health concerns to be treated seriously enough for them to get a referral or a diagnosis. Too many cancers are diagnosed in an emergency setting, and only 42% of people diagnosed with cancer in emergency departments survive beyond a year. They should obviously not be diagnosed there.

We need quicker access to high-quality cancer services and a better experience of diagnosis. We need wrap-around support for people who are facing a cancer diagnosis, including counselling and access to mental health services, as well as financial support. The cost of practical but essential things such as travel and accommodation should never be a barrier to getting cancer treatment, but, unfortunately, it is. Children and young people travel around twice as far and spend twice as much as older adults with cancer, with there being just one principal treatment centre in the North, which is in Belfast. Only 8% of families receive support with their travel costs. That is simply not good enough and puts additional strain on low-income families, who are already dealing with a devastating cancer diagnosis.

Cancer affects us all, rich or poor, but the burden is not distributed evenly. Shockingly, death rates from cancer are 60% higher for people living in the most deprived areas. That is certainly the case in the UK, and it is probably the case across these islands. There are 78 extra cancer deaths as a result of deprivation each and every day. Nobody should face a greater risk of death from cancer simply because of where they live. We therefore need the Department to work with local communities to prevent the causes of cancer and to spot signs at the earliest possible stages. Interventions such as smoking-cessation clinics and targeted lung-screening programmes will help, but, ultimately, we need to deal with health inequalities and the gross wealth inequality to which the Minister has alluded. Action needs to be taken to eliminate health inequalities and treat cancer.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before we move on, I pay tribute to those who, in the course of their work representing others, shared their experiences and, indeed, their feelings during the debate. I call the Minister of Health to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I begin by echoing your sentiments of thanks to all Members who have spoken, but particularly those who shared highly personal experiences. I often say that all healthcare is personal, but that is particularly so when it comes to such a condition as cancer.

I am heartened, because I get a sense that nobody thinks that the health and social care workforce is anything other than fully focused, committed and dedicated to doing better on timely outcomes. However, let me cut to the chase: it always comes back to funding. We have a cancer strategy, and since the 2024-25 financial year, £10·6 million has been invested, recurrently, into the implementation of that strategy. That is not an insignificant sum of money, but it is when one considers that the strategy funding plan assumed a recurrent investment of £55·7 million by year 4 and of £145 million by year 10, the final year. Therefore, gently, I say this to Members: if you accept the validity of the strategy, and you support it, can you accept that the budget for Health should be based on objective need and not on a crude percentage of the Executive pot? There is a significant gap in available funding, and that stands up against what is required to ensure the implementation of the strategy. It is simply not possible to deliver all the activity that is envisaged under the strategy with the £10·6 million that is allocated. I have said on the record that this area, along with other key areas of health and social care, requires substantial additional investment. Mr Dickson mentioned some of the capital costs for machinery. Some of that machinery is really creaking; in fact, one machine, in a very important area, needs replaced urgently.

In that context, of course I acknowledge that cancer patients are waiting far too long. Nobody in the Department takes that lightly. The performance on waiting times is clearly unacceptable. I will not rehearse the figures; many Members have. Starting treatment within a targeted time frame from diagnosis is so important in delivering the best outcomes and increasing the likelihood of a successful treatment. Yes, I want to reduce waiting times across the system, and I want to embed the changes that will lead to those better outcomes. As part of that, a revised elective care framework (ECF) was published in May of last year. It set out a five-year road map to reduce waiting times. If fully funded, the actions will help close the demand-capacity gap and tackle the long waiting lists.

In line with the Programme for Government, the Executive earmarked funding in the Department's 2025-26 budget to support waiting list activities. Mrs Dodds mentioned the breakdown. I will get into more detail on that. She said that the Executive ring-fenced £215 million. In fact, if you check the paperwork, particularly that coming out of the Department of Finance, you will see that it was "up to" £215 million. It was broken down into three pots: £85 million for red-flag and urgent cases; £80 million to build capacity; and £50 million to tackle the waiting lists. Only that £50 million was new: the other money was ring-fenced. The Department of Finance made it clear from the get-go that the £80 million for building capacity was not ring-fenced and that the Department would look at alternative uses for it if we did not feel that we could spend it in a timely manner in this financial year, or if there was something even more significant to be done. The significant thing, as the Member will know, is the existing gap, which we have brought down from £600 million to a lot lower. However, I still have a real concern that we will not balance the budget by 31 March. She is right to say that over £70 million of that £80 million is going against the deficit.

The elective care framework implementation plan, which was published in May of this year, details how the money will be spent. There is £85 million for red-flag cancer. That funding is not new, as I said, and it has to be redirected from other areas of healthcare.

The ECF plan describes a combination of measures to tackle our waiting lists, including maximising the existing infrastructure, the expansion of core capacity in a range of specialties and partnership working with the independent sector. Notably, there has been investment in cancer services. To answer Mrs Dodd's question, £13 million has been devoted to endoscopy, and that should resource sessions to cover all uncommissioned sessions by March 2026, followed by subsequent expansion into evening and weekend working thereafter. Some £12 million has gone on diagnostics, which will potentially deliver continuous multi-annual expansion of CT and MRI sessions until March 2029. Multiple specialties, including urology, breast, dermatology and gynaecology, will receive investment to reduce waiting times for red-flag and time-critical patients.

Systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) funding will close the long-standing 20% gap against haematology and oncology stabilisation plans and support improved performance against the 62-day target. We are also increasing the number of cancer nurse specialists (CNSs), and those posts are absolutely essential to supporting patients and ensuring that every individual receives expert guidance and continuity of care throughout their journey. Recognising the need to make services more accessible, we are funding the expansion of phlebotomy hubs across Northern Ireland to allow patients to receive essential blood work closer to home, help reduce pressure on cancer centres and streamline access to SACT clinics. In this financial year, £1 million has been allocated to the third sector for a new cancer charity grant scheme.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister for giving way. I very much appreciate his comment about the improvement and the additional number of cancer nurse specialists who will come online. While I appreciate that the Department is funding those posts, does the Minister recognise that, without support from charitable sector organisations, such as Action Cancer and the Friends of the Cancer Centre at Belfast City Hospital, we would not have as many CNSs as we do?

Mr Nesbitt: I absolutely recognise that. It is not just nurses but the entire gamut of work provided by the charities. I was in Enniskillen for the opening of Cancer Focus's new drop-in centre, which has proved at least as successful as it had imagined. When I was first briefed about the centre, I thought, "Are they being ambitious?". No, they were not. Cancer Focus knew its market. Cancer charities know their market, whom they serve and what they need.

Since April of this year, more than 122,000 red-flag or time-critical patients have been seen, diagnosed or treated across the trusts and through partnerships with the independent sector. On the basis of current plans, the figure is expected to rise to around 226,725 patients. It demonstrates the scale and ambition of our response to ensuring quicker access for those requiring time-critical care. It does not solve the problem, but a quarter of a million patients is something to be acknowledged.

Earlier this year, as Members will know, we moved to the regional list for breast assessment. I believe now, as much as I did at the time, that it was the right thing to do. However, it is about doing two things: first, removing the postcode lottery, where, depending on which trust you reported to, there was a significant variation in waiting times; and, secondly, getting the waiting lists down across Northern Ireland. Through further focus and prioritisation, additional breast assessment clinics last month delivered 374 appointments. That saw the waiting times on the regional list reduce from the high of 10 weeks, which was absolutely unacceptable, to a less unacceptable seven weeks and two days. That was on 7 November of this year. We have gone quite rapidly from 10 weeks to 7 weeks and two days. As long as we continue that journey, I will remain convinced that the regional list was the right thing to do.

Reducing the waiting lists demands long-term, collective responses from across government. It requires sustained and substantial investment through multi-year budgets, workforce development and system-wide transformation. Work has been taken forward under the elective care framework to reform and improve the efficiency of Health and Social Care (HSC) here. Notable progress related to cancer includes the regional endoscopy centres established as part of the wider reform. They play a significant role in tackling lengthy waiting times. Focused work in that area is delivering results. In August, waiting lists were 62% lower, which represents 24,410 fewer patients than were on them at their peak. Patients also benefit from that regional service. They can undergo their diagnostic endoscopy procedures sooner than in their local trust. Those centres have carried out 17,025 procedures since their inception.

Members mentioned the two rapid diagnostic centres delivering a streamlined regional vague symptom pathway for patients with complex, non-specific symptoms who would not otherwise be eligible for a red-flag referral. I have visited both the RDCs. Within hours of checking in, you will have your diagnosis and your result. If the result is bad news, you will immediately be put on a pathway. The RDCs have created additional CT and MRI imaging capacity. In this financial year, that is expected to provide an additional 8,973 CT scans and 4,913 MRI scans, targeting patients who have been waiting longest following red-flag and urgent referrals.

I have visited the mega-clinics, and they are really efficient. They are a key component of transformation. They offer significant benefits to the HSC, alleviating pressures across the system by targeting large cohorts of patients in a one-stop shop. When I went to see one earlier this year, people who had been on a waiting list for a long time were coming in. They were validated, and, if they still needed the procedure, they were put on a list to be seen — at the Mater Hospital, as it happened — within a couple of weeks. Those are really efficient, transformative procedures, but we need to continue to be proactive. We need to be ambitious in delivering the equitable, resilient cancer services that our people deserve. By the way, mega-clinics have maximised patient input: they saw 22,866 patients between January 2021 and September of this year.

Transformation is key: it is happening, but we have a long way to go. In that context, early prevention and detection are more important than ever, and our aim is to improve the health and well-being of our citizens while reducing the pressures that our Health and Social Care services face. That is especially true of rare cancers, such as pancreatic and ovarian cancer, because the symptoms are non-specific, often appearing only in the advanced stages, when the cancer has spread. Early detection is crucial for survival as it increases treatment options and leads to better patient outcomes. The Public Health Agency works closely with the Department, trusts and other partners to support a range of activities to raise awareness of cancer symptoms and routes to earlier diagnosis. I accept, however, that we no longer spend money on paid advertising. The effect of that is certainly questionable, and, at times, I wonder whether it is a false economy.

In my remaining time, I will touch on the cancer research strategic framework. Members have said that it is overdue. I accept that it is a day late, but it is not a dollar shy. It was delayed because, when I was presented with the draft for publication, which would then have been in a timely manner, I was made aware that key stakeholders were not happy. I did not see the point of publishing a strategy that the key stakeholders could not properly buy into, so we have done a lot of work on it. Officials have done a lot of work with the key stakeholders — you will know people such as Mark Lawlor and Cancer Research UK — and I am told that they are now broadly happy and are willing to endorse it. We will publish the cancer research strategic framework on Thursday.

I will finish on one other thing. Mr McNulty mentioned CAR T-cell treatment in the Republic of Ireland. That treatment is available in the Republic of Ireland but not to us. We have asked, and we were told that they have no capacity for us. By developing the new haematology ward at the City Hospital, we will have that capacity before the Republic can build it, so let us not keep talking about —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, your time is up.

Mr Nesbitt: — Dublin as an option this year.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Linda Dillon to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you very much. I thank the Minister for his remarks, and I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I honestly think that we could talk about the issue for 50 minutes and still not cover what has been said in the Chamber today. However, everything that we have heard confirms what we already know, which is that cancer waiting times in the North are no longer just a performance issue; they are a patient safety emergency. Delays here cost people life-saving treatment. They cost lives.

We are now the worst-performing region on these islands for cancer waiting times, and that gap is widening. That is a result of more than a decade of chronic underfunding by the British Government, combined with a deliberate political project to run health services down and push more care into the private sector. We have been left carrying the consequences of decisions that were not made here, by people here or for people here.

I turn specifically to the price that women pay, because that is where the delay becomes especially dangerous. Survival rates in the North for ovarian cancer are among the worst on these islands. Ovarian cancer is often diagnosed late, and survival drops sharply with every week of delay. Breast cancer waiting times, which we have already referenced, have deteriorated even in the absence of rising demand. Women are being diagnosed later and treated later, and, far too often, the window of curative treatment is narrowing when it does not need to.

I attended the North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association meeting last Friday, and one of the plenary sessions focused on cancer services North and South. The presentations were outstanding. The speakers talked about the research and the work that has gone on, but we need to understand whether that research is being used. I am hopeful that we will see really good stuff in the strategy. Is it being used to direct where we put the resources that, as the Minister rightly points out, are limited? Are they being put where they need to be? Are those resources being used in the best possible way to ensure that we save as many lives as we can with the limited resources that we have?

We also had presentations from the North West Cancer Centre. They said that they had the staff and the people ready to go and could provide stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) to prostate and lung cancer patients in the North West Cancer Centre, but they are currently the only radiotherapy department not providing that on these islands. We need to understand why that is and why we cannot look at that seriously.

Mr Carroll made a comment in relation to the distance that children have to travel. As a rural representative, I absolutely, hand on heart, feel for anyone who has to travel for treatment, but, in those presentations, we were told by the national cancer control programme that combining four centres for children into one has had outstanding consequences for improved treatment and outcomes for children. It is about getting those children access and making sure that they are comfortably brought to where they need to be and kept where they need to be, if that is necessary, with family members.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with that. Does she agree that there is a lack of financial support for rural families and children and young people who are being forced to travel? That gap really needs to be closed, and the Minister needs to address that point as well.

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

Mrs Dillon: Thank you. I absolutely agree with the Member. That is my next point. I want to highlight the rural dimension. For women and men in rural communities, including Mid Ulster, the system is even harder to navigate, with longer travel, limited public transport and fewer diagnostic hubs all contributing to later presentation and poorer outcomes. That is exactly why cross-border cancer care is not an optional extra but a necessity.

The evidence is already clear. Cooperation through the North/South US National Cancer Institute partnership has delivered major benefits from shared trials and training to Altnagelvin's cross-border cancer centre, which is now European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) accredited. An all-island approach can expand access to clinical trials, accelerate diagnosis, share specialist capacity and attract major investment through initiatives, such as the proposed all-island oncology innovation cluster. Rural patients should not have worse chances simply because of where they live. Strengthening cross-border links ensures that they can access the right care in the right place, including services just across the border in Donegal or Dublin.

The Department has spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the Encompass system across the North.

That level of investment must deliver more than new IT infrastructure; it must deliver real-world improvements for patients. That means integrating primary care, including GP care, into Encompass so that we have a single, accurate view of every patient's journey. Without that, we cannot track patients properly, identify the highest-risk cases or manage backlogs safely.

Encompass should already be giving us live information on delays, diagnostics, treatment stages and bottlenecks. If we are not seeing that yet, we need answers on when we will and why we are not. Transparency and real-time data — many Members have referred to the data — are the only way to protect patient safety and rebuild trust. It is not just about collecting data but about how we use it to achieve real-life improvements for people. Turnaround requires robust tracking of every patient, active prioritisation of those who are at the highest risk and firm accountability in each trust. That type of management is standard elsewhere, and it must become the standard here. That will only happen, however, with transparency, urgency and political will.

I want to say to Sinéad McLaughlin that we are thinking of you and your family, and we sincerely hope that you will have the best possible outcome. I will give you a quick example. When I was 19 years old, I discovered a lump on a Sunday night; I saw my GP on the Monday morning; I was in Daisy Hill Hospital on the Wednesday; and I had the lump removed on the Friday. My mother, who never went to hospital, although she worked in the health service all her life, repeatedly went to her GP and the ED, but she died of stomach cancer, because she was not diagnosed until a nurse told her to sit in an emergency department until she saw the consultant who she needed to see. That is the difference that we can make if we get this right.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. I call Alan Robinson to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank everyone who spoke in the debate. Many spoke of their personal experience. As I have said many times, we always value that because it breathes life into what can, sometimes, be stale debates in the Chamber. I also thank the Health Minister for his input. We all recognise that he has an incredibly challenging and difficult role, and we should not lose sight of that. I certainly will not stand here and try to play politics with such an important topic. I do not think that anyone has done that this evening.

Every day in this Province, 28 people get the news that none of us ever wants to hear: that they have cancer. Cancer is the leading cause of death here, even greater than heart disease, and we are in one hell of a battle against time. Our health system must work in the most efficient way, but the evidence is that we are simply not diagnosing or treating it quickly enough. In treating cancer, timing really matters. Indeed, we are the worst in the UK in that regard, and the gap is widening. That is certainly not a record that any of us want to crow about.

As was mentioned, the latest figures, which were published in October for the quarter ending June 2025, show that, of those who a GP referred urgently with suspected cancer, only 32·5% began treatment within 62 days. That figure is far below the target of at least 95%. It is a scandal. As others also mentioned, only one third of patients were treated within the 62-day period. In Scotland, the figure stands at 69·9%, and, in England, it is 69·1%. It is worth repeating the fact that two thirds of those urgent patients were waiting beyond what is judged to be acceptable. It is wholly unacceptable that all trusts missed that target. Indeed, they were the third-worst figures since 2008. Those patients include people with blood cancer and breast cancer. Worse still, almost nine out of 10 people with lower gastrointestinal (GI) cancers waited more than 62 days to start treatment. It is also worth highlighting that the Department does not publish the numbers of people who waited beyond that 62-day period or the length of time that they had to wait to be treated. The Minister needs to publish regular- and long-wait data.

Turning to survival and treatment outcomes, figures for the period 2012 to 2016 show that the one-year net survival rate after a cancer diagnosis stood at approximately 73% and that the five-year net survival rate was 57%. It would be interesting to access the most recent figures. For some cancers, the position was more bleak. For instance, pancreatic cancer in Northern Ireland had a one-year survival rate of just 25·9% and a five-year survival rate of 6·2%. A major international benchmarking study found that cancer patients in Northern Ireland received less chemotherapy over a five-year period than cancer patients in comparable countries. In Norway, the percentage was 39·1%; in Canada, it was 38·5%; and in Australia, it was 42·1%. In Northern Ireland, the wait to start chemotherapy was, on average, 57 days versus 48 days in England and 39 days in Norway. That study highlights unfortunate missed opportunities for patients in the UK to receive life-prolonging treatment.

Furthermore, the proportion of patients being diagnosed at the latest stage is troubling. Between 2018 and 2022, the rate of diagnosis of pancreatic cancer at stage 4 was 51·2% in Northern Ireland. As has been said, international research shows that a delay of four weeks in starting cancer treatment can increase the risk of death by between 6% and 8%. All that paints a really poor picture of patients waiting far too long, and it proves that outcomes are unacceptable when compared with all other nations.

Given how far we are from the target of 95% of urgent referrals beginning treatment within 62 days, the Minister and his Department must focus on clearing those backlogs, and the patients who are most at risk must be given priority. He should set incremental but firm milestones — for example, reaching 50%, then 65% and then 80% — and report publicly each quarter. I am not one who favours a plan on top of another plan; we have seen much of that in the past. However, we do need a cancer waiting stabilisation recovery plan that learns from what other regions of the UK have done to turn things around. Regardless of whether you call it a waiting list turnaround programme or something else, we must do better. Everyone in the Chamber is united in wanting all cancer patients to have the highest quality of treatment and outcomes. Every week that a patient waits is a week in which their prognosis worsens and translates into real consequences. Sometimes, those consequences are deadly. Northern Ireland's performance is not just lacking: in some respects, it is among the worst in comparable jurisdictions, which is simply unacceptable for our people.

Again, this is not in any way an attack on you, Minister. All of us in this House want to support you, but we cannot shy away from holding you and the Department to account when the statistics before us remain so stubbornly poor. As I said, studies show that even a four-week delay in starting cancer treatment can increase the risk of death by between 6% and 8%. Four weeks may seem a short time in policy discussions, but, to a patient who is waiting for chemotherapy, surgery or radiotherapy, it is an eternity. It can be the difference between a cure and, sadly, palliative care.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Declan Kearney to raise the matter of the urgency of delivering the Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health. Declan, you have up to 15 minutes.

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

The North has the highest incidence of mental health illness on these islands. That reality stems from a number of factors: the legacy of our conflict; high levels of poverty; and other socio-economic factors. The provision of high-quality mental health care, however, is a critical priority for our community. The main mental health care facility for the Northern Health and Social Care Trust area is currently based at Holywell Hospital in Antrim town in my South Antrim constituency.

Earlier this year, during a visit to the site, it was absolutely clear from the outset that that 19th-century built environment is now totally unfit to serve as a modern mental health care facility. The conditions in which the staff are managing everyday care for patients are now untenable. Despite the deep passion and commitment of all staff members, Holywell is no longer a medical centre that is conducive to the delivery of good mental health care provision. It was absolutely shocking to see how the facilities are rapidly deteriorating. Walls throughout are literally crumbling in plain sight. Some buildings are literally sinking into the ground and are being held in place by external supports. During sustained rainfall, buckets are required to gather water that is leaking through ceilings. The serious physical dilapidation throughout the hospital makes it a depressing and repressive environment for staff and patients. The social and recreation space that is available to patients and their visitors can only appropriately be described as oppressive. The facilities are not fit for purpose. Frankly, they owe more to the Victorian era. They do not meet the standard for a modern-day mental health care setting for patients. It is an absolutely unacceptable working environment for nurses, doctors and other clinicians.

Unsurprisingly, there is an enormous and constant drain on recurrent funding to meet the cost of the ongoing repairs, and that is just to stand still. That makes no economic sense when the premises are clearly beyond physical redemption. The Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health, which is proposed to be built on the Antrim Area Hospital site, was approved in a Northern Trust outline business case in 2020. It was granted planning permission in 2024. The new complex would centralise the trust's inpatient mental health services in state-of-the-art, purpose-built accommodation. It would replace the current provision at Holywell Hospital and at the Ross Thomson unit at Causeway Hospital.

The Birch Hill plan sets out a strategic vision that is aimed at optimising patient assessment, treatment and recovery. That ambition was formulated through a comprehensive process of co-design and with the unique and exceptional compassion of the mental health management and staff in the Northern Trust. Their commitment to achieving something new, whilst doing their best to provide high-quality care in the intolerable existing conditions, is inspirational. The Birch Hill Centre is about securing a proper standard of care and support for patients and carers into the future. It is essential in order to provide staff with the capacity to maximise the standards of therapeutic care that they want to deliver.

I have previously recorded my concerns with the Minister of Health through questions for written answer and correspondence.

Regrettably, the responses to date have lacked the clarification needed to provide reassurance to the staff, patients, carers and families who depend on the implementation of the Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health.

The care facilities at Holywell Hospital are now at breaking point. The status quo is unsustainable. Urgent decisions are needed. I welcome the Minister's presence, and, this evening, I again appeal to him to do two things: first, to expedite approval of the required funding; and, secondly, to confirm a clear time frame that allows the construction of the Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health to proceed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Trevor Clarke. Trevor, you have up to five minutes, as will all other Members who wish to speak.

Mr Clarke: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I am not sure that I will need five minutes, because everything that needs to be said was said by the Member who just spoke.

For the benefit of those who do not know the history, some of which has been mentioned, the site was picked in 1891, and construction started in 1894, with the first patients coming in 1899 or 1900. The facility was for 400 patients. That outlines the age of the site, and the Member alluded to that. The original name would not be acceptable in today's language: it was called the County Antrim Lunatic Asylum. Thankfully, language moved on, and it was aptly named the Holywell Hospital some years later. That gives you the history and outlines the length of time that the facility has been in being.

The previous contributor said that he visited the site. I visited it a number of years ago with a former director, and, even at that point, a case was being made to replace it. It is disappointing, therefore, to hear how slowly things have gone ever since. The Member referred to the business case in 2020 and the planning permission in 2024. If things had gone as planned, we would have been welcoming that site by 2028-29. Some of us have had to visit the site to see some of the patients there, at the request of their families. Anyone who takes the opportunity to visit it will see the intolerable conditions that those individuals are in, as has been said.

The site is not fit for purpose, but, for me, it is more the case that we cannot afford to do nothing. The Member mentioned the cost of repairs. I submitted a question for written answer to the Minister to get an estimate of all the costs. The question was due to be answered in October, but it remains unanswered. I suspect that the figure is scary. This is about essential maintenance; it is not wish list stuff. Mr Kearney talked about buckets catching water and walls crumbling: those are all essential repairs.

The estimated cost of the site is £143 million. You will not have to purchase land, because you own the other site, but, when you vacate the Holywell site, you will have a 140-acre site that could go to market, sitting right within the development zone of Antrim town. We cannot afford to wait, and the families who use the facility cannot afford to wait. The business case would be supported simply by the disposal of that site once the new facility is built. As I said — I keep repeating myself — we cannot afford to wait. It is costing us time and will cost us additional money. We all know how procurement has worked in Northern Ireland for years. If the cost is £143 million now, it will be £200 million in five years' time, but the money raised by the disposal of land will not rise at the same pace as the price that developers will charge for the construction of that site.

I urge the Minister to look again at this case and to look at all the options. I also ask him to put pressure on his Department to release the figures on what it will cost to bring the site up to an acceptable standard, one that we would wish for our family members if they required it, so that they would get the service that they deserve, delivered in a fit-for-purpose facility. When you see those figures, Minister, you will see for yourself that the business case is there and that you need to exert more pressure to find the £143 million to deliver the site.

Mr Blair: I start by thanking Declan Kearney for securing this vital debate and also for the detailed case for mental health provision in South Antrim that he so clearly laid out.

The entire issue concerns the urgent need to deliver the Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health, which is planned to be established at the Antrim Area Hospital site in my constituency, South Antrim, which I share with you, Deputy Speaker, and those who have spoken previously. The project is significant not only for South Antrim residents but for the broader Northern Health and Social Care Trust area, as it will deliver a purpose-built, modern facility that will serve also as a vital resource.

Indeed, Northern Ireland has some of the highest rates of mental health problems in the UK. According to a report by the Mental Health Foundation, roughly one in five adults in Northern Ireland has a diagnosable mental health condition, a rate that is higher than that in any other UK region. Furthermore, the Health and Social Care Board has reported that Northern Ireland has one of the highest suicide rates in the whole of the United Kingdom.

The proposed Birch Hill centre will therefore enable access to quality care for those who are struggling. For many residents in South Antrim and beyond, having the centre will mean receiving the support that they need, and need now, closer to home and in an environment that is designed for recovery. The Health Minister has previously given assurances that the trust expects the new facility to be open to patients by winter 2027. However, we must ensure that, despite the financial constraints that we often hear about and the uncertainties around capital budgets, the project remains a top priority. Continued delays could have devastating effects on individuals and their families. The condition of existing facilities at Holywell has already been made clear in the debate.

As a society, we must treat mental health and mental health problems with the same urgency and importance as physical health. The cost of inaction is profound, and it not only has an impact on individual well-being but causes significant repercussions in our communities, such as reduced productivity and less capacity to support others in need.

I urge the Minister to do everything possible to secure the swift delivery and full funding of the Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health. He must show that he takes mental health seriously also, and I know that he does. I look forward to hearing his update on this matter shortly.

Mr Chambers: There is no doubt that the proposals for the Birch Hill mental health inpatient centre are ambitious, but they are also undoubtedly necessary. Whilst the staff working from the Holywell Hospital and the Ross Thomson unit continue to provide a brilliant service, they do so from facilities that, frankly, have not kept pace with modern requirements. We have heard some of the problems articulated tonight.

The scheme proposed for Birch Hill, a new 134-bed unit serving needs ranging from acute mental illness to dementia care and psychiatric intensive care, would also really helpfully bring together a range of services that has long been stretched across ageing facilities.

I suspect that there will be political unanimity this evening on the call for the scheme to be progressed. However, we also need to recognise that the expected costs of the scheme are now significantly greater than they once were, and right across the health service and every Department, capital demands exceed the budget envelope available. Since coming into office, the Minister has repeatedly urged the Executive and his MLA colleagues to consider the consequences of their repeatedly allocating below-need levels of funding for the health service. Whilst the Minister, I am sure, will continue to do all that he can to deliver investment and modern facilities right across the Health estate, including the essential Birch Hill centre, regrettably the funding that is needed is simply not being provided to the level that patients and staff require.

Members from across the House, if we want Birch Hill to happen, and I believe that most of us do, it cannot rest solely on the shoulders of the Health Minister or the Department of Health. It will take a collective decision by the Executive to prioritise and provide the capital allocations required. Words of support are welcome, but budget decisions are what make buildings rise from the ground. That is why the upcoming Budget from the Department of Finance will be so important. For the sake of patients and staff, I hope that the commitment will be there to allow critical projects such as the Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health to proceed.

My colleague Trevor Clarke put forward an interesting solution to the problem of raising the capital needed to build a new facility there. I have to confess, however, to not understanding fully how these things work or what revenue would be raised from the sale of that property. Perhaps the Minister could provide some clarity on whether, if such a sale were to take place, it would be possible to ring-fence the money specifically for providing the new mental health facility, or whether it would simply go into a pot somewhere.

Ms Hunter: I thank Declan for raising this. I did not intend to speak today, as it is not my constituency; I just wanted to listen in. It is important, however, to be here to contribute to any debate on the expansion of our mental health services in the trust area. I, too, am very concerned about the lack of clarity on this important project and echo the concerns that have been expressed by Members today. It would be welcome if the Minister could provide a timeline, as well as an update on whether he will expedite the approval and some clarity on any financial constraints that he is facing.

I echo other Members' comments in noting, with extreme concern, the prevalence of suicide and mental illness in the North. Of anywhere across these islands, it is most common here, and we must ensure that we do everything that we can about suicide prevention and invest, wherever possible, in helping people.

Recently, SOS Causeway met the Northern Trust to ask for clearer communication about the potential closure of the Ross Thomson unit in Coleraine. That is seen as being a cornerstone of mental health provision in East Derry. Many people feel that there is just not enough communication with the public or the voluntary and community associations and organisations in my constituency. Campaigners have highlighted the need for improved communication, meaningful involvement with them and transparent planning of future mental health provision for East Derry constituents. Any clarification or increased communication that you can offer my constituents, Minister, would be most welcome.

I again thank the Member for raising this. Any opportunity to discuss important topics such as mental illness, mental health as a whole and suicide prevention is most welcome.

Mr McGuigan: I thank Declan for bringing the debate to the Chamber and affording us the opportunity to discuss the issue. I welcome the opportunity to speak and add my voice to the call on the Minister to confirm the necessary funding to progress the construction of the Birch Hill centre in Antrim town.

As Declan outlined, he and I visited Holywell Hospital during the summer. The building dates back to the 19th century. Declan went into a lot of detail about it. What I saw was deeply concerning: serious physical dilapidation throughout the hospital and a layout that simply is not fit for purpose when it comes to the delivery of modern mental health care. Staff and patients are being asked to provide and receive care in an environment that belongs to another era. The case for a new facility to replace Holywell is clear to all those who have seen the existing conditions and has been well made. What is less clear, however, is when the new complex will happen. It was anticipated that its completion would be in the latter part of 2028, but that date has moved to 2029. Now, with the Department's review of capital projects across all trusts, further uncertainty prevails. Each delay not only undermines confidence but drives up costs, as we know from experience with other capital projects and as has been outlined by a number of Members. Substantial sums of money are being — I use this word deliberately — wasted while the project is delayed. We are throwing good money after bad.

In the meantime, patients and staff continue to be let down. They deserve and need so much better. They deserve facilities that reflect the important role that the environment has to play in mental health care. The mental health strategy promises parity of esteem, early intervention and better outcomes, yet, without proper infrastructure, those ambitions will remain unrealised. Despite a slight increase in per capita spend on mental health in the past five years, the spend in the North remains the lowest across these islands; a level of underinvestment that undermines the very parity that the strategy proclaims.

We cannot continue to speak of transformation while asking patients to endure outdated wards and staff to work in crumbling buildings. The Birch Hill hospital complex is not a "nice to have"; it is a necessity. If we are serious about tackling the North's unenviable position of having the highest suicide rates on these islands, modern, fit-for-purpose facilities are essential to prevention and care.

Like other Members, I urge the Minister to provide clarity and, perhaps, hope. Let us move beyond uncertainty and commit to delivering the modern mental health service that people in the Northern Trust area need and deserve.

Ms Mulholland: I thank Mr Kearney for bringing this issue to the Floor. I echo the comments made by my colleague John Blair, who has long championed the need for safe, modern and accessible mental health services across our shared trust area. It speaks volumes when you have representatives from three constituencies who are all invested in the issue.

I want to talk about the pressure and uncertainty that my constituents face with the delay in delivering Birch Hill and from the proposed closure of the Ross Thomson unit at Causeway Hospital, which affects people right the way from Ballycastle and the glens over to Ballymoney. Mental health services in the Northern Trust area are already under strain. That pressure will only grow. The pressure on Causeway and, in particular, the Ross Thomson unit is growing. Staff work in an overstretched environment. Patients already wait far too long for specialist care. There is anxiety about what happens next, because, whilst there are plans for the Ross Thomson unit to close, there is no publicly confirmed date or any guarantee that I know of that it will remain open until the replacement capacity at Birch Hill is fully operational. That is causing an awful lot of anxiety among staff who work in the Ross Thomson unit, families and, as Ms Hunter mentioned, the community and voluntary organisations and other stakeholders. At the minute, they feel as though they are being asked to prepare for a future that they cannot see. That is not the transformation that Northern Ireland so badly needs.

When we hear about the conditions in Holywell, as the alternative, and at the Ross Thomson unit, I think that the safety of patients and staff is at risk. If the Ross Thomson unit were to close prematurely and the date was before any proposed timeline for Birch Hill, the pressure would shift immediately to Holywell and to Antrim Area Hospital. Beds would become scarcer and admissions so much more complex. We know the practical outworkings of that. It means that patients in mental health crisis and acute distress wait longer in EDs and are placed on general wards where the environment is not appropriate to their needs. That affects everyone, whether they are in mental health crisis or waiting for physical healthcare, emergency care or elective procedures.

Minister, to echo those who have spoken before me, I ask you this: are you prepared to commit to ensuring that Birch Hill is prioritised in your request for the capital investment plan? Will you provide a public timeline with milestones so that staff and families can plan with confidence? With regard to the northern half of the Northern Trust area, will you guarantee that there will be no closure or scaling back of the Ross Thomson unit until replacement capacity is fully funded and operational? Will communication improve with stakeholders from the Causeway area?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, it is your turn. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you to everybody who contributed, particularly Mr Kearney. The debate reminded me of one that we had in early October when Sinn Féin tabled a motion on the mother-and-baby unit. Believe me: my approach to Birch Hill and the mother-and-baby unit is the same. I want them — I want them tomorrow — but I also want the imaging academy that Mr Dickson referred to in the previous debate, plus a host of other capital projects. We have 14 so-called partially committed capital projects on the books. I cannot commit to any of them at the moment. I will come back to that.

Mr Kearney knows that I had no prior sight of his speech. I listened to it intently. I could have delivered just about every word of it myself. I visited Holywell with the fabulous Petra Corr, the Northern Trust's mental health director, who showed me round. As well as visiting the current facility, I saw in Holywell — I am sure that Members are aware of this — two-dimensional designs for Birch Hill, as well as a mock-up of a bedroom. They are absolutely gold-plated. The design, which will put Birch Hill within the confines of Antrim Area Hospital, is magnificent and is so in keeping with the modern way that we are talking about. The proposals for Birch Hill include 134 inpatient beds, 72 acute beds across four wards and a 20-bed inpatient frail or mentally infirm ward. The proposals are even future-proofed: if there is an excess of demand for beds on an ad hoc basis, the second lounge is designed in such a way that it can be turned into a short-term bedroom space.

More important than the physical is the ethos. It has changed so much. It will focus on the ethos of a recovery-orientated approach in keeping with the mental health strategy. The model adopts a more holistic approach, with principles centred on empowering the individual to take as much responsibility as possible for their own well-being. It will be trauma-informed, recognising the individual's life experiences and the consequent impact on them. There is a purposeful inpatient approach. It is a model that will continue to be developed and embedded throughout the existing wards, ensuring that a patient's admission is appropriate, purposeful, therapeutic and safe.

My point is that Holywell is not just falling apart physically — we never really see the benefit of expenditure on repairs because, once we have done one repair, we go on to the next one, as though we are painting the Forth Bridge — but it is out of date. As Mr Clarke said, it used to be called something else; a term for the inpatients that I would not dare to use in 2025. It was built at a time when the societal and governmental attitude to people with mental health or neurodevelopmental issues was, "Get them out of sight, lock them away and forget about them". We would not even dream of doing that today.

What I like about it is not just the modern design; it is the fact that the ethos is about a model that allows teams to focus on engaging the patient meaningfully and engaging the family, the key stakeholders, the GP and community mental health teams, which are so important, and communicating expected dates of discharge and ongoing treatment.

As part of the service model review and development, the trust has started to engage in accreditation to the Royal College of Psychiatrists quality network standards for each service type to ensure that Birch Hill will have its care and service provision benchmarked against the best in the UK. That will enable the medical staff to deliver care that is high-quality and time-bound. Adopting that proactive model of care will help to reduce the length of stays through maximising clinical efficiency, optimising health outcomes and effective utilisation of resources. In short, it will ensure that a patient's stay on any ward is meaningful and adds value to them and their future.

Mr Kearney seeks clarity from me. This is the one area where I diverge a little. You are asking the wrong Minister. If you want clarity, you should ask the Minister of Finance. Following the announcement of the outcome of the UK-wide 2025 spending review, which happened in June, the Department of Finance commissioned a Budget exercise to determine the capital budget for Northern Ireland's Departments for the years 2026-27 to 2029-2030. It is not possible for me to commit, as Members have asked me to do, to funding for any new capital projects today, because that is dependent on my capital allocation from the Budget process and the identification of sufficient additional recurrent funding to meet any additional resource costs associated with those projects.

The trusts and other Department of Health arm's-length bodies (ALBs) have identified capital funding requirements of around £3 billion over the next four years. That is more than £1 billion higher than what I should expect the level of capital funding to become. On that basis, inescapable pressures tend to take priority. As I said, Birch Hill is one of the partially committed projects, but there are 14 such projects. I assure Members that I have looked at the list of 14, and Birch Hill, the mother-and-baby unit and the imaging academy are all at the top of it.

Mr Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes.

Mr Clarke: I appreciate what you say about the financing, Minister. However, during your time on the Policing Board, there was a review of the police estate: have your officials carried out a review of the Health estate? I ask because, while you were speaking, I looked up Knockbracken and read that it has 270 acres. There are other sites across the estate that are not being utilised. Has any rationalisation of the estate been done, particularly of the sites that are not being used and will bring in revenue or capital?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the intervention. The short answer is yes. We are looking at repurposing or divesting ourselves of property, as appropriate. That process is under way.

Mr Clarke said that he had submitted a question for written answer in September. I have already emailed my private office to say that I would like that expedited. Sometimes, it takes longer than anticipated to get the answers to certain questions, but, when we have reached the point at which we should have responded, we should at least say, "We are sorry that we have not responded, and here is why". That is something that we, as a Department, need to take on board.

As to the value of the sale of Holywell, I do not know the answer. Mr Clarke may be more familiar with the price of property in South Antrim. Again, I will ask the question and revert to him on that. I would just caution one thing, because he mentioned the sale of Holywell. The Member may remember that, some years ago, the Ministry of Defence "gifted" the Executive some former military bases on the basis that we were getting the land for free. Well, we did not get it for free. There was a lot of work, not least decontamination, that needed to be done, so I question whether it is as straightforward as decanting to Birch Hill, selling Holywell and recouping its full value. I do not know.

Mr Kearney opened by throwing it to me, so I will finish by throwing it back to him. If he can have influence with the Finance Minister and the Finance Minister can ring-fence the money required for Birch Hill, we will proceed, because I want it built.

Mr Kearney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes.

Mr Kearney: That is an unfair attempt to push that back on to me. It is a cop-out. The reality is that you are the Minister of Health. Our family members are patients in Holywell. Our family members and our neighbours are the doctors and the nurses who try to provide care there. The reality in Holywell at this point in time — I do not doubt for a moment that you are committed to the ethos of —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Declan, it is an intervention.

Mr Kearney: Yes. I do not doubt that you are committed to the ethos of good mental health care, but that cannot be delivered in circumstances in which there are no wards or rooms. Minister, have you looked at the facilities —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Declan, take your seat.

Mr Kearney: — in which the staff work?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Declan, take your seat. That was supposed to be an intervention. You know the rules as well as anybody else.

Minister, you have three seconds to respond.

Mr Nesbitt: I started by agreeing with the Member, but now I fundamentally disagree with him. I need the money. I do not have the money.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, that completes the Adjournment debate. Thank you.